Recognizing that ADUs are part of the solution for addressing the statewide affordable housing shortage, California lawmakers have passed several bills in recent years to facilitate the development of ADUs. To encourage establishment of ADUs, State law requires cities and counties to either adopt an ordinance based on standards set out in the law authorizing ADUs in residentially-zoned areas, or where no ordinance has been adopted, to allow ADUs on lots zoned for single family or multifamily use that contain an existing single-family unit subject to ministerial approval (“by right”) if they meet standards set out by law.
HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 166
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
In Newark, ADUs are permitted within all single family, multifamily, and mixed-use residential districts. JADUs are a specific type of ADU that is no more than 500 square feet and built entirely within an existing single-unit or duplex dwelling residence. ADUs and JADUs are subject to the following criteria:
● On lots with an existing or proposed single-family dwelling, one ADU and up to one JADU is allowed per parcel. An ADU can be either attached or detached to the primary residence but JADUs must be constructed entirely within the walls of an existing primary residence. ● ADUs may be allowed within existing portions of a multifamily or mixed-use development that are not used as livable space. At least one attached ADU or up to two detached ADUs may be provided per lot.
● ADUs must be between 150 and 1,000 square feet in floor area. Each unit shall, at minimum, include a full bathroom including shower and/or bathtub, a sleeping area, permanent cooking facilities, and a separate, exterior entrance. ● The total lot coverage for all buildings shall not exceed the allowable lot coverage for the zoning district except that such a ratio shall not prohibit an 800 square foot ADU meeting the maximum height and minimum setback requirements.
● ADUs and JADUs may not be sold separately from the primary residence but may be rented separately. ADUs and JADUs may not be used for short-term rentals (less than 30 days).
● For properties with JADUs, the primary residence must be owner-occupied, but the owner may reside in either the JADU or the primary residence. This owner-occupancy requirement does not apply to primary residences owned by a public agency, land trust, or non-profit housing organization.
● Studio ADUs shall not be required to provide parking. Any number of bedrooms require one parking space with limited exceptions such as within a half mile of public transit. When an existing garage, carport or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU or converted into an ADU, the parking spaces shall not be required to be replaced.
● The ADU must meet specified objective design standards related to building facades and materials, windows and glazing, roof form and detailing, and entryway features. ADUs are prohibited from having exterior stairways or balconies.
The City will comply with state law until the updated existing Accessory Dwelling unit ordinance is in compliance with state law. Newark will make further amendments to the ordinance, as necessary, to remain consistent with State law and reflect local needs. The parking requirement for an ADU with one bedroom or more, can be a constraint on development. Program H2.2 works to develop tools to support uptake of accessory dwelling units production in Newark and make changes in parking requirements, in collaboration with Alameda County.
Single-Room Occupancy Units
Extremely low-income households typically comprise persons with very low incomes and special HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 167
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
housing needs, including, but not limited to, seniors, people with disabilities, and at risk of homelessness. AB 2634 (Lieber 2006) requires the quantification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs of extremely low-income households. Housing Elements must also identify zoning to encourage and facilitate supportive housing and single-room occupancy units.
Single-room occupancy (SRO) units can provide affordable private housing for lower-income individuals, seniors, low-income working people,and persons with disabilities. An SRO unit is usually small, between 200 to 350 square feet. These units can also serve as an entry point into the housing market for formerly homeless people. The current Zoning Code provisions for SROs limit the potential for SROs in Newark through the requirement of a conditional use permit. The required parking of 0.5 spaces per unit is not seen as a constraint and is comparable to neighboring jurisdictions. The Housing Element includes a program to define SROs as a separate use, expand the zones where SROs are permitted by right, and ensure development standards, including parking, facilitate the development of SROs. Through community engagement, we heard there is a housing need for housing for small households. Program H2.10 expands the zones where single room occupancy is permitted by right, and prioritizes development along transit routes to support access to employment and other services.
Senate Bill 9 Subdivisions
Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) became effective January 1, 2022. The bill mandates local jurisdictions to ministerially approved two unit developments and urban lot splits within a single-family residential zone, without discretionary review or hearing, if the proposed development meets certain requirements. For SB 9 developments, the City may apply objective zoning, subdivision, and design standards. Include reference to policy for bringing the city in compliance with SB (included in Plan below).
Constraints on Development for People with Disabilities Residential Care Facilities and Other Zoning Provisions for Persons with Disabilities Small Community Care Facilities
Health and Safety Code Sections 1267.8, 1566.3, and 1568.08 require local governments to treat licensed group homes and residential care facilities with six or fewer residents no differently than other by-right single-family housing uses. “Six or fewer persons” does not include the operator, the operator’s family, or persons employed as staff. Local agencies must allow these licensed residential care facilities in any area zoned for residential use and may not require licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer persons to obtain conditional use permits or variances that are not required of other family dwellings. In Newark, these facilities are permitted in all residential zoning districts and the CMU zone.
Large Community Care Facilities
Due to the unique characteristics of large community care facilities (serving more than six HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 168
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
persons), most jurisdictions require a use permit to ensure neighborhood compatibility in the siting of these facilities. In Newark, large community care facilities are permitted with a minor use permit in all residential zoning districts.
Currently, unless specifically allowed pursuant to a Use Permit approval, residential care facilities serving seven or more persons shall be located on a lot with frontage on an arterial and at least 300 feet from any other residential care facility, day care center, or large family day care home serving seven or more persons. The Housing Element includes program H4.10, an implementation program to permit community care facilities for more than six persons as a permitted use in all zones where other residential uses are permitted subject to the same requirements of other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.
Reasonable Accommodation
State and Federal laws prohibit housing discrimination against persons with disabilities in land use practices and decisions, such as applying special requirements that limit the ability of disabled individuals to live in the residence of their choice. Both the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act direct local governments to make reasonable accommodations (i.e., modifications or exceptions) in their zoning laws and other land use regulations when such accommodations may be necessary to afford persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. For example, it may be reasonable to accommodate requests from persons with disabilities to waive a setback requirement or other standard of the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that homes are accessible for the mobility impaired. Whether a particular modification is reasonable depends on the circumstances.
The City adopted an ordinance in 2016 establishing the process for allowing flexibility within the zoning code for reasonable accommodation of access for the disabled.
The ordinance includes:
● Clear rules, policies, and procedures to promote equal access to housing and comply with fair housing and disability laws including but not limited to identifying who may request a reasonable accommodation (i.e., persons with disabilities, family members, landlords, etc.) timeframes for decision-making, and provisions for flexibility in the various land-use, zoning, or building regulations that may otherwise constrain housing for persons with disabilities. Chapter 17.37 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance outlines the process for requesting a waiver to any zoning regulation to allow improvements to an existing building in order to provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. ● Regularly monitoring the implementation of the jurisdiction’s ordinances, codes, policies, and procedures to ensure they comply with the “reasonable accommodation” for disabled provisions and fair housing laws.
● Reduced parking requirements for projects serving seniors and persons with disabilities (The Zoning Ordinance was revised in 2018 reducing parking requirements to 0.5 spaces per unit, inclusive of guest parking).
HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 169
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
The applicable findings for reasonable accommodation requests are provided in NMC 17.37 (Waivers):
A. The waiver is necessary due to the physical characteristics of the property and the proposed use or structure or other circumstances, including, but not limited to, topography, noise exposure, irregular property boundaries, or other unusual circumstance.
B. There are no alternatives to the requested waiver that could provide an equivalent level of benefit to the applicant with less potential detriment to surrounding owners and occupants or to the general public.
C. The granting of the requested waiver would not be detrimental to the health or safety of the public or the occupants of the property or result in a change in land use or density that would be inconsistent with the requirements of this title.
D. If the waiver requested is to provide reasonable accommodation pursuant to state or federal law, in addition to any other findings that this chapter requires, the decision-maker must also make the following findings:
a. That the housing or other property which is the subject of the request for reasonable accommodation will be used by an individual or organization entitled to protection;
b. If the request for accommodation is to provide fair access to housing, that the request for accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to an individual protected under state or federal law;
c. That the conditions imposed, if any, are necessary to further a compelling public interest and represent the least restrictive means of furthering that interest; and d. That denial of the requested minor exception or waiver would impose a substantial burden on religious exercise or would conflict with any state or federal statute requiring reasonable accommodation to provide access to housing.
Overall, the findings are not atypical for California jurisdictions that impose findings for reasonable accommodation projects and are generally consistent with State law.
Definition of Family
There are a number of State and Federal rules that govern the definition of family, including the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, the California Fair Housing and Employment Act, the California Supreme Court case City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980), and the California Constitution privacy clauses. The laws for families have a few primary purposes: to protect people with disabilities, to protect non-traditional families, and to protect privacy. According to HCD and Mental Housing Advocacy Services there are three major points to consider when writing a definition of family:
● Jurisdictions may not distinguish between related and unrelated individuals. ● The definition may not impose a numerical limit on the number of persons in a family. ● Land use restrictions for licensed group homes for six or fewer individuals must be the same as those for single families.
HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 170
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
The Newark Municipal Code defines “Family” as follows:
“One or more persons living together in a single dwelling unit, with common access to, and common use of, all living and eating areas and all areas and facilities for the preparation and storage of food; who share living expenses, including rent or mortgage payments, food costs and utilities, and who maintain a single mortgage, lease, or rental agreement for all members of the household.”
This definition is consistent with the best practices for a definition of “Family” and does not add any new government constraints.
Site Development Review
Government policies and ordinances regulating development affect the availability and cost of new housing. Land use controls have the greatest direct impact, but development approval procedures, permit fees, building code requirements, and the permit processing time can affect housing costs as well. This section addresses the relationship of development fees, processes, and standards to the production of housing.
Figure 4-1: Development Review Process
The development review process illustrated above is generally consistent across the city’s zone districts and planning application types. The municipal code provides the “Level of Review Authority” for various application types:
HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 171
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table 4-5: Level of Review Authority, Selected Decision Types Type of Decision Advisory Body Decision Maker Appeal Body Minor Use Permit N/A Community
Development Director
Planning
Commission
Conditional Use Permit Community
Development Director
Planning Commission City Council
Variance Community
Development Director
Planning Commission City Council
Amendments Planning Commission City Council Superior Court Planned Development
Districts
Planning Commission City Council Superior Court
Design Review N/A Community
Development Director
or Planning Commission
Planning
Commission or City
Council
Discretionary Findings and Criteria
As provided in the municipal code, planning applications for city review and decisions that are not “ministerial” (such as building permits) include findings for approval that must be made in the affirmative in order for the Decision Maker to approve a project. The following are the applicable findings and criteria for discretionary applications in Newark:
Minor Use Permit for a Temporary Use (NMC 17.26.260):
A. The proposed use will not unreasonably affect adjacent properties, their owners and occupants, or the surrounding neighborhood, and will not in any other way constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the area of such use or to the general welfare of the city; and
B. The proposed use will not unreasonably interfere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic or circulation in the area surrounding the proposed use, and will not create a demand for additional parking that cannot be safely and efficiently accommodated by existing parking areas.
Conditional Use Permit (NMC 17.35.060):
A. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this title and all other titles of the Municipal Code; B. The proposed use is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan; C. The proposed use will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements; D. Tax revenue generated by the development will exceed the city's cost of the service HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 172
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
demand as a result of the development or a compelling community benefit will be provided.
E. The proposed use complies with any design or development standards applicable to the zoning district or the use in question unless waived or modified pursuant to the provisions of this title;
F. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity are compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity; and
G. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints.
Variance (NMC 17.36.040):
A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the vicinity and identical zoning district, and that the granting of a variance will not constitute a granting of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on the property in the vicinity and identical zone district;
B. The granting of the application is necessary to prevent a physical hardship which is not of the applicant's own actions or the actions of a predecessor in interest; C. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and
D. The granting of the variance will be consistent with the general purposes and objectives of this title, any applicable specific plans, and of the general plan.
Amendments (Zoning Map and Text, NMC 17.39.080):
A. The amendment is consistent with the general plan;
B. Any change in district boundaries is necessary to achieve the balance of land uses desired by the city, consistent with the general plan, and to increase the inventory of land within a given zoning district; and
C. The amendment will promote the growth of the city in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare.
Planned Development Districts (NMC 17.12.060):
A. The proposed development is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan, including the density and intensity limitations that apply; B. Adequate transportation facilities and public services exist or will be provided in accord with the conditions of development plan approval, to serve the proposed development; and the approval of the proposed development will not result in a reduction of traffic levels of service or public services so as to be a detriment to public health, safety, or welfare; C. The proposed development will not have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding land uses and will be compatible with the existing and planned land use character of the surrounding area;
HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 173
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
D. The development generally complies with applicable adopted design guidelines; and E. The proposed development is demonstratively superior to the development that could occur under the standards applicable to the underlying base district, and will achieve superior community design, environmental preservation and/or substantial public benefit.
Design Review (NMC 17.34.060):
A. The overall design of the project including its scale, massing, site plan, exterior design, and landscaping will enhance the appearance and features of the project site and surrounding natural and built environment.
B. The project design is appropriate to the function of the project and will provide an attractive and comfortable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community.
C. Project details, materials, signage and landscaping, are internally consistent, fully integrated with one another, and used in a manner that is visually consistent with the proposed architectural design.
D. The design of streetscapes, including street trees, lighting, and pedestrian furniture, is consistent with the intended character of the area.
E. Parking areas are designed and developed to buffer surrounding land uses; compliment pedestrian-oriented development; enhance the environmental quality of the site, including minimizing stormwater run-off and the heat-island effect; and achieve a safe, efficient, and harmonious development.
F. Lighting and lighting fixtures are designed to complement buildings, be of appropriate scale, provide adequate light over walkways and parking areas to create a sense of pedestrian safety, and avoid creating glare.
G. Landscaping is designed to be compatible with and enhance the architectural character and features of the buildings on site, and help relate the building to the surrounding landscape.
Overall, the findings provided above are not atypical for California jurisdictions that impose findings and criteria for discretionary projects and are generally consistent with State law.
Conditional Use Permit Finding D, “Tax revenue generated by the development will exceed the city's cost of the service demand as a result of the development or a compelling community benefit will be provided.” is somewhat unique in that the city seeks to offset city costs associated with new commercial uses with increased tax revenue. This finding is typically applicable to projects and new uses that are not subject to Development Impact Fees. This does not generally apply to new residential projects, in that Housing Impact Fees or construction of new affordable units offset the costs associated with this development.
As described below, the city is undertaking an effort to create objective design standards that provide certainty and clarity in terms of design review, and that would be consistent with State laws and requirements that limit a jurisdictions ability to enforce design standards that may be interpreted as discretionary.
HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 174
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Objective Design Standards
The City currently relies on a combination of objective and subjective design standards and guidelines to review and regulate the design of most housing projects. However, the State of California continues to enact new laws that require streamlined housing approval by establishing a by-right, ministerial approval process for multifamily residential development. Key to ministerial approval is the replacement of subjective design guidelines with objective standards.
The intent of Objective Design Standards is to provide applicants and developers with a clear understanding of the City’s expectations for mixed-use and multi-family residential project design.
Objective design standards are written as requirements, rather than guidelines; therefore, all mixed- use and multi-family residential projects applying under Housing Accountability Act (HAA) protections shall comply with each standard. Importantly, objective design standards regulate site and structure design only. Projects must also comply with all applicable building permit requirements, zoning code requirements, and development standards such as height, setbacks, lot coverage, etc.
To accommodate the requirements of State law, the City is developing a thorough set of objective design standards to govern the development of multi-family housing, including certain mixed-use projects. The City anticipates adoption of the new Objective Design Standards in 2025 per Program H3.2.
The objective design review standards supplement the objective development standards (e.g. height limit, lot coverage, setback, etc.) defined in each zoning district. In combination, the two sets of standards (design and development) provide for a streamlined and efficient project review process by ensuring that applicants know and understand the city’s requirements and ensuring that the project review and approval process is objective, efficient, and consistent.
Permit Processing Times
The minimum amount of time for processing permits is established by requirements for environmental review, public notice, and by the meetings of the Planning Commission and City Council. While there is little room for processing permits any faster than the City already does, the current practice of automatic review of some Planning Commission permit decisions by the City Council does add several weeks to the total permit processing time. Ultimately, the maximum amount of time for processing residential development permits is set by State law (California Government Code 65920 et. seq.). Some of the average times have increased due to infill complexity and extra notification of State requirements.
Table 4-6 summarizes the average time required to process development permits. The processing time needed to obtain development permits and required approvals varies depending on the scope of the project. Smaller projects typically require less time than larger projects. The City strives to keep its permit procedures streamlined and processing times minimal.
The amount of time between the completion of the review and the issuance of a Building Permit is HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 175
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
determined by the speed at which the applicant is able to make any necessary corrections to the Construction Drawings and resubmit for approval and Building Permit.
HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 176
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table 4-6: Average Permit Processing Time, Newark, 2022 Permit Process Decision Type Level of Review Permit Types Timeframe Accessory Dwelling
Unit Process
Ministerial
(by-right)
Discretionary
Staff
Staff
Building permits for projects that comply with applicable building, zoning, and development regulations
Single Family Design Review permits for projects involving a second story addition for an ADU that is taller than 16 feet
1 to 3 months
2 to 5 months
Ministerial By-Right Ministerial
(by-right)
Staff Building permits for projects that comply with applicable building, zoning, and development regulations; parcel maps; and lot line adjustments
2 to 5 months
Discretionary
By-Right
Discretionary Staff Includes design review permits, minor use permits, and sign permits 3 to 5 months Discretionary
(Hearing officer if
Applicable)
Discretionary Hearing officer Includes variances, certain site development permits, and certain conditional use permits. Site development permits are required when development is proposed on Environmentally Sensitive Lands and for large multifamily developments on consolidated lots. Conditional use permits are required when development is proposed that is subject to supplemental conditions identified in the Municipal Code 4 to 9 months
Discretionary
(Planning
Commission)
Discretionary Planning
Commission
Includes certain minor use permits, conditional use permits, variances, and certain design review permits
6 to 9 months
Discretionary (City
Council)
Discretionary Planning
Commission
Recommendation
and City Council
approval
Includes tentative maps, condominium conversion maps, easement vacations, public right-of-way vacations, rezoning, land use plan and specific plan amendments, and planned development permits. Planned development permits are not required for residential development but are an option for large residential developments to allow greater flexibility than standard zoning.
9 to 18
months
Source: City of Newark, 2022
HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 177
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Senate Bill 35
Senate Bill (SB) 35, passed in 2017, requires jurisdictions that have not approved enough housing units to meet their RHNA to provide a streamlined, ministerial entitlement process for housing developments that incorporate affordable housing. In order for applicants to take advantage of SB 35, per Government Code Section 65913.4 (10)(b)(1)(a)(et seq.) they need to submit a Notice of Intent and jurisdictions need to give Native American tribes an opportunity for consultation.
The City processes SB 35 applications consistent with Senate Bill 35. The City will also establish a written policy or procedure and other guidance as appropriate to specify the Senate Bill (SB) 35 streamlining approval process and standards for eligible projects, as set forth under California Government Code Section 65913.4. The City has included Program H3.1 to prepare and publish administrative procedures for the processing of housing developments eligible for streamlined review pursuant to SB 35.
Senate Bill 330
Senate Bill 330 (SB 330), Housing Crisis Act of 2019, prohibits cities and counties from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition that would impose or enforce design standards that are not objective design standards on or after January 1, 2020 [Government Code Section 663300 (b)(C)]. The bill also established specific requirements and limitations on development application procedures.
The City of Newark permitting process is consistent with Senate Bill 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. Consistent with SB 330, housing developments for which a preliminary application is submitted that complies with applicable General Plan and zoning standards are subject only to the development standards and fees that were applicable at the time of submittal. This applies to all projects unless the project square footage or unit count changes by more than 20 percent after the preliminary application is submitted.
Submittal of a SB 330 preliminary application allows a developer to provide a specific subset of information on the proposed housing development before providing the full amount of information required by the local government for a housing development application. Submittal of the preliminary application secures the applicable development standards and fees adopted at that time. The project is considered vested, and all fees and standards are frozen, unless the project changes substantially. The City has an SB 330 preliminary application form.
Permit Fees and Exactions
Housing construction imposes short- and long-term costs on communities. Short-term costs include the cost of providing planning services and inspections. New residential developments can also result in significant long-term costs relating to the maintenance and improvement of infrastructure, facilities, parks, and streets. To offset these community costs, jurisdictions collect various fees from developers.
HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 178
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
This model is comparable to surrounding jurisdictions, such as Fremont, Union City, Hayward. Fees depend on the complexity of the project. Example of fees. Table 4-7 shows planning fees commonly required for development based on level of review. Newark’s planning fees are comparable to surrounding jurisdictions and do not present a constraint to the construction of housing.
Table 4-7: Permit Fees, Newark, Fiscal Year 2022-2023
Planning Fee Schedule
Application Type Fee/ Cost
Preliminary Review
Preliminary Review $800 per review, first and second
reviews; $900 for subsequent reviews
Preliminary Review for new single-family unit or second story addition to single-family unit, and administrative use permits No fee.
Site Development Review
Administrative Site Development Review a. Small Residential Projects (e.g. single detached accessory structure or balcony) $100
Large Residential Projects (e.g. second-story additions, multiple accessory structures)
$1,500
Commercial/Industrial Projects $1,500
Use Permit
Minor Use Permit $100
Conditional Use Permit, Residential $2,600
Subdivision
Tentative Parcel Map $2,000 + $60 per lot
Tentative Tract Map (including condominiums) $3,500 + $75 per lot Variance
Variance, Residential $1,400
Amendments
Zoning Text Amendment $4,300
Zoning Map Amendment $4,300
General Plan Amendment $,300
Specific Plan Amendment $4,300
Extensions
HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 179
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Planning Fee Schedule
Application Type Fee/ Cost
Discretionary Permits/Variances $800
Environmental Review
CEQA Exemption $400
Negative Declaration, (ND) $1,800
Negative Declaration, Mitigated (MND) $1,800
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Deposit
Other
Planned Unit Development $3,200
Source: City of Newark, 2023
Development Impact Fees
The City also collects impact fees to cover the costs of providing the necessary services and infrastructure related to new development projects. Since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, local governments in California have come to rely increasingly on impact and connection fees to finance infrastructure. Newark charges several fees on residential development at the building permit stage, as shown in Table 4-7. The estimated City development impact fees for a single family four-bedroom, two-bathroom house of 2,600 square feet are approximately $77,629.
There are significant cost savings for multifamily residential development, as development impact fees are estimated at $36,724 per unit of a hypothetical 10-unit multi-family development (averaging 850 square feet per unit), and $35,052 per unit of a 100-unit multi-family development (averaging 750 square feet per unit).
Table 4-8: Residential Development Impact Fees, Newark, Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Fee Cost
Estimated Fees
Single Family
Unit
Small Multi-Family
(per unit)
Large Multi-Family
(per unit)
Citywide Development Fees (Community Development Department) Parks $28,185 $20,293 $20,293
Public Safety $3,891 $2,335 $2,335
Community
Service/Facilities
$2,606 $1,303 $1,303
Transportation $5,607 $3,476 $3,476
HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 180
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Fee Cost
Estimated Fees
Single Family
Unit
Small Multi-Family
(per unit)
Large Multi-Family
(per unit)
Housing $37,070 $9,047 $7,375
Artin Public Spaces $270 $270 $270
Source: City of Newark, 2022
Total Estimated Fees
Newark recently prepared estimates of total fees of example projects to assess total estimated fees (Planning, Building, and Impact fees). The example projects include development of one single-family residence, a small multi-family project of 10-units on one building and a 100-unit project on two acres of land. The result of the estimates are:
● Single Family: $124,246
● Multi-family large: $4,344,915 for a 100-unit project on two acres, or $43,449 per unit ● Multi-family small: $604,453 for a 10-unit project in one building, or $60,445.35 per unit The estimate indicates that it is significantly less expensive in terms of city fees for multifamily development as compared to single-family development.
When the City implements Program H2.1, H2.8, H2.10 and H4.10, the City will ensure that fees for Missing Middle and SRO housing types will be set at levels in line with current permit and impact fees for multifamily.
City fees associated with development and described above are easily accessible on the city’s website: www.newark.org.
Available Infrastructure
With all sites identified for planned housing development already served by utilities, and requirements in place for infrastructure improvements for all new development, infrastructure does not pose a constraint on development of those sites within the eight-year planning period.
On- and Off-Site Improvements
The City requires certain public improvements for residential subdivisions. In 1977 the City adopted these standards to ensure that minimum levels of design and construction quality are maintained and adequate levels of street and facility improvements are provided.
Title 16.16 of the Municipal Code describes the public improvements that must be agreed to prior to acceptance and approval of the final subdivision map, as follows:
● Grading and surfacing of all streets, public ways and bicycle paths within the subdivision HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 181
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
that lie between the boundary of the subdivision and the centerline of proposed or existing streets, public ways, and bicycle paths fronting, backing or siding to the subdivision; ● Providing such domestic water supply and fire hydrants as may be necessary for fire protection and protection of the public health;
● Providing such storm drain and flood control works as necessary for the public convenience and safety;
● Providing a sanitary sewer system and connection to an existing sewage disposal system; ● Constructing curb, gutter, sidewalk, tie-in paving, and replacement of inadequate existing pavement on streets where the subdivision adjoins existing streets; ● Constructing other structures necessary to the use of streets, highways, bicycle paths, public ways and the drainage thereof;
● Providing for street name signs and their installation; ● Providing for the cost of street trees and their planting and one-year maintenance on streets, bicycle paths and public ways;
● Providing underground utilities as follows:
○ All existing overhead utility distribution facilities (including but not limited to electric, communication, and cable television lines) within the subdivision that lie between the boundary of the subdivision and the centerline of proposed or existing streets fronting, backing or siding the subdivision shall be undergrounded, ○ All on-site and off-site utility distribution facilities (including but not limited to electric, communication, and cable television lines) to be installed shall be placed underground, except as follows: Equipment appurtenant to underground facilities such as surface-mounted transformers, pedestal-mounted terminal boxes and meter cabinets, and concealed ducts; Metal poles supporting street lights. ○ The city council may grant variances for the provision of underground utilities in certain circumstances.
● Providing street light facilities on all streets, paths, and other pedestrian or vehicular ways proposed for development. The subdivider shall make all necessary arrangements with the utility company and pay all costs for providing underground service; ● Construction of the improvement across any storm drain channel, Hetch-Hetchy right-of-way or other public facility adjacent to the subdivision.
The City’s on- and off-site development standards have been in place since 1977, and do not represent a constraint to the development of housing. In addition to public improvement standards, the Municipal Code has specific standards for residential streets and parking as described below.
Residential Streets
The City of Newark Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 12.04 requires standard improvements for streets. These requirements were originally adopted in 1963. Depending on the type of project, it enforces standard improvements including street paving, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. All required improvements must be constructed and installed in accordance with City specifications and design. As a primarily built-out community, most new development in the city does not require HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 182
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
building out new streets. These requirements are similar to other jurisdictions and do not represent a constraint to the development of housing.
The City has not received feedback to date that offsite requirements in Newark, whether imposed by the City or other agencies/utilities, are extraordinary or onerous. As an example, the off-site improvements for Site 7 (Timber Senior Housing) include approximately $2 million for paving, concrete work, signage, landscaping, irrigation, furnishings,and planters. Off-site dry and wet utility costs are approximately $1 million. These costs represent approximately 4% of the total project cost of almost $70 million (not including land acquisition).
Water and Wastewater
Housing Element housing opportunity sites listed in this Housing Element (see Appendix C) are already served by utilities, with existing infrastructure in place. The Alameda County Water District (ACWD) and the Union Sanitary District (USD) are the sole providers of potable and reclaimed water, and wastewater conveyance and treatment, in Newark. ACWD and USD has current and planned capacity to accommodate the RHNA for water and wastewater. ACWD and USD have provided water assessments for a number of the sites and has determined that adequate water supplies exist to accommodate Newark’s current and projected water needs, including the RHNA. Solid waste, recycling, and organics collection are managed through a franchise agreement with Republic Services.
To minimize infiltration of ground water into the sewer system and provide modern, efficient utilities and services, new development proposals in Newark typically replace or upgrade the on-site sewer, storm drain, and water lines following the guidance and requirements of ACWD and USD. Each project is evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine the extent of replacements and upgrades. Therefore it is difficult to assess a water and wastewater replacement/upgrade cost factor across the city. However, as mentioned earlier, housing element sites are located in areas already served by water and wastewater utilities, so the installation of new service lines is typically not a cost factor.
Priority for Water and Sewer
Per Chapter 727, Statues of 2004 (SB 1087), upon completion of an amended or adopted Housing Element, a local government is responsible for immediately distributing a copy of the element to area water and sewer providers. In addition, water and sewer providers must grant priority for service allocations to proposed developments that include housing units affordable to lower-income households. Chapter 727 was enacted to improve the effectiveness of the law in facilitating housing development for lower-income families and workers.
To comply with SB 1087, upon adoption, the City of Newark will immediately forward its adopted Housing Element to ACWD and USD its water and wastewater providers to grant priority for service allocations to proposed developments that include units affordable to lower- income households.
HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 183
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Available Dry Utilities
Dry utilities, including electricity and telephone service, are available to all areas within the City.
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) serves Newark for electrical service. Newark customers may also consider East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) for electrical service. In 2018, the County of Alameda and 11 of its cities launched EBCE as a not-for-profit public agency that governs this Community Choice Energy service. The Joint Power Agency expanded in 2021. The cities currently served are: Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Oakland, Piedmont, Pleasanton, San Leandro, Tracy, and Union City. EBCE offers a competitive, reliable energy service provider alternative to the Newark community. Similar to the discussion above, new development proposals in Newark are generally required to typically replace or upgrade the electrical service following the guidance and requirements of PG&E. Each project is evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine the extent of replacements and upgrades.
Therefore it is difficult to assess dry utilities cost factor across the city. However, as mentioned earlier, housing element sites are located in areas already served by dry utilities, so the installation of new service lines is typically not a cost factor.
Opportunities for Energy Conservation
The City of Newark has adopted a wide range of policies and programs to facilitate energy efficiency in residential development. Taken as a whole, the City’s policies and programs form a comprehensive approach to energy efficiency in residential development.
Parking
Because off-street parking often requires large amounts of land, parking requirements are one of the development standards that can most negatively impact housing development. The cost of land associated with parking, in addition to the costs of construction, paving, and maintenance, drive up the overall cost of development, requiring more funds to assist in the development of affordable housing. Parking standards in some jurisdictions have been arbitrarily established and do not necessarily represent the needs of the people living in the developments. This is especially true for senior and affordable housing developments where occupants are less likely to require more than one parking space.
The city of Newark overall has higher parking requirements than neighboring jurisdictions, Union City and Fremont. 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 requirements of 0 .5 spaces per unit, Fremont does not have the same requirements for covered parking. One space per unit must be in a garage in Newark in comparison to Fremont, a requirement that can significantly increase the cost of development. Union City has the lowest guest parking requirement of 0 .25 spaces for multi family housing.
HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 184
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Although it has been found that seniors do not have the same rates of driving, Newark has the highest parking requirements of all three cities for senior housing, at one space per unit.
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, there is opportunity for significant changes in parking requirements such as removing parking minimums and aligning requirements to be more in line with neighboring jurisdictions, responsive to construction costs and the lack of substantial off street parking for seniors. Although the City complies with State density bonus parking standards upon request, the City’s parking requirements can be a hindrance on the production of housing. In response, the city will conduct a parking study Program H3.5, to develop new parking standards to align with neighboring jurisdictions.
Table 4-9: Off-Street Parking Requirements, Newark, 2021 Residential Use Required Units Covered Parking Requirement Single-Unit
Dwelling,
Attached or
Detached
2 per unit Must be within a garage
Two-Unit
Dwelling
1.5 per studio or one-bedroom unit. 2 per unit
with two or more bedrooms.
1 Guest space per unit
One space per unit must be within a
garage
Multi-Unit
Building
1.5 per studio or one-bedroom unit. 2 per unit
with two or more bedrooms.
Guest parking: .5 space per unit.
Projects located outside a radius of 100 feet
of RS and RL districts, or separated by an
arterial street from single family homes, or
with driveway aprons, or located within a
Specific Plan shall require 1 space plus .25 per
unit
Old Town Specific Plan Area: Minimum of
1.25 per unit; maximum of 2 per unit. No
additional guest parking required.
Ten or fewer dwelling units: One
space per unit must be within a
garage
More than ten dwelling units: One
space per unit must be covered
Guest parking shall be clearly
marked as reserved for guests and
available with unrestricted access
Accessory
Dwelling Unit
No off street parking required for studio units, 1 off street parking space required per unit regardless of number of bedrooms. Off street parking requirement is waived if within a half mile of a transit stop, and other instances. To see the entire list see municipal code section 17.26.040.C.8.
Supportive
Housing
None beyond what is required for the Residential Housing Type Transitional
Housing
None beyond what is required for the Residential Housing Type HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 185
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Residential Use Required Units Covered Parking Requirement Senior Housing 1 per unit, plus .25 per unit for guest parking Residential Care
Facility (7 or more
persons)
1 for every 3 beds
Residential Care
Facilities (Less
than 7 persons)
None beyond what is required for the Residential Housing Type Family Day Care
(Small)
None beyond what is required for the Residential Housing Type Family Day Care
(Large)
1 for each nonresident employee plus an area for loading and unloading children plus parking required for the residential use
Group Residential 1 for each employee plus 1 for each guest room or every two beds, whichever is greater
Old Town Specific Plan Area: 0.25 per bedroom
Single Room
Occupancy Units
0.5 per unit
Emergency
Shelter
1 per family room, 0.35 per individual bed, plus 1 for each employee Source: City of Newark, 2022
State density bonus law (Government Code Section 65915) imposes statewide parking standards that a jurisdiction must grant upon request from a developer of an affordable housing project that qualifies for a density bonus. The parking standards are summarized in Table 4-9. When local parking requirements are higher, the statewide parking standards supersede the local requirements. The developer may request these parking standards even if they do not request the density bonus. These numbers are the total number of parking spaces including guest parking and accessible parking.
Open Space Requirements
The City has a policy in the General Plan that sets parkland standards. For multifamily housing, the open space requirement ranges from 100 square feet per unit for RM in the Old Town District, to 200 square feet per unit in RH, 300 square feet per unit in RM, and 400 square feet per unit in RL.
Open space requirements in the mixed-use and commercial districts where housing is allowed (CMU and RC) are at 50 square feet per unit. Overall, these standards are the same or lower than the requirements of Newark’s closest neighbors. These standards are typical of many jurisdictions in the Bay Area and would not significantly reduce the affordability of multifamily housing units.
Further, the City has not received developer feedback that its open space requirements are excessive or a barrier to feasibility.
HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 186
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Density Bonus Regulations
State law (California Government Code, section 65915-65918) requires cities and counties to approve density bonuses for housing developments that contain specified percentages of affordable housing units or units restricted to occupancy by seniors. A density bonus is the allocation of development rights that allows a parcel to accommodate additional square footage or additional residential units beyond the maximum for which the parcel is zoned. Projects that qualify for a density bonus are also eligible for reduced parking standards and additional concessions, or incentives. Upon the developer's request the City must also allow the parking standards shown above in Table 4-6. The legislature has made frequent changes to State density bonus law over the years, including AB 1763, which significantly increased density bonus provisions for 100 percent affordable projects.
Building Codes and Enforcement
Building codes and their enforcement influence the style, quality, size, and costs of residential development. Such codes can increase the cost of housing and impact the feasibility of rehabilitating older properties that must be upgraded to current code standards. In this manner building codes and their enforcement can act as a constraint on the supply of housing and its affordability.
Building and housing codes establish minimum standards and specifications for structural soundness, safety, and occupancy. State housing law requires cities and counties to adopt minimum housing standards based on model industry codes. In addition to meeting the requirements of State housing law, local governments enforce other State requirements for fire safety, noise insulation, soils reports, earthquake protection, energy conservation, and access for people with physical disabilities. The enforcement of building and housing codes for all homes is per the minimum standards and requirements set forth in the codes listed in the City’s building code. Standards for rehabilitation are no more rigorous than those contained in the California Health and Safety Codes and Uniform Building Codes.
On October 13, 2022, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 539, repealing and replacing certain chapters of Title 15 (Buildings and Construction) to adopt by reference, with modifications to address local conditions, the 2022 editions of the California Building Standards Code (CBSC) and related codes. Ordinance No. 539 includes local amendments to the California Administrative Code, California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Electrical Code, California Residential Code, California Mechanical Code, and California Fire Code. The adopted Title 15 including local amendments is provided on the city’s website, www.newark.org. The local amendments adopted with Ordinance No. 539 do not increase requirements above standards.
Generally, the local amendments provide clarifications and consistency with other sections of the Newark Municipal Code. The city does not have a REACH code. In addition, local amendments were made to provide consistency with fire protection, alarms, and detection system requirements of the Alameda County Fire Department, the agency that provides contract fire HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 187
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
protection services in Newark.
Building codes and their enforcement can increase the cost of housing and impact the feasibility of rehabilitating older properties that must be upgraded to existing code standards. In this way building codes and their enforcement can act as a constraint on the amount of housing and its affordability. However, the codes enforced by Newark are similar to other cities in the region and are necessary to promote the minimum standards of safety and accessibility to housing.
Therefore, the codes are not considered to be an undue constraint on housing investment or development.
In some cases, energy conservation requirements may increase construction costs and, therefore, the initial sales prices and cost of rent. However, these increased costs are often offset by the longterm reductions in the utility’s component of housing operation costs. Accessibility modifications may also increase initial sales prices and rents but will help address the housing needs of the elderly and people with disabilities.
Code Enforcement
The Building Division is responsible for enforcing both state and City regulations governing maintenance of all buildings and property. The Community Development Department is responsible for code enforcement activities through the Community Preservation Division. The purpose of code enforcement of housing in need of rehabilitation is to ensure the safety of the City’s residents; without basic living standards being met, life and safety are threatened. The city does have a code enforcement division to address health and safety concerns in the community.
Currently, the City operates on a complaint-based system to respond to code enforcement needs.
The Community Preservation Division will respond to complaints and investigate violations to ensure compliance with the City’s Municipal Code. In 2021, the city expanded the number of full-time employees by hiring a code enforcement manager to oversee existing efforts and create proactive code enforcement services, which would include the rental inspection and landlord registration program identified in Program H1.2.
State of California, Article 34
Article 34 of the State Constitution requires local jurisdictions to obtain voter approval for specified “low rent” housing projects that involve certain types of public agency participation.
Generally, a project is subject to Article 34 if more than 49 percent of its units will be rented to low-income persons. If a project is subject to Article 34, it will require an approval from the local electorate. This can constrain the production of affordable housing, since the process to seek ballot approval for affordable housing projects can be costly and time consuming, with no guarantee of success.
Local jurisdictions typically place a measure or referendum on the local ballot that seeks authority to develop a certain number of low-income units during a given period of time. If the electorate approves general parameters for certain types of affordable housing development, the local HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 188
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
jurisdiction will be able to move more quickly in response to housing opportunities that fall within those parameters.
HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 189
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
B. Non-Governmental Constraints
The availability and cost of housing is strongly influenced by market forces over which local governments have little or no control. Nonetheless, State law requires that housing elements contain a general assessment of these constraints, which can serve as the basis for actions to offset their effects. This section describes primary non-governmental constraints to the development of new housing in Newark.
Availability of Financing
The availability of financing is a critical factor that can influence the cost and supply of housing.
There are generally two types of financing used in the housing market: (1) capital used for initial site preparation and construction; and (2) capital used to finance the purchase of units by homeowners and investors. Financing is largely impacted by interest rates. Small fluctuations in interest rates can dramatically influence the ability to qualify for a loan. Mortgage interest rates have a large influence over the affordability of housing. Higher interest rates increase a homebuyer’s monthly payment and decrease the range of housing that a household can afford.
Lower interest rates result in a lower cost and lower monthly payments for the homebuyer.
Because interest rates are determined by national policies and economic conditions, there is little that local governments can do to affect these rates. Jurisdictions can, however, offer interest rate write-downs to extend home purchase opportunities to lower-income households. In addition, government-insured loan programs may be available to reduce mortgage down-payment requirements.
The cost of borrowing money to finance the construction of housing or to purchase a house affects the amount of affordably priced housing in Newark. Lower initial rates are available with graduated payment mortgages, adjustable rate mortgages, and buy-down mortgages. Variable interest rate mortgages on affordable homes may increase to the point where the interest rate exceeds the cost of living adjustments, which is a constraint on affordability. Although rates are currently low, they can change significantly and substantially impact the affordability of housing stock. Fluctuating interest rates can eliminate many potential homebuyers from the housing market or render a housing project infeasible that could have been successfully developed or marketed at lower interest rates. Housing prices in Newark are unaffordable for lower-, moderate-, and even some above moderate- income households, even with the lower interest rates. The primary constraint on homeownership in Newark is not the availability of financing, but the cost of housing, of which is unaffordable to many households.
Financing for both construction and long-term mortgages is generally available in Alameda County subject to normal underwriting standards, though rates have increased markedly throughout 2022. A more critical impediment to homeownership involves both the affordability of the housing stock and the ability of potential buyers to fulfill down payment requirements. Conventional home loans typically require 5 to 20 percent of the sales price as a down payment, which is the largest HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 190
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
constraint to first-time homebuyers. This indicates a need for flexible loan programs and a method to bridge the gap between the down payment and a potential homeowner’s available funds. The availability of financing for developers under current economic conditions may also pose a constraint on development outside of the City’s control.
According to the Alameda Board of Realtors, there is no evidence of “redlining” of any Alameda neighborhood by the financial community. The City provides Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for counseling for individual clients regarding fair housing rights and responsibilities and to disseminate education and information materials. Households receive intensive counseling, and legal and/or agency referral for cases involving discrimination against families, racial or religious minorities, and individuals with disabilities.
Land Costs
As with most built out Bay Area communities, the high cost of land is a constraint to the production of affordable housing in Newark. There are very few vacant parcels zoned for residential development left in the city and it is rare for vacant residential land to be listed for sale.
Based on a review of land for sale in Fremont, Union City, and Hayward, land prices for land zoned to accommodate multifamily projects range from $5M to $15M per acre depending on locational amenities, density, and other factors. In addition to market sales prices, there can be other costs associated with the acquisition of land including the cost of holding the property throughout the development process. Developers in Newark also face added expenses associated with the demolition and removal of existing structures or remediation of contaminated soil.
Construction Costs
In addition to the high cost of land, construction costs can also act as a constraint to the production of new housing, particularly in the Bay Area. The cost of construction depends primarily on the cost of materials and labor, which are influenced by market demand. The cost of construction will also depend on the type of unit being built and on the quality of product being produced. The cost of labor is based on a number of factors, including housing demand, the number of contractors in the area, and the unionization of workers. The construction cost of housing affects the affordability of new housing and may be considered a constraint to affordable housing in Alameda County and throughout the Bay Area.
Both material and labor costs have increased substantially in recent years. Supply chain issues during the Covid-19 pandemic are partly responsible for recent material cost increases, and a shortage in the construction labor market is adding significantly to the cost of producing housing.
According to a 2020 report by the Terner Center, hard construction costs for multifamily projects in California rose by 25 percent over the course of a decade, from an average of $177 per square foot in 2008-2009 to $222 per square foot in 2018. Cost increases were even greater in the Bay Area, increasing by 119 percent and reaching more than $380 per square foot in 2018.
HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 191
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Construction costs vary widely according to the type of development. According to the Terner Center report, Type I projects, which are typically over 5-7 stories and constructed with steel and concrete, cost an average of $65 more per square foot than other types of construction, like Type V (i.e., wood frame floors over a concrete platform). Type I projects are more likely to be found in infill locations where zoning allows higher density construction.
Affordable housing projects also cost more on average than market-rate and mixed-affordability projects. The 2020 Terner Center report found that affordable projects cost $48 more per square foot on average compared to market-rate and mixed affordability projects. Some of the added costs for affordable housing are because many affordable housing developers are required to pay “prevailing wages.”
A reduction in construction costs can be brought about in several ways. A reduction in amenities and quality of building materials in new homes (still above the minimum acceptability for health, safety, and adequate performance) may result in lower sales prices. State housing law provides that local building departments can authorize the use of materials and construction methods if the proposed design is found to be satisfactory and the materials or methods are at least equivalent to that prescribed by the applicable building codes.
In addition, prefabricated, factory-built housing may provide lower-priced products by reducing labor and material costs. As the number of units built at one time increases, savings in construction costs over the entire development are generally realized as a result of an economy of scale, particularly when combined with density bonus provisions.
C. Environmental Constraints
Environmental issues affect the amount, location, and timing of new residential development in Newark. Sites in Newark are susceptible to a variety of environmental constraints including sea level rise and flooding, seismic hazards, sensitive ecological areas, and hazardous materials.
Geologic Hazards
Geologic Hazards are associated with earthquakes that can bring about risks such as ground shaking, landslides and tsunamis. Newark sits two miles west of the Hayward fault, and due to this proximity, ground shaking levels would be higher in the southern and western portions of the city.
Ground shaking is measured on a scale ranging from I to X (the Modified Mercalli Scale) with shaking levels ranging from imperceptible to very violent. Most of the developed portions of Newark would experience “very strong” ground shaking (level VIII) in a 6.7 Hayward Fault earthquake, but some parts of the city would experience “violent” ground shaking (level IX).
The city has a sandy loam soil type that is prone to liquefaction. The city of Newark could experience seismic shaking levels with the potential to cause liquefaction in areas where groundwater is generally shallower than 30 feet. Based on data provided by the California HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 192
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Geological Survey, the entire city is considered a liquefaction hazard zone.
Flooding and Sea Level Rise Due to Climate Change
Flooding can have devastating effects on property and residents and impact water quality in Newark housing element housing opportunity sites in Newark may be affected by flooding and sea-level rise. Newark falls within both 100 and 500 year flood zones as well as being affected by sea level rise. The 100 year flood zone covers areas 3 and 4 as well as a number of sites in the Bayside Newark specific plan area. The 500 year flood plain is found further into established residential areas of the city.
The area with the most vulnerability to sea level rise will be in the southern portion of the city, adjacent to the San Francisco Bay. Sea level rise not only affects housing, but other infrastructure such as roads, water and sewer infrastructure.
The City’s Municipal Code sets standards to minimize flood hazard risks, including anchoring and flood-proofing and a requirement that the lowest floor, including basements, is at or above the 100-year flood elevation. Development within the 100-year flood zone is limited, with requirements for building at least 1 foot above the flood elevation. The City requires non-residential development to be elevated at least 8 feet above mean high tide and 11.25 feet for residential development
Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials regulations, which are codified in Titles 8, 22, and 26 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), and their enabling legislation set forth in Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code, were established at the state level to ensure compliance with federal regulations to reduce the risk to human health and the environment from the routine use of hazardous substances. These regulations must be implemented, as appropriate, and are monitored by the state (e.g., Cal OSHA in the workplace or the DTSC for hazardous waste) and/or local jurisdictions.
As with many infill urban locations, many of the housing element housing opportunity sites in Newark are on former industrial or commercial properties. These properties typically have environmental issues related to the prior use. The city of Newark has a high number of existing sites with hazardous materials, a legacy of their industrial land use.
Despite their historical use, all of the housing element sites are either already remediated of their hazardous materials and ready for residential use or are in the process of being remediated of hazardous materials to allow for residential use pursuant to approved plans by the appropriate regulatory agency.
HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 193
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Sensitive Ecological Areas
The southwest portion of Newark contains a number of riparian areas, transitional areas between the water and land that support periodic flooding and habitat. They are typically vegetated with lush growths of grasses, shrubs, and trees that are tolerant of periodic flooding and have sediments that are rich in nutrients and organic matter. Riparian areas are found in Site 2, Sanctuary West, also referred to as specific planning area 3 and 4.
HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 194
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
SECTION 5 HOUSING RESOURCES
Key resources in Newark to address housing needs include housing sites (see Appendix C below), financial resources, administrative resources and non-profit resources. In addition to a robust inventory of sites available for housing development during the Housing Element planning period, the City is also implementing an ambitious affordable housing work plan 13 which includes the
provision of regular financial assistance to nonprofit sponsors of affordable housing through a regular “Notice of Funding Availability” (NOFA) process. Leveraging the City’s affordable housing impact fee fund, the City will continue to deploy substantial financial resources to support affordable housing production during the planning period. In addition, the City will implement policies to streamline affordable housing approvals and continue to partner with developers of affordable housing as detailed in the following section, Housing Plan.
A. Available Sites For Housing
The most important resource for meeting Newark’s future housing needs is a sufficient supply of land zoned for housing and with supportive infrastructure and pro-housing policies and programs.
As shown in Appendix C, the City has developed a robust inventory of sites to accommodate its 6th cycle RHNA of 1,874. Combining planned and proposed projects that are already in the development pipeline with vacant and non-vacant sites that are zoned for housing and already permit housing to be developed without additional changes to the Zoning code, the sites in Appendix C have the potential to accommodate 2,854 units, representing over 150 percent of the City’s RHNA. This includes sites to accommodate all of the City’s lower-income housing needs for the 6yh cycle in addition to a significant buffer.
Sites included in the City’s 6th cycle inventory are described in detail in Appendix C and displayed below in Figure 5-1.
The sites selected for this Housing Element have also been selected to achieve the following major policy objectives:
Access to Opportunity: The sites work to expand access to opportunity by siting 46 percent of affordable units in areas identified as high opportunity by the Tax Credit Allocation Committee.
Connecting Housing and Transit: Priority Development areas plan to connect new housing with regional and local transportation options in existing and new walkable communities; 29 percent of new housing sites are located within two Priority Development Areas in Newark which are the Dunbarton TOD (now known as Bayside Newark) and the Old Town Mixed Use Area.
Neighborhood Revitalization: Through the implementation of the NewPark Place Specific Plan, the former Newpark Mall will transform into a mixed-use neighborhood, with 1,519 new housing 13 Newark Affordable Housing Work Plan
HOUSING RESOURCES 195
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
units, including new homes for low and moderate incomes. Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements will also be developed through a multiphased redevelopment. Similar revitalization efforts are reflected in the sites identified in Newark’s other key specific plan areas in the Old Town area and Bayside Newark.
HOUSING RESOURCES 196
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 5-1: Housing Sites for the RHNA 6th Cycle
Source: City of Newark; Planning Collaborative, 2023.
HOUSING RESOURCES 197
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
B. City Financial Resources
Along with housing, financial resources are critical for meeting Newark’s future housing needs.
These include funding and financing programs to provide gap funding for affordable multifamily housing programs, loan and grant programs for first time homebuyers, and home rehabilitation grant and loan programs. The major sources of funding for affordable housing at the Federal and State levels are constrained and highly competitive, and in this context local funding sources for affordable housing are increasingly critical.
Key resources at Newark’s disposal include HUD HOME and CDBG funds, allocated to ongoing housing programs through a process overseen by the City’s Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC). As noted elsewhere in this Housing Element, the most important source of funding support for new affordable housing production in Newark is the City’s Affordable Housing Impact Fee fund, which has collected upwards of $35M in recent years. $19M of this fund has been allocated by the City to support three affordable housing developments which are included in the City’s development pipeline: 1) $2.8M for the entitled but not yet built Timber Street Senior Apartments sponsored by Eden Housing; $4.5M for the Cedar Community Apartments; and 2) $12M awarded to Satellite Affordable Housing Associates to support the development of a new 56-unit development on three underutilized sites that will be assembled. The City retains a balance in June of 2023 of 23,450,000 million in the Affordable Housing Impact Fee fund. The City anticipates issuing regular funding NOFAs to continue to partner with nonprofit sponsors of affordable housing.
The ability of the City to effectively deploy these local financial resources is also critical to the community’s ability to leverage other sources of funding from Federal, State, regional and private sources. An important recent example of this is the award last year of $38.2M in State of California Project Homekey funding for the Cedar Community Apartments; this was one of the largest allocations of funding received by any jurisdiction in California for the recent funding round.
C. Other City and Partner Agency Resources
Housing Programs in Newark are administered by the City’s Community Development Department. The Department works actively to partner with residents, housing providers and other public agencies to facilitate housing production, preservation and rehabilitation in Newark.
Additional key resources provided by partner agencies include:
● Alameda County 2-1-1. 2-1-1 is a free, non-emergency, confidential service that provides easy access to housing information and critical health and human services. ● Alameda County Housing Authority. The Housing Authority administers programs throughout the County including portable
HOUSING RESOURCES 198
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
● Section 8 vouchers for eligible Newark Households. The authority also provides information on housing resources, housing assistance, rental assistance, affordable land and housing, and public housing.
● Alameda County Housing Portal. This portal, which is under development, will provide a central location for affordable housing rentals and information, county-wide. Support for multiple languages is available. www.housing.acgov.org
● COVID-19 Renter Assistance. AC-Housing Secure is a program that offers assistance with unpaid back rent. Renters and landlords are encouraged to apply. There is a high demand for assistance, but additional program funds have been requested. Applicants will not be asked about their citizenship. Proof of citizenship is not required. Support for multiple languages is available. www.ac-housingsecure.org
● ECHO Housing. ECHO Housing provides fair housing services and tenant/landlord counseling and mediation to Newark residents. Renters who believe they have been discriminated against or who need assistance for a dispute with their landlord can contact ECHO at (510) 581-9380. www.echofairhousing.org
● Fremont Family Resource Center. The Fremont FRC is a welcoming place where families and individuals are nurtured, encouraged, and provided quality services to build on their own strengths to help themselves and others. Fremont FRC serves the entire Newark community, as well as Union City and Fremont.
● AC Boost Down Payment Program. AC Boost provides financial assistance to middle-income working households to purchase a home in Alameda County. The program offers shared appreciation loans to first-time homebuyers who live in, work in, or have been displaced from Alameda County. AC Boost is funded by Alameda County Measure A1 and administered by nonprofit organization Hello Housing. www.acboost.org ● Alameda County Healthy Homes. Alameda County has programs and funding opportunities to promote healthy and safe homes. Grants are available for minor home repairs, including the removal of lead hazards. These programs are available to qualified Newark households. www.achhd.org
● Renew Alameda County. Renew Alameda County helps homeowners make renovations necessary to stay, grow, and thrive in their homes. Renew AC is administered by Alameda County with funding provided by the Measure A1 Housing Bond. The program is operated by Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley. www.renewac.org ● Urban County Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program. The Alameda County Urban County Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program ("EMAP") is intended to provide financial relief for lower income homeowners living in the Alameda County communities (including Newark) who have experienced a loss of income resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. www.heraca.org/emap
HOUSING RESOURCES 199
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
SECTION 6 HOUSING PLAN
A. Evaluation of Accomplishments Under Adopted
Housing Element
The City of Newark has developed and implemented various programs and policies to address its housing needs during the previous housing element’s planning period (2015 to 2023). The following table provides a detailed program-by-program review of progress and performance. This information will help ensure that the updated element for 2023 to 2031 builds on success, responds to lessons learned, and positions us to better achieve our community’s housing needs and priorities.
During the 5
th Cycle, the City put in place new policies to help fund and create new affordable housing into the future such as creating a comprehensive affordable housing work plan that will invest 80% of its Housing Impact Fee funds; financing affordable housing production that supports those at risk of or experiencing homelessness; and applying for state, county, regional, and federal funds to construct affordable housing for low income and special needs households. The City also laid the groundwork for future housing and envisioned transit-oriented development (TOD) by producing an Old Town Development Strategy and rezoning its Dumbarton TOD site. It adopted a Specific Plan for Old Town with recommendations and actions to add up to 400 residential units to the planned area and one for Dumbarton TOD that has resulted in the approval or construction of approximately 828 units.
Additionally, the City of Newark has led the way in establishing new policies and programs to affirmatively further fair housing and support communities with special housing needs in obtaining access to housing. The City built a 75-unit affordable complex with universal design features (Newark Station Senior Apartments) and has approved plans for a 79-unit 100% senior housing development with deep levels of affordability (Timber Street Senior Housing). It has modified its building code to require universal design to be applied to both private and public housing and approved 180 units with universal design. Newark has also adopted an Ordinance establishing a process that allows flexibility within the zoning code for reasonable accommodation of access for the disabled and is prepared to adopt a fair housing ordinance for the sixth housing element cycle.
HOUSING PLAN 200
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table 6-1: Review of Policies and Programs of 5th Housing Element Cycle Program 5
th Cycle Activity Summary Status for 6th Cycle
1. Work with Lower
Income Housing
Developers and
Prioritize Funding
The City worked with nonprofit and for-profit housing developers and organizations to support efforts to create new housing for seniors, people with disabilities, formerly homeless people, households with moderate incomes or below, especially including extremely low income households, and other special needs populations. The City developed a comprehensive affordable housing work plan to engage developers and prioritized funding for housing for people with special needs and very low income people. As provided in the work plan, Newark will invest up to 40% of its Housing Impact Fee fund balance (or approximately $12 million) for funding a NOFA to incentivize affordable housing development. In addition, Newark will invest an additional 40% of the Housing Impact Fee fund balance for site acquisition meant to facilitate affordable housing development. Consistent with the City Council-approved Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Affordable Housing Work Plan, in June 2022, the City of Newark invited developers of affordable rental housing to submit applications for funding assistance under a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). A total of approximately $12 million was made available from the City’s Affordable Housing Impact Fee Fund. The City received one response from Satellite Affordable Housing Associates (SAHA) requesting $12,000,000 of funding from the City’s housing impact fee fund g to construct a 57-unit multifamily apartment building at 6347-6375 Thornton Avenue that would meet the need for family-sized units. On January 19, 2023, the Community Development Advisory Committee on January 19, 2023 reviewed the proposal against the NOFA selection criteria and recommended approval. On March 23, 2023, the City Council reviewed and approved the proposed funding decision as well as authorized the City Manager to execute the Affordable Housing Loan Agreement and all related loan documents to effectuate the approval of the funding award. SAHA will complete the acquisition of the subject properties in April. After conducting community outreach, SAHA expects to submit their formal entitlement application in Summer 2023. In 2021, the City approved plans for “Timber Street Senior Housing”, a 79-unit 100% senior housing development, to be built by Eden Housing. The location of the project was rezoned from Limited Industrial District to Medium Residential Density to revitalize the area from a light industrial and warehouse space to a walkable residential neighborhood. A minimum of 20% of the units would have rents restricted at 60% AMI and the remaining units would have rents restricted at no more than 80% AMI. The final AMI unit allocations have not been formally established, but Eden Housing anticipates that most units would have affordability levels deeper than 80% AMI.
Ongoing. The City will retain this
program and expand it by creating
additional programs to
supplement it. It will conduct
focused outreach to Housing
providers annually throughout the
6 th Cycle.
HOUSING PLAN 201
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Program 5
th Cycle Activity Summary Status for 6th Cycle
The City granted two incentives/concessions (parking and setbacks) and three waivers (lot coverage, landscaped area, open space) to help facilitate the project and residential density.
The entitlements for the project were approved on 10/28/2021 and are expected to be constructed in 2023.
● City staff worked with Adobe Services on a Homekey project to convert an existing hotel to supportive housing, which consists of a total of 125 units (1 unit for the on-site manager and 124 units for rent permanent affordable housing). The breakdown of the 124 units for rent permanent affordable housing is 60 units for chronically homeless households and 64 units for households at risk of homelessness; all of which would be for extremely low-income households. On 9/22/2022, the City Council approved a Resolution (Resolution No. 11408) Project Homekey Standard Agreement which includes $38.2 million Homekey grant funds and $6 million City funds. A building permit for the tenant improvement for the project has been issued on 12/22/2022.
2. Support Regional
Homeless Initiatives
The City has provided continuous support for regional efforts to end homelessness, such as the Alameda County EveryOne Home Program, which prioritizes supportive housing. The City adopted a resolution declaring a shelter crisis in the City of Newark and authorized the City’s participation in the Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP). It further authorized the City Manager (or his designee) to execute all applications and agreements related to HEAP and other State and County funding sources for homeless populations (Resolution No. 10867 on December 13, 2018). The City of Newark partnered with the City of Fremont’s Continuum of Care program to allocate its $229,000 of HEAP funding. The funding was mainly used to provide:
● Expanded Warm Center hours;
● Expanded “Homeless Navigation” services;
● Development of a site for the safe parking of recreational vehicles and vans; ● offering time limited housing subsidies
The City also took definite action to set aside affordable housing funds for projects through the HomeKey grant program, an effort to provide affordable housing in existing hotels and buildings to low-income households and those experiencing or at-risk of homelessness. In early 2022, the City Council authorized City staff to apply to the State’s HomeKey grant program for a grant of up to $39 million and allocated $1.5 million of American Recovery Plan Act (ARPA) funds, as well as $6 Ongoing. The City will retain this
program into the next Cycle.
HOUSING PLAN 202
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Program 5
th Cycle Activity Summary Status for 6th Cycle
million from the City’s Housing Impact Fee fund to acquire Towne Place Suites Hotel with Abode Services and Allied Housing. The Town Places Suites project would convert an extended-stay hotel into 124 permanent, supportive affordable residential units known as Cedar Community Apartments.
Additionally, the City has taken on a variety of other initiatives to address issues of homelessness.
The Police Department conducts a more in-depth count of its homeless population on a regular basis. The City partners with Caltrans and Alameda County Human Services Agency to address homeless encampments on public property, and with the Fremont Family Resource Center to provide support to Newark households at risk of becoming homeless. It has also created a Homelessness Committee with members from various City departments to coordinate actions and responses to homelessness in the community.
In May 2022, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, along with City Councils throughout Alameda County, endorsed the Home Together 2026 Strategic Community Plan. The Plan is a five-year strategic initiative that centers racial equity, and identifies the strategies, activities, and resources needed to dramatically reduce homelessness in Alameda County. The City will continue to participate in the Home Together 2026 plan to address issues at the local and regional levels.
City adopted a resolution declaring a shelter crisis in the City of Newark and authorized the City of Newark's participation in the Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP); and further authorized the City Manager or his designee to execute all applications and agreements related to HEAP and other State and County funding sources for homeless populations. Resolution No. 10867 on December 13, 2018.
● The City Council approved a Resolution (Resolution No. 11408) Project Homekey Standard Agreement which includes $38.2 million Homekey grant funds and $6 million City funds on 9/22/2022 for the conversion of an existing hotel to supportive housing Homekey project.
● On 5/12/2022, City Council adopted a Resolution (Resolution No. 11,341) for Home Together, a county-wide initiative (Home Together 2026) to address homelessness.
HOUSING PLAN 203
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Program 5
th Cycle Activity Summary Status for 6th Cycle
3. Continue Repair and
Rehabilitation Program
Each year, a portion of Newark’s CDBG funds is dedicated to the Housing Repair and Rehabilitation Program according to a formula approved by the Alameda County Urban County jurisdictions. The City entered into an agreement with the County of Alameda for participation in the CDBG Program for FY20-21 and the Community Development Advisory Committee made recommendation to the City Council for the use of Jurisdiction Improvement funds for ADA compliance needs at Music Park and Civic Center park on February 18, 2020.
Overall, the minor repair program has been very successful in the past. However, the home repairs in 2020 and 2021 were slightly lower than expected due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Conversations with county staff revealed that many homeowners were hesitant to allow contractors into their homes during the last two years out of fear of COVID-19 transmission.
Nonetheless, the City of Newark has funded 49 projects in the current 5 th Cycle.
In discussion with the Alameda County HCD staff, there is no plan to change or substitute the program with any other during FY22-23. The City will continue to participate in the program and will increase community awareness of the program through various city communications tools.
Through its continued participation, the City is expected to meet and likely exceed its goal of funding 65 projects by the end of the cycle.
Ongoing. Assuming continued
CDBG funding, the City will
continue to participate in the
program.
4. Civic Center
Replacement
Staff and consultants prepared a Newark Civic Center feasibility study (completed in June 2016) that assessed the facility needs for a new civic center. The study, informed by two City Council work sessions and a community meeting, included a brief description of locations throughout Newark that were considered for the new civic center. Ultimately, the feasibility analysis focused on the current civic center site as the location for the new civic center. There was no discussion of HE Program 4 as it related to the civic center site, and no discussion of affordable housing as a possible use of the site. The new civic center, which includes city hall, a police building, and library was completed in 2021. Additional analysis would be required to assess the feasibility for affordable housing on remaining city-owned portions of the site. The site retains the Residential High-Density zoning designation and Public-Institutional general plan land use.
Not completed. Affordable
housing was ultimately not
considered as a land use during
the civic center replacement
feasibility study. Replacement of
the civic center was the only
projectthat was considered.
5. Old Town
Development Strategy
The City completed an Old Town Development Strategy in 2017 to facilitate the development of higher density housing in subareas N, M, and O of the Old Town area, with the goal of yielding 228 higher density housing units by 2022. In 2019, two community meetings were held (March 13 and Completed. The City will work to
further the recommendations of
the Old Town Newark Specific
HOUSING PLAN 204
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Program 5
th Cycle Activity Summary Status for 6th Cycle
June 26) followed by a Joint Work Session on December 12 th
to develop the Old Town Newark
Specific Plan. The City was granted a Planning Grant Program award of $160,000 for the preparation of this plan.
In 2021, the City adopted the Specific Plan, which includes a feasibility analysis of sites within the area as well as various policies and strategies that are targeted at reducing barriers to housing in the area. For example, Policy LU-1 focuses on zoning amendments that strategically increase density in certain areas. Policy LU-16 revises zoning regulations to revise parking design standards and reduce the parking demands per unit, thus making units more affordable. Policy INF-1 & INF-2 recommend infrastructure improvements which increase water and sewer capacity which are needed to increase residential density in the area. Additional recommendations included as part of the plan are to reduce or eliminate development impact fees and require inclusionary affordable housing. Overall, the Plan recommendations and actions will add up to 400 residential units to the planned area, far exceeding the goal of 228 units.
Plan within the next few years to
advance development.
6. Fair Housing
Programs
The City signed an Inter-Governmental Collaboration Agreement for the Completion of the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice for Community Development Block Grant Program on March 14, 2019 (Resolution No. 10,904). The Analysis of Impediments (AI) was completed in January 2020. To achieve the AI Metric and Milestone for Activity 1.c to “advocate for local federal/state laws that would improve fair housing protections for those experiencing barriers to accessing housing”, the City of Newark’s CDD will develop and adopt a fair housing ordinance by FY 2023 for consideration by the City Council. This ordinance will clarify and publicize the prohibition against discrimination in housing and will assist the implementation of Federal Fair Housing regulations. As part of the ordinance, the City will either refer or respond to fair housing complaints.
Ongoing programs and initiatives
as documented in Section 3:
AFFH.
7. Housing Accessible to
the Disabled
The City has made it a priority to provide housing that is accessible to disabled people, who comprise 7.6% of the population in Newark, through universal design requirements. Pursuant to the Health and Safety code, HCD has specified that the Building Standards Commission provide documentation of these requirements in the California Building Code. Chapter 11A of the building code outlines the City’s accessibility requirements for private housing, including a mandate for adaptable design in all ground floor units that was established in 2013, while Chapter 11B outlines Ongoing. The City will continue to
use Chapter 11A and 11B as an
effective method to increase
housing accessibility.
HOUSING PLAN 205
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Program 5
th Cycle Activity Summary Status for 6th Cycle
the requirements for public housing. During this 5th Cycle of Housing Elements, the City has approved 180 units with universal design.
In 2018, the Newark Station Senior Apartments was built with universal design features. This complex, which can house 75 families, was the first affordable apartment community to be built in the City of Newark in at least 25 years.
8. Seek Funds for
Affordable Housing
The City applied for state, county, regional, and federal funds to construct housing for low income and special needs households as well as funding to provide infrastructure that supports housing development. For instance, the City applied for the Alameda County Measure A-1 Bond Competitive grant for $6.5 million. An investment of those funds will go to the Timber Street Senior Housing mentioned in Program 1.
In addition, the City has raised money through impact fees from market-rate housing development per the Affordable Housing fee program adopted by Council in 2014. This ordinance is codified in Chapter 17.18 of the Municipal Code. The fee is based on square footage of the project: $21.52 per square foot of floor area is charged for the first 1,000 square feet and $8.62 per square foot is charged for floor area above 1,000 square feet, excluding garages, carports or common areas. To date, approximately, $24 million in impact fees have been deposited in the Affordable Impact Fee Fund to support projects or programs that preserve and/or increase the supply of affordable housing in Newark.
Ongoing. The City will evaluate
funding each year and apply for
funding as appropriate.
9. Adopt Reasonable
Accommodation
Ordinance
The City adopted an Ordinance in 2016 establishing the process for allowing flexibility within the zoning code for reasonable accommodation of access for the disabled.
The ordinance includes:
● Clear rules, policies, and procedures to promote equal access to housing and comply with fair housing and disability laws including but not limited to identifying who may request a reasonable accommodation (i.e., persons with disabilities, family members, landlords, etc.), timeframes for decision-making, and provisions for flexibility in the various land-use, zoning, or building regulations that may otherwise constrain housing for persons with disabilities. Chapter 17.37 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance outlines the process for Ongoing.
HOUSING PLAN 206
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Program 5
th Cycle Activity Summary Status for 6th Cycle
requesting a waiver to any zoning regulation to allow improvements to an existing building in order to provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. ● Regularly monitoring the implementation of the jurisdiction’s ordinances, codes, policies, and procedures to ensure they comply with the “reasonable accommodation” for disabled provisions and fair housing laws.
● Reduced parking requirements for projects serving seniors and persons with disabilities (The Zoning Ordinance was revised in 2018 reducing parking requirements to 0.5 spaces per unit, inclusive of guest parking).
10. Rezone Dumbarton
TOD
Development in the Dumbarton Transit Oriented Development (Site Q) is governed by a Specific Plan which has numerous requirements and amenities. The Specific Plan supports and controls development within the 200-acre area, promoting a comprehensive development plan to encourage the creation of a livable community designed for compatible neighborhoods with connectivity to parks, open space, the future Transit Station, and commercial services. These important project elements are assured concurrent with the rezoning application.
Most of the Specific Plan has been built-out or is under construction. Construction activities include the previously approved residential uses, streets, sidewalks, landscaping, utilities, and open spaces. The Specific Plan limited residential development to 2,500 units for the entire Specific Plan area. To date, approximately 1,836 units have been approved or constructed.
In February 2021, staff provided City Council with an overview of the rezoning activities within the Dumbarton TOD, now known as Bayside TOD. The Bayside TOD developer has summarized development of approved projects, the development that was anticipated in the Specific Plan, and the development table including the current project under review, FMC Willow.
Completed. The Bayside TOD
area will be built out in phases,
with plans for the last site to be
entitled before the end of 2023.
HOUSING PLAN 207
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
B. Housing Plan: Goals, Objectives, Policies, and
Programs
This Chapter pulls from what the city has learned from extensive community engagement and data, to develop seven goals to further affordable housing production and housing mobility, increase opportunity and protect residents from displacement. The programs have an implementation timeline of immediate (0-3 years) mid term, (3 to 5 years), long term (5-8 years) and ongoing programs. The city will track program progress through the identification of responsible department and performance metrics through the 6th cycle.
IMMEDIATE: 2023-2025
MID TERM: 2026-2028
LONG TERM: 2029-2031
ONGOING: This is an existing policy or program that will be continue to be implemented GOALS
GOAL H1: Preserve and Improve Existing Housing
POLICY H1: Leverage local funds to supplement county, state and federal funding to support the maintenance, rehabilitation and preservation of existing rental and ownership housing.
GOAL H2: Facilitate the Development of More Homes for
More People
Supporting the development of housing that is affordable and accessible to allsegments of the community.
POLICY H2.1: Create opportunities for new housing for moderate income households through zoning adjustments to promote missing middle housing types such as courtyard housing, duplex and small multi family homes.
POLICY H2.2: Second Units. Recognize second units (also known as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and in-law apartments) as an important part of Newark’s housing supply and continue to allow such units, subject to parking, ownership, and size HOUSING PLAN 208
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
standards that are consistent with State law. [ongoing] POLICY H2.3: Promote and facilitate new affordable housing partnerships with various organizations with different housing needs that include but are not limited to the following:
● Community serving nonprofits
● Newark Unified School District
● Community college districts
POLICY H2.4: Work with community partners and property owners to revisit a community visioning plan for the Four Corners neighborhood/community commercial area.
POLICY H2.5: Support programs aimed at housing vulnerable and special needs populations.
Monitor the need for housing for seniors across all income groups and for various levels of care, and support programs and incentives that encourage the development of a variety of age-friendly housing options.
POLICY H2.6: Develop and adopt a Universal Design Ordinance to ensure new construction is accessible to residents in all phases of life and regardless of their physical abilities.
POLICY H2.7: Update the existing Reasonable Accommodation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and adopt [Ongoing]
POLICY H2.8: Support regional homeless initiatives and develop robust and equitable local responses to people experiencing homelessness.[Ongoing] POLICY H2.9: Increase housing for large households as stated in the Affordable Housing Work Plan (which may be amended from time-to-time). Large households are defined as those with five or more people. The city will review existing site development regulations and design guidelines to ensure that the city is not unintentionally restricting housing designs that meet the needs of extended, multigenerational, and/or large families such as 2 + bedroom units, to reduce overcrowding and assist in maintaining the affordability of existing housing stock.
POLICY H2.10: Evaluate annual housing production targets to ensure the city is meeting the RHNA goals.
GOAL H3: Reduce and Remove Constraints to Affordable
Housing Development
Removing barriersto developing affordable housing is key in meeting the goal of providing housing that is accessible to all residents, regardless of income and responsive to the unique ecological and natural environment of the city.
HOUSING PLAN 209
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
POLICY H3.1: Allow By-Right Approval of Projects with 20 Percent Affordable Units on “Reused” Sites. Pursuant to AB 1397, amend the Zoning Ordinance to require by-right approval of housing development that includes 20 percent of the units as housing affordable to lower-income households, on sites being used to meet the 6th Cycle RHNA that represent “reuse sites” previously identified in the 4th and 5th Cycles Housing Element, and on sites that are subject to a text amendment to accommodate the lower-income RHNA.
POLICY H3.2: Increase certainty of entitlement procedures and accessibility to resource information for developers. Prepare a comprehensive set of guidelines and associated process diagram for all of the city’s processes and fees related to residential development generally and affordable housing specifically.
POLICY H3.3: Ensure there is a sufficient supply of multifamily and single-family zoned land to meet the housing needs identified in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
GOAL H4: Help People Stay in Their Homes and Communities 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.
POLICY H4.2: Preservation of unsubsidized affordable units. Many low income residents depend on unsubsidized housing at below market rates, which is vulnerable to investment and speculation. Work with nonprofit organizations that may acquire at-risk projects to extend affordability of existing unsubsidized affordable housing for lower-income households. These policies aim to prevent displacement of low-income BIPOC communities, long-term renters, and other marginalized residents by preserving currently affordable housing and creating pathways for permanent affordability.
POLICY H4.3: Sites Acquisition for affordable housing. The city will proactively work to identify opportunities for partnering with other local public sector agencies and private landowners to acquire sites for affordable housing, as well as to seek creative ways of partnering with developers to include affordable units in market-rate projects.
GOAL H5: Increase Access to Affordable Housing
POLICY H5.1: Continue to generate funding for affordable housing and seek additional funding opportunities as they arise.
POLICY H5.2: Bring home ownership within reach for Newark residents. Develop a BMR HOUSING PLAN 210
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
homeownership program, and down payment assistance programs, with a focus on first time home buyers.
POLICY H5.3: Prioritize the use of City-owned property for affordable housing prior to other uses (if the sites are feasible and appropriate for housing), and prioritize housing for extremely low income households.
POLICY H5.4: Amend the existing Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to require on-site production of units rather than allowing the payment of an in-lieu or impact fee to support increased access to affordable housing opportunities across the city and in high opportunity areas.
POLICY H5.5: Develop an affordable notice of funding availability (NOFA) that will be released regularly to incentivize new developments consistent with the City’s goals of increasing affordable housing opportunities for residents that are families, low income seniors, and residents with disabilities.
GOAL H6: Enhance Quality of Life,Equity, and Environmental Justice
POLICY H6.1: Identify the various existing and potential funding sources for infrastructure / public facility needs, including local, State, and Federal money.
POLICY H6.2: Urban Centers. Implement existing specific plans for NewPark Place and Old Town, creating locations in Newark which are more urban and pedestrian-oriented in character than they are today. These areas will be transformed over time into mixed-use centers with retail, office, civic, and higher density housing uses. [Ongoing policy]
POLICY H6.3: Land use and transportation policy that encourages active transportation and transit oriented development. Make land use and transportation decisions that reduce emissions, including promotion of walking and bicycling, improvements to public transportation, and a jobs-housing balance that reduces vehicle commute miles.
POLICY H6.4: In partnership with local non profits and city departments, work to promote energy efficiency and wise water use in new and existing residential buildings in order to reduce energy costs, provide quality and resilient housing, improve building comfort, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
POLICY H6.5: Allow and encourage green building practices and energy efficient construction, such as Cross Laminated Timber buildings, solar installations, and electrification of buildings.
POLICY H6.6: Urban Heat Island Effect. Develop standards and requirements for municipal HOUSING PLAN 211
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
projects that can incorporate natural cooling techniques to reduce the urban heat island effect.
POLICY H6.7: Residential Development in the FloodPlain. Limit development within low-lying areas at high risk from flooding. Require any new residential development, including streets and other surface improvements, to be constructed above the 100-year flood elevation.
GOAL H7: Further Fair Housing Throughout the City
POLICY H7.1: Improve awareness, access, and use of education, training, complaint investigation, mediation services of the fair housing service provider, particularly in areas sensitive to displacement, low-income, racial/ethnic concentration, disability or other fair housing considerations.
POLICY H7.2: Promote affirmative marketing in affordable housing programs to enable mobility among low-income residents and BIPOC residents in areas of poverty and segregated neighborhoods.
POLICY H7.3: Address barriers to renting and increase tenant support. Low income households and people experiencing homelessness face obstacles that prevent them from accessing housing that is affordable to them.
PROGRAMS
PROGRAM H1.1: Housing Rehabilitation and Repair Programs Continue partnership with Alameda County's housing rehabilitation and minor home repair programs, Renew Alameda County, and contracting with Rebuilding Together Oakland East Bay.
Encourage participation in these programs by Newark property owners for the maintenance of local rental homes and homeowners. The City shall continue to apply for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds on an annual basis. The City shall give high priority for the expenditure of a portion of CDBG funds for housing rehabilitation, and directly contract with the County to administer the housing rehabilitation services. The City shall also use HOME funds, as available and appropriate, to support housing rehabilitation for lower-income households.
Quantified Objective: The City plans to support 13 households per year with home rehabilitation. The city will facilitate place-based revitalization by focusing on lower-income households with rehabilitation programs and promoting availability of programs in areas with a high concentration of housing in need of rehabilitation and repair, such as the Old Town and Mirabeau Park areas.
HOUSING PLAN 212
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: ONGOING: Continuation of existing program
Funding Source(s): HOME and CDBG funds as available
PROGRAM H1.2: Develop citywide rental inspection program to maintain high quality housing throughout the city.
Rental Inspection Program / Landlord Registration. The Rental Inspection Program enhances the quality of rental properties and thereby the quality of life for tenants throughout the City and ensures that all rental properties are maintained in accordance with City standards. City inspectors inspect rental properties for code violations and will issue corrective reports with recommendations for improvements to property owners/landlords and tenants. The property owner will be expected to have the property reinspected to ensure the repairs have been made.
Examples of reportable issues include: roof leaks, unsafe fire conditions, mold, unsafe stairs and lead based hazards per AB 838.
Quantified Objective: Update Newark’s Community preservation and nuisance abatement ordinance to create a proactive citywide rental inspection program, and develop an online reporting system for tenants to report substandard housing conditions. Support 12 rental units in improved condition per year.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: IMMEDIATE: Program developed by June 30, 2024 Funding Source(s): Affordable housing fund, Community Development Maintenance Fund PROGRAM H2.1: Develop new housing options in areas of the city close to services such as parks, schools and grocery stores, with existing infrastructure.
Missing middle housing will provide for an increase in housing choice in established single family neighborhoods, enabling more moderate income homes within walking distance to schools and parks. SB 9 requires ministerial approval of housing developments containing no more than two residential units on lots zoned for single family residences. Adopted simultaneously with SB 9, SB 10 provides for SB 10 allows local agencies to adopt ordinances to permit up to 10 dwelling units on any parcel, at a height specified in the ordinance, if the parcel is within a transit-rich area or urban infill site. Implementing SB 9 and SB 10 ordinances, along with pursuing Program H2.8:
HOUSING PLAN 213
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Zoning for Missing Middle Housing Types, will provide additional opportunities for new housing in a variety of neighborhood types throughout the city.
Quantified Objective: Draft and implement SB 9 and SB 10 ordinances to provide additional opportunities for missing middle housing. Review the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance and implement updates as needed to provide clarity and facilitate housing development under SB 9. These include adopting updated definitions, use regulations, development standards, and ministerial processes. Production and affordability will be monitored every two years and alternative actions will be implemented if necessary to meet the RHNA. In coordination with research being conducted at the State level, pursue opportunities to incentivize and provide funding assistance for homeowners to provide affordable units under SB 9 to further housing opportunities and more affordable homeownership options in high opportunity areas.
Develop and implement the City’s SB 9 Ordinance to expand the housing supply in single-family zones by allowing for lot splits, cottage housing developments, triplexes and duplexes. 120 moderate income SB 9 units developed during the housing element cycle, with a focus on expanding housing opportunity in neighborhoods in the northern portion of the city.
Through programs such as H3.2, Objective Design Standards and H3.5, Parking standards update and study, the city will be able to ensure that development standards, including parking and open space requirements, are not a constraint to development.
Adopt an SB 10 Ordinance to allow up to 10 units to be developed on smaller residential parcels throughout the City, with a goal to produce 80 units of missing middle housing, targeting 75% of these units in neighborhoods in the northern portions of the city, including Lake-Rosemont, Mirabeau, and Mayhews Landing Neighborhoods.
The quantified objective for Missing Middle for Programs H2.1 and H2.8 is a total of 200 units.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: IMMEDIATE: Ordinance developed by June 30, 2025 Funding Source(s): Community Development Maintenance Fund Missing Middle Housing
House-scale buildings with multiple units in walkable neighborhoods. These building types, such as duplexes, fourplexes, cottage courts, and backyard cottages (accessory dwelling units), provide HOUSING PLAN 214
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
diverse housing options and support locally-serving retail and public transportation options.
PROGRAM H2.2: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Program.
Develop tools to support uptake of accessory dwelling units production in Newark, in collaboration with Alameda County. Newark will comply with state law until the updated existing Accessory Dwelling unit ordinance is in compliance with state law.
Accessory Dwelling UnitIncentive Program. Develop a program to incentivize construction of ADUs that are deed-restricted for very low, low, and moderate income households.
Quantified Objective: ● Increase viability and uptake of accessory dwelling units though through a multi pronged approach. Develop an ADU calculator to be available for Newark residents, pre approved plans, and increase community outreach, in partnership with Alameda County.
● Work to develop a series of incentives and a low interest loan program (if feasible in collaboration with Alameda County) to bring more ADU production for affordable rental housing to the city, specifically in areas that are identified as high in opportunity by the Tax Credit Allocation Committee.
● Per SB 897, Increase height limits for detached accessory dwelling units on a lot with an existing multifamily or multistory building to 18 feet and 25 feet if the unit is attached to a primary dwelling. ● Per AB 345, Accessory Dwelling units built or developed by non profit entities to be sold separately from the primary residence to a qualified buyer.
● Remove parking requirements.
● Revise ordinance to comply with state law.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, Alameda County Timeline: IMMEDIATE: ADU Community outreach to begin in 2024, pre approved plans to be finalized by 2025. The Alameda County ADU Resource website will function as a resource for community members interested in constructing an ADU. The site currently includes an ADU calculator and in the future will include a how to handbook and instructional videos. The City will revise its ADU ordinance to comply with state law in 2024.
MID-TERM: Accessory Dwelling Unit Incentive Program developed by June 30, 2026, with the goal of 144 very low, low and moderate income units with 25% in high opportunity areas, and 160 total units constructed HOUSING PLAN 215
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
during the housing element period.
Funding Source(s): Community Development Maintenance Fund, Housing Impact Fee Fund PROGRAM H2.3: Facilitate market-rate and affordable
housing and promote neighborhood revitalization in the
Four Corners area through increased mixed use
development and walkability.
Quantified Objective: Creation of a community guided plan for the Four Corners area (in between Lake-Rosemont and Mirabeau Neighborhoods), to bring housing and local retail to the area. The plan will consist of community engagement, with the objective of developing community-led decision making around housing, commercial space and public infrastructure improvements. As a key element of the community guided Four Corners area plan, the city will incorporate the Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) development policies and requirements as a portion of the Four Corners area is within a transit priority area. The Four Corners area is zoned for community commercial, which does not allow for residential development by right, but housing may be considered as a component of planned developments within these areas in the event a shopping center is reused. The regulations provided in AB2011 are available to property owners, to facilitate the redevelopment of older underutilized strip malls in the Four Corners area.
For example, per state law AB2011, 4.5 acres of underutilized land can be developed with mixed income housing at 80 dwelling units per acre due to being within 0.5 miles of the proposed Ardenwood rail stop as part of the South Bay Connect rail realignment project.
The community-guided plan will include zoning and site development standards that will incentivize the development of multi-unit housing, with a target of 360 units on existing commercial properties in the Four Corners area. As part of the plan, the City will establish or modify development standards to facilitate maximum densities.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: IMMEDIATE: Community outreach in 2024, MID TERM: neighborhood plan developed by June 30, 2025, rezoning completed by December 31, 2025
Funding Source(s): Community Development Maintenance Fund HOUSING PLAN 216
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
PROGRAM H2.4: Universal Design Ordinance.
This program supports residential development that incorporates Universal Design features to meet the needs of as many users as possible. The intent is to reduce the potential for occupants to be displaced from their homes due to a disability, to allow those persons to visit neighboring dwelling units, and to increase the number of accessible dwelling units in the local housing supply that meet long term housing needs by creating a process that facilitates this type of accessible design.
Quantified Objective: Develop a Universal Design ordinance for new construction of single family, accessory dwelling units, duplex and building 20 units or larger.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, Building Division Timeline: MID-TERM: Program developed by June 30, 2025
Funding Source(s): Community Development Maintenance Fund PROGRAM H2.5: Develop a local response to support people experiencing homelessness.
Develop a local response to support people experiencing homelessness, with specific attention to the racial disparities and large population of youth and families.
Quantified Objective: The City of Newark adopted a resolution endorsing the Alameda County Home Together 2026 Implementation Plan to address homelessness.
Newark is preparing a local homelessness plan intended to be consistent with the Home Together 2026 Plan, which will further the objectives of the County plan. The City will maintain a city webpage to (www.newark.org/residents/homelessness) provide a connection to resources for those at risk of, or experiencing homelessness. The City has responded to homelessness needs by proactively partnering with an affordable housing developer and services provider to create and support 124 units of housing for homeless households and people at risk of becoming homeless.
To develop this plan, the City shall work with the appropriate homeless agencies, community stakeholders, and faith-based organizations to identify new strategies, funding, and opportunities to provide new emergency shelter and transitional housing options and address the needs of 40 unsheltered persons (in addition to the completed 124-unit HomeKey project) annually in need of emergency shelter or temporary housing.
HOUSING PLAN 217
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department/City Manager’s office Timeline: IMMEDIATE: Homelessness plan developed by the end of 2024 Funding Source(s): Housing Impact Fee Fund
PROGRAM H2.6: Work in Partnership with the Newark Unified School District
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 Liaison Committee. Collaborate to bring forward cohesive and implementable plans for District owned properties, and expand the accessibility of housing resources for families, educators and staff in the district. This program will also expand housing opportunities throughout the city, into high opportunity, predominantly single family neighborhoods.
Quantified Objective: Develop a strategy in collaboration with the Newark Unified school district and the community on a long term development plan and funding for the redevelopment of school district owned sites.
AB 2295 supports housing development on property owned by a local educational agency for teachers and staff on both active and vacant district owned properties. AB2295 establishes minimum standards for development, including a minimum of 10 units, deed restricted for affordability for 55 years and be offered to district teachers and staff. The units are required to be for low and moderate income households, with thirty percent of units required to be for very low incomes. The development standards are 35 feet, with a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, City Manager’s office, Newark City Council, Newark Unified School District
Timeline: MID-TERM: Program developed by end of year, 2025 Funding Source(s): Community Development Maintenance Fund PROGRAM H2.7: Affordable Housing Development Fund
The city will provide financing for affordable housing construction of at least 343 lower-income units. They are sites 13,11,9 on the sites inventory. The housing will serve very low to moderate income households, with an emphasis on young families, key workers (teachers, first responders, etc.), individuals and families at risk of homelessness, people with disabilities and other special HOUSING PLAN 218
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
housing needs, and low-income senior citizens.
● SAHA Development: 6347-6375 Thornton Avenue
New construction with a total of 56 very low income units, with one on site management unit. 16 units are 3 bedroom units that are suitable for larger families, a housing priority for the city of Newark. The site is located along Thornton Ave, in a moderate resource area as defined by TCAC.
● 37660 Timber Street: Timber Senior Housing
New construction of 78 very low and low income housing units for seniors. The site is located in an area identified as a moderate resource area. The development is close to transit and services – less than a quarter of a mile to a bus station with easy access to downtown Newark and the Fremont and Union City BART stations. Near the site is a retail plaza with restaurants, dentists and optometry offices. The NewPark Mall is a five minute bus ride away and Newark Civic Center is less than a mile from Timber Street. The project is being funded by measure A funds, and a significant contribution from the city of Newark from the affordable housing fund. Construction is slated to begin in 2022. ● Cedar Community Apartments at Towne Place Suites, Project Home Key development As a Project Home Key development, the Cedar community apartments are the reuse of an existing extended stay hotel. The development will result in 124 supportive units affordable to extremely low-income households, with 12 units set aside for veterans and one manager's unit. Cedar Community Apartments is located in an area identified as high resource by TCAC in close proximity to schools, shopping and the Silliman Activity and Family Aquatic Center.
Quantified Objective: Support the development of at least 343 lower-income units.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, City Council Timeline: Ongoing
Funding Source(s): Affordable Housing Impact Fee Fund, Alameda County Measure A1, Home Key Grant Funds, Launch Initiative
PROGRAM H2.8: Zoning for Missing Middle Housing Types.
Along with the implementation of SB 9 and SB 10 through Program H2.1, the City shall review and amend the Zoning Code and applicable design guidelines to encourage and promote a mix of dwelling types and sizes, specifically missing middle-density housing types (e.g. courtyard housing, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes) to create housing for middle- and moderate-income households and increase the availability of affordable housing in a range of sizes to reduce displacement risk for residents living in overcrowded units or overpaying for housing.
HOUSING PLAN 219
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Quantified Objective: To remove constraints and better encourage small multi-family developments in the RS, RL, and RM zoning districts, particularly in the northeast area of the city, including Lake-Rosemont, Mirabeau, and Mayhews Landing neighborhoods, zoning text amendments will be implemented.
Within 12 months of Housing Element Adoption, staff shall recommend a specific proposal to the city council for consideration and adoption to increase baseline density to at least 15 dwelling units to the acre in key high opportunity areas in RL zones. Recommendations would include amendments to zoning, appropriate development standards to facilitate maximum densities including but not limited to: eliminating minimum lot size requirements, reducing setbacks, and eliminating minimum unit size requirements. In addition, the city will adopt a development standard waiver system for cases when development standards may preclude development to the maximum allowable density. The City shall evaluate the effectiveness of meeting missing middle housing targets of these strategies in 2027, including but not limited to further increasing development intensity in RL zones within the following year to achieve more inclusive neighborhoods throughout the City.
Zoning text amendments to may include, but are not limited to:
● Minimum Lot Size: 5,000 square feet for all building types. ● Minimum Lot Width: 50 feet for all building types.
● Parking Requirements: Parking requirements include a minimum of 1 space per unit for a multifamily dwelling outside the specific plan areas and mixed-use zones, Remove requirements for covered parking spaces, allow parking to be located within required setbacks, and remove guest parking requirements. ● Open Space Requirements: Review 400 square foot/unit
requirement in RL zoning districts.
● Study feasible densities, identify sites, corridors, and neighborhoods for intensification. Develop a strategy to increase allowable densities to at least 15 du/ac, housing choices and affordability in RL and high opportunity areas with a target of 200 moderate-income units in the planning period (as noted in Program H2.1)
Zoning text amendments will be implemented to support the overall strategy to encourage small, multi-family developments.
The City shall evaluate the effectiveness of meeting missing middle housing targets of these strategies by 2027, including but not limited to further increasing development intensity in single family zones within the following year, to achieve more inclusive neighborhoods throughout the City.
HOUSING PLAN 220
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, City Council Timeline: IMMEDIATE: Community engagement and zoning changes by December 31, 2024
Funding Source(s): Community Development Maintenance Fund HOUSING PLAN 221
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
PROGRAM H2.9: Area Specific Plans
NewPark Place Specific Plan The multi phase redevelopment of a shopping mall, will bring new mixed-use residential development to the area. The City worked closely with Brookfield on entitlements for Phase A, with plans for new mixed income housing and a Costco. Subsequent phases will include additional residential development, small scale retail and pedestrian infrastructure such as bike lanes and human scaled streets.
Though Phase A entitlements have now expired, the City will continue to partner with the developer to implement the Newpark Place Specific Plan to meet the affordable housing goals of the City of Newark.
The original entitled project included a total of 319 units, 29 of which would be affordable (4 very low, 9 low, and 16 moderate). The project included 3,700 square feet of ground floor retail, 12,900 square feet of amenities (such as a bike shop, club room, co-work space, and fitness center), a pool courtyard, and enclosed parking. Along Alpenrose Drive, the structures was planned to be six stories, with five residential levels over ground floor retail and amenities.
Old Town Specific Plan The Old Town Newark Specific Plan, adopted September 23rd 2021, sets forth a community informed plan to support public and private investments in the historic neighborhood. The planning area is envisioned as a mixed-use area that accommodates a range of housing types, retail and service business, expanded public spaces, and mobility improvements. To anticipate this development, this Specific Plan:
• Refines zoning regulations to align with market conditions and balance community desires for form and massing
• Develops programs to support investment in the community and continued affordability for people who live and work in the community today
• Identifies streetscape improvements for Thornton Avenue • Provides scenarios and prototypes for how future development could build out in the Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) and Residential Medium (RM) Zoning designations Zoning Amendments: Modifies zoning standards in the Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) and Residential Medium (RM) districts to align development standards, use requirements, and design standards with current market conditions and building types.
Streetscape Improvements: Identifies a streetscape plan for Thornton Avenue as a catalyst for neighborhood revitalization and investment of new housing. The streetscape plan will complement improvements in the private realm and create a safe destination for residents and visitors, whether on bike, foot, or in a vehicle.
Bayside Newark A Transit Oriented Development community to be built next to the proposed Dumbarton Commuter Rail station. Due to the proximity of high capacity transit, this area is also a HOUSING PLAN 222
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
priority development area for Newark.
On 9/22/22, The City of Newark approved land use modifications proposed by Lennar Home Builder, FMC Corporation, and Integral Communities within the FMC Willow and Grand Park portion of the Bayside Newark Specific Plan area. The proposed modifications would redevelop the 22.1-acre site into a 370-unit multi-family community including 279 townhouse units, a
1.6-acre mixed-use area with 3,600 sq. ft. of retail, club room, fitness center, and 90 affordable units (plus 1 manager unit) within a 6-story building, a 5-acre community park (Grand Park), and a 1,485 sq. ft. community building, along with approx. 1.8 acres set aside for the future Dumbarton transit station.
The South Site of the project, known as “FMC Willow South”, (Grand Park, PA 3, and PA 4) would include a 1,485 square foot community building, 123 multifamily units, and 92 townhomes for a total of 215 units. The 123 units would be UA Split (multifamily), and 92 would be UA Towns (townhomes). The UA Stacks would have 5 floorplans ranging from 1,696 square feet to 2,015 square feet. The UA Splits would have a standard option with 4 floorplans ranging from 1,307 square feet to 2,108 square feet and a 4-story option with 4 floorplans ranging from 1,307 square feet to 2,422 square feet. The homes would be 3-5 stories high.
Quantified Objective: 1,594 total units for the three specific plan areas. 147 very low, 101 low, 82 moderate and 1,263 above moderate units.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: IMMEDIATE, MID- and LONG-TERM: Development underway and though 2031
Funding Source(s): Development within Area Specific Plans are privately financed.
Community Development Maintenance Fund
PROGRAM H2.10: Single Room Occupancy Housing
In order to expand the housing options in Newark, the city will support a wider variety of housing types that would be accessible for low-income working people, retirees, people receiving disability payments and newcomers to the area. Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units provide small units for a single person, with shared amenities such as kitchens or bathrooms. Along with commitments in Program H4.10: Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Special Needs Housing, the City shall update the zoning code to facilitate the development of more SROs and small units.
Quantified Objective: In order to support an increase in this housing type in the city, SROs will be permitted use in Residential Medium Density, Commercial Mixed Use and Residential High Density, with a priority for SRO development to occur along transit corridors. Review and update existing development standards (Chapter 17.26.230), including parking requirements, to ensure HOUSING PLAN 223
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
they are not a barrier to the development of SROs. City fees for SRO projects will remain in line with fees for multifamily projects.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: IMMEDIATE: updates to land use regulations in zoning code by early 2024. SRO development standards and fee requirements to be reviewed and updated as necessary by December 2024.
Funding Source(s): Community Development Maintenance Fund PROGRAM H2.11: Catalyze the development of small sites
through a lot consolidation incentive program
The city commits to continuing improvement, evaluation, and adjustment of programs during the housing element cycle to ensure quantified objectives are being met.
Quantified Objective: Implement a lot consolidation incentive program to catalyze development on small sites. The program would include deferring fees specifically for consolidation, expediting permit processing, providing flexible development standards such as setback requirements, reduced parking or increased heights, committing resources for development of affordable housing on small sites, and/or increasing allowable density or lot coverage.
In addition, the city will adopt a development standard waiver system for cases when city requirements may preclude development on small sites.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: MID-TERM: Review and implement in mid 2025
Funding Source(s): Community Development Maintenance Fund PROGRAM H2.12: Ensure maximum residential densities are achievable
The city commits to annually review, and amend as necessary, the Municipal Code to ensure that maximum allowable densities are achievable on sites zoned for housing.
Quantified Objective: Review, and amend as necessary, city requirements and development standards in all zones that allow residential development to ensure that maximum densities are achievable. This includes those standards and requirements related to maximum units per building, maximum building HOUSING PLAN 224
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
coverage, required open space per unit, minimum lot area, setbacks, height limits, parking (also see Program H3.5) and limits on allowable densities. Specifically, remove the MUP requirement for buildings over 35 feet in the RM and RH zones and review whether the 60-foot height limit in the CMU zone (outside of the Old Town Specific Plan area) is a constraint on development and make needed changes, or allowing for flexibility to achieve maximum allowable densities.
The analysis will consider impacts on cost, supply, housing choice, affordability, timing, approval certainty and ability to achieve maximum densities and include programs to address identified constraints.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: IMMEDIATE: City will initially review city requirements and development standards in 2024 and on an annual basis thereafter, and amend the appropriate requirements and standards as necessary to the Municipal Code.
Funding Source(s): Community Development Maintenance Fund PROGRAM H3.1: Streamline Ministerial Approval Permit
Procedures
The City will review and update its approval processes to ensure it accommodates streamlined applications, pursuant to Senate Bill 35.
Quantified Objective: Prepare and publish administrative procedures by 2024 for the processing of housing developments eligible for streamlined review pursuant to SB 35.
Assign a staff member to support the streamlined development review process. This staff person will be a point of contact for affordable housing developers that will work to create a clear and streamlined process.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: MID-TERM: Prepare and publish new procedures by 2024, assign staff as necessary to achieve the objective by June 30, 2026
Funding Source(s): Community Development Maintenance Fund PROGRAM H3.2: Develop objective design standards for single family and multi family developments and infill housing.
HOUSING PLAN 225
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Identify parking standards, setbacks and height standards to facilitate development that is responsive to fluctuating costs and results in high quality design.
Quantified Objective: Develop new objective design standards that result in designs that reflect the needs of the community while supporting new developments that are responsive to local ecological conditions and climate change while reducing development costs where applicable.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: MID-TERM: Ordinance and zoning changes implemented by June 30, 2024
Funding Source(s): Community Development Maintenance Fund PROGRAM H3.3: Assess and update impact fees
Assess and update impact fees as required to ensure that it is in line with neighboring jurisdictions and not a hindrance to development.
Quantified Objective: The city will undergo a comprehensive impact fee study to assess and update the impact fee structure to reflect the needs of the community and ensure fee structure is in line with neighboring jurisdictions. ● Currently the policy in the Old Town Specific Plan area is to temporarily reduce fees to encourage development.
● The city will provide a fee waiver for senior and housing for people with disabilities
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department/Finance Department Timeline: IMMEDIATE: Study would be part of the Affordable Housing work plan.
Funding Source(s): Community Development Maintenance Fund PROGRAM H3.4: Adjust zoning to allow mixed use in current Commercial zones
In order to align zoning with planned development areas and associated policies of developing pedestrian friendly, walkable neighborhoods, the city proposes to utilize State laws SB6 and AB 2011 to encourage residential and mixed use developments in current commercial zones. A project proposed under SB 6 may be either a 100-percent residential project or a mixed-use project where at least 50 percent of the square footage is dedicated to residential uses. SB 6 projects are not exempt from CEQA but need not provide any affordable housing. SB 6 projects are required to pay prevailing wages and utilize a "skilled and trained workforce." Although there HOUSING PLAN 226
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
is a possibility that including commercial space in a mixed use development could be viewed as a constraint, the community and City Council are interested in mixed use, walkable environments that support a variety of uses.
Quantified Objective: Amend the City's Neighborhood Commercial and Community Commercial zones and land use code to create objective standards for mixed-uses and facilitate the redevelopment of commercial sites to mixed-use.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: IMMEDIATE: Program developed by June 30, 2025 Funding Source(s): Community Development Maintenance Fund PROGRAM H3.5: Parking standards update and study
Parking can be a significant portion of the cost of developing new housing. Research and develop new parking standards for residential developments that align with neighboring jurisdictions and are reflective of the community needs and development costs. Although the Dumbarton rail project is proposed for Newark, there is no firm timeline for its development. Due to limited frequent public transportation in the city, many residents are car dependent in order to access employment and other basic needs which reflects the extent of parking reductions.
Quantified Objective: Update the Zoning Ordinance to encourage infill development, including housing for persons with disabilities, senior housing, accessory dwelling units. Engage with the development community to discuss changes to parking minimums. Identify and implement parking requirement reductions in NMC 17.23.50, eliminating parking minimums for ADUs, and/or unbundled parking from the dwelling unit for large housing projects. Revised parking changes include:
● Senior Parking: Reduce from 1 space per unit to .5 spaces per unit ● Remove parking requirements for ADUs
● Two Unit Dwelling : Remove the guest parking requirement ● Multi Unit Dwelling:
○ Reduce covered parking requirement to 0.5 spaces per unit ○ Reduce guest parking to 0.25 spaces per unit
○ Reduce overall parking requirement for studios and one bedrooms to 1 space per unit.
○ Reduce 2-plus bedroom requirement to 1.5 spaces per unit with 0.25 spaces for guest parking.
Provide more opportunities for alternatives to individual automobile such as:
● CAR SHARING
HOUSING PLAN 227
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
One stall reduction for each stall dedicated and designated for use by a locally-operating car sharing program, such as Zipcar. ● ON-STREET PARKING CREDIT
One-half stall reduction for each new public, on-street parking stall provided as part of a project (through the installation of angled or perpendicular spaces with bulb-outs and curbs or other methods).
● BICYCLE PARKING CREDIT
One stall reduction for every five, non-required bicycle parking spaces provided on the site (beyond the standard requirements.
Analyze and revise as necessary existing standards for SROs, small multifamily (Missing Middle), and shared parking.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: IMMEDIATE: Parking requirement updates in zoning code by mid 2025 Funding Source(s): Community Development Maintenance Fund PROGRAM H3.6: By-Right Approval of Projects with 20
Percent Affordable Units on “Reused” Sites.
Pursuant to AB 1397, amend the Zoning Ordinance to require by-right approval of housing development that includes 20 percent of the units as housing affordable to lower-income households, on sites being used to meet the 6th Cycle RHNA that represent “reuse sites” previously identified in the 4th and 5th Cycles Housing Element. The nine sites listed in Table 6-2 will be adjusted by text amendment to accommodate the lower income RHNA as needed.
Table 6-2: Assessors Parcels Numbers Subject to AB 139, 2022 Site Number Assessor Parcel Number
8 92-30-16-2; 92-30-15-2; 92-30-17-2; 92-30-14-3; 92-30-18-4 9 92-31-15; 92-31-16-2
15 92A-900-1-2
16 92-29-13; 92-29-19-2; 92-29-18-2; 92-29-17-2; 92-29-16-2;92-51-2-3; 92-29-20-2; 92-51-5-3
17 92A-2125-17
92A-2125-11-2’ 92A-2125-13
18 92A-2585-32
19 92-50-13
HOUSING PLAN 228
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Site Number Assessor Parcel Number
21 92-255-11
22 92A-2375-32
23 92-131-3; 92-131-2-4; 92-131-1-9
Quantified Objective: 602 total units, 304 very low and low income units, 67 moderate income units and 231 above moderate income units.
Responsible Agency: Newark City Council, Community Development Department, Planning Commission
Timeline: IMMEDIATE: Text amendment within one year of Housing Element Adoption
Funding Source(s): Community Development Maintenance Fund PROGRAM H4.1: Develop Anti-Displacement Programs for the Old-Town Newark Specific Plan Area.
Quantified Objective: Apply local preference ordinance to new residential development in the Old Town area. Convene an Old Town community working group composed of residents, youth and business owners in the neighborhood.
This group will work with staff to develop neighborhood priorities for an anti displacement program for the Old Town Newark Specific Plan area that supports community residents and small businesses to stay in place.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: IMMEDIATE: Local preference policy, 2024. MID-TERM: Anti displacement implementation program developed by June 30, 2026 Funding Source(s): Community Development Maintenance Fund PROGRAM H4.2: Develop a Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase Policy
Develop programs to support renters stay in their homes and create opportunities for home ownership through a Tenant Opportunity to Purchase or Community Opportunity to Purchase (COPA and TOPA). A TOPA/COPA policy can also facilitate homeownership for tenants by creating limited equity housing cooperatives or other ownership models, enabling increased HOUSING PLAN 229
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
wealth-building opportunities for BIPOC communities who have historically been denied access to homeownership.
Work with community members, community-based, mission-driven entities, housing providers, real estate professionals, and other relevant stakeholders to review best practices and lessons learned to develop a report with recommendations for the implementation of a small sites program and COPA / TOPA policy in the City of Newark.
Quantified Objective: The recommendations will include a framework for an ordinance, administrative and supportive policies, program process and design, community engagement plan, and identification of costs and funding sources for implementation.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: MID-TERM: COPA and TOPA ordinance and program developed by June 30, 2026
Funding Source(s): HOME funds
PROGRAM H4.3: Develop a Just Cause Eviction Ordinance
Just Cause ordinances prohibit landlords from ending a tenancy or evicting a tenant without a specific reason.
Quantified Objective: Develop and implement a just cause eviction ordinance for the city to cover tenants under state law when AB 1482 expires in 2029. Support 15 low income residents per year to stay in their homes.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, City Council Timeline: MID-TERM: Program developed by June 30, 2025
Funding Source(s): Housing Impact Fee Fund
PROGRAM H4.4: Small Sites Program
Develop a small sites funding funding program that enables nonprofit housing providers to acquire market-rate multifamily properties that are less than 25 units and convert these buildings to affordable housing.
Quantified Objective: Develop an RFP for small sites program. Recipients of funding from the Small Sites Program sign a 55-year regulatory agreement that governs the income limits for tenants and rents that can be charged. The program will HOUSING PLAN 230
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
focus on the Old Town/ Central area, identified as vulnerable to displacement, and with higher concentrations of low income residents.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: MID-TERM: Program developed by June 30, 2027
Funding Source(s): Community Development Maintenance Fund PROGRAM H4.5: Connect Residents to Existing Shared
Housing Programs
With community partners, connect residents to existing shared housing programs to support those in need of affordable housing and seniors in need of additional income to remain in their homes.
Quantified Objective: Work to connect 20 residents per year to existing shared housing resource programs through non profit partners for Newark such as the Home Match program.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: IMMEDIATE: Program implemented by June 30, 2025 Funding Source(s): Housing Impact Fee Fund
PROGRAM H4.6: Support Tenant Stability Though Minimum
Lease Terms and Relocation Assistance.
Quantified Objective: Develop an ordinance outlining minimum lease terms and relocation assistance for renters
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: IMMEDIATE: Program developed by June 30, 2024 Funding Source(s): Housing Impact Fee Fund
PROGRAM H4.7: Identify Housing Opportunities For Those
With Developmental Disabilities
HOUSING PLAN 231
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Work with community partners such as the Housing Consortium of the East Bay, to identify scattered smaller parcels that would be suitable for affordable housing, and the inclusion of units in larger housing developments for those with developmental disabilities.
Quantified Objective: 20 units to increase housing opportunities for those with developmental disabilities in Newark.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: IMMEDIATE: Coordination with housing developers and community partners by June 30, 2024
Funding Source(s): Housing Impact Fee Fund
PROGRAM H4.8: Connect Residents with Foreclosure
assistance.
Quantified Objective: Connect residents with existing foreclosure prevention resources for Alameda County to stem the displacement of 20 low and moderate income residents. With a focus on Hispanic/ Latinx, Indigenous and Black residents.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: IMMEDIATE: Program support by June 30, 2024
Funding Source(s): Housing Impact Fee Fund
PROGRAM H4.9: No Net Loss of Units
To facilitate place-based revitalization for households at risk of displacement due to new development, the City will require replacement housing units subject to the requirements of Government Code, Section 65915, subdivision (c)(3), when any new development (residential, mixed use, or nonresidential) occurs on a site that has been occupied by or restricted for the use of lower income households at any time during the previous five years. This requirement applies to non-vacant sites and vacant sites with previous residential uses that have been vacated or demolished.
Quantified Objective: Replace any of the units if (a) they are planned to be demolished for purposes of building new housing, and (b) they are determined to be occupied by low income residents.
HOUSING PLAN 232
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department,
Timeline: IMMEDIATE: The replacement requirement will be implemented immediately and applied as applications on identified sites are received and processed.
Funding Source(s): Community Development Maintenance Fund PROGRAM H4.10: Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Special
Needs Housing
The City of Newark, through its Zoning Ordinance, provides opportunities for special needs housing, including uses such as Group Residential, Residential Care Facilities, Single Room Occupancies, Supportive Housing, and Transitional Housing, and Emergency Shelters. However, the locations where these uses are allowed are limited. Along with commitments in Program H2.10, the City shall prepare and adopt the following amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to allow housing for special needs groups consistent with State law:
● Allow “low barrier navigation center” developments by right in mixed-use zones and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses, consistent with Government Code Section 65662.
● Allow for the by-right approval of 100 percent affordable developments that include a percentage of supportive housing units, either 25 percent or 12 units, whichever is greater, to be allowed without a conditional use permit or other discretionary review in all zoning districts where multifamily and mixed-use development is permitted, consistent with Government Code Section 65651(a).
● Ensure the identified zone has available sites with capacity to accommodate at least 32 shelter beds, using the methodology outlined in Government Code section 65583 subdivision (a)(4), and that the identified zones have sites located near amenities and services that serve people experiencing homelessness, which may include health care, transportation, retail, employment, and social services. ● Allow large Residential Care Facilities for 7 or more people as a permitted use in the Residential Low Density, Residential Medium Density, and Residential High Density zones.
The facilities are subject to the same requirements as other residential uses of the same type in these zones.
● Expand the zones where single-room occupancy units (SROs) are a permitted use to RM, RH, and CMU districts.
● Allow employee and farmworker housing consistent with California Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5(b) Section 17021.6.
● Revise the definition of “emergency shelter” to include other interim interventions, including but not limited to, navigation centers, bridge housing, and respite or recuperative care, per Government Code 65583. The City will also confirm zones utilized for emergency shelters allow residential uses, confirm they have sufficient capacity and proximity to HOUSING PLAN 233
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
services based on statutory formulas and review to ensure that the appropriate development standards are in place to encourage the development of emergency shelters. ● Revise the City’s definition of “Family” in the municipal code to remove provisions requiring shared living expenses or maintaining a single lease or rental agreement. ● Review and revise the City’s reasonable accommodation procedure to eliminate constraints for persons with disabilities, particularly the finding (a) that requires the request to be necessary “… due to the physical characteristics of the property and the proposed use or structure or other circumstances, including, but not limited to, topography, noise exposure, irregular property boundaries, or other unusual circumstance.”
Quantified Objective: Ensure compliance with State law
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: IMMEDIATE: Zoning amendments completed by October 26, 2024, including zoning related to emergency shelters within one year of adoption.
Funding Source(s): Community Development Maintenance Fund HOUSING PLAN 234
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
PROGRAM H4.11: Scattered Site Housing for Persons
Experiencing Homelessness
As funds become available, the City shall partner with other Alameda County cities and organizations like Bay Area Community Services (BACS) and Abode Housing to apply for funds to support the acquisition and conversion of single-family homes and hotels/motels to supportive shared housing for people experiencing homelessness. If the project is awarded funds and a partner organization acquires a property in Newark, the City will record a 55-year regulatory agreement against the subject property restricting the rents for extremely low-income households and establishing property maintenance and management standards. Staff will work with partners and the other participating cities to refine the program goals and secure matching funding from Alameda County HOME Consortium.
Quantified Objective: Conversion of a Homekey-funded hotel containing 124 units for households experiencing homelessness and households at risk of homelessness was completed in 2023. Through a scattered-sites program, purchase 1-2 single-family properties in partnership with nonprofits utilizing available funds to provide extremely low-income housing units for persons experiencing homelessness, with a goal of identifying the majority of sites in high resource census tracts.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: Homekey-funded hotel conversion will be complete in 2023.
Scattered-site program compete in 2025-2026, subject to the availability of federal, state and local funding e.
Funding Source(s): Federal, state, and local funding sources, including Lanterman Act funds or Project Homekey.
PROGRAM H5.1: First-Time Homebuyer Assistance
Bring home ownership within reach for Newark residents. Develop a BMR homeownership program, and down payment assistance programs, with a focus on first time home buyers and BIPOC residents with low home ownership rates. The City will participate in the Alameda County Housing & Community Development Department Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) and Down Payment Assistance (DPA) programs to provide down payment assistance to expand homeownership opportunities in Newark. Down payment assistance funds provided by the County may be used to leverage monies from other grants to provide additional assistance with the intent to make homeownership more attainable for families.
Quantified Objective: The city will target an average of four households for down payment HOUSING PLAN 235
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
assistance each year, with a focus on recruitment of moderate income BIPOC households.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: IMMEDIATE: Program developed by June 30, 2024 as part of the Affordable Housing work plan
Funding Source(s): Housing Impact Fee Fund, potentially CDBG funds.
PROGRAM H5.2: Affordable Housing Development Programs
Resolution 10184 to ensure an adequate amount of affordable housing through three programs.
1. Percentage of Affordable Units to mitigate the effects of new development. The city utilizes a percentage of units for very low, low and moderate income units to be included in the development of new housing.
2. Density Bonus Law. The city will offer developers the opportunity to utilize the state density Density Bonus ( Section 17.19) for an increase in housing units affordable to very low, low and moderate income households or seniors. Concessions are also available under the density bonus law such as reduced parking standards and setbacks, and allowing tandem or uncovered parking.
3. Affordable Housing fee program. This ordinance is codified in Chapter 17.18 of the Municipal Code. The fee is based on square footage of the project: The fee is calculated per square foot for floor area above 1,000 square feet, excluding garages, carports or common areas.
Quantified Objective: 778 housing units over the period of the Housing Element. 326 very low, 326 low income units, 126 moderate units
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, City Council Timeline: Ongoing from existing program
Funding Source(s): Housing Impact Fee Fund
PROGRAM H5.3: Public Lands for dedicated affordable
housing.
The city, in compliance with the Surplus Land Act will develop and implement programs and policies to further Increase the utilization of public land for affordable housing with particular emphasis in high resource and gentrifying areas to support housing mobility and anti displacement efforts.
HOUSING PLAN 236
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Quantified Objective: 1. Rezone PF (Public Facility) zoned land to allow affordable housing as a permitted use, by-right.
2. Rezone publicly owned land, from Single Family to Mid rise Residential for the development of 20 new housing units targeted for disabled, single parent and low and moderate income households.
3. Develop a public land framework / policy that enables a coordinated interagency approach to public land reuse.
4. Maintain long-term ownership of public sites to ensure permanent affordability and long-term financial benefits.
5. Work with the school district to reuse excess and underutilized school sites and meet the needs of the local education workforce for the creation of 50 new units of housing for low and moderate income households.
6. Consider interim uses of public sites that can provide amenities to the community (e.g., housing for those experiencing homelessness, art installations and non profit art spaces)
7. The City shall also continue to monitor the status of available land owned by other public agencies and actively work with developers that may wish to develop such properties for affordable housing.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: IMMEDIATE: Public land framework developed by June 30, 2025, rezonings to occur by December 31, 2025
Funding Source(s): Community Development Maintenance Fund PROGRAM H5.4: Affordable Housing Overlay Zone
Develop an affordable housing overlay zone to incentivize the construction of affordable housing for very low, low, and moderate income households in targeted areas.
Quantified Objective: Work to develop a series of incentives such as reduced parking requirements, and fast tracked permitting to bring increased production of affordable rental housing to the Four Corners area and other high opportunity areas of the city.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: MID-TERM: Program developed by June 30, 2026
Funding Source(s): Housing Impact Fee Fund
HOUSING PLAN 237
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
PROGRAM H6.1: In Response to Multi-Year Drought Conditions, Support a Community Reduction of Local Water Usage
Quantified Objective: Develop a city wide water wise garden challenge, partner with local non profit organizations and city departments to support the transformation yards and medians with drought tolerant plants. Update municipal code to incorporate language on drought resistant landscaping.
Responsible Agency: Public Works Department, Community Development Department Timeline: MID-TERM: Program developed by June 30, 2026
Funding Source(s): Community Development Maintenance Fund PROGRAM H6.2: Encourage Water Utilities to Participate in BayREN’s Water Upgrades $ave Program
In order to make water efficiency improvements available to residents at little-to-no up-front cost.
Provide information to residents on incentives for energy efficiency and electrification from organizations such as PG&E, BayREN, and others.
Quantified Objective: Provide information in citywide mailings twice a year and post on City of Newark website and social media outlets.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, Public Works Department Timeline: MID-TERM: Program developed by June 30, 2025
Funding Source(s): Community Development Maintenance Fund PROGRAM H6.3: Cool Roofs for Cool Homes
In response to increased urban heat events, work to ensure that homes are incorporating designs to support cooler interiors.
Quantified Objective: Amend the City’s building ordinance to exceed Title 24 standards by requiring cool roofs for all new or replacement roofs.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, Public Works Department Timeline: IMMEDIATE: Program developed by June 30, 2025 HOUSING PLAN 238
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Funding Source(s): Community Development Maintenance Fund PROGRAM H6.4: 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.
Quantified Objective: Require developments in the flooding and other high-risk inundation areas to disclose flood risks and identify appropriate flood mitigation actions for incorporation into project design.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, Public Works Department Timeline: MID-TERM: Program developed by June 30, 2025
Funding Source(s): Community Development Maintenance Fund PROGRAM H7.1: Training for Voucher Program and Landlord Responsibilities
Develop training programs in collaboration with Alameda County Housing Authority for property owners to understand the housing choice voucher program and landlord responsibilities.
Quantified Objective: Hold two workshops annually for rental property owners/managers Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: MID-TERM: Program developed by June 30, 2025
Funding Source(s): Housing Impact Fee Fund
PROGRAM H7.2: Increase City Access, and Partner With
Community Organizations To Ensure That Community
Members Have Access To Tenant Rights Information and
Fair Housing In Multiple Languages.
Expand education and outreach on fair housing laws and source of income discrimination to landlords, property owners with accessory dwelling units, and property owners seeking building permits for rental properties.
HOUSING PLAN 239
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Quantified Objective: ● Cocreation of tenants rights information in collaboration with local community organizations made accessible in culturally relevant ways and in a variety of formats such as videos, flyers, social media and public workshops.
● The city is working to install and implement the community development information module on the city’s website. The city expects to have this operational by the end of 2023 or early 2024.
The City has launched a service called “TextMyGov” which is a streamlined way to interact with community members on various topics and services. Users can send questions or concerns via text on mobile devices. Responses are provided via a return text with links to additional information and city services. Users can also register to receive push notifications via text on various city topics such as general city affairs (in English and Spanish), City Council meetings, and community events.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: IMMEDIATE: Program implemented by June 30, 2024 Funding Source(s): Housing Impact Fee Fund
PROGRAM H7.3: Work with Newark Unified School District to Distribute Housing Resources
Work with Newark Unified School District to distribute housing resources to families enrolled in the district per state law AB27 that directs schools, including charter schools to identify homeless children and youth, requires annual staff training, and mandatory website postings of resources.
Quantified Objective: Information on housing resources and general family support resources for district families distributed through multiple sources to increase accessibility and that families are connected with housing resources for those experiencing homelessness. Translated into relevant languages for families in Newark. An example would be information published on the website.
Responsible Agency: City of Newark Homeless Committee, Newark Unified School District Timeline: MID-TERM: Program developed by June 30, 2025
Funding Source(s): Housing Impact Fee Fund
HOUSING PLAN 240
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
PROGRAM H7.4: Affirmatively Market Affordable Housing
Affirmatively market affordable housing rental and for sale units, through the online affordable housing listing portals such as the Alameda Housing Portal, Doorway and elsewhere, to underrepresented groups such as people with disabilities, extremely low income households and BIPOC households.
Quantified Objective: Information on housing resources and general family support resources for district families distributed through multiple sources to increase accessibility and that families are connected with housing resources for those experiencing homelessness. Translated into relevant languages for families in Newark. An example would be information published on the website.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, City of Newark Homeless Committee, Newark Unified School District
Timeline: MID-TERM: Program developed by June 30, 2025
Funding Source(s): Housing Impact Fee Fund
PROGRAM H7.5: Monitor housing programs through a
mid-cycle review
The city commits to continuing improvement, evaluation, and adjustment of programs during the housing element cycle to ensure quantified objectives are being met.
Quantified Objective: Review quantified objectives for housing construction, rehabilitation, and conservation
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: MID-TERM: Programs reviewed by end of 2026
Funding Source(s): Community Development Maintenance Fund PROGRAM H7.6: Monitor annual progress towards meeting the City’s RHNA goals
The city commits to continuing improvement, evaluation, and adjustment of programs during the HOUSING PLAN 241
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
housing element cycle to ensure progress is being made toward the City’s RHNA goals.
Quantified Objective: Monitor housing sites, residential development and future development potential, and programs annually. Survey property owners of sites in the sites inventory to stay current on the project viability and development climate. Report findings through the Annual Progress Report. Make adjustments to programs as needed.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: ANNUALLY: The city will evaluate planned, approved and pending projects for progress toward completion every other year and if necessary, take alternative actions (e.g., additional sites or rezoning) within one year.
Funding Source(s): Community Development Maintenance Fund HOUSING PLAN 242
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Quantified Objectives
One of the requirements of State law (California Government Code Section 65583[b]) is that the Housing Element contain quantified objectives for the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing. State law recognizes that the total housing needs identified by a community may exceed available resources and the community’s ability to satisfy this need. Under these circumstances, the quantified objectives need not be identical to the total housing needs.
The quantified objectives shown in Table 6-3 represent targets. They are estimates based on experience, anticipated funding levels, and housing market conditions. The quantified objectives are not designed to be minimum requirements. The quantified objectives are based largely upon implementation programs that have measurable outcomes. However, the Housing Element contains several policies and implementation programs that reduce barriers and create opportunities for affordable housing. These policies and programs are essential to meeting the City’s housing needs but are more qualitative and difficult to quantify.
Table 6-3: List of Quantified Objectives for the 2023 to 2031 Planning Period Action Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Total
RHNA 464 268 318 824 1,874
New Construction
Pipeline Projects 274 66 26 891 1,257
Program H2.1 and H2.8 Missing Middle 200 200
Program H2.2 Accessory Dwelling Units 48 48 48 16 160
Rehabilitation
Program H1.1 Housing Rehabilitation and
Repair
14 34 34 34 102
Program H1.2 Rental Inspection and Repair 32 32 32 96
Conservation, Preservation, + Assistance
Program H4.3 Tenant Protections 50 40 30 120
Program H4.8 and H5.1 First Time Home
Buyer and Foreclosure
10 14 24
Program H4.7 Disability 10 10 20
Program H4.5 Shared Housing 80 80 160
Source: City of Newark, 2023
14 Community Development Block Grant Status Report. April 5, 2023. An average of 9 units per year in a 10 year period.
HOUSING PLAN 243
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS
APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS A-1
1 HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT:
NEWARK
ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning
2021-04-02
2 0.1 Table of content
0.1 Table of content.................................................................................................... 2
0.2 List of figures ....................................................................................................... 3
0.3 List of tables ........................................................................................................ 3 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5 2 Summary of Key Facts .................................................................................................. 6 3 Looking to the Future: Regional Housing Needs .................................................................. 9
3.1 Regional Housing Needs Determination......................................................................... 9
3.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation .............................................................................. 9 4 Population, Employment and Household Characteristics ..................................................... 11
4.1 Population ..........................................................................................................11
4.2 Age...................................................................................................................12
4.3 Race and Ethnicity ................................................................................................14
4.4 Employment Trends ...............................................................................................15
4.4.1 Balance of Jobs and Workers...............................................................................15
4.4.2 Sector Composition ..........................................................................................19
4.4.3 Unemployment ...............................................................................................20
4.5 Extremely Low-Income Households.............................................................................21
4.6 Tenure...............................................................................................................25
4.7 Displacement .......................................................................................................29 5 Housing Stock Characteristics ...................................................................................... 31
5.1 Housing Types, Year Built, Vacancy, and Permits............................................................31
5.2 Assisted Housing Developments At-Risk of Conversion......................................................34
5.3 Substandard Housing..............................................................................................35
5.4 Home and Rent Values............................................................................................36
5.5 Overpayment and Overcrowding ................................................................................39 6 Special Housing Needs................................................................................................ 48
6.1 Large Households ..................................................................................................48
6.2 Female-Headed Households......................................................................................49
6.3 Seniors...............................................................................................................51
6.4 People with Disabilities ..........................................................................................52
6.5 Homelessness.......................................................................................................54
6.6 Farmworkers .......................................................................................................59
6.7 Non-English Speakers .............................................................................................60 3 0.2 List of figures
Figure 1: Population Growth Trends .......................................................................................12 Figure 2: Population by Age, 2000-2019...................................................................................13 Figure 3: Senior and Youth Population by Race ..........................................................................14 Figure 4: Population by Race, 2000-2019 .................................................................................15 Figure 5: Jobs in a Jurisdiction .............................................................................................16 Figure 6: Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence.........................17 Figure 7: Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group ...........................................................................18 Figure 8: Jobs-Household Ratio .............................................................................................19 Figure 9: Resident Employment by Industry ..............................................................................20 Figure 10: Unemployment Rate.............................................................................................21 Figure 11: Households by Household Income Level......................................................................23 Figure 12: Household Income Level by Tenure ...........................................................................24 Figure 13: Poverty Status by Race..........................................................................................25 Figure 14: Housing Tenure...................................................................................................26 Figure 15: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder .....................................................................27 Figure 16: Housing Tenure by Age..........................................................................................28 Figure 17: Housing Tenure by Housing Type ..............................................................................29 Figure 18: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure...............................................................30 Figure 19: Housing Type Trends ............................................................................................31 Figure 20: Housing Units by Year Structure Built ........................................................................32 Figure 21: Vacant Units by Type............................................................................................33 Figure 22: Substandard Housing Issues.....................................................................................36 Figure 23: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units.......................................................................37 Figure 24: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)...............................................................................37 Figure 25: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units...................................................................38 Figure 26: Median Contract Rent ...........................................................................................39 Figure 27: Cost Burden by Tenure ..........................................................................................40 Figure 28: Cost Burden by Income Level ..................................................................................41 Figure 29: Cost Burden by Race.............................................................................................42 Figure 30: Cost Burden by Household Size ................................................................................43 Figure 31: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level ........................................................44 Figure 32: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity ........................................................................45 Figure 33: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity ................................................................46 Figure 34: Overcrowding by Race...........................................................................................47 Figure 35: Household Size by Tenure ......................................................................................48 Figure 36: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms .......................................................................49 Figure 37: Household Type ..................................................................................................50 Figure 38: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status ..............................................................51 Figure 39: Senior Households by Income and Tenure....................................................................52 Figure 40: Disability by Type ................................................................................................53 Figure 41: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Alameda County ................................55 Figure 42: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, Alameda County ..........................56 Figure 43: Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, Alameda County...................................57 Figure 44: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Alameda County.....................58 Figure 45: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, Alameda County...........................................60 Figure 46: Population with Limited English Proficiency.................................................................61
0.3 List of tables
4 Table 1: Illustrative Regional Housing Needs Allocation from Draft Methodology ..................................10 Table 2: Population Growth Trends ........................................................................................11 Table 3: Housing Permitting.................................................................................................33 Table 4: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion.............................................................................34 Table 5: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age ..........................................................54 Table 6: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence...................................................54 Table 7: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness ...............................................59 Table 8: Migrant Worker Student Population .............................................................................59 5 1 INTRODUCTION
The Bay Area continues to see growth in both population and jobs, which means more housing of various types and sizes is needed to ensure that residents across all income levels, ages, and abilities have a place to call home. While the number of people drawn to the region over the past 30 years has steadily increased, housing production has stalled, contributing to the housing shortage that communities are experiencing today. In many cities, this has resulted in residents being priced out, increased traffic congestion caused by longer commutes, and fewer people across incomes being able to purchase homes or meet surging rents.
The 2023-2031 Housing Element Update provides a roadmap for how to meet our growth and housing challenges. Required by the state, the Housing Element identifies what the existing housing conditions and community needs are, reiterates goals, and creates a plan for more housing. The Housing Element is an integral part of the General Plan, which guides the policies of Newark. 6 2 SUMMARY OF KEY FACTS
• 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 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. • 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 singlefamily units increased more than multi-family units. Generally, in Newark, the share of the
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. 2 Note that contract rents may differ significantly from, and often being lower than, current listing prices. 7 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 burden and use the majority of their income for housing.
• Displacement/Gentrification – According to research from The University of California, Berkeley, 0.0% of households in Newark live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement, and 0.0% live in areas at risk of or undergoing gentrification. 31.8% of households in Newark live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely excluded due to prohibitive housing costs. There are various ways to address displacement including ensuring new housing at all income levels is built. • 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
• 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.
Note on Data
Many of the tables in this report are sourced from data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey or U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, both of which are samples and as such, are subject to sampling variability. This means that data is an estimate, and that other estimates could be possible if another set of respondents had been reached. We use the five-year release to get a
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 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.
8 larger data pool to minimize this “margin of error” but particularly for the smaller cities, the data will be based on fewer responses, and the information should be interpreted accordingly.
Additionally, there may be instances where there is no data available for a jurisdiction for particular data point, or where a value is 0 and the automatically generated text cannot perform a calculation. In these cases, the automatically generated text is “NODATA.” Staff should reword these sentences before using them in the context of the Housing Element or other documents.
Note on Figures
Any figure that does not specify geography in the figure name represents data for Newark.
9 3 LOOKING TO THE FUTURE: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS
3.1 Regional Housing Needs Determination
The Plan Bay Area 20504 Final Blueprint forecasts that the nine-county Bay Area will add 1.4 million new households between 2015 and 2050. For the eight-year time frame covered by this Housing Element Update, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has identified the region’s housing need as 441,176 units. The total number of housing units assigned by HCD is separated into four income categories that cover housing types for all income levels, from very low-income households to market rate housing.5 This calculation, known as the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND), is based on population projections produced by the California Department of Finance as well as adjustments that incorporate the region’s existing housing need. The adjustments result from recent legislation requiring HCD to apply additional adjustment factors to the baseline growth projection from California Department of Finance, in order for the regions to get closer to healthy housing markets. To this end, adjustments focus on the region’s vacancy rate, level of overcrowding and the share of cost burdened households, and seek to bring the region more in line with comparable ones.6 These new laws governing the methodology for how HCD calculates the RHND resulted in a significantly higher number of housing units for which the Bay Area must plan compared to previous RHNA cycles.
3.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation
A starting point for the Housing Element Update process for every California jurisdiction is the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or RHNA – the share of the RHND assigned to each jurisdiction by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). State Housing Element Law requires ABAG to develop a methodology that calculates the number of housing units assigned to each city and county and distributes each jurisdiction’s housing unit allocation among four affordability levels. For this RHNA cycle, the RHND increased by 135%, from 187,990 to 441,776. For more information on the RHNA process this cycle, see ABAG’s website: https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/housing/rhna-regional-housing-needsallocation Almost all jurisdictions in the Bay Area are likely to receive a larger RHNA this cycle compared to the last cycle, primarily due to changes in state law that led to a considerably higher RHND compared to previous cycles.
In January 2021, ABAG adopted a Draft RHNA Methodology, which is currently being reviewed by HCD.
For Newark, the proposed RHNA to be planned for this cycle is 1,874 units, a slated increase from the last cycle. Please note that the previously stated figures are merely illustrative, as ABAG has yet to issue Final RHNA allocations. The Final RHNA allocations that local jurisdictions will use for their
4 Plan Bay Area 2050 is a long-range plan charting the course for the future of the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. It covers four key issues: the economy, the environment, housing and transportation 5 HCD divides the RHND into the following four income categories:
Very Low-income: 0-50% of Area Median Income
Low-income: 50-80% of Area Median Income
Moderate-income: 80-120% of Area Median Income
Above Moderate-income: 120% or more of Area Median Income 6 For more information on HCD’s RHND calculation for the Bay Area, see this letter sent to ABAG from HCD on June 9, 2020: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/abagrhna-final060920(r).pdf 10 Housing Elements will be released at the end of 2021. The potential allocation that Newark would receive from the Draft RHNA Methodology is broken down by income category as follows:
Table 1: Illustrative Regional Housing Needs Allocation from Draft Methodology Income Group Newark
Units
Alameda
County Units
Bay Area
Units
Newark
Percent
Alameda
County
Percent
Bay Area
Percent
Very Low Income
(<50% of AMI) 464 23606 114442 24.8% 26.5% 25.9%
Low Income (50%-
80% of AMI) 268 13591 65892 14.3% 15.3% 14.9%
Moderate Income
(80%-120% of AMI) 318 14438 72712 17.0% 16.2% 16.5%
Above Moderate
Income (>120% of
AMI)
824 37362 188130 44.0% 42.0% 42.6%
Total 1874 88997 441176 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments Methodology and tentative numbers were approved by ABAG’s Executive board on January 21, 2021 (Resolution No. 02-2021). The numbers were submitted for review to California Housing and Community Development in February 2021, after which an appeals process will take place during the Summer and Fall of 2021.
THESE NUMBERS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER HCD REVIEW 11 4 POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSEHOLD
CHARACTERISTICS
4.1 Population
The Bay Area is the fifth-largest metropolitan area in the nation and has seen a steady increase in population since 1990, except for a dip during the Great Recession. Many cities in the region have experienced significant growth in jobs and population. While these trends have led to a corresponding increase in demand for housing across the region, the regional production of housing has largely not kept pace with job and population growth. Since 2000, Newark’s population has increased by 15.3%; this rate is above that of the region as a whole, at 14.8%. In Newark, roughly 9.5% of its population moved during the past year, a number 3.9 percentage points smaller than the regional rate of 13.4%.
Table 2: Population Growth Trends
Geography 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Newark 37861 39681 42471 43522 42573 44371 48966
Alameda County 1276702 1344157 1443939 1498963 1510271 1613528 1670834 Bay Area 6020147 6381961 6784348 7073912 7150739 7595694 7790537 Universe: Total population
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
For more years of data, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-01.
In 2020, the population of Newark was estimated to be 48,966 (see Table 2). From 1990 to 2000, the population increased by 12.2%, while it increased by 0.2% during the first decade of the 2000s. In the most recent decade, the population increased by 15.0%. The population of Newark makes up 2.9% of Alameda County.7
7 To compare the rate of growth across various geographic scales, Figure 1 shows population for the jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the year 1990. This means that the data points represent the population growth (i.e. percent change) in each of these geographies relative to their populations in 1990. 12 Figure 1: Population Growth Trends
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series Note: The data shown on the graph represents population for the jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the first year shown. The data points represent the relative population growth in each of these geographies relative to their populations in that year.
For some jurisdictions, a break may appear at the end of each decade (1999, 2009) as estimates are compared to census counts.
DOF uses the decennial census to benchmark subsequent population estimates.
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-01.
4.2 Age
The distribution of age groups in a city shapes what types of housing the community may need in the near future. An increase in the older population may mean there is a developing need for more senior housing options, while higher numbers of children and young families can point to the need for more family housing options and related services. There has also been a move by many to age-in-place or downsize to stay within their communities, which can mean more multifamily and accessible units are also needed.
In Newark, the median age in 2000 was 32.2; by 2019, this figure had increased, landing at around 37 years. More specifically, the population of those under 14 has decreased since 2010, while the 65-andover population has increased (see Figure 2). 13 Figure 2: Population by Age, 2000-2019
Universe: Total population
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 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-04.
Looking at the senior and youth population by race can add an additional layer of understanding, as families and seniors of color are even more likely to experience challenges finding affordable housing.
People of color8 make up 51.4% of seniors and 73.8% of youth under 18 (see Figure 3).
8 Here, we count all non-white racial groups
14 Figure 3: Senior and Youth Population by Race
Universe: Total population
Notes: In the sources for this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity, and an overlapping category of Hispanic / non-Hispanic groups has not been shown to avoid double counting in the stacked bar chart.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-G) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table SEN-02.
4.3 Race and Ethnicity
Understanding the racial makeup of a city and region is important for designing and implementing effective housing policies and programs. These patterns are shaped by both market factors and government actions, such as exclusionary zoning, discriminatory lending practices and displacement that has occurred over time and continues to impact communities of color today9. Since 2000, the percentage of residents in Newark identifying as White has decreased – and by the same token 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 Figure 4). In absolute terms, the Asian / API, NonHispanic population increased the most while the White, Non-Hispanic population decreased the most.
9 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law : a forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing. 15 Figure 4: Population by Race, 2000-2019
Universe: Total population
Notes: Data for 2019 represents 2015-2019 ACS estimates. The Census Bureau defines Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity separate from racial categories. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015- 2019), Table B03002
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-02.
4.4 Employment Trends
4.4.1 Balance of Jobs and Workers
A city houses employed residents who either work in the community where they live or work elsewhere in the region. Conversely, a city may have job sites that employ residents from the same city, but more often employ workers commuting from outside of it. Smaller cities typically will have more employed residents than jobs there and export workers, while larger cities tend to have a surplus of jobs and import workers. To some extent the regional transportation system is set up for this flow of workers to the region’s core job centers. At the same time, as the housing affordability crisis has illustrated, local imbalances may be severe, where local jobs and worker populations are out of sync at a sub-regional scale.
One measure of this is the relationship between workers and jobs. A city with a surplus of workers “exports” workers to other parts of the region, while a city with a surplus of jobs must conversely “import” them. Between 2002 and 2018, the number of jobs in Newark increased by 15.3% (see Figure 5).
16 Figure 5: Jobs in a Jurisdiction
Universe: Jobs from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment Notes: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files, 2002-2018 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-11.
There are 17,935 employed residents, and 17,168 jobs10 in Newark - the ratio of jobs to resident workers is 0.96; Newark is a net exporter of workers.
Figure 6 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 lowincome 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 may cast extra light on potentially pent-up 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. Such flows are not inherently bad, though over time, sub-regional imbalances may appear. Newark has more low-wage jobs than low-wage residents (where low-wage refers to jobs paying less than $25,000). At the other end of the wage
10 Employed residents in a jurisdiction is counted by place of residence (they may work elsewhere) while jobs in a jurisdiction are counted by place of work (they may live elsewhere). The jobs may differ from those reported in Figure 5 as the source for the time series is from administrative data, while the cross-sectional data is from a survey.
17 spectrum, the city has more high-wage residents than high-wage jobs (where high-wage refers to jobs paying more than $75,000) (see Figure 6).
11 Figure 6: Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence
Universe: Workers 16 years and over with earnings
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data 2015-2019, B08119, B08519 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-10.
Figure 7 shows the balance of a jurisdiction’s resident workers to the jobs located there for different wage groups as a ratio instead - a value of 1 means that a city has the same number of jobs in a wage group as it has resident workers - in principle, a balance. Values above 1 indicate a jurisdiction will need to import workers for jobs in a given wage group. At the regional scale, this ratio is 1.04 jobs for each worker, implying a modest import of workers from outside the region (see Figure 7).
11 The source table is top-coded at $75,000, precluding more fine grained analysis at the higher end of the wage spectrum.
18 Figure 7: Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group
Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment Notes: The ratio compares job counts by wage group from two tabulations of LEHD data: Counts by place of work relative to counts by place of residence. See text for details.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs); Residence Area Characteristics (RAC) files (Employed Residents), 2010-2018 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-14.
Such balances between jobs and workers may directly influence the housing demand in a community.
New jobs may draw new residents, and when there is high demand for housing relative to supply, many workers may be unable to afford to live where they work, particularly where job growth has been in relatively lower wage jobs. This dynamic not only means many workers will need to prepare for long commutes and time spent on the road, but in the aggregate it contributes to traffic congestion and time lost for all road users.
If there are more jobs than employed residents, it means a city is relatively jobs-rich, typically also with a high jobs to household ratio. Thus bringing housing into the measure, the jobs-household ratio in Newark has increased from 1.33 in 2002, to 1.49 jobs per household in 2018 (see Figure 8). 19 Figure 8: Jobs-Household Ratio
Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment; households in a jurisdiction Notes: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized. The ratio compares place of work wage and salary jobs with households, or occupied housing units. A similar measure is the ratio of jobs to housing units. However, this jobs-household ratio serves to compare the number of jobs in a jurisdiction to the number of housing units that are actually occupied. The difference between a jurisdiction’s jobs-housing ratio and jobs-household ratio will be most pronounced in jurisdictions with high vacancy rates, a high rate of units used for seasonal use, or a high rate of units used as short-term rentals.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs), 2002-2018; California Department of Finance, E-5 (Households) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-13.
4.4.2 Sector Composition
In terms of sectoral composition, the largest industry in which Newark residents work is Manufacturing, Wholesale & Transportation, and the largest sector in which Alameda residents work is Health & Educational Services (see Figure 9). For the Bay Area as a whole, the Health & Educational Services industry employs the most workers.
20 Figure 9: Resident Employment by Industry
Universe: Civilian employed population age 16 years and over Notes: The data displayed shows the industries in which jurisdiction residents work, regardless of the location where those residents are employed (whether within the jurisdiction or not). Categories are derived from the following source tables:
Agriculture & Natural Resources: C24030_003E, C24030_030E; Construction: C24030_006E, C24030_033E; Manufacturing, Wholesale & Transportation: C24030_007E, C24030_034E, C24030_008E, C24030_035E, C24030_010E, C24030_037E; Retail:
C24030_009E, C24030_036E; Information: C24030_013E, C24030_040E; Financial & Professional Services: C24030_014E, C24030_041E, C24030_017E, C24030_044E; Health & Educational Services: C24030_021E, C24030_024E, C24030_048E, C24030_051E; Other: C24030_027E, C24030_054E, C24030_028E, C24030_055E Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24030 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-06.
4.4.3 Unemployment
In Newark, there was a 3.7 percentage point decrease in the unemployment rate between January 2010 and January 2021. Jurisdictions through the region experienced a sharp rise in unemployment in 2020 due to impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic, though with a general improvement and recovery in the later months of 2020.
21 Figure 10: Unemployment Rate
Universe: Civilian noninstitutional population ages 16 and older Notes: Unemployment rates for the jurisdiction level is derived from larger-geography estimates. This method assumes that the rates of change in employment and unemployment are exactly the same in each sub-county area as at the county level. If this assumption is not true for a specific sub-county area, then the estimates for that area may not be representative of the current economic conditions. Since this assumption is untested, caution should be employed when using these data. Only not seasonallyadjusted labor force (unemployment rates) data are developed for cities and CDPs.
Source: California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Sub-county areas monthly updates, 2010-2021.
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-15.
4.5 Extremely Low-Income Households
Despite the economic and job growth experienced throughout the region since 1990, the income gap has continued to widen. California is one of the most economically unequal states in the nation, and the Bay Area has the highest income inequality between high- and low-income households in the state12.
In Newark, 57.5% of households make more than 100% of the Area Median Income (AMI)13, compared to
10.3% making less than 30% of AMI, which is considered extremely low-income (see Figure 11).
12 Bohn, S.et al. 2020. Income Inequality and Economic Opportunity in California. Public Policy Institute of California.
13 Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. Households making between 80 and 120 percent of the AMI are moderate-income, those making 50 to 80 percent are low-income, those making 30 to 50 22 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.
Note on Estimating the Projected Number of Extremely Low-Income Households Local jurisdictions are required to provide an estimate for their projected extremely low-income households in their Housing Elements. HCD’s official Housing Element guidance notes that jurisdictions can use their RHNA for very low-income households (those making 0-50% AMI) to calculate their projected extremely low-income households. For more information, visit HCD’s Building Blocks page on Extremely Low-Income Housing Needs.
This document does not contain the required data point of projected extremely low-income households, as Bay Area jurisdictions have not yet received their final RHNA numbers. Once Newark receives its 6th Cycle RHNA, staff can estimate the projected extremely low-income households using one of the following three methodologies:
Option A: Assume that 59.8% of Newark’s very low-income RHNA is for extremely low-income households.
According to HCD’s Regional Housing Need Determination for the Bay Area, 15.5% of the region’s housing need is for 0-30% AMI households while 25.9% is for 0-50% AMI households. Therefore, extremely low-income housing need represents 59.8% of the region’s very low-income housing need, as 15.5 divided by 25.9 is 59.8%. This option aligns with HCD’s guidance to use U.S. Census data to calculate the percentage of very low-income RHNA that qualifies for extremely low-income households, as HCD uses U.S. Census data to calculate the Regional Housing Need Determination.
Option B: Assume that 55.2% of Newark’s very low-income RHNA is for extremely low-income households.
According to the data shown below (Figure 11), 2,508 of Newark’s households are 0-50% AMI while 1,384 are extremely low-income. Therefore, extremely low-income households represent 55.2% of households who are 0-50% AMI, as 1,384 divided by 2,508 is 55.2%. This option aligns with HCD’s guidance to use U.S. Census data to calculate the percentage of very low-income RHNA that qualifies for extremely low-income households, as the information in Figure 11 represents a tabulation of Census Bureau Data.
Option C: Assume that 50% of Newark’s very low-income RHNA is for extremely low-income households.
HCD’s guidance notes that instead of using use U.S. Census data to calculate the percentage of very low-income RHNA that qualifies for extremely low-income households, local jurisdictions can presume that 50% of their RHNA for very low-income households qualifies for extremely low-income households.
percent are very low-income, and those making less than 30 percent are extremely low-income. This is then adjusted for household size.
23 Figure 11: Households by Household Income Level
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. The data that is reported for the Bay Area is not based on a regional AMI but instead refers to the regional total of households in an income group relative to the AMI for the county where that household is located. Local jurisdictions are required to provide an estimate for their projected extremely low-income households (0-30% AMI) in their Housing Elements. HCD’s official Housing Element guidance notes that jurisdictions can use their RHNA for very low-income households (those making 0-50% AMI) to calculate their projected extremely low-income households. As Bay Area jurisdictions have not yet received their final RHNA numbers, this document does not contain the required data point of projected extremely low-income households. The report portion of the housing data needs packet contains more specific guidance for how local staff can calculate an estimate for projected extremely low-income households once jurisdictions receive their 6th cycle RHNA numbers.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table ELI-01.
Throughout the region, there are disparities between the incomes of homeowners and renters.
Typically, the number of low-income renters greatly outpaces the amount of housing available that is affordable for these households.
In Newark, the largest proportion of renters falls in the Greater than 100% of AMI income group, while the largest proportion of homeowners are found in the Greater than 100% of AMI group (see Figure 12). 24 Figure 12: Household Income Level by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-21.
Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents.14 These economic disparities also leave communities of color at higher risk for housing insecurity, displacement or homelessness. In Newark, Black or African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents experience the highest rates of poverty, followed by American Indian or Alaska Native (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents (see Figure 13).
14 Moore, E., Montojo, N. and Mauri, N., 2019. Roots, Race & Place: A History of Racially Exclusionary Housing the San Francisco Bay Area. Hass Institute.
25 Figure 13: Poverty Status by Race
Universe: Population for whom poverty status is determined Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the population for whom poverty status is determined for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the population for whom poverty status is determined.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17001(A-I) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table ELI-03.
4.6 Tenure
The number of residents who own their homes compared to those who rent their homes can help identify the level of housing insecurity – ability for individuals to stay in their homes – in a city and region. Generally, renters may be displaced more quickly if prices increase. In Newark there are a total of 14,047 housing units, and fewer residents rent than own their homes: 31.2% versus 68.8% (see Figure 14). By comparison, 46.5% of households in Alameda County are renters, while 44% of Bay Area households rent their homes.
26 Figure 14: Housing Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-16.
Homeownership rates often vary considerably across race/ethnicity in the Bay Area and throughout the country. These disparities not only reflect differences in income and wealth but also stem from federal, state, and local policies that limited access to homeownership for communities of color while facilitating homebuying for white residents. While many of these policies, such as redlining, have been formally disbanded, the impacts of race-based policy are still evident across Bay Area communities.15 In Newark, 54.1% of Black households owned their homes, while homeownership rates were 74.5% for Asian households, 54.1% for Latinx households, and 77.1% for White households. Notably, recent changes to state law require local jurisdictions to examine these dynamics and other fair housing issues when updating their Housing Elements.
15 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law : a forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing. 27 Figure 15: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003(A-I) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-20.
The age of residents who rent or own their home can also signal the housing challenges a community is experiencing. Younger households tend to rent and may struggle to buy a first home in the Bay Area due to high housing costs. At the same time, senior homeowners seeking to downsize may have limited options in an expensive housing market.
In Newark, 43.6% of householders between the ages of 25 and 44 are renters, while 13.5% of householders over 65 are (see Figure 16).
28 Figure 16: Housing Tenure by Age
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25007 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-18.
In many cities, homeownership rates for households in single-family homes are substantially higher than the rates for households in multi-family housing. In Newark, 82.3% of households in detached single-family homes are homeowners, while 22.7% of households in multi-family housing are homeowners (see Figure 17).
29 Figure 17: Housing Tenure by Housing Type
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25032 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-22.
4.7 Displacement
Because of increasing housing prices, displacement is a major concern in the Bay Area. Displacement has the most severe impacts on low- and moderate-income residents. When individuals or families are forced to leave their homes and communities, they also lose their support network.
The University of California, Berkeley has mapped all neighborhoods in the Bay area, identifying their risk for gentrification. They find that in Newark, 0.0% of households live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement and 0.0% live in neighborhoods at risk of or undergoing gentrification.
Equally important, some neighborhoods in the Bay Area do not have housing appropriate for a broad section of the workforce. UC Berkeley estimates that 31.8% of households in Newark live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely to be excluded due to prohibitive housing costs.16
16 More information about this gentrification and displacement data is available at the Urban Displacement Project’s webpage: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/. Specifically, one can learn more about the different gentrification/displacement typologies shown in Figure 18 at this link:
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/typology_sheet_2018_0.png. Additionally, one can view maps that show which typologies correspond to which parts of a jurisdiction here:
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/san-francisco/sf-bay-area-gentrification-and-displacement 30 Figure 18: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure Universe: Households
Notes: Displacement data is available at the census tract level. Staff aggregated tracts up to jurisdiction level using census 2010 population weights, assigning a tract to jurisdiction in proportion to block level population weights. Total household count may differ slightly from counts in other tables sourced from jurisdiction level sources. Categories are combined as follows for simplicity: At risk of or Experiencing Exclusion: At Risk of Becoming Exclusive; Becoming Exclusive; Stable/Advanced Exclusive At risk of or Experiencing Gentrification: At Risk of Gentrification; Early/Ongoing Gentrification; Advanced Gentrification Stable Moderate/Mixed Income: Stable Moderate/Mixed Income Susceptible to or Experiencing Displacement: LowIncome/Susceptible to Displacement; Ongoing Displacement Other: High Student Population; Unavailable or Unreliable Data Source: Urban Displacement Project for classification, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 for tenure.
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-25. 31 5 HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS
5.1 Housing Types, Year Built, Vacancy, and Permits
In recent years, most housing produced in the region and across the state consisted of single-family homes and larger multi-unit buildings. However, some households are increasingly interested in “missing middle housing” – including duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage clusters and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). These housing types may open up more options across incomes and tenure, from young households seeking homeownership options to seniors looking to downsize and age-in-place.
The housing stock of Newark in 2020 was made up of 69.6% single family detached homes, 9.5% single family attached homes, 4.4% multifamily homes with 2 to 4 units, 16.5% multifamily homes with 5 or more units, and 0.0% mobile homes (see Figure 19). In Newark, the housing type that experienced the most growth between 2010 and 2020 was Single-Family Home: Detached.
Figure 19: Housing Type Trends
Universe: Housing units
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-01.
Production has not kept up with housing demand for several decades in the Bay Area, as the total number of units built and available has not yet come close to meeting the population and job growth experienced throughout the region. In Newark, the largest proportion of the housing stock was built 1960 to 1979, with 7,737 units constructed during this period (see Figure 20). Since 2010, 4.9% of the current housing stock was built, which is 713 units.
32 Figure 20: Housing Units by Year Structure Built
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-04.
Vacant units make up 3.5% of the overall housing stock in Newark. The rental vacancy stands at 2.6%, while the ownership vacancy rate is 1.7%. Of the vacant units, the most common type of vacancy is For Seasonal, Recreational, Or Occasional Use (see Figure 21).17 Throughout the Bay Area, vacancies make up 2.6% of the total housing units, with homes listed for rent; units used for recreational or occasional use, and units not otherwise classified (other vacant) making up the majority of vacancies. The Census Bureau classifies a unit as vacant if no one is occupying it when census interviewers are conducting the American Community Survey or Decennial Census. Vacant units classified as “for recreational or occasional use” are those that are held for shortterm periods of use throughout the year. Accordingly, vacation rentals and short-term rentals like AirBnB are likely to fall in this category. The Census Bureau classifies units as “other vacant” if they are vacant due to foreclosure, personal/family reasons, legal proceedings, repairs/renovations, abandonment, preparation for being rented or sold, or vacant for an extended absence for reasons such as a work assignment, military duty, or incarceration.18 In a region with a thriving economy and housing market like the Bay Area, units being renovated/repaired and prepared for rental or sale are likely to represent a large portion of the “other vacant” category. Additionally, the need for seismic retrofitting
17 The vacancy rates by tenure is for a smaller universe than the total vacancy rate first reported, which in principle includes the full stock (3.5%). The vacancy by tenure counts are rates relative to the rental stock (occupied and vacant) and ownership stock (occupied and vacant) - but exclude a a significant number of vacancy categories, including the numerically significant other vacant. 18 For more information, see pages 3 through 6 of this list of definitions prepared by the Census Bureau:
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf.
33 in older housing stock could also influence the proportion of “other vacant” units in some jurisdictions.19
Figure 21: Vacant Units by Type
Universe: Vacant housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-03.
Between 2015 and 2019, 829 housing units were issued permits in Newark. 95.7% of permits issued in Newark were for above moderate-income housing, 4.3% were for moderate-income housing, and 0.0% were for low- or very low-income housing (see Table 3).
Table 3: Housing Permitting
Income Group value
Above Moderate Income Permits 793
Moderate Income Permits 36
Low Income Permits 0
Very Low Income Permits 0
Universe: Housing permits issued between 2015 and 2019
Notes: HCD uses the following definitions for the four income categories: Very Low Income: units affordable to households making less than 50% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Low Income: units affordable to households making between 50% and 80% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Moderate Income: units affordable to households making between 80% and 120% of the Area Median Income for the
19 See Dow, P. (2018). Unpacking the Growth in San Francisco’s Vacant Housing Stock: Client Report for the San Francisco Planning Department. University of California, Berkeley. 34 county in which the jurisdiction is located. Above Moderate Income: units affordable to households making above 120% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located.
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit Summary (2020)
This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table HSG-11.
5.2 Assisted Housing Developments At-Risk of Conversion While there is an immense need to produce new affordable housing units, ensuring that the existing affordable housing stock remains affordable is equally important. Additionally, it is typically faster and less expensive to preserve currently affordable units that are at risk of converting to market-rate than it is to build new affordable housing.
The data in the table below comes from the California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database, the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing. However, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state, so there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table. There are 274 assisted units in Newark in the Preservation Database. Of these units, 0.0% are at High Risk or Very High Risk of conversion.20 Note on At-Risk Assisted Housing Developments
HCD requires that Housing Elements list the assisted housing developments at risk of converting to market-rate uses. For more information on the specific properties that are at Moderate Risk, High Risk, or Very High Risk of conversion, local jurisdiction staff should contact Danielle Mazzella, Preservation & Data Manager at the California Housing Partnership, at [email protected].
Table 4: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion
Income Newark Alameda County Bay Area
Low 274 23040 110177
Moderate 0 167 3375
High 0 189 1854
Very High 0 106 1053
Total Assisted Units in Database 274 23502 116459
Universe: HUD, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), USDA, and CalHFA projects. Subsidized or assisted developments that do not have one of the aforementioned financing sources may not be included.
20 California Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database:
Very-High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate within the next year that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.
High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 1-5 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.
Moderate Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 5-10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.
Low Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.
35 Notes: While California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database is the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state. Consequently, there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table. Per HCD guidance, local jurisdictions must also list the specific affordable housing developments at-risk of converting to market rate uses. This document provides aggregate numbers of at-risk units for each jurisdiction, but local planning staff should contact Danielle Mazzella with the California Housing Partnership at [email protected] to obtain a list of affordable properties that fall under this designation. California Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database: Very-High Risk: affordable homes that are atrisk of converting to market rate within the next year that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 1-5 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. Moderate Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 5-10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. Low Risk: affordable homes that are atrisk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.
Source: California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database (2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table RISK-01.
5.3 Substandard Housing
Housing costs in the region are among the highest in the country, which could result in households, particularly renters, needing to live in substandard conditions in order to afford housing. Generally, there is limited data on the extent of substandard housing issues in a community. However, the Census Bureau data included in the graph below gives a sense of some of the substandard conditions that may be present in Newark. For example, 0.3% of renters in Newark reported lacking a kitchen and 0.0% of renters lack plumbing, compared to 0.3% of owners who lack a kitchen and 0.1% of owners who lack plumbing.
Note on Substandard Housing
HCD requires Housing Elements to estimate the number of units in need of rehabilitation and replacement. As a data source for housing units in need of rehabilitation and replacement is not available for all jurisdictions in the region, ABAG was not able to provide this required data point in this document. To produce an estimate of housing needs in need of rehabilitation and replacement, staff can supplement the data below on substandard housing issues with additional local information from code enforcement, recent windshield surveys of properties, building department data, knowledgeable builders/developers in the community, or nonprofit housing developers or organizations. For more information, visit HCD’s Building Blocks page on Housing Stock Characteristics. 36 Figure 22: Substandard Housing Issues
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Per HCD guidance, this data should be supplemented by local estimates of units needing to be rehabilitated or replaced based on recent windshield surveys, local building department data, knowledgeable builders/developers in the community, or nonprofit housing developers or organizations.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25053, Table B25043, Table B25049 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-06.
5.4 Home and Rent Values
Home prices reflect a complex mix of supply and demand factors, including an area’s demographic profile, labor market, prevailing wages and job outlook, coupled with land and construction costs. In the Bay Area, the costs of housing have long been among the highest in the nation. The typical home value in Newark was estimated at $978,600 by December of 2020, per data from Zillow. The largest proportion of homes were valued between $750k-$1M (see Figure 23). By comparison, the typical home value is $951,380 in Alameda County and $1,077,230 the Bay Area, with the largest share of units valued $500k-$750k.
The region’s home values have increased steadily since 2000, besides a decrease during the Great Recession. The rise in home prices has been especially steep since 2012, with the median home value in the Bay Area nearly doubling during this time. Since 2001, the typical home value has increased 165.8% in Newark from $368,220 to $978,600. This change is above the change in Alameda County, and above the change for the region (see Figure 24).
37 Figure 23: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units
Universe: Owner-occupied units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25075 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-07.
Figure 24: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
Universe: Owner-occupied housing units
Notes: Zillow describes the ZHVI as 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 38 ZHVI includes all owner-occupied housing units, including both single-family homes and condominiums. More information on the ZHVI is available from Zillow. The regional estimate is a household-weighted average of county-level ZHVI files, where household counts are yearly estimates from DOF’s E-5 series For unincorporated areas, the value is a population weighted average of unincorporated communities in the county matched to census-designated population counts.
Source: Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-08.
Similar to home values, rents have also increased dramatically across the Bay Area in recent years.
Many renters have been priced out, evicted or displaced, particularly communities of color. Residents finding themselves in one of these situations may have had to choose between commuting long distances to their jobs and schools or moving out of the region, and sometimes, out of the state.
In Newark, the largest proportion of rental units rented in the Rent $2000-$2500 category, totaling
26.8%, followed by 25.6% of units renting in the Rent $1500-$2000 category (see Figure 25). Looking beyond the city, the largest share of units is in the rent for $1500-$2000 category.
Figure 25: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-09.
Since 2009, the median rent has increased by 61.1% in Newark, from $1,510 to $2,110 per month (see Figure 26). In Alameda County, the median rent has increased 36.0%, from $1,240 to $1,690. The median rent in the region has increased significantly during this time from $1,200 to $1,850, a 54% increase.21
21 While the data on home values shown in Figure 24 comes from Zillow, Zillow does not have data on rent prices available for most Bay Area jurisdictions. To have a more comprehensive dataset on rental data for the region, the rent data in this document comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which may not fully 39 Figure 26: Median Contract Rent
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Notes: For unincorporated areas, median is calculated using distribution in B25056.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data releases, starting with 2005-2009 through 2015-2019, B25058, B25056 (for unincorporated areas). County and regional counts are weighted averages of jurisdiction median using B25003 rental unit counts from the relevant year.
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-10.
5.5 Overpayment and Overcrowding
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.” Low-income residents are the most impacted by high housing costs and experience the highest rates of cost burden. Spending such large portions of their income on housing puts low-income households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, or homelessness.
reflect current rents. Local jurisdiction staff may want to supplement the data on rents with local realtor data or other sources for rent data that are more current than Census Bureau data. 40 Figure 27: Cost Burden by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-06.
Renters are often more cost-burdened than owners. While the housing market has resulted in home prices increasing dramatically, homeowners often have mortgages with fixed rates, whereas renters are more likely to be impacted by market increases. When looking at the cost burden across tenure in Newark, 29.7% of renters spend 30% to 50% of their income on housing compared to 16.2% of those that own (see Figure 27). Additionally, 14.1% of renters spend 50% or more of their income on housing, while 7.6% of owners are severely cost-burdened.
In Newark, 12.4% of households spend 50% or more of their income on housing, while 19.2% spend 30% to 50%. However, these rates vary greatly across income categories (see Figure 28). For example, 56.6% of Newark households making less than 30% of AMI spend the majority of their income on housing. For Newark residents making more than 100% of AMI, just 0.8% are severely cost-burdened, and 89.0% of those making more than 100% of AMI spend less than 30% of their income on housing. 41 Figure 28: Cost Burden by Income Level
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-05.
Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. As a result, they often pay a greater percentage of their income on housing, and in turn, are at a greater risk of housing insecurity.
American Indian or Alaska Native, Non-Hispanic residents are the most cost burdened with 46.2% spending 30% to 50% of their income on housing, and Hispanic or Latinx residents are the most severely cost burdened with 22.1% spending more than 50% of their income on housing (see Figure 29). 42 Figure 29: Cost Burden by Race
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-08.
Large family households often have special housing needs due to a lack of adequately sized affordable housing available. The higher costs required for homes with multiple bedrooms can result in larger families experiencing a disproportionate cost burden than the rest of the population and can increase the risk of housing insecurity.
In Newark, 22.3% of large family households experience a cost burden of 30%-50%, while 13.4% of households spend more than half of their income on housing. Some 18.5% of all other households have a cost burden of 30%-50%, with 12.1% of households spending more than 50% of their income on housing (see Figure 30).
43 Figure 30: Cost Burden by Household Size
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-09.
When cost-burdened seniors are no longer able to make house payments or pay rents, displacement from their homes can occur, putting further stress on the local rental market or forcing residents out of the community they call home. Understanding how seniors might be cost-burdened is of particular importance due to their special housing needs, particularly for low-income seniors. 21.8% of seniors making less than 30% of AMI are spending the majority of their income on housing. For seniors making more than 100% of AMI, 89.3% are not cost-burdened and spend less than 30% of their income on housing (see Figure 31).
44 Figure 31: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San JoseSunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table SEN-03.
Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living in a household is greater than the home was designed to hold. There are several different standards for defining overcrowding, but this report uses the Census Bureau definition, which is more than one occupant per room (not including bathrooms or kitchens). Additionally, the Census Bureau considers units with more than 1.5 occupants per room to be severely overcrowded.
Overcrowding is often related to the cost of housing and can occur when demand in a city or region is high. In many cities, overcrowding is seen more amongst those that are renting, with multiple households sharing a unit to make it possible to stay in their communities. In Newark, 9.3% of households that rent are severely overcrowded (more than 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 0.6% of households that own (see Figure 32). In Newark, 17.7% of renters experience moderate overcrowding (1 to 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 4.9% for those own. 45 Figure 32: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-01.
Overcrowding often disproportionately impacts low-income households. 3.6% of very low-income households (below 50% AMI) experience severe overcrowding, while 1.4% of households above 100% experience this level of overcrowding (see Figure 33).
46 Figure 33: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-04.
Communities of color are more likely to experience overcrowding similar to how they are more likely to experience poverty, financial instability, and housing insecurity. People of color tend to experience overcrowding at higher rates than White residents. In Newark, the racial group with the largest overcrowding rate is Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) (see Figure 34) 47 Figure 34: Overcrowding by Race
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and nonHispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25014 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-03. 48 6 SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
6.1 Large Households
Large households often have different housing needs than smaller households. If a city’s rental housing stock does not include larger apartments, large households who rent could end up living in overcrowded conditions. In Newark, for large households with 5 or more persons, most units (57.4%) are owner occupied (see Figure 35). In 2017, 17.4% of large households were very low-income, earning less than 50% of the area median income (AMI).
Figure 35: Household Size by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table LGFEM-01.
The unit sizes available in a community affect the household sizes that can access that community.
Large families are generally served by housing units with 3 or more bedrooms, of which there are 10,345 units in Newark. Among these large units with 3 or more bedrooms, 17.4% are owner-occupied and 82.6% are renter occupied (see Figure 36).
49 Figure 36: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25042 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-05.
6.2 Female-Headed Households
Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, particularly femaleheaded households, who may be supporting children or a family with only one income. In Newark, the largest proportion of households is Married-couple Family Households at 63.0% of total, while FemaleHeaded Households make up 11.8% of all households. 50 Figure 37: Household Type
Universe: Households
Notes: For data from the Census Bureau, a “family household” is a household where two or more people are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. “Non-family households” are households of one person living alone, as well as households where none of the people are related to each other.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-23.
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 more challenging.
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 (see Figure 38). 51 Figure 38: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status Universe: Female Households
Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table LGFEM-05.
6.3 Seniors
Senior households often experience a combination of factors that can make accessing or keeping affordable housing a challenge. They often live on fixed incomes and are more likely to have disabilities, chronic health conditions and/or reduced mobility.
Seniors who rent may be at even greater risk for housing challenges than those who own, due to income differences between these groups. The largest proportion of senior households who rent make 0%-30% of AMI, while the largest proportion of senior households who are homeowners falls in the income group Greater than 100% of AMI (see Figure 39).
52 Figure 39: Senior Households by Income and Tenure
Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San JoseSunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table SEN-01.
6.4 People with Disabilities
People with disabilities 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 are in need of specialized care, yet often rely on family members for assistance due to the high cost of care.
When it comes to housing, people with disabilities are not only in need of affordable housing but accessibly designed housing, which offers greater mobility and opportunity for independence.
Unfortunately, the need typically outweighs what is available, particularly in a housing market with such high demand. People with disabilities are at a high risk for housing insecurity, homelessness and institutionalization, particularly when they lose aging caregivers. Figure 40 shows the rates at which different disabilities are present among residents of Newark. Overall, 7.6% of people in Newark have a disability of any kind.22
22 These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed.
53 Figure 40: Disability by Type
Universe: Civilian noninstitutionalized population 18 years and over Notes: These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed. The Census Bureau provides the following definitions for these disability types:
Hearing difficulty: deaf or has serious difficulty hearing. Vision difficulty: blind or has serious difficulty seeing even with glasses. Cognitive difficulty: has serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions. Ambulatory difficulty: has serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. Self-care difficulty: has difficulty dressing or bathing. Independent living difficulty:
has difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18102, Table B18103, Table B18104, Table B18105, Table B18106, Table B18107.
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table DISAB-01.
State law also requires Housing Elements to examine the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities. Developmental disabilities are defined as severe, chronic, and attributed to a mental or physical impairment that begins before a person turns 18 years old. This can include Down’s Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and mild to severe mental retardation. Some people with developmental disabilities are unable to work, rely on Supplemental Security Income, and live with family members. In addition to their specific housing needs, they are at increased risk of housing insecurity after an aging parent or family member is no longer able to care for them.23 In Newark, of the population with a developmental disability, children under the age of 18 make up
56.3%, while adults account for 43.7%.
23 For more information or data on developmental disabilities in your jurisdiction, contact the Golden Gate Regional Center for Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties; the North Bay Regional Center for Napa, Solano and Sonoma Counties; the Regional Center for the East Bay for Alameda and Contra Costa Counties; or the San Andreas Regional Center for Santa Clara County.
54 Table 5: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age Age Group value
Age Under 18 156
Age 18+ 121
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Age Group (2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table DISAB-04.
The most common living arrangement for individuals with disabilities in Newark is the home of parent /family /guardian.
Table 6: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence Residence Type value
Home of Parent /Family /Guardian 244
Community Care Facility 20
Independent /Supported Living 12
Foster /Family Home 5
Other 0
Intermediate Care Facility 0
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table DISAB-05.
6.5 Homelessness
Homelessness remains an urgent challenge in many communities across the state, reflecting a range of social, economic, and psychological factors. Rising housing costs result in increased risks of community members experiencing homelessness. Far too many residents who have found themselves housing insecure have ended up unhoused or homeless in recent years, either temporarily or longer term.
Addressing the specific housing needs for the unhoused population remains a priority throughout the region, particularly since homelessness is disproportionately experienced by people of color, people with disabilities, those struggling with addiction and those dealing with traumatic life circumstances. In Alameda County, the most common type of household experiencing homelessness is those without children in their care. Among households experiencing homelessness that do not have children, 84.0% are unsheltered. Of homeless households with children, most are sheltered in emergency shelter (see Figure 41).
55 Figure 41: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Alameda County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019)
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-01.
People of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. Consequently, people of color are often disproportionately impacted by homelessness, particularly Black residents of the Bay Area. In Alameda County, Black or African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents represent the largest proportion of residents experiencing homelessness and account for 47.3% of the homeless population, while making up 10.6% of the overall population (see Figure 42).
56 Figure 42: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, Alameda County
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. HUD does not disaggregate racial demographic data by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness. Instead, HUD reports data on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness in a separate table.
Accordingly, the racial group data listed here includes both Hispanic/Latinx and non-Hispanic/Latinx individuals.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-02.
In Alameda, Latinx residents represent 17.3% of the population experiencing homelessness, while Latinx residents comprise 22.5% of the general population (see Figure 43). 57 Figure 43: Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, Alameda County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. The data from HUD on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for individuals experiencing homelessness does not specify racial group identity. Accordingly, individuals in either ethnic group identity category (Hispanic/Latinx or non-Hispanic/Latinx) could be of any racial background.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-03.
Many of those experiencing homelessness are dealing with severe issues – including mental illness, substance abuse and domestic violence – that are potentially life threatening and require additional assistance. In Alameda County, homeless individuals are commonly challenged by severe mental illness, with 2,590 reporting this condition (see Figure 12). Of those, some 78.3% are unsheltered, further adding to the challenge of handling the issue.
Note on Homelessness Data
Notably all the data on homelessness provided above is for the entire county. This data comes from the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Point in Time count, which is the most comprehensive publicly available data source on people experiencing homelessness. HUD only provides this data at the countylevel and not for specific jurisdictions. However, Housing Element law requires local jurisdictions to estimate or count of the daily average number of people lacking shelter. Therefore, staff will need to supplement the data in this document with additional local data on the number of people experiencing homelessness. If staff do not have estimates of people experiencing homelessness in their jurisdiction readily available, HCD recommends contacting local service providers such as continuum-of-care providers, local homeless shelter and service providers, food 58 programs, operators of transitional housing programs, local drug and alcohol program service providers, and county mental health and social service departments.24
Figure 44: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Alameda County
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. These challenges/characteristics are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one challenge/characteristic. These counts should not be summed.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019)
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-04.
In Newark, the student population experiencing homelessness totaled 300 during the 2019-20 school year and increased by 9.1% since the 2016-17 school year. By comparison, Alameda County has seen a
18.7% 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 8.5%. 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% of the Alameda County total and 2.2% of the Bay Area total.
24 For more information, see HCD’s Building Blocks webpage for People Experiencing Homelessness:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/housing-needs/people-experiencinghomelessness.shtml 59 Table 7: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness AcademicYear Newark Alameda County Bay Area
2016-17 275 3531 14990
2017-18 236 3309 15142
2018-19 192 3182 15427
2019-20 300 2870 13718
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 considers students to be homeless if they are unsheltered, living in temporary shelters for 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 this table was obtained at the school site 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) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table HOMELS-05.
6.6 Farmworkers
Across the state, housing for farmworkers has been recognized as an important and unique concern.
Farmworkers generally receive wages that are considerably lower than other jobs and may have temporary housing needs. Finding decent and affordable housing can be challenging, particularly in the current housing market.
In Newark, the migrant worker student population totaled 72 during the 2019-20 school year and has decreased by 24.0% since the 2016-17 school year. The trend for the region for the past few years has been a decline of 2.4% in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year. The change at the county level is a 9.6% decrease in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016- 17 school year.
Table 8: Migrant Worker Student Population
AcademicYear Newark Alameda County Bay Area
2016-17 75 874 4630
2017-18 79 1037 4607
2018-19 72 785 4075
2019-20 57 790 3976
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools
Notes: The data used for this table was obtained at the school site 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) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table FARM-01. 60 According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Census of Farmworkers, the number of permanent farm workers in Alameda County has decreased since 2002, totaling 305 in 2017, while the number of seasonal farm workers has decreased, totaling 288 in 2017 (see Figure 45).
Figure 45: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, Alameda County Universe: Hired farm workers (including direct hires and agricultural service workers who are often hired through labor contractors)
Notes: Farm workers are considered seasonal if they work on a farm less than 150 days in a year, while farm workers who work on a farm more than 150 days are considered to be permanent workers for that farm.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table FARM-02.
6.7 Non-English Speakers
California has long been an immigration gateway to the United States, which means that many languages are spoken throughout the Bay Area. Since learning a new language is universally challenging, it is not uncommon for residents who have immigrated to the United States to have limited English proficiency. This limit can lead to additional disparities if there is a disruption in housing, such as an eviction, because residents might not be aware of their rights or they might be wary to engage due to immigration status concerns. In Newark, 6.7% of residents 5 years and older identify as speaking English not well or not at all, which is below the proportion for Alameda County.
Throughout the region the proportion of residents 5 years and older with limited English proficiency is 8%.
61 Figure 46: Population with Limited English Proficiency Universe: Population 5 years and over
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B16005 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table AFFH-03.
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX B PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
AND INPUT SUMMARY
From March 15th through April 30th, 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 social media, print newsletters, email lists to special populations (e.g., seniors, individuals with developmental disabilities), in-person events, and outreach to partner organizations. Our partner organizations were able to extend our reach to the Latinx community, people experiencing and escaping from domestic violence, individuals transitioning from homelessness, and families in the Newark Unified School District.
Essential insights from the survey are that quality of life, in addition to increasing housing affordability and homeownership opportunities for Newark residents, is of great importance and concern.
Approach to Analyses
The following is a summary of responses to each survey question broken down by answer choice.
Response Count signifies the number of selections made for a particular answer choice while Respondent Percent signifies the number of respondents who chose the answer choice out of the total number of survey respondents (i.e., 342 people), including the 38 Spanish responses and 4 Chinese responses.
Note: For multi-select questions, the respondent percentages may reflect more than one selection by a single individual rather than all unique responses. Additionally, please keep in mind that for these questions the response count will not sum to the number of respondents who answered the question.
APPENDIX B PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND INPUT SUMMARY B-1
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Q1. How concerned are you about the availability of affordable housing in Newark?
Answer Choices Response Count Respondent % (out of 342) Very concerned 182 53%
Somewhat concerned 76 22%
Not that concerned 44 13%
Not at all concerned 35 10%
No opinion/ not sure 4 1%
Number of Respondents 341 100%
Q2. As we look to improve housing opportunities in Newark, which of the following do you think are the three biggest issues we need to address? Answer Choices
Response Count
(multi-select)
Respondent %
(out of 342)
We need more homeownership opportunities
especially for first time homeowners
226 66%
We need more affordable rental opportunities 140 41%
We need to encourage more housing types
(apartments, accessory dwelling Units,
duplexes/triplexes)
93 27%
We need more opportunities for those that are
unhoused or in danger of being unhoused
96 28%
We need stronger protections for renters
(minimum lease terms, relocation benefits)
44 13%
We need low cost home improvement programs for
seniors and those on limited incomes
135 39%
Other (please specify) 60 18%
Number of Respondents 319 93%
APPENDIX B PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND INPUT SUMMARY B-2
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Q3. Thinking about the cost of housing from one year ago … Answer Choices
Response
Count
Respondent %
(out of 342)
It is much less expensive to find a home 8 2%
Somewhat less expensive 6 2%
About the same 22 6%
Somewhat more expensive 73 21%
Much more expensive 188 55%
Does not apply/don't know 10 3%
Number of Respondents 307 90%
Q4. Based on the definition of “affordable” housing as being housing that takes 30% or less of your income to pay for it, how would you describe your current housing situation?
Answer Choices Response Count
Respondent %
(out of 342)
I’m in a home I like at a price I can afford 136 40%
I’m in a home I like but it’s taking more than
30% of my income to be here
97 28%
I’m in a home I can afford, but it’s not a place
I like or meets my needs
54 16%
I’m in a home I can’t afford, and don’t like 28 8%
Number of Respondents 315 92%
APPENDIX B PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND INPUT SUMMARY B-3
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Q5. If you’re not happy with your current housing situation, what would make it better? (Check all that apply.)
Answer Choices
Response Count
(multi-select)
Respondent %
(out of 342)
I need a home with more space 106 31%
I would like to live in a different neighborhood 44 13% I rent, but would like to own my own home 86 25%
I need a place that is more accessible due to disabilities 14 4% I need a home with fewer housemates or roommates 24 7%
I like my home, but need to pay less 67 20%
I’m happy with my current housing situation 113 33%
Number of Respondents 299 87%
Q6. Of the following five options, which three do you think are the most urgent affordable housing needs in Newark at this time? Answer Choices
Response Count
(multi-select)
Respondent %
(out of 342)
Housing for families - larger units with more bedrooms for all families, especially multigenerational or large families 171 50%
Housing for smaller households - smaller units or housing types for young adults and couples starting out, single households, students and seniors looking to downsize
148 43%
Housing for seniors - specific developments for seniors, including housing with supportive services
112 33%
Housing for people with special needs - greater accessibility and supportive services for those with disabilities
47 14%
Housing for those experiencing homelessness - transitional housing and permanent supportive housing
82 24%
Housing for low-income and underserved households – subsidized housing
119 35%
Other (please specify) 30 9%
Number of Respondents 298 87%
APPENDIX B PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND INPUT SUMMARY B-4
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Q7. Thinking about the future of your neighborhood, what gives you optimism?
The survey received more than 200 responses to this question which were categorized and summarized in part in the community engagement summary included in this Housing Element.
Q8. Do you see your neighborhood as a place of opportunity for yourself and/or your family?
Answer Choices
Response
Count
Respondent %
(out of 342)
Yes 121 35%
No 60 18%
Somewhat 96 28%
Number of Respondents 277 81%
Q9. If you didn’t answer yes to the previous question, what are three of the most pressing issues that would need to change to feel like there is more opportunity? (Please select up to three)
Answer Choices
Response Count
(multi-select)
Respondent %
(out of 342)
Pollution from vehicles on neighborhood streets and freeways 55 16% Healthy food and grocery stores close to home or work 71 21% City infrastructure and facilities that support physical activity, including sidewalks, bicycle lanes, parks, and recreation centers 112 33%
Air or chemical pollution from industrial businesses and activities.
52 15%
Easy to access health care facilities 35 10%
Affordable, safe, and healthy housing conditions 106 31% Educational opportunities that are academically and culturally supportive
86 25%
Number of Respondents 219 64%
APPENDIX B PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND INPUT SUMMARY B-5
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Q10. The city could do a variety of things to create more housing affordability. of the following six options, which three do you think are the most promising or worth doing? (Please choose 3)
Answer Choices
Response Count
(multi-select)
Respondent %
(out of 342)
Create incentives for building affordable housing 120 35% Reduce the cost of building all housing, but especially affordable housing through lower fees and faster approvals
113 33%
Allow for a larger variety of housing through the city 93 27% Use city-owned land for affordable housing 94 27%
Use city funds to get more state, federal and private funding for affordable housing (through the city’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund)
117 34%
Enact policies such as inclusionary zoning that allow for a portion of affordable units in each development
96 28%
Number of Respondents 260 76%
Q11. What kind of housing would you like to see more of? (Check all that apply.)
Answer Choices Response Count(multi-select) Respondent % (out of 342) Backyard cottages 125 37%
Duplexes, triplexes and fourplex 86 25%
Cottage clusters 106 31%
Townhomes 104 30%
Small to mid-size multifamily 77 23%
Multifamily buildings downtown 75 22%
Number of Respondents 252 74%
APPENDIX B PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND INPUT SUMMARY B-6
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Q12. Where in Newark would you like to see more housing? (Please select all that apply)
Answer Choices
Response Count
(multi-select)
Respondent %
(out of 342)
Old Town (Thornton Ave between Cherry Street and Ash Street) 141 41% Bayside Newark (formerly known as The Dumbarton
Transit-Oriented Development, near Willow Street and Enterprise Drive)
99 29%
NewPark Place area (Newpark Mall Road and Cedar Blvd) 156 46% Other (please specify) 46 13%
Number of Respondents 248 73%
Q13. Which hazards, both natural and human, do you think are most important for Newark to address? (Please choose three)
Answer Choices
Response Count
(multi-select)
Respondent %
(out of 342)
None of the above 8 2%
Wildfires 53 15%
More frequent and intense heat waves 87 25%
Earthquakes 119 35%
Multi-year drought 179 52%
Sea-level rise and related flooding 150 44%
Hazardous materials spills 70 20%
Other (please specify) 32 9%
Number of Respondents 264 77%
APPENDIX B PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND INPUT SUMMARY B-7
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Q14. How concerned are you about the impact of sea level rise, bringing the possibility of increased flooding to the lower-lying communities of Newark?
Answer Choices
Response
Count
Respondent %
(out of 342)
Very concerned about the impact flooding will have on lower-lying communities
100 29%
Somewhat concerned about the impact flooding will have on these communities
92 27%
Not really concerned about it 50 15%
No opinion, don’t have enough information 26 8%
Number of Respondents 268 78%
Q15. Are there pollution and environmental issues you are concerned about in your neighborhood or larger community? (If so, please check all that apply.)
Answer Choices
Response Count
(multi-select)
Respondent %
(out of 342)
Issues related to car and truck traffic: Noise, air pollution 126 37% Issues connected to industry in the area: air pollution, dangerous fumes, dumping of chemicals
121 35%
Poor quality drinking water 81 24%
Trash in public spaces, vacant lots, graffiti 168 49%
Other (please specify) 29 8%
Number of Respondents 250 73%
APPENDIX B PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND INPUT SUMMARY B-8
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Q16. What is your connection to Newark? (Please select all that apply.) Answer Choices
Response Count
(multi-select)
Respondent %
(out of 342)
Live here 242 71%
Work here 51 15%
Go to school here 40 12%
Have a business here 15 4%
Have family or grew up here (but do not live here) 23 7% Interested in Newark housing issues (but do not live here) 10 3% Number of Respondents 255 75%
Q17. Currently I live…
Answer Choices Response Count Respondent % (out of 342) In a home or condo I own 168 49%
In a home or apartment I rent 72 21%
In an unstable/unhoused situation 3 1%
Prefer not to say 11 3%
Number of Respondents 254 74%
Q18. How would you describe your home?
Answer Choices Response Count Respondent % (out of 342) A single family home 196 57%
A multi-family home such as a duplex or
apartment building
53 15%
A mobile or manufactured home 1 0.3%
Other (please specify) 7 2%
Number of Respondents 250 73%
APPENDIX B PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND INPUT SUMMARY B-9
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Q19. What is your age?
Answer Choices Response Count Respondent % (out of 342) Under 19 1 0.3%
20-29 9 3%
30-49 153 45%
50-69 72 21%
70+ 18 5%
Number of Respondents 253 74%
Q20. What is your race and/or ethnicity? (Check all that apply.) Answer Choices Response Count(multi-select) Respondent % (out of 342) American Indian or Alaskan Native 8 2%
Asian or Asian American 63 18%
Black or African American 3 1%
Hispanic or Latino 82 24%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 8 2%
White or Caucasian 107 31%
Other (please specify) 10 3%
Number of Respondents 241 70%
APPENDIX B PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND INPUT SUMMARY B-10
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Q21. We would love for you to be involved in this process. If you have not attended public meetings in the past, please share what is keeping you from attending. (Please check all that apply.)
Answer Choices
Response Count
(multi-select)
Respondent %
(out of 342)
I have difficulty understanding what is being said in English 18 5% I don't have the time to attend – too busy with work and/ or family 102 30%
I need child care to attend 25 7%
I don’t feel that my opinions are heard and taken into
consideration 88 26%
The time and /or day of the week meetings are held makes it difficult for me to attend 47 14%
Other (please specify) 52 15%
Number of Respondents 200 58%
Q22. and let us know if there’s anything else you want to tell us:
The city received more than 200 comments which were categorized and used to inform policies and programs reflected in this document.
APPENDIX B PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND INPUT SUMMARY B-11
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES
INVENTORY
Introduction
A Housing Element must include an inventory of available land that is appropriately zoned and suitable for housing development to accommodate a jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) as required by State law. This inventory for the City of Newark focuses on residential sites that are currently in the development pipeline, or vacant and non-vacant sites that can be made available for housing development affordable at varying income levels. This Appendix summarizes the evaluation of potential housing sites, and the adequacy of sites to meet development capacities to accommodate the City’s regional housing needs for the 2023-2031 planning period.
California law (Government Code Sections 65583 (a)(3)) requires that the Housing Element contain an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and non-vacant (i.e., underutilized) sites having potential for development. State law also requires an analysis of the relationship to zoning and services to these sites as well as identifying sites throughout the community, in a manner that is consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH).
The analysis presented in this Appendix demonstrates that there is an adequate supply of suitable land to accommodate the City’s housing allocation of 1,874 units, plus a surplus of 980 units to act as a “buffer” if sites develop to non-residential or at different affordability levels than assumed in the sites inventory. This section is organized by the following topics:
● Summary of Newark’s projected housing needs by AMI level ● Capacity to Accommodate RHNA
● Sites selection process, including a description of the methodology and evaluation of site criteria, realistic unit capacity, and sites to accommodate varied income levels ● Evaluation of sites in meeting AFFH requirements
● Individual site profiles
Projected Housing Needs
A key component of any Housing Element Update is identifying adequate sites to address the jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determines state-wide projected housing needs and allocates new housing unit target numbers to regional councils of government (COGs). State law (California Government Code Section 65584) provides for COGs to then prepare and adopt plans APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-1
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
that assign a “fair share” of the region’s housing needs to each city and county. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the COG that determines fair-share portions of state allocations for Newark. .
The City’s RHNA requirements for the 2023-2031 Housing Element projection period are summarized in Table C- 1 below. For the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period, the City of Newark is required to plan to accommodate the development of at least 1,874 housing units. This includes 464 units for very low-income households, 268 units for low-income households, 318 units for moderate-income households, and 824 units for above moderate-income households.
Housing Needs for Extremely Low-Income Households
Although the RHNA does not include allocations for extremely low-income households, Housing Element Law requires that jurisdictions estimate the need for housing units affordable to extremely low-income households and plan to accommodate this need. Extremely low-income households are those with incomes less than 30% of area median income. In Alameda County, 30% of the AMI is the equivalent to an annual income of $42,850 for a family of four. Households with extremely low incomes have a variety of housing situations and needs. For example, most families and individuals receiving public assistance, such as supplemental security insurance (SSI) or disability insurance, are considered extremely low-income households. Many households with multiple wage earners – including food service workers, full-time students, teachers, farmworkers, and healthcare professionals – can also fall into lower AMI categories due to relatively stagnant wages in these industries.
HCD’s official Housing Element guidance notes that jurisdictions can use their RHNA for very low-income households (those making zero to 50 percent AMI) to calculate their projected need for extremely low-income households. HCD provides three methodologies for estimating this need: 1) allocate the percentage of very low-income need to extremely low-income households based on the ABAG region’s proportion; 2) allocate the percentage of very low-income need to extremely low -income households based on the current proportion for Newark; 3) assume that 50 percent of Newark’s very low-income RHNA is for extremely low-income households. 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 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.
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-2
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Capacity to Accommodate RHNA
The total realistic development capacity of all sites in the land inventory is detailed in Table C-1 below which lists all consolidated sites in the sites inventory and total residential capacity against the City’s 6th cycle RHNA. The total realistic capacity shown is 2,854 units, which exceeds the net target of 1,874 units the City is required to plan to accommodate for its RHNA, and also supplements that allocation by providing a significant buffer representing more than 100 percent of the required RHNA for all income levels; this includes a 13 percent buffer for very low-income units and 10 percent for low-income units. HCD recommends that jurisdictions provide a 15 to 30 percent buffer beyond the minimum RHNA target to comply with the “no net loss” provisions of State Housing Element Law that require the jurisdiction to maintain sufficient capacity to accommodate its RHNA for the duration of the planning period at every income level. In addition to considering the aggregate number of units that the sites can accommodate, it is necessary to consider the potential for sites to accommodate housing that is affordable to all income levels, in accordance with the RHNA allocations, as discussed in the “Evaluation of Sites to Accommodate Varied Income Levels” .
Each of the two primary project types, Pipeline Projects and Sites Zoned for Housing, are presented in Table C-1 below and described in further detail in the Sites Selection section. As shown in Table C-1, the number of units from Pipeline Projects represents 67 percent of the city’s RHNA, including 59 percent of Newark’s RHNA for very low-income (VLI) housing. Though these Pipeline units do not fulfill the RHNA allocation at every income level, this demonstrates there are sufficient sites for the City’s RHNA and provides strong evidence there is residential developer interest and economic feasibility for housing development on the types of sites, including non-vacant sites, identified in this inventory. Table C-2 lists the APNs and acreage for all sites zoned for housing.
The following map shows the distribution of sites throughout the City of Newark with an inset for the boundary of the Old Town Specific Plan. Parcels indicated in yellow are active project sites (pipeline projects) while sites indicated in red are sites zoned for housing, or locations whose zoning and land use will support new housing. The map also shows three specific plan areas: Old Town Specific Plan, Bayside Newark, and NewPark Place Specific Plan. The site numbers match data in the following tables which show unit counts and the more detailed summary sheets found later in this document.
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-3
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure C-1: Housing Sites for the RHNA 6th Cycle
Source: Adapted by Community Planning Collaborative, 2023 APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-4
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table C-1: City of Newark Sites Inventory
Site Name
Income Level
Total Units
Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Planned and Proposed Projects (Also known as pipeline projects are sites 1 through 13) 1 Bridgeway / Gateway
(under construction)
0 0 0 134 134
2 FMC Willow - North (Parcel C)
(entitled)
47 23 21 64 155
3 FMC Willow - South
(entitled)
0 0 0 215 215
4 Harbor Pointe
(under construction)
0 0 0 192 192
5 Cedar Homes- 38478 Cedar Boulevard
(entitled)
0 0 0 118 118
6 Cedar Community Apts.
(complete)
124 0 0 1 125
7 Timber St. Senior Living
(entitled)
39 39 1 0 79
8 Lepakshi Homes - Building A, 6781 Thornton
Ave.
(active application)
0 0 0 60 60
9 Lepakshi Homes - Building B, 6781 Thornton
Ave.
(active application)
8 4 3 13 28
10 SAHA Development- 6347 -6375 Thornton
Ave.
(active application)
56 0 1 0 57
11 Mulberry Residential 36952 Mulberry Street
(entitled)
0 0 0 8 8
12 Bain Ave. & Magnolia St. - 37280 Magnolia
Street
(under construction)
0 0 0 10 10
13 Waymark Homes - Cedar Blvd (entitled) 0 0 0 76 76
Subtotal Planned and Proposed 274 66 26 891 1,257
Sites Zoned for Housing (Vacant and Nonvacant sites are sites 14 through 28) APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-5
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Site Name
Income Level
Total Units
Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
14 NewPark Place (Phases A to D) 36 18 18 535 607
15 Grocery Outlet Shopping Center 27 26 0 0 53
16 Thornton Ave. Sites (within Old Town
Specific Plan boundary)
41 41 40 40 162
17 Cedar Blvd. and Timber St. Industrial Sites 0 0 0 61 61 18 E-Z 8 Motel 39 38 0 0 77
19 Cherry Plaza 15 15 0 0 30
20 Thornton Ave. Sites (outside of Old Town
Specific Plan boundary)
18 18 18 17 71
21 Sycamore St. Vacant Lot 25 25 24 0 74
22 Cedar Blvd. Public Storage Sites 0 0 0 41 41
23 Filbert Villas - 37243 & 37257 Filbert St.
(expired entitlement)
0 0 0 16 16
24 Filbert Ave. Sites 0 0 0 7 7
25 Mayhews Place - 36589 Newark Boulevard
(expired entitlement)
0 0 0 9 9
26 Locust St. & Railroad - 37093 Locust St.
(expired entitlement)
0 0 0 6 6
27 Fahmy Homes - 37503 & 37511 Cherry
Street (expired entitlement)
0 0 0 6 6
28 Neighborhood Infill Lots 0 0 0 17 17
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) 48 48 48 16 160
Middle Housing Units 0 0 200 0 200
Subtotal Sites Zoned for Housing 249 229 348 771 1,597
Total Capacity 523 295 374 1,662 2,854
Newark RHNA 464 268 318 824 1,874
Surplus % 113% 110% 118% 202% 152%
Surplus Units 59 27 56 838 980
Source: City of Newark; Community Planning Collaborative, 2023.
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-6
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table C-2: City of Newark Sites Inventory with APNs and Acreage # Name APN Acreage
GP Land
Use Zoning
Income Level
Total
Units
Very
Low Low Mod.
Above
Mod.
Planned and Proposed Projects
1 Bridgeway /
Gateway
assorted n/a LDR, MDR BTP 0 0 0 134 134
2 FMC Willow -
North
92-100-5 7.21 TS, R BTP 47 23 21 64 155
3 FMC Willow -
South
537-852-1-8 12.67 HDR, O, TS BTP 0 0 0 215 215
4 Harbor Pointe 537-852-1-3 1.71 HDR, O BTP 0 0 0 192 192 537-852-2-9 2.29
537-852-2-16 15.70
5 Cedar Homes 92A-2375-2-6 7.16 MDR RM 0 0 0 118 118
6 Cedar
Community
Apts.
901-195-38 1.36 CC CC 124 0 0 1 125
901-195-37 1.36
7 Timber St.
Senior Living
92A-2125-10-2 1.04 MDR RM 39 39 1 0 79
8 Lepakshi Homes
- Building A
92-30-17-2 0.17 CMU CMU 0 0 0 60 60
92-30-16-2 0.17
92-30-18-4 0.31
92-30-14-3 0.19
92-30-15-2 0.17
9 Lepakshi Homes
- Building B
92-31-16-2 0.17 CMU CMU 8 4 3 13 28
92-31-15 0.08
10 SAHA
DevelopmentThornton Ave.
92A-919-17-2 0.18 HDR RH 56 0 1 0 57
92A-919-16-2 0.18
92A-919-18 0.20
11 Mulberry St.
Residential
92-29-22 0.23 MDR RM
0 0 0 8 8
92-29-21 0.23
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-7
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
# Name APN Acreage
GP Land
Use Zoning
Income Level
Total
Units
Very
Low Low Mod.
Above
Mod.
12 Bain Ave. &
Magnolia St.
92-61-11 0.43 MDR RM 0 0 0 10 10
92-61-12-2 0.36
92-61-12-1 0.14
13 Waymark
Homes
92A-2585-12-1 0.83 MDR RM 0 0 0 76 76
92A-2585-30-4 0.35
92A-2585-31 2.62
Subtotal Planned and
Proposed
274 66 26 891 1,257
Sites Zoned for Housing
14 NewPark Mall
(Phases A to D)
901-111-19 9.71 Mixeduse I
RC 36 18 18 535 607
901-111-24 7.89
901-111-30 0.82
901-111-21 4.34
901-111-24 1.21
901-111-22 6.24
901-111-31 3.30
901-111-26 5.64
901-111-26 1.54
901-111-20 7.42
901-111-26 0.64
901-111-29 1.03
901-111-25 14.71
15 Grocery Outlet
Shopping Center
92A-900-1-2 4.62 CMU CMU 27 26 0 0 53
16 Thornton Ave.
Sites (within Old
Town Specific
Plan boundary)
92-50-1-3 0.13 CMU CMU 41 41 41 41 162
92-29-20-2 0.34
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-8
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
# Name APN Acreage
GP Land
Use Zoning
Income Level
Total
Units
Very
Low Low Mod.
Above
Mod.
92-29-16-2 0.17
92-29-15-2 0.09
92-50-2-3 0.13
92-29-19-2 0.17
92-29-18-2 0.17
92-51-5-3 0.50
92-50-3-3 0.13
92-29-14-2 0.08
92-29-17-2 0.17
92-29-13 0.16
92-51-2-3 0.27
17 Cedar Blvd. and
Timber St.
Industrial Sites
92A-2125-17 1.00 MDR RM 0 0 0 61 61
92A-2125-11-2 1.67
92A-2125-13 2.00
18 E-Z 8 Motel 92A-2585-32 2.24 HDR RH 39 38 0 0 77
19 Cherry Plaza 92-50-13 0.96 CMU CMU 15 15 0 0 30
20 Thornton Ave.
Sites (outside of
Old Town
Specific Plan
boundary)
92A-919-20-2 0.24 RHD RH 18 18 18 17 71
92A-919-11-2 0.21
92A-919-15-2 0.16
92A-919-13-2 0.19
92A-919-21-2 0.24
92A-919-12-2 0.16
92A-919-22-2 0.24
92A-919-14-2 0.21
92A-919-19-2 0.19
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-9
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
# Name APN Acreage
GP Land
Use Zoning
Income Level
Total
Units
Very
Low Low Mod.
Above
Mod.
21 Sycamore St.
Vacant Lot
92-255-11 1.81 RHD RH 25 25 24 0 74
22 Cedar Blvd.
Public Storage
Sites
92A-2375-32 1.44 RMD RM 0 0 0 41 41
92A-2375-32 1.46
23 Filbert St. Villas 92-131-3 0.17 RMD RM 0 0 0 16 16
92-54-4 0.18
92-54-5 0.21
24 Filbert Ave. Sites 92-54-6 0.31 RMD RM 0 0 0 7 7
92A-623-43 0.52
92-125-10 0.43
25 Mayhews Place 92A-623-43 0.52 LMDR MDR 0 0 0 9 9
26 Locust &
Railroad
92-125-10 0.43 LMDR RS 0 0 0 6 6
27 Fahmy Homes 92-75-5-2 0.18 MDR RM 0 0 0 6 6
92-75-4-2 0.20
28 Neighborhood
Infill Lots
92-135-23 0.19 LDR RS 0 0 0 17 17
92-127-13 0.17
92-136-15 0.14
92-24-10 0.17
92-127-20 0.43
92-125-2-2 0.42
Accessory
Dwelling Units
(ADUs)
n/a n/a 48 48 48 16 160
Middle Housing
Units
n/a n/a 0 0 200 0 200
Subtotal Sites Zoned
for Housing
249 229 348 771 1,597
Total Capacity 523 295 374 1,662 2,854
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-10
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
# Name APN Acreage
GP Land
Use Zoning
Income Level
Total
Units
Very
Low Low Mod.
Above
Mod.
Newark RHNA 464 268 318 824 1,874
Surplus % 113% 110% 118% 202% 152%
Surplus Units 59 27 56 838 980
Source: City of Newark; Community Planning Collaborative, 2023.
Site Selection Process
The following is a summary of the overall sites inventory process and the methodology and assumptions that support the sites selection process. Using guidance provided by HCD, an inventory of available sites was conducted by closely examining site characteristics and other HCD-established criteria. Primarily, sites were identified by using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping software from multiple datasets to identify parcels that fit the HCD-specified criteria as adequate housing sites. Sites were further refined over a series of working sessions and through input staff, the City Council and community and development sector stakeholders through the community engagement process. The information used to generate the sites inventory database was derived from these primary resources:
1. ABAG’s Housing Element Site Selection (HESS) Tool;
2. City of Newark current and long-term planning records and planning documents;
3. County of Alameda assessor’s data.
Housing sites identified as part of the site inventory analysis were evaluated using a variety of criteria to determine their ability to meet State requirements and meet the City’s RHNA, plus a buffer. The following sections describe the screening criteria and methodology applied for the site selection process. Once all sites had been selected and verified, the realistic density assumption was informed by and calculated from precedent projects in Newark, as well as from regional data provided by ABAG through the HESS tool realistic capacity module.
Methodology/Evaluation of Possible Sites
To meet the City’s RHNA requirement, three primary project types are identified in the sites inventory, as described below. The methodology and assumptions that support these project types are summarized in the “General Site Evaluation Considerations” and “Sites for Rezoning” sections.
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-11
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Planned and Proposed/Pipeline Projects
Pipeline Projects include those that have been approved, permitted, or received a final certificate of occupancy since the beginning of the RHNA projection period (which started on June 30, 2022). Based on HCD guidance, these projects may be credited toward meeting the RHNA allocation based on the affordability and unit count of the development. The following is a description of the subcategories under Pipeline Projects:
Approved/Under Construction: These projects include those that have been approved or are under construction and will receive a final certificate of occupancy after the beginning of the RHNA projection period, making these projects eligible to be counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA.
Proposed Projects: These are projects that are seeking entitlements. Project status includes formal applications or pre-applications under review, master plans with development agreements approved or under review (only those portions realistically expected to start construction by 2031), and sites owned by 100 percent affordable housing developers with the intent to submit applications in the next year.
Permits or certificates of occupancy for these Proposed Projects are expected to be issued in the 6th cycle, making these projects eligible to be counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA as well.
Project Status and Barriers to Development
The City expects to accommodate a significant percentage of its RHNA through planned and proposed projects. Currently, there are 13 projects which are in various stages of the development process and are expected to provide 1,257 units, 340 of which are lower income. One project, Cedar Community Apartments, has been completed and has provided 124 units of very low income housing. Three of the projects are in the construction phase, six are entitled, and three are active applications. Newark continues to see strong demand in multifamily housing as indicated by these planned and proposed projects and development trends from the previous planning cycle.
The following table (C-3), provides an overview of the different projects, potential barriers, likelihood of development within the planning period, and expected completion date. While numerous factors affect a project’s completion, many of which are outside of the purview of the City, all of the projects are likely to be completed within RHNA 6 planning period. Six of the thirteen projects have known barriers identified by the city, the most common being that building permits must be approved or a request for an entitlement extension must be submitted. The City is closely monitoring the progress of each of these projects and is in contact with applicants to provide guidance on how to keep project progress moving forward.
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-12
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table C-3: Planned and Proposed Sites with Project Status Site Name
Development
Stage
Remaining Steps
in Entitlement
Process
Known Barriers to
Developmentin Planning
Period
Likelihood of
Development
in Planning
Period
Expected
Completion
Income Level
Total
Units
Very
Low
Low Mod.
Above
Mod.
1 Bridgeway
/ Gateway
under
construction
none none Likely 2024 0 0 0 134 134
2 FMC
Willow -
North
(Parcel C)
entitled none none Likely Building
permits
issued late
2024;
construction
complete in
2026
47 23 21 64 155
3 FMC
Willow -
South
entitled none none Likely Building
permits
issued late
2024;
construction
complete in
2026
0 0 0 215 215
4 Harbor
Pointe
under
construction
none none Likely 2024 0 0 0 192 192
5 Cedar
Homes38478
Cedar
Boulevard
entitled none Clearance required for
underground leakage
from applicable agencies
prior to grading permit
issuance.
Building permit approval
or entitlement extension
required by May 25,
2025.
Likely Building
permits
issued
mid-2024;
construction
complete late
2025.
0 0 0 118 118
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-13
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Site Name
Development
Stage
Remaining Steps
in Entitlement
Process
Known Barriers to
Developmentin Planning
Period
Likelihood of
Development
in Planning
Period
Expected
Completion
Income Level
Total
Units
Very
Low
Low Mod.
Above
Mod.
6 Cedar
Community
Apts.
complete none none Complete 2023
124 0 0 1 125
7 Timber St.
Senior
Living
entitled none Construction closing
process must be complete
and construction started
by February 19, 2024 as
required by
TCAC/CDLAC.
Building permit approval
or request for entitlement
extension required by
October 28, 2024.
Likely Building
permits
issued Q1
2024;
construction
complete by
late 2025.
39 39 1 0 79
8 Lepakshi
Homes -
Building A,
6781
Thornton
Ave.
active
application
Completeness
determination;
CEQA review;
Planning
Commission and
City Council
review.
Visibility triangle
requirements for corner
lots must be met.
Main water line
adjustment needs to be
complete and new fire
hydrants need to be
added.
Likely Entitlements
issued by mid
2024;
building
permits
issued late
2024;
construction
complete by
mid-2026.
0 0 0 60 60
9 Lepakshi
Homes -
Building B,
6781
Thornton
Ave.
active
application
Completeness
determination;CE
QA review;
review; Planning
Commission and
City Council
review
None Likely Entitlements
issued by mid
2024;
building
permits
issued late
2024;
8 4 3 13 28
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-14
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Site Name
Development
Stage
Remaining Steps
in Entitlement
Process
Known Barriers to
Developmentin Planning
Period
Likelihood of
Development
in Planning
Period
Expected
Completion
Income Level
Total
Units
Very
Low
Low Mod.
Above
Mod.
construction
complete by
mid-2026.
10 SAHA
Developme
nt- 6347
-6375
Thornton
Ave.
active
application
Completeness
determination,
CEQA, public
hearings
Entitlement application
needed which is expected
in November 2023.
Likely Entitlements
issued in
2024;
construction
complete in
2026
56 0 1 0 57
11 Mulberry
Residential
36952
Mulberry
Street
entitled none Construction drawings
required which may be
delayed due to high
interest rates.
Building permit approval
or request for entitlement
extension required by
June 22, 2025.
Likely Building
permits
issued late
2024;
construction
complete in
early 2026
0 0 0 8 8
12 Bain Ave. &
Magnolia
St. - 37280
Magnolia
Street
under
construction
none none Likely 2023
0 0 0 10 10
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-15
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Site Name
Development
Stage
Remaining Steps
in Entitlement
Process
Known Barriers to
Developmentin Planning
Period
Likelihood of
Development
in Planning
Period
Expected
Completion
Income Level
Total
Units
Very
Low
Low Mod.
Above
Mod.
13 Waymark
Homes -
Cedar Blvd
entitled none Closing of sale on City
property must be
complete by January 12,
2024 per the Purchase &
Sale Agreement.
Building permit approval
or request for entitlement
extension required by
September 14, 2025.
Likely Building
permits
issued 2024;
construction
complete late
2026
0 0 0 76 76
Subtotal Planned
and Proposed
274 66 26 891 1,257
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-16
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Sites Zoned for Housing
Sites zoned for housing comprise the second main type of site to accommodate the City’s RHNA, including both vacant and non-vacant sites with available infrastructure and that meet a variety of criteria that make them candidates for residential development during the 6 th cycle planning period. These sites are
considered vacant or underutilized and are eligible for residential development as is currently allowed under the existing zoning in the General Plan or in one of the City’s adopted specific plans.
Accessory Dwelling Units and SB 9 Units
Accessory Dwelling Units are considered opportunities for residential development and are based on projected development during the planning period as is currently allowed under the existing zoning or General Plan. The sites inventory provided in Table C-1 assumes that Newark will continue to approve on the order of 15 units per year
15 . In addition, it is anticipated that homeowners in Newark will begin to take advantage of the opportunities to add additional housing units through the addition of new units on existing residential lots or through urban lot splits as provided in SB 9. 16 16 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/docs/planning-and-community-development/SB9FactSheet.pdf 15 The affordability levels assumed by Newark in the sites inventory for ADU production is supported by research conducted for ABAG’s RHTA program and is based on a robust statewide survey of ADUs by affordability level. https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-03/ADUs-Projections-Memo-final.pdf APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-17
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
General Site Evaluation Considerations
This section provides a summary of the evaluation considerations made as part of the analysis and a description of each consideration. As most of the city is already built with limited vacant parcels remaining, sites in the inventory primarily include non-vacant parcels that already have access to infrastructure and meet a variety of HCD criteria that make them suitable candidates for housing redevelopment. While sites not included in the sites inventory can also be developed for housing to meet RHNA targets, those sites identified in the inventory are considered optimal and most likely to develop and contribute to housing production in the 6th cycle. The following considerations were evaluated and are described in more detail in the following sections:
● Infrastructure Availability;
● Environmental Constraints;
● Site Status and Capacity (i.e., vacant, underutilized, existing uses, and residential zoning); ● Site Size;
● Permitted Density; and
● Evaluating Sites from Prior Housing Element(s).
Infrastructure Availability
The availability of utility infrastructure to a site can be a constraint to housing development and was considered as an evaluation criterion when working to identify sites for the inventory. As a primarily developed community, the City of Newark is well-served by existing infrastructure systems, including both wet and dry utilities. As much of Newark already has available or nearby access to water and wastewater services, wet utilities are not a constraint to residential development though minor upgrades to these services (e.g., expanded sewer and water hookups to the trunk line) may be needed to develop select sites for residential uses. All sites have been screened to have available infrastructure.
Environmental Constraints
The analysis of environmental constraints included a review of all parcels identified in the inventory using different GIS-based data screens as well as ABAG’s HESS tool to determine if sites possess one or more environmental constraint, including hazard risks such as parcel shapes, flood zones or wetlands, easements, contamination, steep slopes, and other possible constraints to development feasibility. Two sites, both in the construction phase, Bridgeway/Gateway and Harbor Pointe have floodplain exposure, which was mitigated during the entitlement process. None of the sites in the inventory, either planned or proposed or zoned for housing, have irregular shapes, or are impacted by either wetlands or critical habitat.
The sites zoned for housing in the sites inventory are located in urbanized areas of the City and do not have special hazard risks or significant environmental challenges. However, some of the sites zoned for housing have current or former industrial uses which may need contamination mitigation. Additional regulatory constraints or mitigation efforts have not been an issue for the projects that have been entitled or are in the entitlement process (for example, Waymark Homes and Timber St. Senior Living) in this APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-18
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
formerly industrial/warehouse area. For instance, the Environmental Impact Report for the Bayside Newark Specific Area Plan, an area that had considerable previous industrial contamination, outlines and addresses contamination and other environmental concerns which has led the way for significant housing construction. Where siting housing on parcels with environmental constraints may be unavoidable to accommodate the City’s housing need, risks would be addressed through building codes and other mitigation measures.
Site Status and Capacity
Sites in Newark which are zoned to accommodate housing include vacant and nonvacant sites in the zoning districts summarized in Section 4A. Residentially zoned sites, either vacant or underutilized, were considered as potential buildable residential sites and were evaluated for site adequacy and capacity.
Government Code Sections 65583(a)(3) and 65583.2 require that the inventory of suitable land look at criteria for vacant and underutilized sites as outlined below:
● Vacant sites that are zoned for multi-family development ● Vacant sites that are not zoned for multi-family development, but that allow such development ● Underutilized sites that are zoned for residential development and capable of being developed at a higher density or with greater intensity
● Sites that are not zoned for residential development, but can be redeveloped for and/or rezoned for multi-family residential development
● Sites owned or leased by the City that can be redeveloped for multi-family residential development within the housing cycle
● Sites controlled by the State, a city/county, or another public agency where there is agreement/documentation that the site can be developed within the housing cycle ● Non-vacant sites require substantial evidence to demonstrate that existing development will not preclude housing production during the planning period
A methodology to determine “underutilized” sites was necessary given that the City has shrinking supply of vacant land. Sites were removed from consideration in the underutilized methodology if sites: did not initially allow residential uses, were historic resources, were sites that support community-serving uses (parks, utilities, transportation, schools, hospitals), had structures that were recently built or modified, and were generally built out to their allowed density.
Sites owned by the City and other public agencies were also evaluated for affordable housing development, but none were identified as suitable at this time.
Site Size
Per State law, sites smaller than half an acre or larger than 10 acres are not considered adequate to accommodate lower income housing needs unless it can be demonstrated that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during prior planning periods, or other evidence is provided that sites at this size can be developed as lower income housing.
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-19
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Large Sites – There are no individual sites in the inventory larger than 10 acres (with the exception of one parcel within the NewPark Place Specific Plan Area which is 14.7 acres).
Small Sites – The sites inventory includes parcels that are less than or slightly greater than one-half acre in size. A screening of these smaller parcels and common ownership was conducted. Where smaller parcels were immediately adjacent to other Opportunity Sites that had the same landowner, these parcels were consolidated to create larger sites, given the likelihood of these consolidated sites being developed together as a single project (the SAHA Thornton Avenue project falls in this category). Recent proposals and projects underway confirm trends toward lot consolidation in Newark. Sites 8-13 are all recent examples of projects where lot consolidation is happening, entitlements have been issued (Sites 11 and 13) or are under review (Sites 8-10), and in some cases, construction is progressing (Site 12). In addition, interviews with the owners of Site 23 and 27, which have expired entitlements, confirm continued interest in parcel assembly (Site 23 has already been assembled) and development and do not indicate that lot consolidation is a barrier to development. In combination with Program 2.11, which will provide incentives for lot consolidation, conditions for the potential development of small parcels in Newark are promising. A full list of these and other sites is included in the sites inventory form to be prepared for submission to HCD for review.
Permitted Density
State law (Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)) establishes a “default density standard” of 30 units per acre for lower income units in a metropolitan jurisdiction such as Newark. This is the minimum density that is deemed appropriate in State law to accommodate the City’s lower income RHNA. In accordance with the State’s default density standards, sites that could support a minimum of 30 units per acre were considered appropriate for very low and low income units, as well as for moderate income units. All underutilized Opportunity Sites in the inventory can accommodate at least the default density.
Evaluating Sites from Prior Housing Element(s)
To accommodate the 2023-2031 RHNA, sites from both the 4th and 5th cycle housing elements were evaluated to determine their viability for the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period. As reflected in Program H3.6 and Table 6-2, the city has identified all parcels that need to be rezoned to accommodate RHNA during the planning period. Specifically, by January 31, 2024, Newark will implement zoning text amendments to provide adequate capacity for up to 602 units. This program will provide for a minimum density of 30 DU/A for sites to accommodate lower income RHNA units. The City will incorporate a replacement housing provision for any sites with existing residential use and will permit multifamily uses without discretionary action.
Pursuant to AB 1397, Newark will also amend the Zoning Ordinance to require by-right approval of housing development that includes 20 percent of the units as housing affordable to lower-income households, on sites being used to meet the 6th Cycle RHNA that represent “reuse sites” previously identified in the 4th and 5th Cycles Housing Element. The ten sites listed in Table 6-2 will be adjusted by text amendment to accommodate the lower income RHNA as needed.
Sites for Rezoning
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-20
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Government Code section 65583.2(h) sets requirements if sites are identified for rezoning to accommodate a lower income RHNA shortfall. The City’s sites inventory does not have a lower income shortfall, and therefore is not subject to those requirements.
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-21
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Realistic Capacity Evaluation - Approach and Methodology As required by Housing Element law, local governments must analyze available sites based on a determination of their realistic residential development capacity. Consistent with this requirement, Newark collected and analyzed data on precedent projects to evaluate the realistic capacity of both vacant sites and non-vacant/underutilized sites in both residential and commercial/mixed-use zones.
Specifically, the typical achieved densities of existing or approved residential development on sites in all zoning districts were analyzed to confirm their realistic capacity to achieve the identified number of housing units for each site by AMI level.
Land Use, Zoning and Development Standards and Realistic Capacity The precedent projects used as reference housing developments for this analysis are subject to the same land use controls and site improvement standards as the sites in the inventory. Local precedent projects were supplemented by sub-regional data provided from the ABAG HESS tool regarding typical achieved densities on projects in the Newark/Tri-City Market Area.
Realistic Capacity in Multifamily-Residential (RM, RH zones) For housing opportunity sites identified in the City’s multi-family residential districts (RM, RH), the realistic capacity assumption applied to total site capacity is 80 percent. This assumption is conservatively set lower than representative projects currently in the City’s development pipeline (see, for example, Site 7 in the below sites inventory, which is being built out at more than 100 percent of the maximum allowed density in the RM zone). This more conservative realistic capacity adjustment factor for sites in the RM and RH zones is also broadly consistent with 357 projects built in the Multi-Family Residential districts of the Tri-City area between 2018 and 2020.
17 Realistic Capacity in Commercial Mixed-Use, Regional Commercial (CMU, RC zones) and Other Non-Residential Zones
Per State Housing Element law, the realistic development capacity calculation for nonresidential, non-vacant, or overlay zoned sites must be adjusted to reflect the realistic potential for residential development capacity on the sites in the inventory. Specifically, when the site has the potential to be developed with non-residential uses, requires redevelopment, or has an overlay zone allowing the underlying zoning to be utilized for residential units, these capacity limits must be reflected in the Housing Element.
For this analysis, Newark has taken into account both recently developed and planned and proposed residential development in Newark as well as data from comparable projects in the Tri-City area obtained from the HESS tool. As detailed in the realistic capacity analyses provided for Sites 14 through 28, factors used to make the adjustment included:
● Local and regional residential development trends in non-residential zoning districts. 17 ABAG HESS tool
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-22
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
● Local or regional track records, past production trends, and development yields for redeveloping sites or site intensification.
● The likelihood for residential development based on recent precedents, market demand and City efforts to incentivize the development of 100 percent residential development on formerly commercial sites (see, for example, Site 14 Newpark Place, which contemplates new residential development on several sites that were formerly commercial).
Market data provided by the HESS tool identified 128 project(s) built in the non-residential districts of the Alameda South County/Tri-Cities Area between 2018 and 2020. The average number of units built as a percentage of the maximum allowable units on these sites was 130 percent. However, due to ground floor retail requirements and the experience of comparable pipeline projects, a more conservative feasibility multiplier of 80 percent was used in the sites inventory analysis to reflect local conditions in Newark, and also to take into account the unlikely event that commercial-only development would occur on these sites, despite recent development trends.
Development Trends in Commercial and Mixed-Use Zones
As noted, precedent projects were evaluated to determine the likely density of 100 percent residential development in each of the zones that permit housing in Newark. In general, throughout Newark and the larger Tri-City market area, residential uses have been outcompeting retail and office uses, and the overwhelming trend has been towards the conversion of existing commercial centers. The NewPark Place Specific Plan reflects this trend in that there is a planned downsizing of the commercial retail portions of the existing center in favor of higher density residential product types.
During the fifth cycle RHNA planning period, only five (5) non-residential commercial projects were developed on commercial or mixed-use sites in Newark. Specifically, these 100 percent commercial uses consisted of the following projects: three hotels developed on commercial and mixed-use sites; a new restaurant replacing an existing restaurant in a commercial zone; and, a Costco retail warehouse replacing existing commercial uses in the NewPark Place Specific Plan Area resulting in a net decrease in commercial floor area.
This Limited commercial development occurred in the context of over 30 residential development projects that were approved during the same time frame in residential and specific plan areas, representing thousands of new units. In addition, the City receives regular inquiries from developers interested in developing housing on existing commercial land, reflecting the strong trend towards the conversion of existing commercial land to residential and mixed-uses. Taking these development trend factors into account, the realistic capacity factor of 80% is extremely conservative in accounting for the limited possibility that future development on these sites may be 100% non-residential.
Overall Planning and Development Context for Residential Development in Formerly Non-Residential Areas
Newark has a history of reimagining underutilized sites for new housing development. As described in Section 4, Section A (Housing Constraints, Governmental Constraints) Newark has adopted specific plans in important transitional areas of the City that can accommodate a variety of uses, including residential APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-23
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
uses:
● Bayside Newark Specific Plan (formally known as the Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan) an area of over 200 acres that contained various industrial, manufacturing, chemical processing, and salt production facilities. Extensive environmental and hazardous materials remediation has been completed to allow the construction of dense single-family and multiple-family residential buildings. As of 2023, over 2,000 units have been approved, built, and/or are in a phase of construction.
● Old Town Specific Plan, an area of 76 acres representing some of Newark’s oldest neighborhoods.
The specific plan’s vision is the development of this corridor into a mixed-use area that accommodates a range of housing types, retail and service businesses, expanded public spaces, and mobility improvement. 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. The specific plan envisions approximately 400 net-new residential units to be located within the specific Plan area. ● NewPark Place Specific Plan 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. Thisspecific plan envisions over 1,500 residential units located in the existing shopping malls surface parking area. Residential uses are permitted uses within these surface parking areas; conditional use permits are not required.
In addition to adopting specific plans, the city has rezoned other areas of the city from commercial and industrial uses to residential uses. For example, through various zoning amendments and project entitlements, the light industrial neighborhood on the eastside of Cedar Boulevard between Central Avenue and Mowry Avenue is transforming into a dense urban neighborhood. Since 2014, over 700 residential units have been approved or constructed within this area.
Newark has consistently approved residential development on lands that have transitioned from industrial and other uses into high-quality residential neighborhoods, resulting in the production of thousands of units. This development is in addition to residential development on lands identified in the general plan and in zoning districts specifically for residential uses. Residential development is expected to continue, especially in areas where mixed-uses are allowed, based upon the implantation of housing element policies and State legislation that remove barriers to residential development on commercial and mixed-use sites.
Policies and Programs Incentivizing Residential Development in Commercial and Mixed Use Area
This above realistic capacity analysis is further supported by a range of policies and programs that the City has committed to implementing during the planning period. These policies include, but are not limited to, the following:
PROGRAM H2.3: Investigate Opportunities in the Four Corners Area to facilitate market-rate and affordable housing and promote neighborhood revitalization through increased mixed use development APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-24
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
and walkability.
POLICY H2.4: Work with community partners and property owners to revisit a community visioning plan for the Four Corners neighborhood/community commercial area.
PROGRAM H3.4: Adjust Zoning to Allow Mixed Use in Current Commercial Zones PROGRAM H4.10: Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Special Needs Housing In order to support an increase in this housing type in the city, SROs will be permitted use in Residential Medium Density, Commercial Mixed Use and Residential High Density zones, with a priority for SRO development to occur along transit corridors.
To align zoning with planned development areas and associated policies of developing pedestrian friendly, walkable neighborhoods, the city proposes to implement State laws SB6 and AB 2011 to encourage residential and mixed-use developments in current commercial zones.
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-25
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Evaluation of Sites to Accommodate Varied Income Levels One of the most important evaluation considerations of the sites selection process is to evaluate a site’s ability to accommodate households with varying income levels. To satisfy the RHNA requirement, the amount of lower, moderate, and above moderate income units is specified for each site in the inventory.
Furthermore, the unit capacity must be maintained throughout the 2023-2031 planning period.
Therefore, a buffer of at least 15 percent to 30 percent is generally recommended by HCD, and Newark’s sites inventory buffer is well beyond this recommendation. If sites listed in the inventory are redeveloped with other uses or different income levels than what is identified, the difference can be made up with the buffer sites to ensure there is “No Net Loss” of Suitability of Non-Vacant Sites.
Suitability of Non-Vacant Sites for Development
The lack of vacant land in Newark and the relatively high value of new residential development means that the City consistently sees the redevelopment of underutilized sites, a fact which is reflected most notably in the adoption and ongoing implementation of the Newpark Place Specific Plan. Developer and property interest in non-vacant commercial sites for future residential development has been strong in recent years, and the inventory included here is, by many measures, relatively conservative in terms of the number of non-vacant commercial sites included relative to market pressures.
Non-vacant opportunity sites in the inventory were screened based on the criteria previously described.
The consultant team worked closely with city staff to identify suitable properties and analyze existing uses and the conditions of buildings or lots on non-vacant sites. Property owner outreach was also conducted for the relevant sites, as well as analysis on constraints and market conditions. In each case, the analysis indicated that the opportunity sites included in this Housing Element Have a strong likelihood of developing as residential projects during the planning period.
Lower Income RHNA vis-a-vis Non Vacant Sites
State law requires additional analysis of existing uses in the sites inventory if more than 50 percent of the City’s low-income RHNA is accommodated on non-vacant sites. HCD has published guidance for how to determine this, which includes adjustments for proposed lower income projects and ADU capacity, in addition to vacant sites in the inventory. A substantial amount of the City’s lower-income units (more than 50 percent of the lower income RHNA) are within Pipeline Projects. In addition, the inventory includes affordable ADU units. In summary, less than 34 percent of Newark’s lower income RHNA is accommodated on non-vacant sites, which is below the 50 percent threshold. Therefore, no additional analysis is needed to support the site inventory’s non-vacant sites.
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-26
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table C-4: Lower Income RHNA vis-a-vis Non Vacant Sites, 2023 Site Location
Lower Income
Units
Percent of Lower
Income RHNA
Planned and Proposed Sites 340 46.4%
Vacant Sites (Sycamore St.) 50 6.8%
ADUs 96 13.1%
Total Lower Income RHNA 732 100%
Lower Income RHNA vis-a-vis Non Vacant Sites 246 33.6%
Site Profiles
The following site profiles provide specific information about each of the opportunity sites listed in Table C-1 and displayed vis-v-vis AFFH factors in the maps provided above. The sites include both planned and proposed projects as well as sites zoned for housing that will be available to be developed during the planning period. Each profile includes a description of the site’s general plan land use designation, zoning, site size and maximum allowable density. Notes regarding realistic capacity are included as well as available links to relevant planning documents and plans. Sites 1 through 13 are in the development pipeline process (either under construction, fully entitled or active applications) and sites 14 through 28 are locations identified for housing either from previous Housing Elements or new analysis. Sites identified as zoned for housing include detailed analyses of development standards, government constraints and environmental constraints. Tables summarizing development standards and unit yield are provided for sites 15 through 19, 21, 22, 24, and 25.
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-27
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
1 Bridgeway / Gateway (Bayside Newark) - under construction Zoning: Residential High Density, Residential
Medium Density
Specific Plan Designation: Medium/High
Density Residential
APNs: Consolidated sites with APNs to be listed
in the HCD electronic inventory form.
Size: 41 acres
Max Allowable Density 60 units per acre.
Realistic capacity based on approved entitlements or
developer proposal
On March 10, 2016, Newark City Council adopted Ordinance No. 492 which was a zoning amendment on property shown in Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8099 from MT-1 (High
Technology Park District) to MDR-FBC (Medium Density
Residential-Form Based Codes) and HDR-FBC (High Density Residential-Form Based Codes) as part of the Bayside Newark (formerly known as the Dunbarton TOD Specific Plan) to
develop the land as Gateway Station West.
The project, proposed by Integral Communities, calls for the phased development of 589 market-rate residential units within approximately 41 acres of the 54.5-acre project site, at an approximately density of 14.36 DU/A. A total of 321 single family detached homes and 268 attached condos are planned, along with streets, 1,473 parking spaces, sidewalks, trails, landscaping, parks, water quality treatment basins and
permanent open space. In addition, several off-site roadway, sidewalk and landscaping improvements may be constructed in conjunction with the project. The development site is located within the Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Project area.
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-28
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-29
2 FMC Willow - North (Bayside Newark) - entitled
Zoning: Business and Technology Park
Specific Plan Designation: Transit Station,
Commercial/Retail
APN: 92-100-5
Size: 7.2 acres
Max Allowable Density: Form-based code
Realistic capacity based on approved entitlements or
developer proposal
On 9/22/22, The City of Newark approved land use
modifications proposed by Lennar Home Builder, FMC
Corporation, and Integral Communities within the FMC
Willow and Grand Park portion of the Bayside Newark
Specific Plan area. The proposed modifications would
redevelop the 22.1-acre site into a 370-unit multi-family community including 279 townhouse units, a 1.6-acre
mixed-use area with 3,600 sq. ft. of retail, club room, fitness center, and 90 affordable units (plus 1 manager unit) within a 6-story building, a 5-acre community park (Grand Park), and a 1,485 sq. ft. community building, along with approx. 1.8 acres set aside for a future transit station.
The north site, known as FMC Willow - North” would contain the 91-unit affordable housing, mixed-use building, 64
multifamily units and the future transit station parcel for a total of 155 units. The 64 market-rate units would be UA Stack (multifamily). The UA Stacks would have five floor plans ranging from 1,696 square feet to 2,015 square feet, and they would be three-stories high.
Link to approved Application (Resolution No. 11,407)
Link to FMC Willow Staff Report
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
3 FMC Willow - South (Bayside Newark) - entitled
Zoning: Business and Technology Park
Specific Plan Designation: High Density
Residential, Commercial Office, Transit Station
APN: 537-852-1-8
Size: 12.6 acres
Max Allowable Density 60 units per acre.
Realistic capacity based on approved entitlements or
developer proposal
On 9/22/22, The City of Newark approved land use
modifications proposed by Lennar Home Builder, FMC
Corporation, and Integral Communities within the FMC
Willow and Grand Park portion of the Bayside Newark
Specific Plan area. The proposed modifications would
redevelop the 22.1-acre site into a 370-unit multi-family community including 279 townhouse units, a 1.6-acre
mixed-use area with 3,600 sq. ft. of retail, club room, fitness center, and 90 affordable units (plus 1 manager unit) within a 6-story building, a 5-acre community park (Grand Park), and a 1,485 sq. ft. community building, along with approx. 1.8 acres set aside for a future transit station.
The South Site of the project, known as “FMC Willow South”, (Grand Park, PA 3, and PA 4) would include a 1,485 square foot community building, 123 multifamily units, and 92
townhomes for a total of 215 units. The 123 units would be UA Split (multifamily), and 92 would be UA Towns
(townhomes). The UA Stacks would have 5 floorplans ranging from 1,696 square feet to 2,015 square feet. The UA Splits would have a standard option with 4 floorplans ranging from 1,307 square feet to 2,108 square feet and a 4-story option with 4 floorplans ranging from 1,307 square feet to 2,422 square feet. The homes would be 3-5 stories high.
Link to project plans.
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-30
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
4 Harbor Pointe, FMC Parcel C (Bayside Newark) - under construction Zoning: Business and Technology Park
Specific Plan Designation: High Density
Residential, Commercial/Office
APN: 537-852-2-9, 537-852-1-3, 537-852-2-16
Size: 13.6 acres
Max Allowable Density 60 units per acre.
Realistic capacity based on approved entitlements or
developer proposal
In line with the Bayside Newark Specific Plan (formerly known as the Dumbarton TOD), the City of Newark approved a title sheet and site plan submitted by Parcel C Project Owner, LLC.
The date on the filing is from 12/17/2018.
The developable area of 13.6 acres was subdivided to
accommodate 192 units over three planning areas. Planning Area 1 has a total 72 units at a density of 11.56 units to the acre, Planning Area 2 has a total of 75 units at 16.13 units per acre, and Planning 3 has a total of 45 units at 16.48 units per acre. The plan has multiple typologies which are both three and four bedroom single family units which will be sold at market rate. The project is being built in phases and multiple final maps may be filed.
Link to project plans.
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-31
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
5 Cedar Homes - 38478 Cedar Boulevard - entitled
Zoning: Residential Medium Density
General Plan Designation: Medium Density
Residential
APN: 92A-2375-2-6
Size: 7.76 acres
Max Allowable Density 30 dwelling units per
acre.
Realistic capacity based on approved entitlements or
developer proposal
According to application materials, Robson Homes, LLC
proposes to construct 118 residential units composed of single family residences and two-unit attached townhomes on a 7.76-acre site located at 38288-38594 Cedar Blvd. The site would be subdivided to create 124 lots including six common and 118 residential lots. The project would include
landscaping and open space areas, a new private street, and on-site and off-site improvements. Below is a rendering of an example unit.
Link to project plans.
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-32
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
6 Cedar Community Apartments - complete
Zoning: Community Commercial
General Plan Designation: Community
Commercial
APN: 901-195-37, 901-195-38
Size: 2.7 acres
Max Allowable Density 25-60 dwelling units per
acre.
Realistic capacity based on approved entitlements or
developer proposal
The Cedar Community Apartments project was selected for a Homekey grant valued at $38.2 million. This grant assisted with the acquisition and conversion of Town Place Suite into 125 apartment units that are affordable to extremely low-income households and households experiencing homelessness,
including 11 units that are reserved for military veterans. The grant also assists with the provision of resident services including education and employment services. 1 unit is at market rate for management.
The owner of the Towne Place Suites (TPS) extended-stay hotel in Newark and Allied Housing/Abode Services entered into an option agreement for the sale of the property. The hotel suites were converted into 124 supportive, affordable residential units to be known as Cedar Community Apartments. 60 units are for households who have experienced homelessness, and the other 64 are set aside for people at risk of homelessness.
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-33
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
7 Timber St. Senior Living - entitled
Zoning: Residential Medium Density
General Plan Designation: Medium Density
Residential
APN: 92A-2125-10-2
Size: 1.0 acre
Max Allowable Density 30 dwelling units per
acre.
Realistic capacity based on approved entitlements or
developer proposal
Timber Street Senior, developed by Eden Housing, will provide 79 units of new affordable housing for seniors in a convenient location in Newark, CA. The project will redevelop the 1-acre site and fulfill the city’s vision of transforming the surrounding neighborhood from light industrial and warehouse space to a vibrant, walkable residential neighborhood.
The project has been granted $21.7 million in funding for its construction with the City of Newark and Alameda County (Measure A1 Affordable Housing Fund) both as financial
partners. The project’s funding is a part of Governor
Newsom’s recent commitment of more than $825 million to help expand the state’s affordable housing stock and increase capacity for additional climate-smart infill housing.
The building will include a community room with a kitchen and attached courtyard with space for planter boxes and
organized activities, a computer learning center, an exercise room, a bicycle storage room, and offices to house on-site services staff. All of the units are 1-bedrooms, so the community will support seniors living on their own as well as couples. A rendering of the project is shown below.
Link to project plans.
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-34
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
8 Lepaskshi Homes - 6781 Thornton Ave. Building A (Old Town Newark Area Plan) - active application
Zoning: CommercialMixed Use
General Plan Designation: Commercial Mixed
Use
APN: 92-30-16-2, 92-30-15-2, 92-30-14-3,
92-30-18-4, 92-30-17-2
Size: 1.0 acres
Max Allowable Density 100 dwelling units per
acre (Old Town Newark Area Plan)
Realistic capacity based on approved entitlements or
developer proposal
The developer, Lepakshi Homes, has proposed a residential project at the gateway to the City’s Old Town neighborhood.
The project consists of two sites with a single building on each site. “ Building A” with 60 market rate units, 12 one-bedroom, 37 two-bedroom, 6 three-bedroom, and 5 live-work units. The proposed plan is approximately 60 units per acre for Building A.Building A’s building height is 57 feet with a clocktower at 72 feet.
As of October 2023, the application is under review. The city anticipates that the application will be complete in early 2024 with public hearings scheduled shortly thereafter.
Entitlements include a Planned Development and Design
Review.
Link to project plans.
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-35
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-36
9 Lepakshi Homes - 6781 Thornton Ave. Building B (Old Town Newark Specific Plan) - active application
Zoning: Commercial Mixed-Use
General Plan Designation: Commercial Mixed
Use
APN: 92-31-15, 92-31-16-2
Size: 0.25 acres
Max Allowable Density 100 dwelling units per
acre (Old Town Newark Specific Plan)
Realistic capacity based on approved entitlements or
developer proposal
The developer, Lepakshi Homes, has proposed a residential project at the gateway to the City’s Old Town neighborhood.
The project consists of two sites with a single building on each site. “ Building B” is across the street from Building A and would contain 15 affordable units and 13 market rate units.
The proposed plan is at 94 units per acre, and the building height is 59 feet. Below is a rendering of the project, with Building B in the foreground. The smaller “Building B” parcels are part of the same application and approval process as Building A.
As of October 2023, the application is under review. The city anticipates that the application will be complete in early 2024 with public hearings scheduled shortly thereafter.
Entitlements include Planned Development and Design
Review.
Link to project plans.
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-37
10 SAHA - 6347 -6375 Thornton Ave. - active application Zoning: Residential High Density
General Plan Designation: High Density
Residential
APN: 92A-919-18, 92A-919-17-2,
92A-919-16-2
Size: 0.54 acres
Max Allowable Density 60 dwelling units
per acre.
Realistic capacity based on developer proposal
assubmitted to city in NOFA process.
According to application materials, SAHA proposes a
multi-family housing development of 57 deeply affordable homes targeted to individuals and families including 15 twobedroom apartments and 16 three-bedroom apartments, on three underutilized parcels, 6347-6375 Thornton Avenue.
The proposal calls for a single 60 foot. 5-story building on 0.54 acres at 105 DU/A (a waiver or concession is needed).
SAHA proposes to develop a five-story building using Type 5A wood-frame construction for the upper four floors over a Type 1A concrete ground floor and parking garage. The design includes numerous family-friendly common area amenities such as a computer lab, an acoustically-insulated music practice room, a bicycle repair station, building wide wireless internet service free to residents, an outdoor tot play area and wheelchair-accessible raised garden beds in a sunny spot where SAHA’s Resident Services team will expand its
successful gardening program.
To fund this transformation, SAHA requested and received $12M of seed capital from the City of Newark which will cover approximately 25% of the total development cost.
The developer will submit a formal design review, minor use permit, and a map application before the end of 2024.
Entitlements are expected in late 2024.
Link to project plans.
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-38
11 Mulberry Residential - 36952 Mulberry Street - entitled Zoning: Residential Medium Density
General Plan Designation: Medium
Density Residential
APN: 92-29-22, 92-29-21
Size: 0.46 acres
Max Allowable Density 30 units per acre.
Realistic capacity based on approved
entitlements or developer proposal
According to application materials, Rajesh Rao, proposes to demolish the existing single-story residence and detached garage, and construct eight for-sale market-rate
condominiums with new landscaping, open space areas, a
private driveway, and guest parking on the property located at 36952 Mulberry St. The property is zoned RM-OT
(Residential Medium Density with the Old Town Overlay
District). The proposed project would merge two existing lots to create a 0.46-acre lot with 4 three-bedroom units and 4 four-bedroom units at a density of 17.4 DU/A. Below is a proposed rendering of the project.
Link to project plans.
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-39
12 Bain Ave. & Magnolia St. - 37280 Magnolia Street - under construction Zoning: Residential Medium Density
General Plan Designation: Medium Density
Residential
APN: 92-61-11, 92-61-12-1, 92-61-12-2
Size: 0.93 acres
Max Allowable Density 30 units per acre.
Realistic capacity based on approved entitlements or
developer proposal
According to application materials, Goldsilverisland Homes, LLC is proposing 10 market-rate single family homes at 37280 Magnolia Street. The applicant is also proposing a PD overlay district to allow for lower lot sizes of 3,500 square feet instead of 6,000 square feet. The density of the development is approximately 10.75 DU/A.
Link to project plans.
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-40
13 Waymark Homes - Cedar Blvd. - entitled
Zoning: Residential Medium Density
General Plan Designation: Medium Density
Residential
APN: 92A-2585-30-4, 92A-2585-12-1,
92A-2585-31
Size: 3.44 acres
Max Allowable Density 30 units per acre.
Realistic capacity based on approved entitlements or
developer proposal
The applicant, Waymark Development, proposes to demolish the existing buildings currently occupied by
commercial/industrial uses and construct 76 three-story attached townhomes within 14 buildings on a 3.44-acre site located at 38600 Cedar Blvd. The project calls for 34
three-bedroom units and 46 four-bedroom units with a total density of 22 DU/A. The project would include landscaping and open space areas, a new private street, and on-site improvements. The property is zoned RM (Residential
Medium Density District). The project requires a Design Review, Minor Use Permit for a building height up to 40 feet, and a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map. Below is a render of an example unit.
Link to project plans.
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-41
14 NewPark Place (Phases A to D)
Zoning: Regional Commercial
Specific Designation: Mixed-Use I
APN: 901-111-19, 901-111-30, 901-111-29,
901-111-24, 901-111-22, 901-111-20,
901-111-25, 901-111-21, 901-111-26,
901-111-31
Size: 52.03 acres
Max Allowable Density 160 units per acre.
Realistic capacity based on Specific Plan
As described above in Section 4 and in other sections of this Housing Element, the NewPark Place Specific Plan will guide the redevelopment of this entire area, comprising 52.03 acres with an expected residential build-out capacity of 1,519 across 5 major phases as follows (see Phase A in top aerial, Phases B-D in bottom aerial):
● Phase A: Type-III multifamily development. A total of 319 units on.3.98 acres at a density of 80 dwelling units per acre. The development includes six levels of parking.
● Phase B1: Type-III multifamily development. A total of 195 units on 3.47 acres at a density of 56 dwelling units per acre. The development includes a six level garage.
● Phase B2: Type-III multifamily development with a
podium. A total of 310 units on 4.30 acres at a density of 72 dwelling units per acre. The development includes a 3 -evel structure parking facility.
● Phase C: Type-III multifamily development with a podium.
A total of 300 units on 3.70 acres at a density of 81
dwelling units per acre. The development includes a 2
level garage and 1 sub-t.
● Phase D2: Type-III multifamily development. A total of 395 units on 5.67 acres at a density of 70 dwelling units per acre.
The development includes a five level garage.
The phases are regulated by the Mixed-Use Area I standards, which include a maximum building height of 200 feet, with buildings adjacent to the streets to be a minimum of 30 feet, but preferably 60 feet. Residential density may be up to 160 units per acre, but not less than 60 dwelling units per acre.
While the specific plan has a relatively high maximum density, it is largely unachievable for multiple reasons. First, the plan has a cap on the total number of units at 1,519. An adjustment of this number would require City Council action and a new EIR process.
Second, taller developments than Type-III multifamily would require new emergency vehicle typologies, procedures, and training which the City of Newark currently does not have nor does the surrounding area. Therefore, it is not surprising that the actual densities of the proposed
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-42
developments are somewhat lower than the maximum would permit.
Residential uses may be within residential only multiple story buildings and/or in buildings with a mix of uses. First floor residential is allowed in non-active frontage locations, which are outlined in the plan. Parking demand for development within areas designed Mixed-Use I must be accommodated by a combination of surface and structured parking per the Parking Sub Plan. The residential uses within each “block” must be self-parked within the boundary of the individual block. For a more detailed account of all applicable development standards, refer to the Specific Area Plan.
The NewPark Place plan has a 20 year planning arc, therefore it is expected that only 40% of the total units will be complete for the 8 year RHNA 65 Housing Element Period. As feasible, the City will continue to work with the property owner to encourage the inclusion of larger percentages of affordable units in future phases of development.
The build out capacity and affordable housing assumptions for NewPark Place provided in this sites inventory reflects City Council Resolution NO. 10,184 which went into effect on June 9, 2014 and is the guiding document which outlines that for apartment development, the affordability breakdown starting point should be 6% VLI, 3% LI, and 3% MOD in order to fully mitigate the impact of the residential development. The document gives City Council the authority to determine that an alternative distribution of affordable units will fully mitigate the impacts of the development on the need for affordable housing, based on community needs and the characteristics of the development. In the case of NewPark Phase A, Council advocated strongly for onsite affordable units instead of a mitigation fee.
As described in full in the Specific Plan, this area has adequate infrastructure to accommodate the planned residential development and there are no known environmental constraints. In addition, each separate phase of this development would comprise a land area of less than 10 acres.
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-43
Link to the project plans for Phase A.
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
15 Grocery Outlet Center
Zoning: Commercial Mixed Use
General Plan Designation: Commercial Mixed
Use
APN: 92A-900-1-2
Size: 4.62 acres (1.54 acres under the assumption
that ⅓ of the site will redevelop)
Max Allowable Density 60 units per acre.
The Grocery Outlet Center site is an aging multi-tenant retail center with a large surface parking lot, which takes up approximately 40% of the site, located on the corner of Newark Boulevard and Mayhews Landing Road. The site was previously included in the 5th Cycle Housing Element. The shopping center is a collection of four different buildings, each with multiple tenants providing a range of retail and service options for the community, including a well established Grocery Store.
Realistic Capacity
Since the leases are current and tenants like Grocery Outlet are popular among residents, the approach here is that only a third of the site will feasibly redevelop throughout the eight-year planning period.
Newark code requires ground floor retail adjacent to Newark Boulevard, so a realistic capacity of 80% was applied to this site yielding a total of 57 units as detailed below. The density is at 45 dwelling units per acre giving it 100% affordable potential. The existing establishments, a liquor store, Southeast Asian restaurant, and flower shop would be able to continue to operate on the ground floor.
Analysis of Redevelopment Potential
● In Newark and the Tri-City Area, similar commercial centers have recently developed as mixed-use and/or 100 percent residential projects at similar densities. The redevelopment of the NewPark mall and surrounding area are an important comparable example of the residential redevelopment potential provided by this key site. ● The redevelopment potential of this site is also supported by the relatively low improvement to land value ratio of 0.49, which shows that the built improvements are valued lower than the underlying land. This indicates a strong propensity for the site to redevelop during the planning period.
RedevelopmentIndicators
● Low improvement to land value ratio (0.49) meaning that the appraised value of the land is greater than the appraised value of the built improvements, indicating a propensity for redevelopment to another land use
● Large and underutilized surface parking lot (greater than 2 acres) ● Aging structures and lack of recent improvements (auto-oriented single story commercial from 1964-1986)
● Single ownership of parcel
● Adjacent redevelopment occuring (Mayhews Place)
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-44
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
● Similar redevelopment occuring in Newark (NewPark Place) Rezoning
Since the site was included in the 5th Cycle Housing Element, per Program H3.6 described above, this site will be subject to a zoning text amendment that will require by-right approval of any new housing development in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households.
Realistic Capacity Analysis
The following summary table provides a step by step analysis of the realistic capacity factors applied to this site, as well the reasoning for applying these adjustment factors to arrive at a realistic yield of net units.
Table C-5: Grocery Outlet Center Realistic Capacity Analysis APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-45
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
16 Thornton Ave. Sites (within Old Town Neighborhood)
Zoning: Commercial Mixed Use
General Plan Designation: Commercial Mixed
Use
APN: 92-51-2-3, 92-29-20-2, 92-29-19-2,
92-51-5-3, 92-29-18-2, 92-29-17-2, 92-29-13,
92-29-16-2, 92-29-15-2, 92-50-1-3, 92-29-14-2,
92-50-2-3, 92-50-3-3
Size: varies by parcel,total of 2.5 acres
Max Allowable Density 100 units per acre per
Old Town Specific Plan
The Thornton Avenue area comprises a number of
underutilized parcels which are primed for residential
development during the planning period. Improvement to
land value ratios for the sites range from 0.22 to 0.79 indicating a propensity to redevelop, and the Old Specific Plan (Specific Plan) also includes policies encouraging residential and mixed-use development. The size and shape of these
contiguous sites lend themselves to parcel assembly and lot consolidation.
The major constraints facing these parcels are the need for assemblage (most parcels are less than half an acre) and ground floor retail requirements along Thornton Ave.
Because of this, a realistic capacity multiplier of 80% was used to calculate unit totals.
While many of the buildings date from earlier than 1970, The Specific Plan found that there are no historic buildings or structures in the planning area. The plan notes that 25 buildings within the planning area have “historic merit”, the City’s Historic Preservation Program allows for modification and demolition of buildings with historic merit. Several existing City regulations would help ensure that development and redevelopment activities do not cause a substantial adverse change. Therefore, the protection of cultural resources is not a significant barrier to redevelopment of these sites.
Analysis of Redevelopment Potential
Many of the Thornton Avenue parcels were also previously identified as “potential opportunity sites” in the Specific Plan. According to the Specific Plan, these sites “include vacant and underutilized sites, which may be more likely locations for redevelopment.” The plan projected that throughout the planning area, 400 net new units could be developed by 2040 which would be in the form of multi-family buildings with five or more units.
18 In order to achieve this goal, the city has implemented land use regulations outlined in the Specific Plan which promote high density development, such as increased densities (up to 100 dwelling units per acre) and height limits (up to 75 feet)) and the ability for 100 percent residential projects. The market has already started to respond to these new regulations with the Lepakshi Homes projects (88 18 Newark Old Town Specific Plan, pg. 21
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-46
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
units, 15 either low income or moderate, on 1.25 acres) and nearby SAHA (57 affordable units on 0.54 acres) as examples which are currently in the development pipeline. In addition, the city will promote the consolidation of small parcels through Program H2.11 which in turn will encourage larger scale multi-family development. The City is also planning significant pedestrian-oriented infrastructure improvements in the Old Town neighborhood which will increase the viability for welcomed high-density, mixed-use, compact development.
As noted in the Specific Plan, the opportunity sites originally selected and identified here were originally selected due to their redevelopment potential. It is important to note that since multiple factors influence redevelopment and some opportunity sites were not explicitly identified in the Housing Element, it is likely that new development will occur on sites which were not specifically identified in the sites inventory.
RedevelopmentIndicators
● Low improvement to land value ratio (0.22 to 0.79) meaning that the appraised value of the land is greater than the appraised value of the built improvements ● Updated land use controls which allow significantly denser development (Old Town Area Plan) ● Aging buildings and obsolete development typologies (single story commercial with frontage parking dating from before 1970, most with little historic merit) ● Adjacent redevelopment occuring (Lepakshi Homes and SAHA) ● Candidate for lot consolidation incentives through Program H2.11 Rezoning
Since the sites were included in a previous Housing Element, per Program H3.6 described above they will be subject to a zoning text amendment that will require by-right approval of any new housing development in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households.
Realistic Capacity Analysis
The following summary table provides a step by step analysis of the realistic capacity factors applied to this site, as well the reasoning for applying these adjustment factors to arrive at a realistic yield of net units.
Table C-6: Thornton Ave. Sites Realistic Capacity Analysis APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-47
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
17 Cedar Blvd. and Timber St. Industrial Sites
Zoning: Residential Medium Density
General Plan Designation: Medium Density
Residential
APN: 92A-2125-13, 92A-2125-11-2,
92A-2125-17
Size: 4.96 acres
Max Allowable Density 22-30 units per acre.
These formerly industrial sites are underutilized properties with I/L ratios ranging from 0.38 to 0.58, indicating a propensity to redevelop. They are in an area of rapid change where market dynamics have tended to support residential development in recent years.
Rezoning
Since the sites were included in a previous Housing Element, per Program H3.6 described above they will be subject to a zoning text amendment that will require by-right approval of any new housing development in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households.
RedevelopmentIndicators
● Low improvement to land value ratio (0.38 to 0.58)
meaning that the appraised value of the land is greater than the appraised value of the built improvements
● Aging buildings (single story light
industrial/warehouses dating from 1964 to 1982)
● Significant adjacent medium residential development
occurred in the previous HE Cycle
● Similar redevelopment occuring in Newark (Waymark Homes) Realistic Capacity Analysis
The following summary table provides a step by step analysis of the realistic capacity factors applied to this site, as well the reasoning for applying these adjustment factors to arrive at a realistic yield of net units.
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-48
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
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 APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-49
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
18 E-Z 8 Motel
Zoning: Residential High Density
General Plan Designation: High Density
Residential
APN: 92A-2585-32
Size: 2.24 acres
Max Allowable Density 60 units per acre.
This is an underutilized hotel property with an I/L ratio of 0.97.
In the surrounding market area, similar properties have been redeveloped with residential uses, and hotel conversions like the Cedar Community Apartments described above are
increasingly common. The site is also adjacent to the entitled Waymark Homes project which proposes 80 townhomes.
Given the site's high density zoning designation which allows for densities between 25 and 60 dwelling units per acre and 100 foot height maximums, the City supports residential redevelopment here. After accounting for max lot coverage standards and setbacks, a realistic capacity modifier of 65% was applied to the site which would yield a total of 87 units.
After the adjustment, the density of the site will be almost 39 dwelling units per acre, well above the default density of 30 dwelling units per acre for 100% affordable projects. The city strongly supports the development of a 100% affordable
housing development at this site and could pursue a similar strategy as SAHA in Old Town, which was also in an RH zone.
The city will continue to work with the property owner to advocate for residential use.
Rezoning
Since the site was included in a previous Housing Element, per Program H3.6 described above it will be subject to a zoning text amendment that will require by-right approval of any new housing development in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households.
RedevelopmentIndicators
● Low improvement to land value ratio (0.97) meaning that the value of the land is greater than the improvements
● Aging buildings and underutilized surface parking lot (two story motel dating from 1986) ● Significant adjacent medium/high density residential development occurred in the previous HE Cycle
● Similar redevelopment occuring in Newark (SAHA)
Realistic Capacity Analysis
The following summary table provides a step by step analysis of the realistic capacity factors applied to this site, as well the reasoning for applying these adjustment factors to arrive at a realistic yield of net units.
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-50
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table C-10: E-Z 8 Realistic Capacity Analysis
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-51
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
19 Cherry Plaza
Zoning: Commercial Mixed Use
General Plan Designation: Commercial Mixed
Use
APN: 92-50-13
Size: 0.96 acres
Max Allowable Density 100 units per acre (within
Old Town Specific Plan Area)
This underutilized property has an I/L ratio of 0.55 , indicating a propensity to redevelop. The site has an educational use, but recent images show vacancies with a “for lease” sign. The surrounding market area has experienced the residential redevelopment of other such sites in recent years.
The site is located within the Old Town Specific Plan Area which allows the site to have densities between 30 and 100 dwelling units per acre. The height maximum is 48 feet. Unlike other CMU locations outlined in the Element, this site is not required to have ground floor retail because it is not fronting either Newark Ave. or Thornton Boulevard. A realistic
capacity modifier of 80% was still applied, even though this could be considered conservative.
Realistic Capacity Analysis
The following summary table provides a step by step analysis of the realistic capacity factors applied to this site, as well the reasoning for applying these adjustment factors to arrive at a realistic yield of net units.
Table C-11: Cherry Plaza Realistic Capacity Analysis
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-52
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
20 Thornton Ave. Sites (outside of Old Town)
Zoning: Residential High Density
General Plan Designation: High Density
Residential
APN: 92A-919-22-2, 92A-919-21-2,
92A-919-20-2, 92A-919-19-2, 92A-919-15-2,
92A-919-14-2, 92A-919-13-2, 92A-919-12-2,
92A-919-11-2
Size: 1.2 acres
Max Allowable Density 60 units per acre.
As with the sites within the Old Town area, these
underutilized sites also show strong potential for
redevelopment with residential uses. I/L ratios range from
0.53 to 0.76. These units do not have a required mixed-use component. The size and shape of these contiguous sites lend themselves to parcel assembly and lot consolidation and includes two contiguous parcels that are under the same ownership.
Rezoning
Since the sites were included in a previous Housing Element, per Program H3.6 described above they will be subject to a zoning text amendment that will require by-right approval of any new housing development in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households.
RedevelopmentIndicators
● Low improvement to land value ratio (0.53 to 0.76)
meaning that the value of the land is greater than the
improvements
● Aging buildings and obsolete development style
(single story homes, the majority converted to commercial purposes and were built before 1970)
● Significant adjacent medium residential development occurred in the previous HE Cycle and currently (SAHA)
● Two vacant lots under same ownership and candidate for lot consolidation incentives through Program H2.11
Realistic Capacity Analysis
The following summary table provides a step by step analysis of the realistic capacity factors applied to this site, as well the reasoning for applying these adjustment factors to arrive at a realistic yield of net units.
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-53
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
21 Sycamore St. Vacant Lot
Zoning: Residential High Density
General Plan Designation: High Density
Residential
APN: 92-255-11
Size: 1.81 acres
Max Allowable Density: 60 units per acre.
This site consists of an underutilized vacant residential lot in an area with robust services and supportive infrastructure.
Zoned for high-density residential uses with a minimum
density of 25 dwelling units to the acre and a maximum
density of 60 dwelling units to the acre, this site is suitable for accommodating lower-income units. Existing development
standards would allow the development of this site at
maximum densities, consistent with comparable affordable housing developments currently in Newark’s development
pipeline.
Rezoning
This site will also also be subject to Program H3.6 since it is being carried over from a previous 5th Cycle Housing
Element.
Realistic Capacity Analysis
The following summary table provides a step by step analysis of the realistic capacity factors applied to this site, as well the reasoning for applying these adjustment factors to arrive at a realistic yield of net units.
Table C-12: Sycamore St. Vacant Lot Realistic Capacity Analysis APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-54
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
22 Cedar Blvd. Public Storage Sites
Zoning: Residential Medium Density
General Plan Designation: Medium Density
Residential
APN: 92A-2375-32
Size: 2.9 acres
Max Allowable Density 22-30 units per acre.
This public storage site has an I/L ratio of 0.78, indicating a propensity to redevelop with another use, and residential uses are generally the highest and best use in the surrounding neighborhood market area.
Rezoning
Since the site was included in a previous Housing Element, per Program H3.6 described above it will also be subject to a zoning text amendment that will require by-right approval of any new housing development in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households.
RedevelopmentIndicators
● Low improvement to land value ratio (0.78) meaning
that the value of the land is greater than the
improvements
● Aging structure and single story use (building from
1985)
● Significant medium density residential development
occurred adjacent in the previous HE Cycle
● Similar redevelopment occuring (Waymark Homes)
Realistic Capacity Analysis
The following summary table provides a step by step analysis of the realistic capacity factors applied to this site, as well the reasoning for applying these adjustment factors to arrive at a realistic yield of net units.
Table C-13: Cedar Blvd. Public Storage Realistic Capacity Analysis APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-55
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-56
23 Filbert Villas - 37243 & 37257 Filbert St. - expired entitlement Zoning: Residential Medium Density
General Plan Designation: Medium
Density Residential
APN: 92-131-1-9, 92-131-2-4,
92-131-3
Size: 0.96 acres
Max Allowable Density 30 units per acre.
Realistic capacity based on approved
entitlements or developer proposal
According to application materials dated 3/23/17, SRAJ
Development Inc, proposed Filbert Villas, a 16 unit market rate residential condominium project. The project consists of 16 new three-story four-bedroom townhouses. The density of the project is approximately 16 DU/A and the units will be market-rate. While the entitlement on this project expired, the city expects to see a project with similar densities.
A recent interview with the property owner indicates
continued interest in the project. Barriers include high interest rates, higher construction costs, and lower sale prices, but the property owner plans to take steps to move forward with the project.
Link to project plans.
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
24 Filbert Ave. Sites
Zoning: Residential Medium Density
General Plan Designation: Medium Density
Residential
APN: 92-54-5, 92-54-6, 92-54-4
Size: 0.7 acres
Max Allowable Density 22-30 units per acre.
These sites would support relatively lower-density residential development and the sites inventory does not assume that affordable housing would be feasible on these sites.
RedevelopmentIndicators
● Two parcels have low improvement to land value ratio
(0.09 and 0.03) meaning that the value of the land is
greater than the improvements
● Aging structures and single story use (two building
predate 1970)
● Similar redevelopment potential across the street
(Filbert St. Villas)
● Candidate for lot consolidation incentives through
H2.11
Realistic Capacity Analysis
The following summary table provides a step by step analysis of the realistic capacity factors applied to this site, as well the reasoning for applying these adjustment factors to arrive at a realistic yield of net units.
Table C-14: Filbert Ave. Sites Realistic Capacity Analysis APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-57
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-58
25 Mayhews Place - 36589 Newark Boulevard - expired entitlement Zoning: Residential Medium Density
General Plan Designation: Commercial
Mixed Use
APN: 92A-623-43
Size: 0.53 acres
Max Allowable Density 30 units per acre.
Realistic capacity based on approved
entitlements or developer proposal
According to project plans, David Langon Construction, Inc. is proposing 6 attached two-story, market-rate, single-family units on a site area of approximately 0.53 acres. The density of the proposal is 12 DU/A. Below is a rendering of the exterior facade. While the entitlement on this project expired, the city expects to see a project with similar densities.
Link to project plans.
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-59
26 Locust St. & Railroad - 37093 Locust St. - expired entitlement Zoning: Residential Low Density
General Plan Designation: Low-Medium
Density Residential
APN: 92-125-10
Size: 0.43 acres
Max Allowable Density 8.7 units per acre.
Realistic capacity based on approved
entitlements or developer proposal
According to application materials dated June 21, 2018, Cherry Properties is proposing 6 new market-rate apartments at 37093 Locust Street. The project title is The Railroad Apartments. While the entitlement on this project expired, the city expects to see a project with similar densities.
Link to project plans.
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-60
27 Fahmy Homes - 37503 & 37511 Cherry Street - expired entitlement Zoning: Residential Medium Density
General Plan Designation: Medium Density
Residential
APN: 92-75-5-2, 92-75-4-2
Size: 0.38 acres
Max Allowable Density 30 units per acre.
Realistic capacity based on approved entitlements or
developer proposal
According to application materials dated November 9th,
2020, Sawart S. Fahmy had proposed a four-lot residential project on two adjacent parcels. The proposed subdivision called for 4 single-family market-rate units. While the entitlement on this project expired, the city expects to see a project with similar densities.
In 2023, a new owner gained site control and has indicated strong interest in combining these sites to create a larger site for development. The owner submitted a preliminary
application for a seven-unit rowhouse project. The city has completed its preliminary review and is now awaiting a formal application from the property owner.
Link to project plans.
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
19 Source: HCD Housing Element Implementation and APR Dashboard APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-61
28 Neighborhood Infill Sites
Zoning: Residential Low Density
General Plan Designation: Low-Medium
Residential, Medium Density Residential
APN: 92-135-23, 92-127-13, 92-136-15,
92-24-10, 92-127-20, 92-125-2-2
Size: 1.52 acres
Max Allowable Density 11-15 units per acre.
These are mixed neighborhood infill sites supporting lower density residential development. Five of the six sites are vacant while the non vacant site has subdivision potential.
These sites would support relatively lower-density residential development and the sites inventory does not assume that affordable housing would be feasible on these sites.
These sites are expected to redevelop individually, and the sites will be listed separately by parcel number on the electronic submission form.
RedevelopmentIndicators
● Either vacant or underutilized (subdivision potential) ● Two vacant lots are adjacent candidate for lot
consolidation incentives through Program H2.11
● Strong demand for market rate residential in
established neighborhoods (Over 750 single family
detached units completed between 2018 and 2022
19 )
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT
The public comment period for the first Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element began on February 24th, 2023. As required by AB 215, the first Draft Housing Element was available for a 30-day public review period, before incorporating public comments and sending the revised first draft to HCD. Based on community feedback and to ensure that the Newark community had enough time to review and comment, the City kept the first public review draft of the Housing Element available for public comment through the 90-day State HCD review period (February 24th - March 27th, 2023). The City posted an updated draft for public review from August 7th - August 17th, 2023).
Thank you to all those who submitted public comments and attended public meetings. Based on community feedback and direction from Councilmembers, staff have prepared a response to comments to illustrate how the revised draft reflects public input received during the 142-day comment period. A total of 11 comments, comment letters, and emails were received during the comment period. No comments were received on the updated draft during or after the 10-day public review period in August 2023. Staff received an additional 5 comments during subsequent Housing Element public review periods.
1. Carla Rodrigez
2. Taran Singh
3. Pamela Roush
4. Andrea Heckman
5. Matt Francois on behalf of Integral Communities
6. Carol Drake
7. Namit Saksena
8. Sarah Klaustermeier, Brookfield Properties
9. Victor Flores, East Bay Resilience Manager, Greenbelt Alliance, David Lewis, Executive Director Save The Bay , Maxwell Davis and the 2500 members of East Bay for Everyone
10. Neelam Noorani
11. Aundi Mevoli, BayKeepers
12. David Song
13. Rishika Rawat
14. Alyssa Lopez
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-62
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
15. Pat Callaway
16. Krisie Knutson
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-63
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table D-1: Housing Element Draft Public Comments Received and City Response Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
1. Carina
Rodriguez
After reviewing the Draft document, my biggest
concerns are:
1) Newark's continuing to infringe on the marshes
and wetlands around our city. This is a large
environmental issue and I saw very little mention of
this in the housing plans. However, the city continues
to approve housing developments on these natural
lands. This will especially be an issue as climate
change continues to wreak havoc on us - I do not want
the city to be put in a situation where we have to use
tax dollars to help those who ignorantly purchased
homes on these wetlands and marshes. Especially
when the lands should have never been built on in the
first place.
2) I do not want the city of Newark to become a haven
for low income housing. While we should open our
city to new residents - low income housing invites low
income individuals who will not be contributing a
significant amount in taxes. Some are indeed hard
workers and have been beaten down by the systemic
failures of our city, county, state, and country, but
some have no interest in doing anything to help
themselves and will just suck up the free resources
paid for by taxpayers. Yes, we do need low income
housing to assist some in our community. However,
we should not accept a large percentage of this low
income housing and rather have it spread out
throughout the county of Alameda and the Bay Area.
3) Lastly, there are many apartments, townhouses,
1. The City of Newark is guided by the
Area 3 and 4 Specific Plan, adopted by the City
Council in 2009. This specific plan provides
land uses, development regulations,
engineering and site improvements, landscape
guidelines, and natural resource conservation
standards. In 2014, the City entered into a
Development Agreement with Newark
Partners LLC, which guides development
within certain areas of Area 3 and 4 and
establishes performance expectations and
requirements for the developers and the City.
Development within the specific plan area has
been limited to Area 3 and the residential
subdivision known as “Sanctuary Village”. In
2019, the City Council approved a residential
subdivision via a Planned Unit Development
permit consisting of 469 homes along with a
determination that the environmental effects
of the project were sufficiently analyzed and
were under the scope of the previously
adopted 2015 Recirculated Environmental
Impact Report. Subsequent to Council’s 2019
actions, the environmental determination was
challenged in court. As of 2023, no unresolved
legal matters are associated with the project.
In 2021, the project sponsor indicated to the
city that the project would be reduced in size
from 469 units to approximately 430 units. The
project sponsor is working with the city
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-64
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
and duplexes that are completely run down and look
absolutely awful. These can be found on Newark Blvd
across the street from Newark Community park and
Cherry towards Thornton. This housing looks abysmal
and it's sickening that landlords are allowed to rent
these apartments at top dollar while they are clearly
falling apart and have made no investment in keeping
them up to a basic, human level. Before we begin to
build more housing, we need to look at this housing
and bring them up to a livable standard for those
currently living in the city. Let's fix our home city first before we begin building more housing that may
eventually look as awful as this housing on Newark
Blvd. and Cherry.
regarding site development activities. As
Sanctuary West is a fully entitled project with
legal matters resolved, the City has identified
the project as contributing to the RHNA goal
for above-moderate housing for the 6th Cycle.
2. Newark is subject to RHNA, the process
that resulted in the assignment of 1,871 units
of housing for the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
Each Bay Area jurisdiction received their own
RHNA allocation. Compared to other Bay Area
cities, Newark's RHNA increase from the 5th
Cycle (1,048 units) to the 6th Cycle was
relatively small at approximately 75%. This is
not a requirement to build 1,874 units, but
Newark must demonstrate that the city has the
correct land use policy, programs, and
requirements to accommodate the units over
the next eight years. Since 2015, Newark has
built thousands of market-rate units, but
relatively few affordable units. The City
Council recognizes the need for housing that is
affordable and available for all members of the
community.
3. The City recognizes that some
residential buildings in our community have
been neglected by their property owners.
Although some investment to refurbish units
has occurred, more can be done. The Draft
Housing Element includes goals, policies, and
programs that address this need, starting with
the Goal and Policy H-1: Preserve + Improve
Existing Housing- “Leverage local funds to
supplement county, state and federal funding
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-65
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
to support the maintenance, rehabilitation and
preservation of existing rental and ownership
housing. “
2. Taran Singh Area 3 and Area 4 plan of building 469 homes an environmental disaster. The City of Newark cannot
solve the housing problem by 500 odd homes on our
wetlands. I urge the city to revert the development
plan for Area 3 and Area 4 and let them be a safe
abode for our flora and fauna. Overall, I think the City needs to get denser in areas close to the 880
corridors and provide connectivity to BART/Transit.
See Response 1, above.
3. PAMELA
ROUSH
Please do not build in Newark Area 4. That is a flood
zone and it will only get worse. Please, please
reconsider building in Area 4. Thank you.
See Response 1, above.
4. Andrea
Heckman
I'm very concerned about development in the Area 4
shoreline because of it's importance to the ecosystem
and protecting our existing development from future
flooding. It seems imprudent to build on an area which
is expected to need massive alteration and protection
from future sea level rise. Makes no sense to develop
housing where future disaster is predictable.
See Response 1, above.
5. Matt Francois We are submitting these comments on behalf of our client, Integral Communities, the proponent of the
Mowry Village project. We write to request certain
technical corrections and clarifications to the draft
Housing Element. For instance, the reference to 398
built single family units in Area 3, Sub Area B (on page 104) should instead refer to 386 units. Additionally,
the reference to the Mowry Village project (on page
105) refers to the site as being within Area 3 when it
is located within Area 4; please also correct the
Thank you for your comments and corrections.
The references to Area 3/4 and the unit count
have been corrected in the October 3 draft.
The language about retiring the Specific Plan
has been adapted to reflect that 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.”
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-66
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
location of the Mowry Village project in the last
paragraph of this section. Finally, also in the last
paragraph of this section, please clarify the intent
about retiring the Area 3 & 4 Specific Plan after action on the Mowry Village project as it is anticipated that
the Specific Plan would continue to be relied on to
make consistency determinations for the Mowry
Village and other projects.
6. Carol Drake Newark Area 4 is not a good choice for development.
Wetlands sequester carbon, store floodwater, and
filter nutrients and sediment from water.
Already included in the expansion boundaries of the
Don Edwards SF Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Area 4
provides an unparalleled opportunity to restore
wetlands and other wildlife habitat, while creating a
buffer against sea level rise.
Newark should focus on infill development instead.
It could utilize existing neighborhoods and major
development opportunities such as revitalizing
NewPark Mall, which could provide 1,519 housing
units, and smaller projects already planned in and
around Old Town Newark. Building in these
developed areas would help place housing near job
centers, reducing vehicle miles traveled and road
congestion.
See Response 1, above.
7. Namit
March
21st
2023
I was very happy to see that you mentioned working
with Newark Unified School District in the draft
Housing Element, Policy H2.4. Other cities in the Bay
Area have helped their school districts address the
missing housing for teaching staff and I think Newark
should also partner with NUSD to do something
Hello Namit, Thank you for your comments.
We have updated policy H2.4, with more
information from state law to support the
redevelopment of land owned by Newark
Unified School District. We agree, and the
data shows how large of a burnden
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-67
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
similar. I loved the creative idea you had shared
during our chat at the after party of Mayor Hannon's
swearing in ceremony late last year. Comment 2:
After housing, the next big expense for low income
residents tends to be transportation.
While our Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan was
approved in Feb 2017, we haven't made massive
strides in making the overall vision in that plan come
true.
Bike lanes will not only improve accessibility to local employers: restaurants, gas stations, retail stores,
Home Depot, Amazon etc. but also upcoming city
centers such as NewPark Place and might even spark
Old Town into life. The other thing is, bike lanes will benefit residents of all income levels.
I saw that the number 1 response to Q.9 of the Public
Engagement and Input Survey with 33% respondents
was public infrastructure including bicycle lanes.
Therefore it would be great if the Housing Element
had a specific call out to pedestrian and bicycle
infrastructure vs. the single specific mention on Pg.
128.
I think exploring ways to align the relevant parts of
the Housing Element more closely with the Bicycle
Element will help us capture this once in a decade
opportunity to shape the future of housing in Newark
by the handle bars!
transportation can be financially for residents.
We also heard the desire for more pedestrian
friendly streets and bike lanes in the city for
more transportation options. The Public
Works department has plans to start
implementing portions of the bicycle master
plan, and we are happy to see that the majority
of sites are along bus routes as well. The
community development department looks
forward to working with the public works
department to coordinate these two critical
efforts.
8. Sarah
Klaustermeier
March
24th
2023
I reviewed the draft Housing Element and had one
comment specific to Phase A. The breakdown of
income levels in Table C-1 is different than what is
Thank you for your comments. The 6th Cycle
unit yield and affordability distribution has
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-68
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
approved in our Affordable Housing Agreement.
[see screenshots below]
been updated in the appropriate tables to
reflect the City Council’s Resolution 10,184.
9. Victor Flores,
East Bay
Resilience
Manager,
Greenbelt
Alliance
David Lewis,
Executive
Director
Save The Bay
Maxwell Davis
and the 2500
members of
East
Bay for
Everyone
March
27th
2023
The undersigned organizations and individuals are
excited to participate in Newark’s Housing Element
process. We write to offer feedback on Newark’s
Draft Housing element for the sixth cycle.
This update is an opportunity for Newark to make
sure that high resource and racially segregated
neighborhoods take on their fair share of the City’s
housing needs, particularly for lower income
residents who are disproportionately people of color.
As your housing element notes, the majority of
Newark residents are in housing that is either
unaffordable or does not meet their needs. In
particular, the Latine community experiences high
levels of overcrowding and above average spending
on housing. The City must ensure that all, regardless
of race or income, can enjoy safe, stable, and
accessible homes located either near jobs or transit
(bus as well as BART) and on sites that are clean and
suitable for development.
We are glad to see many great policies and sites that
promote infill and active transportation. We also
appreciate Newark going above the buffer
recommendations for realistic zoning capacity.
Among the sites we’re excited about is the Newpark
project which will build medium density units on
parking lots. This project is a perfect example of infill with access to AC Transit lines to BART.
We also want to commend the city for Policy H6.7:
Hello Victor, David, and Maxwell,
We appreciate your thoughtful comments on
the Housing Element draft. In response to
community discussion through engagement we
have worked to make significant edits to many
programs to better support the uptake of
housing that is affordable to all segments of the
population, and in proximity to public
transportation and active transportation
infrastructure investments. In response to
climate and sea level rise, the Newark Safety
Element is in process and will further address
many of those questions and comments.
Program H3.5 Parking standards has been
strengthened, removing and reducing parking
requirements for multiple housing types. We
welcome your continued advocacy in this area.
Numerous programs to increase housing
access, opportunity and affordability have been
added or strengthened. Program H2.1, SB9,
H2.2, for ADU production, and H2.3 is looking
at how a community guided plan for the 4
corners area can generate more housing close
to parks, schools and a potential rail station.
Program H2.6 looks to utilize state law to
develop affordable housing for staff and
employees, and H2.8 for Missing Middle
Housing has been updated, and a new program,
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-69
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
Residential Development in the FloodPlain. We
continue our opposition to the Sanctuary West
project. We are glad that the city recognizes that such developments are not in the interest of Newark
residents nor the prudent fiduciary responsibility of
the council and staff. In an era where our communities
are facing the consequences of climate change and
sea level rise, each community should be actively
assessing how it will ensure future developments and
infrastructure will be resilient to flood risk without
adversely impacting existing residents and the
environment. Building in Area 4 baylands would both
greatly increase flood risk across the city, and also
squander the opportunity to utilize these lands as a
valuable flood buffer to protect the community from
flooding and sea level rise, while also providing
improved natural wildlife habitat and increased
outdoor access opportunities for residents.
Additionally, since there is broad community
opposition from both environmental and pro-housing
organizations in the area, building here has a high
chance of community pushback which could delay the
project to outside the planning period.
We strongly recommend updating your Climate
Action Plan which is now 13 years old in order to
implement mitigation measures for water level rise
(both sea level rise and groundwater rise) and to
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. We also
recommend adding a policy to restore wetlands in
order to maximize carbon sequestration and
protection from sea level rise.
H2.10 will increase the zoning districts where
single resident occupancy housing is permitted
in Newark.
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-70
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
Program H3.5: Parking standards study can be
strengthened to commit to reducing parking
minimums. A study from UC Berkeley’s Terner Center
found, “the presence of structured parking added
nearly $36,000 per unit.” The Draft Housing Element
notes that Newark has higher parking
minimums than neighboring jurisdictions. Parking,
especially covered parking, significantly increases the cost of housing developments and uses space for cars
rather than for people. In order to combat climate
change we know that we must reduce our reliance on
cars and fossil fuels. By prioritizing land for people
rather than cars we can address the housing crisis and
GHG reduction goals. Due to this higher level of
parking and its cost, we strongly urge you to commit
to reducing the amount of required parking to no
more than 0.5 spaces per residential unit, and zero in
transit-adjacent areas.
Program H2.1: Encourage new middle-density
housing with SB 9 and SB 10. While this is a laudable
direction for the city to go to encourage housing
abundance throughout the city, it could be
strengthened with a few more objective outcomes for
the program. (1) The SB 9 ordinance should not
reduce the buildable envelope below what an
underlying single-family zone allows. (2) Missing
middle zoning should allow at least 4 units on at least 80% of single-family lots—not merely legal as density,
but practical in terms of development standards. See
the Portland Residential Infill Program for a possible
direction where buildable envelope is increased the
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-71
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
more units are planned on the lot. (3) No areas should
be exempted from missing middle except based on
floodplain, fire risk, or other major public health /
ecological risks. (4) Required parking should continue
to be no more than 0.5 spaces /unit, or zero near any
bus line, as the major space requirements of off-street parking reliably kills missing middle.
As we’ve mentioned, we oppose site number 2:
Sanctuary West because of its location on baylands
that are expected to see a nearly two feet rise of
water levels in less than 50 years. We continue to
urge you to remove this from your site list.
To support our vision for Newark, Greenbelt Alliance
and other partnering organizations have crafted a
go-to guide for accelerating equitable adaptation to
the climate crisis; The Resilience Playbook. The
Playbook brings together curated strategies,
recommendations, and tools to support local decision
makers and community leaders wherever they are in
their journey.
We look forward to continuing to engage with
Newark and the community on how this vital work
can move forward in the new year.
10. Neelam
Noorani
March
26th
2023
Steven Turner,
Dear Mayor Hannon, Vice Mayor Collazo and
Newark City Councilmembers,
Thank you for putting together a robust Housing
Element draft. This is a once in a decade moment
for Newark to make pivotal progress on climate
change and fair housing by developing a
See Response 1, above.
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-72
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
comprehensive housing strategy that builds
housing in existing neighborhoods,while
ensuring the long-term climate resilience of the
city by protecting protecting valuable open
space along the shoreline as wildlife habitat
while providing community resilience as a flood
buffer from sea level rise.
I am writing to you today to implore you to
remove Newark Area 4 (“Sanctuary West”) from
your housing site inventory. This is not a good
place to build housing and should not be how
Newark meets a significant portion of its housing
requirement. Newark Area 4 is almost entirely
within a flood zone, and the site is anticipated to
be almost completely inundated with just 1
meter of sea level rise. Additionally, new studies
show that development of Area 4 could cause
flooding for other shoreline communities in the
Bay Area. Developing this site will increase flood
risk to current and future residents and cause
catastrophic financial issues to the city in the
future.
As evidenced by recent rains, Newark is already
experiencing flooding and if Area 4 is developed,
flooding will only increase. Newark has the
capacity within the existing urban areas to meet
its RHNA goals without putting future and
current residents at risk.
Further, the wetlands and wetland restoration
potential of Newark Area 4 should be embraced
for the numerous important benefits they
provide. Wetlands not only protect the city from
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-73
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
flooding and provide wildlife habitat, they also
clean our Bay waters, and have been
demonstrated to be one of the most powerful
tools in nature for fighting climate change, by
sequestering carbon even more efficiently than
our forests. We desperately need to protect and
restore all the San Francisco Bay wetlands we
can, and Newark has an incredible opportunity
to support this regional goal.
We strongly urge Newark to become a
climate-forward city by focusing on infill growth
in existing neighborhoods - rather than putting
housing in an undeveloped shoreline flood zone
that should be permanently protected as a
wildlife habitat and as a valuable buffer to
protect
the community from flooding and sea level rise.
11. Aundi Mevoli,
BayKeepers
March
27th
2023
I write on behalf of San Francisco Baykeeper
(“Baykeeper”) in opposition to the City of Newark’s
inclusion of the Sanctuary West Project (also
commonly known as “Area 4”) in its Draft Housing
Element. Baykeeper submits these comments on
behalf of approximately 5,000 members and
supporters who live and recreate in and around the
San Francisco Bay Area. Together, our mission is to
defend San Francisco Bay from the biggest threats
and hold polluters and government agencies
accountable to create healthy communities and help
wildlife thrive. Our team of scientists and lawyers
investigate pollution via aerial and water
See Response 1, above.
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-74
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
patrols, strengthen regulations through science and
policy advocacy, and enforce environmental laws on
behalf of the public.
It is discouraging to see the city continuing to
recommend and approve housing at Area 4. Instead of
allowing this area to be used as a natural barrier to
mitigate sea level rise (SLR) and groundwater
inundation as climate impacts increase, moving
forward with development will expose more than a
thousand new residents to SLR and put hundreds of
millions of dollars of property at risk. With only about ten percent of the original wetlands remaining around
San Francisco Bay, keeping these natural bufferlands
is essential to having a resilient community and
allowing shorelines to adapt in the midst of climate
change.
In addition, importing fill and paving over Area 4
would destroy restorable diked Baylands and harm
wildlife habitats for over a dozen special-status
species. This includes the endangered Salt Marsh
Harvest Mouse, endemic to only San Francisco Bay’s
marshes which are increasingly threatened with the
prospect of development. Furthermore, fragmenting
and degrading the existing wetlands in Area 4 will also threaten pup rookeries for harbor seals.
The scientific community has recommended Area 4 as
a high priority for protection and restoration of
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-75
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
wetlands and upland habitat in order to support San
Francisco Bay wildlife species and help them adjust to
rising sea levels. Congress has already authorized
lands such as Area 4 to be added to the Don Edwards
SF Bay National Wildlife Refuge. We urge you to
follow the guidance of the region’s scientific
community and prioritize protecting and restoring
this land rather than development in Area 4 as
planned in your current Draft Housing Element.
During the January 2023 King Tides, drone footage
revealed just how much surface water already
occupies the site. These images give a glimpse of what
this site will look like under one foot of SLR. Seeing as this site is projected to have two feet of SLR by 2050, it is obvious why this is not a good site to build
housing or degrade more wetland habitat.
Lastly, sustainable development comes at the
intersection of economic, social and environmental
capitols. Area 4 development only looks at the
economic benefit to build. However, if natural capitol
was also part of the equation, one would see how
many benefits this land offers: greenhouse gas
sequestration, nature based multi-benefit adaptation
solutions to SLR, open space for community members
to enjoy, and biodiversity to ensure a healthy Bay.
Staff, we implore you to remove the Sanctuary West
Project from suitable housing in the 6th cycle of
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-76
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
Newark’s Housing Element. Follow the advice of the
experts and protect these wetlands to, in turn, protect your community against climate change impacts.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this
Draft Housing Element. Please reach out to Aundi
Mevoli at [email protected] with any questions.
12. David Song October
13, 2023
I received a letter from city of Newark, regarding a
piece of land that I own. 37079 Ash street, APN:
92-127-31. The letter stated that my property has
been identified as a site that could be developed with
residential units, and well suited for development. I
have previously tried to discuss the development of
this site with the planning department multipe times,
with no success.
With this new initiative from the city, what kind of
incentive does the city provide to owners to develop
this site? Higher density? Lower permit fees? Faster
approval? Less red tape?
After reading through the Housing Element report, I
still could not figure out how does that report relate
to my property and its potential for development.
It would be nice for the city planner to sit down with
me and explain what kind of incentives the city
provides to the development of my site.
The city appreciates the commenter's interest
in developing the site identified in the
comment. City staff will contact the
commenter to initiate the discussion. The
development of the parcel could benefit
through the implementation of the following
programs:
-PROGRAM H2.8: Zoning for Missing Middle
Housing Types.
-PROGRAM H2.11: Catalyze the development
of small sites through a lot consolidation
incentive program
-PROGRAM H2.12: Ensure maximum
residential densities are achievable
-PROGRAM H3.1: Streamline Ministerial
Approval Permit Procedures
-PROGRAM H3.2: Develop objective design
standards for single family and multi family
developments and infill housing.
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-77
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
I am more than happy to work with the city to develop
this site and provide more housing opportunities to
medium and low income families.
Best
David
13. Rishika Rawat October
25, 2023
I was wondering where I could find a pdf of the
Newark Safety Element.
Staff followed up with a PDF of the Newark
Safety Element
14. Alyssa Lopez October
25, 2023
Hi, I was wondering if there is any action being taken
to invest in some programs such as a first-time buyers
programs for Newark Residents, or a low-income
based programs. If so, I’d like to get more information or be interested in investing some input
Thank you!
The 2023-2031 Housing Element, Section 3
(Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
(AFFH)), contains a detailed analysis of the
factors contributing to housing equity,
segregation, access to housing opportunities,
and the need for housing throughout the
Newark community. Table 3-16 provides a
summary of contributing factors and actions
regarding housing issues in Newark. For
example, the AFFH study identified the lack of
available rental housing for lower-income
households as a contributing factor for
households experiencing or are at-risk of
homelessness. The Housing Element contains
programs that, when implemented, would
begin to address the identified factors,
including:
-PROGRAM H4.1: Develop
Anti-Displacement Programs for the
Old-Town Newark Specific Plan Area.
-PROGRAM H4.3: Develop a Just Cause
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-78
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
Eviction Ordinance
-PROGRAM H4.8: Connect Residents with
Foreclosure assistance.
-PROGRAM H5.1: First-Time Homebuyer
Assistance
-PROGRAM H5.2: Affordable Housing
Development Programs
-PROGRAM H5.3: Public Lands for dedicated
affordable housing.
-PROGRAM H5.4: Affordable Housing
Overlay Zone
15. Pat Callaway
There has been opposition to Area 4 development
and I am confused by your responses. Has Area 4
been scrapped or not?
The Sanctuary West Project was approved by
the Newark City Council in November 2019. A
Development Agreement that sets the terms,
conditions, and requirements for the
developer and the city was previously
approved in 2015. The Development
Agreement is still in place, and the developer
intends to proceed with residential
development at some point in the future.
Sanctuary West is not identified as a site
needed to achieve the city’s Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) goal of 1,874 units
within the 2023-2031 period. However, per
the Development Agreement, the developer
may still proceed with the project. Newark
contains many sites that are zoned for
residential uses and could be developed as
housing but have not been identified in the
2023-2031 Housing Element’s sites inventory.
Should Sanctuary West or any other site
zoned for residential use be developed with
housing units, the city would count these units
as progress toward meeting our RHNA goal.
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-79
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
16. Krisie Knutson Those house are ugly , can’t you make some pretty houses
Noted.
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-80
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
COMMENT LETTERS
Comment 1 Carina
Rodriguez
After reviewing the Draft document, my biggest concerns are:
1) Newark's continuing to infringe on the marshes and wetlands around our city.
This is a large environmental issue and I saw very little mention of this in the housing plans. However, the city continues to approve housing developments on these natural lands. This will especially be an issue as climate change continues to wreak havoc on us - I do not want the city to be put in a situation where we have to use tax dollars to help those who ignorantly purchased homes on these wetlands and marshes. Especially when the lands should have never been built on in the first place.
2) I do not want the city of Newark to become a haven for low income housing.
While we should open our city to new residents - low income housing invites low income individuals who will not be contributing a significant amount in taxes. Some are indeed hard workers and have been beaten down by the systemic failures of our city, county, state, and country, but some have no interest in doing anything to help themselves and will just suck up the free resources paid for by taxpayers. Yes, we do need low income housing to assist some in our community. However, we should not accept a large percentage of this low income housing and rather have it spread out throughout the county of Alameda and the Bay Area.
3) Lastly, there are many apartments, townhouses, and duplexes that are completely run down and look absolutely awful. These can be found on Newark Blvd across the street from Newark Community park and Cherry towards Thornton. This housing looks abysmal and it's sickening that landlords are allowed to rent these apartments at top dollar while they are clearly falling apart and have made no investment in keeping them up to a basic, human level.
Before we begin to build more housing, we need to look at this housing and bring them up to a livable standard for those currently living in the city. Let's fix our home city first before we begin building more housing that may eventually look as awful as this housing on Newark Blvd. and Cherry. 2 Taran Singh Area 3 and Area 4 plan of building 469 homes an environmental disaster. The City of Newark cannot solve the housing problem by 500 odd homes on our wetlands. I urge the city to revert the development plan for Area 3 and Area 4 and let them be a safe abode for our flora and fauna. Overall, I think the City needs to get denser in areas close to the 880 corridors and provide connectivity to BART/Transit.
3 PAMELA
ROUSH
Please do not build in Newark Area 4. That is a flood zone and it will only get worse. Please, please reconsider building in Area 4. Thank you. 4 Andrea
Heckman
I'm very concerned about development in the Area 4 shoreline because of it's importance to the ecosystem and protecting our existing development from future flooding. It seems imprudent to build on an area which is expected to need massive alteration and protection from future sea level rise. Makes no sense to develop housing where future disaster is predictable.
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-81
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
5 Matt Francois We are submitting these comments on behalf of our client, Integral Communities, the proponent of the Mowry Village project. We write to request certain technical corrections and clarifications to the draft Housing Element. For instance, the reference to 398 built single family units in Area 3, Sub Area B (on page 104) should instead refer to 386 units. Additionally, the reference to the Mowry Village project (on page 105) refers to the site as being within Area 3 when it is located within Area 4; please also correct the location of the Mowry Village project in the last paragraph of this section. Finally, also in the last paragraph of this section, please clarify the intent about retiring the Area 3 & 4 Specific Plan after action on the Mowry Village project as it is anticipated that the Specific Plan would continue to be relied on to make consistency determinations for the Mowry Village and other projects. 6 Carol Drake Newark Area 4 is not a good choice for development.
Wetlands sequester carbon, store floodwater, and filter nutrients and sediment from water.
Already included in the expansion boundaries of the Don Edwards SF Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Area 4 provides an unparalleled opportunity to restore wetlands and other wildlife habitat, while creating a buffer against sea level rise.
Newark should focus on infill development instead.
It could utilize existing neighborhoods and major development opportunities such as revitalizing NewPark Mall, which could provide 1,519 housing units, and smaller projects already planned in and around Old Town Newark. Building in these developed areas would help place housing near job centers, reducing vehicle miles traveled and road congestion.
Comment 7:
From: Nabe Newark <nabenewark@...>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 5:23 PM
To: Steven Turner
Cc: Art Interiano; Carmelisa Lopez; Joseph Balatbat; David Benoun; Lenka Hovorka Subject: Re: City of Newark Virtual Community Meeting - Draft Housing Element March 22 at 7:00 PM
Hi Mr. Turner, thank you for including me in the distribution.
I am unsure if I will be able to join the meeting tomorrow, therefore please find 2 comments from me a fter reading this fantastic work by the city staff:
I was very happy to see that you mentioned working with Newark Unified School District in the draft H ousing Element, Policy H2.4
I want to share some recent news articles which should help support this idea within Newark.
Affordable teacher housing development in Los Gatos 'move‐in ready' (mercurynews.com) APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-82
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Report: Silicon Valley housing crisis linked to declining school enrollment (sanjosespotlight.com) News – Support Teacher Housing
Affordable teacher housing to be built in Palo Alto – The Talon (lahstalon.org) Other cities in the Bay Area have helped their school districts address the missing housing for teaching st aff and I think Newark should also partner with NUSD to do something similar. I loved the creative idea y ou had shared during our chat at the after party of Mayor Hannon's swearing in ceremony late last year.
After housing, the next big expense for low income residents tends to be transportation.
While our Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan was approved in Feb 2017, we haven't made massive strid es in making the overall vision in that plan come true.
Bike lanes will not only improve accessibility to local employers: restaurants, gas stations, retail stores, Home Depot, Amazon etc. but also upcoming city centers such as NewPark Place and might even spar k Old Town into life. The other thing is, bike lanes will benefit residents of all income levels.
I saw that the number 1 response to Q.9 of the Public Engagement and Input Survey with 33% respon dents was public infrastructure including bicycle lanes.
Therefore it would be great if the Housing Element had a specific call out to pedestrian and bicycle infra structure vs. the single specific mention on Pg. 128.
I think exploring ways to align the relevant parts of the Housing Element more closely with the Bicycle E lement will help us capture this once in a decade opportunity to shape the future of housing in Newark by the handle bars!
Regards,
Namit
P.S. From the Needs Analysis of the Bicycle Master Plan, Pg.29:
"Newark has a great deal of potential for growing its bicycle network and safely and comfortably attra cting new bicycle trips with its temperate climate, flat terrain, growing on‐street facilities, system of lo w volume streets ideal for casual cyclists, and access to trails and recreation areas.
However, bicycling today can be difficult in Newark despite the growing interest and number of bicyclists . Heavy traffic, high traffic stress bikeways, and a lack of continuous bicycle facilities on Newark’s major arterials, particularly on north & south routes, remain significant challenges for attracting new riders." On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 4:49 PM Steven Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear City Council, Planning Commission, and Community Development Advisory Committee‐ Community Development staff and our consultants are hosting a virtual community meeting about the 2023‐2031 Draft Housing Element on Wednesday, March 22, 2023, from 7:00‐8:30 PM. You are certainl y welcome to attend and participate.
We ask participants to register for the meeting with this link: Meeting registration. After registering, y ou will receive a confirmation email about joining the meeting.
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-83
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Comment 8:
From: Klaustermeier, Sarah
<[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 7:46 PM
To: Steven Turner
Cc: Klaustermeier, Sarah
Subject: RE: Newark's Draft Housing Element - NewPark Place Specific Plan Residential Units Steven,
I reviewed the draft Housing Element and had one comment specific to Phase A. The breakdown of income levels in Table C-1 is different than what is approved in our Affordable Housing Agreement.
Please see screenshots below:
Affordable Housing Agreement:
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-84
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Sarah Klaustermeier
Sr. Director, Development| Commercial
Development
From: Steven Turner <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2023 1:21 PM
To: Klaustermeier, Sarah <Sarah.Klaustermeier@...>
Subject: Newark's Draft Housing Element ‐ NewPark Place Specific Plan Residential Units CAUTION: EXTERNAL MAIL! Do not click links, open attachments or reply, unless you recognize the sender’s email address and know the content is safe! If unsure use the Report Phishing Button located in the ribbon.
Hi Sarah‐ I want to let you know that the city has prepared our Draft 2023‐2031 Housing Element for p ublic review. We have a dedicated website where the documents can be reviewed, including an executi ve summary and the complete draft document: www.newarkhousingupdate.org The Draft Housing Element identifies sites through the city that has the appropriate land use and zoning that would allow residential development over the next eight years. This includes sites within our specifi c plan areas, including the sites that allow residential as permitted uses in the NewPark Place Specific Pl an. The entitled Phase A site is identified as a pipeline project site and the other sites anticipated for ho using that surrounds the mall are also identified. Here is a map that illustrates these housing sites (the p APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-85
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
arcel lines likely don’t reflect the approved vesting tentative map, but we can update this map). The nu mber of units identified for this area totals 1,519 units, consistent with the specific plan.
Development of 1,519 units is not specifically required during the 2023‐2031 period, but the appropri ate land use and requirements are in place to accommodate that development if requested.
Newark was able to identify enough sites at the right densities throughout the city to exceed our Regio nal Housing Needs Allocation. We have also projected the number of units that could be developed at various income levels for the sites. See Table C‐1 for more information.
The initial public review period runs through March 27. We will then send it to the State of Californ ia Housing and Community Development Department for their review, comments, and edits in earl y April. We expect to revise the housing element in June/July to incorporate all the necessary edits before public hearings are scheduled with the Planning Commission and City Council later in the su mmer.
Paul Peninger and his team are the city’s primary consultants who prepare the draft. Paul and I w ould be happy to discuss the housing element with you and answer questions.
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-86
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Thanks, Sarah,
‐‐Steven
Comment 9
March 27, 2023
RE: Housing Element Policy Recommendations for Climate Resilience & Fair Housing Dear Mayor Hannon, City Council, and Planning Staff, The undersigned organizations and individuals are excited to participate in Newark’s Housing Element process. We write to offer feedback on Newark’s Draft Housing element for the sixth cycle.
This update is an opportunity for Newark to make sure that high resource and racially segregated neighborhoods take on their fair share of the City’s housing needs, particularly for lower income residents who are disproportionately people of color. As your housing element notes, the majority of Newark residents are in housing that is either unaffordable or does not meet their needs. In particular, the Latine community experiences high levels of overcrowding and above average spending on housing. The City must ensure that all, regardless of race or income, can enjoy safe, stable, and accessible homes located either near jobs or transit (bus as well as BART) and on sites that are clean and suitable for development.
We are glad to see many great policies and sites that promote infill and active transportation.
We also appreciate Newark going above the buffer recommendations for realistic zoning capacity. Among the sites we’re excited about is the Newpark project which will build medium density units on parking lots. This project is a perfect example of infill with access to AC Transit lines to BART.
We also want to commend the city for Policy H6.7: Residential Development in the FloodPlain.
We continue our opposition to the Sanctuary West project. We are glad that the city recognizes that such developments are not in the interest of Newark residents nor the prudent fiduciary responsibility of the council and staff. In an era where our communities are facing the consequences of climate change and sea level rise, each community should be actively assessing how it will ensure future developments and infrastructure will be resilient to flood risk without adversely impacting existing residents and the environment. Building in Area 4 baylands APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-87
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
would both greatly increase flood risk across the city, and also squander the opportunity to utilize these lands as a valuable flood buffer to protect the community from flooding and sea level rise, while also providing improved natural wildlife habitat and increased outdoor access opportunities for residents. Additionally, since there is broad community opposition from both environmental and pro-housing organizations in the area, building here has a high chance of community pushback which could delay the project to outside the planning period.
We strongly recommend updating your Climate Action Plan which is now 13 years old in order to implement mitigation measures for water level rise (both sea level rise and groundwater rise) and to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. We also recommend adding a policy to restore wetlands in order to maximize carbon sequestration and protection from sea level rise.
Program H3.5: Parking standards study can be strengthened to commit to reducing parking minimums. A study from UC Berkeley’s Terner Center found, “the presence of structured parking added nearly $36,000 per unit.” The Draft Housing Element notes that Newark has higher parking1 minimums than neighboring jurisdictions. Parking, especially covered parking, significantly increases the cost of housing developments and uses space for cars rather than for people. In order to combat climate change we know that we must reduce our reliance on cars and fossil fuels. By prioritizing land for people rather than cars we can address the housing crisis and GHG reduction goals. Due to this higher level of parking and its cost, we strongly urge you to commit to reducing the amount of required parking to no more than 0.5 spaces per residential unit, and zero in transit-adjacent areas.
Program H2.1: Encourage new middle-density housing with SB 9 and SB 10. While this is a laudable direction for the city to go to encourage housing abundance throughout the city, it could be strengthened with a few more objective outcomes for the program. (1) The SB 9 ordinance should not reduce the buildable envelope below what an underlying single-family zone allows. (2) Missing middle zoning should allow at least 4 units on at least 80% of single-family lots—not merely legal as density, but practical in terms of development standards.
See the Portland Residential Infill Program for a possible direction where buildable envelope is increased the more units are planned on the lot. (3) No areas should be exempted from missing middle except based on floodplain, fire risk, or other major public health / ecological risks. (4) Required parking should continue to be no more than 0.5 spaces /unit, or zero near any bus line, as the major space requirements of off-street parking reliably kills missing middle.
As we’ve mentioned, we oppose site number 2: Sanctuary West because of its location on baylands that are expected to see a nearly two feet rise of water levels in less than 50 years. We continue to urge you to remove this from your site list.
To support our vision for Newark, Greenbelt Alliance and other partnering organizations have crafted a go-to guide for accelerating equitable adaptation to the climate crisis; The Resilience Playbook. The Playbook brings together curated strategies, recommendations, and tools to support local decision makers and community leaders wherever they are in their journey.
We look forward to continuing to engage with Newark and the community on how this vital work can move forward in the new year.
Sincerely,
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-88
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Victor Flores, East Bay Resilience Manager,
Greenbelt Alliance
David Lewis, Executive Director
Save The Bay
Maxwell Davis and the 2500 members of East
Bay for Everyone
1 https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/ab-1401-residential-parking-requirements/ Comment 10
The City of Newark received the following comment as a form letter from 72 individuals. A full list ofthe individuals follows the letter.
To: Steven Turner
Subject: Remove Sanctuary West from the Newark Housing Element Steven Turner,
Dear Mayor Hannon, Vice Mayor Collazo and Newark City Councilmembers, Thank you for putting together a robust Housing Element draft. This is a once in a decade moment for Newark to make pivotal progress on climate change and fair housing by developing a comprehensive housing strategy that builds housing in existing neighborhoods, while ensuring the long-term climate resilience of the city by protecting protecting valuable open space along the shoreline as wildlife habitat while providing community resilience as a flood buffer from sea level rise.
I am writing to you today to implore you to remove Newark Area 4 (“Sanctuary West”) from your housing site inventory. This is not a good place to build housing and should not be how Newark meets a significant portion of its housing requirement. Newark Area 4 is almost entirely within a flood zone, and the site is anticipated to be almost completely inundated with just 1 meter of sea level rise. Additionally, new studies show that development of Area 4 could cause flooding for other shoreline communities in the Bay Area.
Developing this site will increase flood risk to current and future residents and cause catastrophic financial issues to the city in the future.
As evidenced by recent rains, Newark is already experiencing flooding and if Area 4 is developed, flooding will only increase. Newark has the capacity within the existing urban areas to meet its RHNA goals without putting future and current residents at risk.
Further, the wetlands and wetland restoration potential of Newark Area 4 should be embraced for the numerous important benefits they provide. Wetlands not only protect the city from flooding and provide wildlife habitat, they also clean our Bay waters, and have been demonstrated to be one of the most powerful tools in nature for fighting climate change, by sequestering carbon even more efficiently than our forests. We desperately need to protect and restore all the San Francisco Bay wetlands we can, and Newark has an incredible opportunity to support this regional goal.
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-89
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
We strongly urge Newark to become a climate-forward city by focusing on infill growth in existing neighborhoods - rather than putting housing in an undeveloped shoreline flood zone that should be permanently protected as a wildlife habitat and as a valuable buffer to protect the community from flooding and sea level rise.
Thank you,
[Name]
List of Individuals who sent the comment form letter:
● Neelam Noorani ● Andrea Resendiz ● Cassandra Jauregui ● Jonathan Coreas-Diaz ● Victoria Ornelas ● Christopher Sulots ● Jean Mccauley ● Nael Mohammad ● Jaycee Moriguchi
● Marissa Hernandez ● Oscar Pena ● Kurt Harvey
● Ashi Kodi Kodi ● Lauren Farias ● Christina Johnson
● Susana Real ● Kaitlyn Fregoso ● Timothy Lee
● Marilyn Painter ● Belle Farias ● Nazim Haffaf
● Jesus Jimenez ● Kamilah Arteaga ● Arianna G.
● Agustina Maradona ● Eden Kidd ● Michael Brazil
● Dakota Sierras ● Jaime Arredondo ● Allysia Irwin
● Alyssa Lopez ● Anthony Medina ● Janice MacKenzie
● K. Encarnacion ● Vaidehi Sharma ● Amanda C.
● Analeez Iniguez ● Lyndie Chiou ● Shawn Bean
● Lauren Arreguin ● Wendy Chou ● Amanda Cordoba
● Tia Triplett ● Justin Burks ● Teresa Pinto
● Kassandra Vega ● Vanessa Nunez ● Marina Montes
● David Strand ● David Alexander ● George Flint
● Monika Strand ● Malalai Mayar ● Katherine Roberts
● Timmy Thach ● Diane Petersen ● Thalia Lubin
● Katelyn Costa ● Maia Rodriguez ● AJ Cho
● Jasmine Sandhu ● Raul Maldonado ● A.F. Shayne
● John Oda ● Remi Tan ● Joan Starr
● Ben Keller ● Kermit Cuff ● Maxwell Davis
● Cyril Bouteille ● Sarah Bell ● Shaina
Chemparathypatagonia
Comment 11
March 27, 2023
Transmitted Via Electronic Mail via the City Clerk
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-90
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Steven Turner, Community Development Director
37101 Newark Blvd.
Newark, CA 94560
Email: [email protected]
RE: Public comments by San Francisco Baykeeper on Newark’s Draft Housing Element.
Dear Mr. Turner,
I write on behalf of San Francisco Baykeeper (“Baykeeper”) in opposition to the City of Newark’s inclusion of the Sanctuary West Project (also commonly known as “Area 4”) in its Draft Housing Element. Baykeeper submits these comments on behalf of approximately 5,000 members and supporters who live and recreate in and around the San Francisco Bay Area. Together, our mission is to defend San Francisco Bay from the biggest threats and hold polluters and government agencies accountable to create healthy communities and help wildlife thrive. Our team of scientists and lawyers investigate pollution via aerial and water patrols, strengthen regulations through science and policy advocacy, and enforce environmental laws on behalf of the public.
It is discouraging to see the city continuing to recommend and approve housing at Area 4.
Instead of allowing this area to be used as a natural barrier to mitigate sea level rise (SLR) and groundwater inundation as climate impacts increase, moving forward with development will expose more than a thousand new residents to SLR and put hundreds of millions of dollars of property at risk. With only about ten percent of the original wetlands remaining around San Francisco Bay, keeping these natural bufferlands is essential to having a resilient community and allowing shorelines to adapt in the midst of climate change.
In addition, importing fill and paving over Area 4 would destroy restorable diked Baylands and harm wildlife habitats for over a dozen special-status species. This includes the endangered Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, endemic to only San Francisco Bay’s marshes which are increasingly threatened with the prospect of development. Furthermore, fragmenting and degrading the existing wetlands in Area 4 will also threaten pup rookeries for harbor seals.
The scientific community has recommended Area 4 as a high priority for protection and restoration of wetlands and upland habitat in order to support San Francisco Bay wildlife species and help them adjust to rising sea levels. Congress has already authorized lands such as Area 4 to be added to the Don Edwards SF Bay National Wildlife Refuge. We urge you to follow the guidance of the region’s scientific community and prioritize protecting and restoring this land rather than development in Area 4 as planned in your current Draft Housing Element.
During the January 2023 King Tides, drone footage revealed just how much surface water already occupies the site. These images give a glimpse of what this site will look like under one foot of SLR. Seeing as this site is projected to have two feet of SLR by 2050, it is obvious why this APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-91
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
is not a good site to build housing or degrade more wetland habitat.
Jan. 22, 2023, King Tides at Area 4 Photo credit: Carin High Lastly, sustainable development comes at the intersection of economic, social and environmental capitols. Area 4 development only looks at the economic benefit to build.
However, if natural capitol was also part of the equation, one would see how many benefits this land offers: greenhouse gas sequestration, nature based multi-benefit adaptation solutions to SLR, open space for community members to enjoy, and biodiversity to ensure a healthy Bay.
Staff, we implore you to remove the Sanctuary West Project from suitable housing in the 6th cycle of Newark’s Housing Element. Follow the advice of the experts and protect these wetlands to, in turn, protect your community against climate change impacts.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Draft Housing Element. Please reach out to Aundi Mevoli at aundi@... with any questions.
Sincerely,
Aundi Mevoli
Field Investigator and Policy Advocate San Francisco Baykeeper APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-92
NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING HCD REVIEW PERIODS
Comment 12 David Song I received a letter from city of Newark, regarding a piece of land that I own. 37079 Ash street, APN: 92-127-31. The letter stated that my property has been identified as a site that could be developed with residential units, and well suited for development. I have previously tried to discuss the development of this site with the planning department multipe times, with no success.
With this new initiative from the city, what kind of incentive does the city provide to owners to develop this site? Higher density? Lower permit fees? Faster approval? Less red tape?
After reading through the Housing Element report, I still could not figure out how does that report relate to my property and its potential for development.
It would be nice for the city planner to sit down with me and explain what kind of incentives the city provides to the development of my site.
I am more than happy to work with the city to develop this site and provide more housing opportunities to medium and low income families.
Best
David
Comment 13 Rishika Rawat
I was wondering where I could find a pdf of the Newark Safety Element.
Comment 14 Alyssa Lopez Hi, I was wondering if there is any action being taken to invest in some programs such as a first-time buyers programs for Newark Residents, or a low-income based programs. If so, I’d like to get more information or be interested in investing some input
Thank you!
Comment 15 Pat Callaway There has been opposition to Area 4 development and I am confused by your responses. Has Area 4 been scrapped or not?
Comment 16 Krisie Knutson
Those house are ugly , can’t you make some pretty houses APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-93
Homelessness
Prevention
Framework
A Companion to the Home Together
Community Plan
1 Homelessness Prevention Framework
Preventing homelessness before it occurs is a critical
strategy for reducing the number of unhoused residents
and the associated racial disparities in Alameda County.
Prevent Homelessness for our Residents is one of four
core objectives in the Home Together Community Plan
but until now there has not been a dedicated framework
for how to pursue this critical objective.
Why focus on prevention now?
Alameda County is closer than ever to closing the gap between those who become newly homeless each year and those who end their homelessness. In FY22–23, 4,006 people became newly homeless1 and 437 became homeless again after having been successfully rehoused (a total of 4,443 people.) During that same time, 4,084 people were assisted back into housing. This is the closest that the rehousing rate (outflow) has gotten to meeting new homelessness (inflow) in the last four years, a gap of only 359 people. (See Figure 1.) 1 Newly homeless is defined as not having enrolled in publicly funded homelessness services in at least the previous two years.
To turn the curve and steadily reduce homelessness, the inflow rate must dip deeply below the outflow rate and consistently remain there, as thousands of currently homeless households must also be rehoused before the trajectory is righted. Additionally, many people experience housing crises or housing loss without entering the homelessness response system and could benefit from prevention support through other avenues such as mainstream and upstream systems.
Alameda County’s homelessness response system has expanded its capacity to serve and rehouse people experiencing homelessness since the launch of Home Together in FY21–22. The community has several effective programs currently working to prevent homelessness. However, the funding and scale is insufficient to meet the need, and the resources are not consistent or reliable. Inadequate resources and structural factors persist, such as systemic racism in the housing market, rising rents combined with insufficient wages, and displacement pressures exacerbated by persistent underproduction of affordable housing.
These factors cause new homelessness (inflow) to occur at a rate that still outpaces the rates at which homelessness can be prevented and people currently experiencing homelessness can be rehoused.
To scale the prevention approach and begin to effectively meet the need is estimated to cost approximately $50 million annually.2 A significant investment combined with increased targeting and coordinated efforts across a wide array of systems can change the trajectory. This Framework provides the structure for this scaling and coordination to occur.
2 This includes approximately $10 million annually for reducing the rate people already rehoused fall back into homelessness, and $44 million for targeted prevention to reduce new homelessness.
Figure 1 | Homelessness Response System Inflow and Outflow 0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000 4,164
INFLOW OUTFLOW
2,671
3,884
3,474
4,043
2,915
4,443
4,084
FY 19–20 FY 20–21 FY 21–22 FY 22–23
The Need for Prevention
2 Homelessness Prevention Framework
Targeting to those most at risk
Prevention is both humane and cost-effective when targeted to those most likely to lose housing. Many people within Alameda County are at risk of homelessness.
More than 40,000 Alameda County households are extremely low-income and severely rent burdened.3 Housing for many of these households is tenuous and it takes little to put them at imminent risk of becoming homeless.
To reduce homelessness and decrease racial disparities requires reducing the rate at which people fall into, and return, to homelessness. Because at any given time a large number of people are at risk, the prevention response needs both to scale and to appropriately target resources to ensure it prevents homelessness for as many people as possible.
Resources for homelessness prevention, however, are extremely limited compared to the need, and coordinated efforts are required to expand and implement effective prevention strategies.
3 Extremely low-income households earn less than 30% of the area median income (or less than $39,950 for a family of three). Severely rent-burdened households pay more than 50% of their income for their housing.
From the current approach to the future response
This Homelessness Prevention Framework was developed using evidence from national research, key informant interviews with local government and nonprofit leaders, and input from local stakeholders with lived and professional expertise who met as the Homelessness Prevention Strategy Team (HPST).4 The HPST met eight times over the course of 2023, studying best practices, reviewing suggested strategies, and providing feedback on existing and new approaches, including helping to develop critical screening tools that can be deployed within local government systems to identify households at high risk of losing housing and to provide preventative assistance.
Within Alameda County, there are several strong programs offering preventionrelated services. These programs include the Keep People Housed network, which uses targeted outreach, geographic (zip code-based) prioritization, and risk screening to focus on people and communities who are closest to becoming homeless, as well as other specially targeted programs within some cities. In addition, there are a variety of programs embedded in mainstream systems that focus on households experiencing housing insecurity which provide preventionrelated services. These programs include:
• Alameda County Housing Secure, which offers legal services and emergency rent assistance to households facing eviction.
• Alameda County’s child welfare system’s support for youth exiting foster care to transition to stable housing.
• The Probation Department’s support for people exiting incarceration to access transitional and permanent housing.
• Alameda County Health, which operates and supports numerous programs aimed at increasing housing stability among the people they serve.
Not all of these programs are targeted to those most at risk of housing loss, however, and none are currently scaled to meet the existing need. In FY 22–23, eviction prevention and targeted homelessness prevention programs accounted for just $5.2 million of the $293.5 invested in the homelessness response system in Alameda County. One-time resources during the COVID response period temporarily increased the prevention resources available in Year 1 of the Plan (FY21-22), reaching many thousands of households, but there are currently no recurring federal or state resources that specifically fund the type of robust and targeted prevention services envisioned here and needed to make progress.5 4 For a complete list of HPST members see Appendix A. For a more in-depth description of the methodology for this report, see Appendix C.
5 Home Together Year 2 Progress Update, available at https://homelessness.acgov.org/ reports.page?.
3 Homelessness Prevention Framework
Targeted Prevention
Programs
Well-designed homelessness
prevention programs that
offer a diverse array of
services available in time to
meet the urgency of each
household’s housing crisis.
Integration with
Upstream Systems
Providers are connected
to mainstream systems that
work with at-risk households
including healthcare, criminal/
legal, employment, education,
child-welfare, aging and disability,
and Veteran services systems.
A Supportive
Policy Environment
Policies such as tenant
protection, legal rights and
education for tenants and
landlords, pay and workplace
protections, public benefit
levels, and expansion of
affordable housing.
A Homeless
Prevention Network
Programs are offered through
a facilitated network that has
shared priorities, outreach
and targeting approaches,
information gathering and
evaluation.
The creation of an effective,
efficient, and equitable
community-wide homelessness
prevention response requires four
interconnected components.
1. Targeted Prevention Programs
2. A Homeless Prevention Network
3. Integration with Upstream Systems
4. A Supportive Policy Environment
In addition, a robust and coordinated prevention
approach requires well-defined and accountable
leadership and investment in administration and
infrastructure to implement, oversee, and evaluate
the response. This is in addition to the significant
new investment needed directly in the prevention
services themselves.
4 Homelessness Prevention Framework
Objectives, Strategies
& Critical Action Steps
OBJECTIVE 1
Address racial disparities in mainstream/upstream systems to prevent racially disproportionate inflow into homelessness.
Partner with school districts, social services
agencies, child welfare, community health
organizations and others to connect people to
prevention and economic supports in a timely
manner and through trusted sources.
Work with institutions in the criminal legal system
to create housing planning and homelessness
prevention resources.
Ensure that workforce services are accessible to
and structured to support people whose housing
is unstable.
Target resources to assist children and
vulnerable transition-aged youth leaving
their homes or foster care.
Highlighted Action Steps
• Convene public entities and develop joint plans.
• Implement screening questions in mainstream systems, including health care settings, and make warm hand-offs to prevention programs.
• Build prevention assessments into discharge planning. • Align homelessness prevention services for the reentry population with current criminal legal system reform efforts.
• Deepen partnerships between workforce services, eviction prevention, homelessness prevention, and homelessness response systems.
• Build support and partnerships with existing and new employment social enterprises (ESEs). • Build on the work of the child welfare/foster care system to support successful transitions to permanent housing for vulnerable youth at risk of homelessness.
NEW
The recommendations developed for this
Framework lay out specific strategies and action
steps, which together create the four-part response
pictured above. Several of these strategies were
first presented in the Home Together 2026 plan
and have been elaborated on for this Framework,
while others are new.* Appendix B lays out all the
recommendations and the detailed action steps
needed to achieve them. These recommendations,
summarized below, were discussed in detail with
the HPST and other stakeholders who identified the
work that needs to be done to realize the objectives.
* New strategies are marked with a NEW symbol.
5 Homelessness Prevention Framework
OBJECTIVE 2
Focus resources for prevention on people most
likely to lose their homes.
Work with government and private
funders to increase targeted
prevention for people most likely to
become homeless.
Tailor outreach and prioritization
to reach those at highest risk and
coordinate these efforts in all areas
of the county.
Implement and expand shallow subsidy availability for people on fixed or limited incomes with housing insecurity to relieve rent burden and reduce the risk of becoming homeless.
Highlighted Action Steps
• Invest in programs that use proven methods to reach and target households most likely to experience homelessness.
• Develop a homelessness prevention services network that coordinates efforts across Alameda County.
• Use data to identify and prioritize outreach to the highest need neighborhoods and geographic areas.
• Make prevention services easier to access using physical and virtual access points and streamline application processes.
• Use a shared information system, agreed-upon data standards and workflows.
• Advocate for the shallow subsidy model and for local, state, and federal funding to meet these needs.
OBJECTIVE 3
Rapidly resolve episodes of homelessness through
Housing Problem Solving.
Add resources to flexible funding
pools for Housing Problem Solving,
a practice of helping people
newly homeless or on the verge
of homelessness to identify rapid
solutions to their situation with light
financial support.
Offer Housing Problem Solving
training and funding throughout
the system so that providers can
quickly assist people when and
where they seek help.
Provide Housing Problem Solving training and funding to mainstream systems and to organizations in the homelessness prevention network.
Highlighted Action Steps
• Evaluate Housing Problem Solving’s impact and work with current and prospective providers to develop system improvements.
• Create an easily accessible pool of flexible funds that trained employees in mainstream systems and community-based organizations can use to problem-solve with households.
• Use a shared information platform, or information sharing protocol, to track Housing Problem Solving outcomes.
NEW
6 Homelessness Prevention Framework
OBJECTIVE 5
Create a policy environment supporting
homelessness prevention.
City and County legislators
advocate collectively with state and
federal leaders for needed policy
changes and ongoing funding.
Increase the supply of deeply
affordable housing.
Strengthen and enforce local
tenant protections.
Increase enforcement of
federal, state, and local antidiscrimination laws.
Reduce barriers to housing stability for people who have been convicted of crimes.
Highlighted Action Steps
• Develop a shared legislative platform for increases in ongoing funding and policy changes to reduce the risk of experiencing homelessness. • Implement recommended enhancements to tenant protections. • Extend code compliance and relocation programs.
• Evaluate guaranteeing legal representation to all tenants in eviction court, while expanding court-based homelessness prevention services. • Support increased enforcement and strengthening of nondiscrimination laws. • Pursue strengthened “Ban the Box” and “Fair Chance” protections against use of past criminal history in housing.
NEW
OBJECTIVE 4
Prevent racially disproportionate returns to
homelessness.
Target time-limited rapid rehousing
resources to serve households with
an ability to increase income.
Partner with educational, vocational
and employment services to
ensure that people moving toward
employment have strong support
in obtaining and maintaining
employment.
Establish a flexible funding pool for
preventing homelessness, including
a shallow subsidy option.
Review and evaluate methods
for determining types of housing
placements to ensure high rates of
success and avoid unsustainable
housing placements.
Provide additional support services, such as behavioral health care and case management, in existing sites and programs for people who have transitioned from homelessness to permanent housing.
Highlighted Action Steps
• Prioritize rapid rehousing to households engaged in workforce training and employment programs, or in the benefit acquisition process. • Explore using rapid rehousing as a bridge to an expected shallow or deep long-term subsidy.
• Expand supported employment, including employment social enterprises (ESEs) to serve formerly homeless people with mental health and/or substance use disorder needs and other challenges.
• Allocate long-term shallow subsidies for formerly homeless people with limited fixed incomes.
• Target resources geographically to ensure significant resources reach BIPOC communities.
• Using a racial equity lens and available research, expand existing program standards to develop housing plans.
• Use data to evaluate equity impacts.
7 Homelessness Prevention Framework
The need for significant new investment
Achieving significant reductions in new homelessness through targeted prevention strategies requires significant new investment. As stated above, there are currently no large recurring sources from the federal or state government that can be dedicated to targeted prevention efforts. Local and ongoing resources are needed.
Estimating the additional investment needed is not easy. Not everyone who is at risk of losing their housing will become homeless if they do not receive prevention services, but who specifically among the population at risk will become homeless is very hard to predict. This means that the system must create strong targeting to find those most in need and then provide prevention services to many households to ensure that it prevents some from falling into homelessness. Not all prevention interventions will be successful, so each estimate includes both a targeting factor (an estimated number to be served to ensure a successful outcome) and a presumed number that won’t be successful.
Finally, prevention can have a wide range of costs, depending on how quickly someone is assisted, how costly their rent or other expenses are, and how long they need assistance. Local eviction prevention providers estimate that they spend an average of between $6,000 and $8,000 per household served, including the cost of staffing. For these estimates, we have used $7,000 per household as the cost of a targeted prevention intervention.
Approximately $10 million is needed annually
to reduce returns to homelessness
While not the majority of those entering homelessness, a portion of the annual inflow comes from people who have previously been homeless and were rehoused in the past two years.
Currently, the rate of returns to homelessness within two years is approximately 15% of all individuals rehoused.6 In FY22–23, 449 persons were recorded as returning to homelessness.
Home Together sets a target of reducing the rate of return to homelessness to 9% or lower. This means that the return rates must be lowered at the same time that the number of people who are being rehoused is expected to go up, leaving a larger group of people to target. Because it is impossible to know who of those rehoused will return to homelessness, services will need to be offered to a greater number of people who were rehoused.
Applying calculations that assume both a higher number of people needing to be served over time as the dedicated housing stock grows, and assuming a fairly high but not perfect success rate of 90% we estimate that it would currently take between $4 million and $6 million to bring the return rate below 9% over the next two years. When the system reaches full capacity it will take approximately $10 million per year to achieve and maintain the reduction in returns. (See Appendix D for more detail on these calculations.)
6 This analysis uses the return rate for adult-only households because families are already experiencing an 8% return rate, which is below the Home Together goal.
Table 1 | Estimated annual cost of achieving a 9% rate of return to homelessness Targeted Reduction in
# Returning
Multiplying factor
to be served
Total
Served
Estimated
Success Rate
Cost Per
Prevention
Total
Cost
YEAR 1 181 3 597 90% $7,000 $4,179,000
YEAR 2 255 3 841 90% $7,000 $5,890,500
YEAR 3 415 3 1,369 90% $7,000 $9,586,500
8 Homelessness Prevention Framework
Approximately $44 million is needed
to reduce new entries to homelessness
A much larger number of people enter homelessness for the first time in any given year than return to homelessness. In FY22–23, 4,037 people newly experienced homelessness in Alameda County. To begin to turn the curve, the inflow number needs to drop at the same time the rehousing rate grows.
However, even well-funded targeted homelessness prevention which includes extensive outreach cannot reach everyone who might become homeless.
Reducing the inflow by approximately 25% each year would make a significant difference in the number of people becoming homeless over time and support the achievement of the Home Together goals to reduce inflow to below the placement rate and keep it low.
Because it is harder to predict among a very large group of low-income residents who will become homeless, targeted prevention to reduce new homelessness must both serve more people and assume a somewhat lower rate of success. For this calculation, we assume programs must serve five times the number of people to ensure at least one successful prevention outcome, and that not all incidences of homelessness will be prevented even with assistance. With these assumptions, a reduction of 1,070 people becoming homeless for the first time is estimated to require approximately $44 million.7
7 These assumptions are both very optimistic. The actual numbers needed to be served and the potential failure rate may both be much higher based on the published research, but this type of more targeted programming has not been evaluated.
Table 2 | Cost calculus to reduce new homelessness
Target Reduction
in Newly Homeless
Multiplying Factor
to be Served
Estimated
Success Rate
Total
Served
Cost Per
Prevention
Total
Cost
1,070 5 85% 6,294 $7,000 $44,058,000
Annual amounts after the first year are difficult to approximate because the rate of new homelessness is unknown. Home Together anticipated a growth rate of up to 20% per year for the first two years of the Plan. The actual growth rate in recorded new homelessness between FY20–21 and FY 22–23 was 4% and 11%. As the Framework is implemented and evaluation carried out, more refined estimates may be possible. If the rates of inflow to homelessness increase, the funding needed to achieve the same level of reduction will be greater. (See Appendix D for more details on these calculations.)
9 Homelessness Prevention Framework
Create expanded leadership and infrastructure
Finally, to be successful, the community-wide homelessness prevention response will require the support of an engaged leadership and administrative structure to conduct continued planning, provide ongoing oversight and accountability, and support implementation. The following recommendations and the chart below reflect a recommended administrative structure and approach to implement, evaluate and modify the Framework.
All components of this coordinated structure should reflect the guiding values of Home Together, including centering the expertise of people who have experienced housing instability and who represent communities disproportionately impacted by the systemic inequities that lead to homelessness.
Fund and develop administrative capacity that
ensures implementation, ongoing accountability to
goals, and continuous quality improvement.
Designate the Continuum of
Care’s Housing Stability and
Homelessness Prevention
Committee (HSHP) as the public
body responsible for ongoing public
information and recommendations
for implementing the homelessness
prevention response.
Identify an agency or office
within Alameda County to serve
as the administrative hub for the
homelessness prevention response
(the Hub). Fund a team, initially
with an estimated 3–4 FTE, to
launch this effort, scaling the team
as needed as further prevention
resources are added.
Create or use an existing table
or convening of Alameda County
agencies, departments, and
divisions that, with support from the
Hub, can guide the implementation
of the mainstream systems’ roles.
Fund and support a Lead Agency
or Partnership for a homelessness
prevention services network of
community-based homelessness
prevention providers to implement
the targeted approach, program
priorities, and service delivery
commitment of Home Together and
this Framework.
Establish a shared data system,
or a method for data sharing from
existing data collection systems,
operating across participating
mainstream systems and the
homelessness prevention network.
Develop performance metrics for
the work that focuses on outcomes
such as retaining housing.
Simplify and streamline access
to homelessness prevention
financial assistance for providers
and their participants by
consolidating funding into fewer,
more easily accessible, pools,
providing maximum flexibility in
the use of the funds.
Establish a learning collaborative through the Hub and Lead Agency/ Partnership to provide ongoing training, peer-to-peer learning, and information-sharing opportunities.
Figure 2 | Prevention Framework Leadership
and Administrative Structure
COC: Housing Stability and
Homelessness Prevention
Committee (HSHP)
Alameda County — Internal
Mainstream Systems Convening
Homelessness Prevention
Services Network Lead Agency/
Partnership
Homelessness Prevention Response Administrative Hub
10 Homelessness Prevention Framework
Conclusion
Creating a community-wide homelessness prevention
response that is effective, efficient, and equitable is critical to achieve the goal of dramatically reducing
homelessness and racial disparities in Alameda County.
This Homelessness Prevention Framework lays out a path toward such a response, developed with input from numerous community stakeholders, including people whose lived expertise helped shape the recommendations.
Alameda County already benefits from several very good homelessness prevention programs that informed this Framework, and a growing body of academic research also shaped the strategies laid out above.
This Framework will be successful with the support of local leaders, from the mainstream systems that serve households on the verge of homelessness, and from the community-based organizations that are mission-driven to help keep people in their housing. It will be most successful with significant new resources dedicated to making real progress on homelessness prevention. Importantly, as the community stakeholders who contributed to this Framework emphasized, it will also require continued federal, state, and local policy change. With the right approach, investments, and policy direction, this Framework will help reach the goal of functionally ending homelessness in Alameda County. 11 Homelessness Prevention Framework © 2025 Alameda County. All rights reserved. (02-25) TOGETHER 2026
5-year plan to end homelessness in Alameda County
2 Home Together 2026
Contents
Acknowledgements 3
Executive summary 5
Background and introduction 10
Homelessness in Alameda County 13
Racial disparities in the homeless population 16
Special populations 16
Homelessness response system needs analysis and modeling 17 Building a system where people are rehoused quickly 18
Additions to housing inventory 21
Additions to shelter inventory 22
New investment needed 23
Goals and strategies 24
1 — Prevent homelessness for our residents 25
2 — Connect people to shelter and needed resources 28
3 — Increase housing solutions 31
4 — Strengthen coordination, communication and capacity 33 Specific needs and resources for special populations 35 Transition age youth 36
Veterans 38
Older adults 39
People impacted by intimate partner violence (IPV) 40
People with behavioral health needs 41
People impacted by criminal justice system involvement 42 Resources, gaps and allocation plan 43
Conclusion 47
Appendices 49
Appendix A — Glossary of terms 50
Appendix B — Detail on County allocation plan 53
Appendix C — System modeling overview and update 55
Appendix D — System modeling 5-year dashboards for adult and family households 59 Without addressing the
impact of racism in our
society, homelessness
will continue to
disproportionately impact
African Americans and
other people of color.
Creating a mix of housing
and services in order to
reduce these enormous
racial disparities is a major
focus of this Plan.
All of the photographs of people
and of housing featured in this
Plan were generously provided by
photographer Steven Texeira or by
providers in our community. Every
person and building featured is from
Alameda County and individuals
pictured provided their permission
for the photograph to be used.
3 Home Together 2026
Acknowlegements
We would like to acknowledge all of those who contributed to developing the Home Together 2026 Community Plan.
First and foremost, we acknowledge all of the people whose lives have been impacted by homelessness in Alameda County and beyond. The Home Together 2026 Community Plan is a critical step towards ending homelessness and its associated adverse impacts.
The Home Together 2026 Strategic Planning Committee was co-chaired by Kerry Abbott of the Alameda County Office of Homeless Care and Coordination (OHCC) and Chelsea Andrews of EveryOne Home (EOH). The Committee included homelessness service providers, people with lived experience, Healthcare for the Homeless Community Consumer Advisory Board members, racial equity advisors, homelessness and housing advocates, Youth Action Board members, city and county staff, representatives from all Board of Supervisors offices, EveryOne Home staff, CoC leadership, and Abt Associates, a HUD technical assistance provider.
The process for the original Centering Racial Equity in Homeless System Design (CRE) report which this plan operationalizes was chaired by Mayor Libby Schaaf of Oakland, Alameda County Health Care Services Agency Director Colleen Chawla, and Doug Biggs, then Chair of the EveryOne Home CoC Committee. The Racial Equity Analysis was initiated by Darlene Flynn, Director, City of Oakland Department of Race and Equity. Focus groups were supported by Susan Shelton, Alameda County Public Health staff members, and EveryOne Home staff and consultants. [Additional contributors to the CRE are listed in that report.]
Stephanie Reinauer, Joyce MacAlpine and Kristy Greenwalt with Abt Associates, a HUD technical assistance provider, conducted the initial CRE needs analysis and provided support and guidance with the system modeling and Home Together 2026 planning. For the update, Dashi Singham, Katie Haverly, Tirza White, Joanne Karchmer and Nisha Behrman participated in modeling update considerations.
The Plan development team within the Health Care Services Agency’s Office of Homeless Care and Coordination consisted of Colleen Chawla, Aneeka Chaudhry, Kerry Abbott, Suzanne Warner, Martha Elias, Jennifer Lucky, and consultant Katharine Gale. Jennifer Beales designed the final version of this report.
4 Home Together 2026
Members of the Strategic
Planning Committee
• Kerry Abbott — Alameda County HCSA Office
of Homeless Care and Coordination, Co-Chair
• Jamie Almanza — Bay Area Community
Services (BACS)
• Chelsea Andrews — EveryOne Home, Co-Chair
• Erin Armstrong — Office of Alameda County
Supervisor Nate Miley
• Gloria Bruce — East Bay Housing
Organizations (EBHO)
• Sharon Cornu — St. Mary’s Center
• Ginny De Martini — Office of Alameda County
Supervisor Richard Valle
• Emile Durette — Alameda County Social
Services Agency
• Cathy Eberhardt — Race Equity Action
Lab Participant
• Darlene Flynn — City of Oakland
• Donald Frazier — Building Opportunities for
Self-Sufficiency
• Sabrina Fuentes — Health for the Homeless
Community Consumer Advisory Board
• Nashi Gunasekara — Family Violence
Law Center
• Katie Haverly — EveryOne Home
• Melissa Hernandez — Office of Alameda
County Supervisor David Haubert
• Arlene Hipp EveryOne Home Emerging
Leaders Program
• Emma Ishii — Office of Alameda County
Supervisor Keith Carson
• Jessica Lobedan — City of Hayward
• Ramiro Montoya — East Bay Housing
Organizations (EBHO)
• Hannah Moore — ALL IN Alameda County
• Tunisia Owens — Family Violence Law Center
• Natasha Paddock — Alameda County
Community Development Agency, Housing
and Community Development Department
• Fina Perez — Alameda County Department
of Probation
• Tara Reed — Abt Associates
• Jonathan Russell — Bay Area Community
Services (BACS)
• Jared Savas — Office of Alameda County
Supervisor Dave Brown
• Susan Shelton — EveryOne Home
Leadership Board
• Lara Tannenbaum — City of Oakland
• James Vann — Homeless Action Working
Group (HAWG)
• Liz Varela — Building Futures with Women
and Children
• Vivian Wan — Abode Services
Many people took the time to read the draft
Plan, which was posted and circulated widely
for public comment, and provide thoughtful
feedback and suggestions. The final version
reflects many of these suggestions and
others will be used in the creation of local
implementation plans, annual updates and
other communications stemming from the
Plan’s adoption.
The Health Care Services Agency team invited
all county Mayors to meet and discuss the
plan and received important feedback in
these sessions. The City County Homelessness
Technical Working Group, made up of City
Manager staff, city Homelessness Policy
leads, and county staff from OHCC, HCD, and
Supervisors’ staff, met regularly to develop
a shared framework for resource allocation
under the plan and presented the plan and
the allocation framework to joint sessions of
the Board of Supervisors and the county’s
Mayors. These joint sessions were noticed
public meetings.
Thank you to the countless other CoC partners
in Alameda County for their contributions to
the Home Together 2026 Community Plan, and
for their dedication and tireless work towards
ending homelessness in Alameda County.
5 Home Together 2026
Executive
summary
6 Home Together 2026
This Home Together 2026
Community Plan (the Plan) lays
out the goals, strategies and
investments needed to dramatically
reduce homelessness in Alameda
County by 2026 and combat racial
disparities in homelessness by
fully centering equity. The Plan’s
overarching goals and time frame
align with Alameda County’s Vision
2026, which holds as one of its
primary objectives to “ensure the
availability of diverse and affordable
housing for all residents with the
goal of eliminating homelessness in
Alameda County.”
Alameda County
Alameda County is home to more than 1.6
million residents and includes 14 cities and
six unincorporated communities. Nonprofit
organizations, public entities, and a range of
interested parties, including those with direct
experience of homelessness, work together in
a Continuum of Care (the Oakland-BerkeleyAlameda County Continuum of Care, or CoC) to seek new resources and coordinate housing and
services funding for addressing homelessness.
The CoC is led by a representative Leadership
Board, supported by a number of committees
and staffed by EveryOne Home.
The County’s Office of Homeless Care and
Coordination (OHCC), formed in early 2020
within the Health Care Services Agency,
participates in CoC Leadership and coordinates
with residents, providers, other County agencies
and local jurisdictions around strategic planning
and service delivery. Cities across Alameda
County participate in the CoC and dedicate
local resources to funding, siting and supporting
shelters, housing, and services within their
communities. This Plan seeks to serve as
a playbook for all of these parties working
together, recognizing that each jurisdiction will
need to make specific decisions regarding the
resources under their authority. Specific annual
action plans are developed for the county and
for cities in conjunction with this framework.
Foundations
for this plan
This Plan builds upon many sources and efforts,
particularly the 2020 Centering Racial Equity in
Homeless System Design report (CRE) prepared
by partners in the Continuum of Care and
informed by a homelessness response system
needs analysis and focus groups with persons
of color who have experienced homelessness.
The CRE process modeled what an optimal
system to respond to all homelessness and
reduce racial disparities would look like and
what gaps need to be filled. The Plan is also
responsive to requirements laid out in the
California Comeback Plan to draw down key
state housing and health funding. It is informed
by and consistent with other local and regional
efforts, including the All Home Regional Action
Plan, Plan Bay Area 2050 and local city plans
to address homelessness. Companion county
and city-specific plans that align with the Home
Together 2026 Community Plan will speak to
the specific roles of local jurisdictions in coleading efforts to address homelessness, and the key roles of County agencies, community
partners and specific resources.
The community of Alameda County adopts
this plan and vision at a time when the future is
uncertain. New resources received, both onetime and ongoing, provide the groundwork for supporting this plan and its outcomes,
but alone are not enough to realize its vision.
The response to COVID-19 has shown that
this community can pull together and work
at speeds we have not seen before, a strong
foundation to build from.
7 Home Together 2026
However, we face continuing challenges
including uncertainties from COVID-19,
unpredictable housing markets, future state,
federal and local budgets, and a strained
public and non-profit sector with significant
capacity needs. All of these challenges require
continuing the current level of unprecedented
collaboration and coordination, building on
the progress made to unify the community
response and forge an aligned response
system centered in racial equity.
Homelessness in
Alameda County
On any given night over 8,000 people
experience homelessness in Alameda County,
a number that grows to approximately 15,000
people over the course of a year. More than 90%
of homeless households in Alameda County are
adults without minor children.
The homeless population does not reflect the
demographics of the county. Dramatic racial
disparities exist in Alameda County as in the
nation, in which African Americans experience
homelessness at more than four times their
representation in the population (47% vs.
11%). Native Americans, multiracial people
and Hawaiian Native/Pacific Islanders are also
vastly overrepresented in homelessness, among
those newly homeless, and in the rates at
which they return to homelessness even after
getting housing. These disparities call out the
need to invest, both more and differently, in
creating solutions that meet the needs of those
overrepresented. Special populations such as
transition age youth, veterans, older adults,
survivors of intimate partner violence, people
with behavioral health needs and people who
have had involvement with the criminal justice
system have additional risks and vulnerabilities
leading to homelessness and require targeted
resources and responses specific to their needs.
Homelessness
response system
needs analysis
A systemwide needs analysis conducted
in 2019-20 and updated in 2021 points to
significant gaps in the current homelessness
response system in the type and availability
of housing resources to help people leave
homelessness. Today, only an estimated 36%
of those experiencing homelessness can be
supported to end their homelessness with
local resources or are able to find housing
on their own. Each year, thousands of people
remain homeless and new people who become
homeless join them. Without significant effort
and investment this trajectory will continue,
and homelessness will continue to grow in
Alameda County.
Importantly, focus groups with local
stakeholders and people of color who have
experienced homelessness and research on
racial equity strategies informed the needs
analysis. This expertise was used to develop the
proposed new program models and pathways
out of homelessness through new investments
at every level. Housing investments needed to
address the deep disparities include:
• Create significant additional affordable
housing dedicated specifically for people
experiencing homelessness
• Develop supportive housing for people who
need increased supports, such as older and
frail adults
• Grow the supply of transitional housing
for youth
• Fund shallow and flexible rental assistance to
fill gaps for people with limited incomes
4,195 Additional supportive
housing units
3,190 New supportive housing units
for older/frail adults
10,070 New dedicated affordable units
or subsidies
5,240 New shallow subsidies
1,645 Additional rapid rehousing slots
24,340 Total units & subsidy slots
Estimated number of
housing solutions, by
type, needed by 2026
Source: CA-502 System Model, Abt Associates, 1/20/2022
8 Home Together 2026
• Expand current program models such as
Rapid Rehousing and supportive housing1
• Expand targeted behavioral health services
throughout the system
• Improve and expand targeted homelessness
prevention
The 2021 update to the analysis explored
different scenarios related to anticipated
new homelessness and levels of investment
to determine what will be required to fill
significant system gaps. The scenario selected
for this Plan seeks to reduce new entries to
homelessness by prevention when possible,
and to create a more robust response system
with enough housing resources at the end
of five years to provide a pathway out of
homelessness to every person who does enter
the homelessness response system.
1 This Plan uses the term “supportive housing” to refer to all housing types that include ongoing subsidy and continuously available services, often referred to as “permanent supportive housing” or “PSH” in other contexts.
Building a system
where people are
rehoused quickly
Overall, increased investment in prevention
and the addition of more than 24,000 housing
opportunities in a variety of program models
are needed to reach a point within five years
at which the number of people who become
homeless in a year and the number who are
able to leave homelessness in that time are in
balance. These 24,000+ interventions include
everything from short-term support to prevent
homelessness to ongoing rental subsidies and
supportive housing with services.
In addition to the significant need for
housing, because 79% of people experiencing
homelessness in Alameda County are
unsheltered, the Home Together 2026
Community Plan proposes a significant increase
in shelter in the first two years, followed by
a slow decline in shelter as more housing
resources become available and less shelter
is needed. Some added shelter will be able to
be converted to much needed housing in later
years, as has been demonstrated by successful
Project Roomkey to Project Homekey transitions,
which have created new permanent housing by
renovating hotels used as shelters during the
COVID-19 pandemic. By Year 5 the amount of
shelter needed on an ongoing basis is expected
to be slightly less than what is available today if
all housing resources are in place.
The total cost of increasing the shelter and
housing inventory over the coming five years
to fully meet the need would be approximately
$2.5 billion. This includes roughly $430 million
for additional shelter capacity, $1.68 billion
for permanent housing such as dedicated
affordable housing and supportive housing, and
$388 million for prevention, rapid rehousing
and shallow (more limited) subsidies. This does
not include the one-time development costs
for acquiring or constructing new buildings, but
covers operations and services, and subsidies
to help people rent existing housing. The new
investments should be made in alignment
with the household types experiencing
homelessness; roughly 10% ($194 million) is
needed for expanded inventory and resources
for households with minor children, and 90%
($2.3 billion) for the inventory and resources to
serve adult only households, including transition
age youth (ages 18–24 years). A range of
federal, state and locally generated resources
are needed to fill the gap. Without a significant
federal investment in targeted Housing Choice
Vouchers or similar rental assistance, meeting
the dedicated affordable housing goal will be
particularly challenging.
0 4,000
8,000
12,000
16,000
Year 1
(2022)
Year 2
(2023)
Year 3
(2024)
Year 4
(2025)
Year 5
(2026)
Unmet needs
Annual HH in the system
HHs served in pathways to housing
Impact of increased investment
on homeless system outcomes
Source: CA-502 System Model, Abt Associates, 1/20/2022
9 Home Together 2026
Goals and strategies
To reach the expansion goals while decreasing
racial disparities, the Home Together 2026
Community Plan recommends specific action
steps in four categories.
Taken together, the significant increase in
investment and the creation of new program
models and pathways out of homelessness
will lead to decreases in new homelessness,
improved racial equity in outcomes, shorter
lengths of time being homeless, and a reduced
rate at which people return to homelessness.
The Home Together 2026 Community Plan
adopts bold, ambitious, and measurable
goals for Alameda County, both for reducing
homelessness and for achieving greater equity.
To bring these new programs and solutions into
being will take every partner committing every
available dollar from various sources in ways
that uphold performance and invest in working
and desired models. With these commitments
and agreements for joint accountability we will,
by 2026, be home, together.
1 3
2 4
Prevent
homelessness
for our residents
Increase
housing
solutions
Connect people
to shelter and
needed resources
Strengthen
coordination,
communication
and capacity
1. Address racial disparities in
mainstream/upstream systems to
prevent racially disproportionate inflow
into homelessness
2. Focus resources for prevention on
people most likely to lose their homes
3. Rapidly resolve episodes of
homelessness through Housing
Problem Solving
4. Prevent racially disproportionate
returns to homelessness
1. Add units and subsidies for supportive
housing, including new models for frail/
older adults
2. Create dedicated affordable housing
subsidies for people who do not need
intensive services
3. Create shallow subsidies for those who
can exit or avoid homelessness with
more limited assistance
4. Add new slots of rapid rehousing for
those who can pay full rent over time
5. Ensure new housing funding is
distributed across the county according
to need
6. Reduce entry barriers to housing and
ensure racial equity in referrals and
placements
1. Expand access in key neighborhoods
and continue improvements to
Coordinated Entry
2. Lower programmatic barriers to crisis
services such as prevention, problem
solving, and shelter
3. Prevent discharge from mainstream
systems to homelessness
4. Significantly increase the availability
of shelter, especially non-congregate
models, to serve vulnerable adults and
families with children and to reduce
unsheltered homelessness
5. Provide accessible behavioral health
services to people with serious mental
illness or substance use needs and
who are unsheltered, in shelter, or in
supportive housing programs
1. Use data to improve outcomes and
track racial equity impacts
2. Improve messaging and information
availability
3. Build infrastructure to support and
monitor new and expanded programs
10 Home Together 2026
Background and
introduction
11 Home Together 2026
This Home Together 2026
Community Plan (the Plan) lays
out the goals and strategies
needed to dramatically reduce
homelessness in Alameda
County by 2026 and combat
racial disparities in homelessness
through fully centering equity.
Foundations
for this Plan
The Plan builds on a variety of processes and
planning that occurred during the last two
years, including:
• The racial equity analysis and homelessness
response system modeling process detailed
in the January 2021 Centering Racial Equity in
Homeless System Design (CRE) report2
• The Racial Equity Action Lab (convened
by the Bay Area Regional Health Inequities
Initiative), which centered lived expertise
input and process recommendations on
implementing the CRE
• The Home Together Plan framework adopted
by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors
in August of 2020
The Plan’s overarching goals and time frame
align with Alameda County’s Vision 2026,
which holds as one of its primary objectives
to “ensure the availability of diverse and
affordable housing for all residents with the
goal of eliminating homelessness in Alameda
County.” The Plan includes five-year targets
for the creation of significant quantities of new
housing and shelter in order to meet the unmet
need of all people experiencing homelessness
in Alameda County by 2026 in line with the
recommendations in the CRE report. In addition,
this Plan is responsive to requirements laid out
in the California Comeback Plan to draw down
2 For more detail on the stakeholders involved in the CRE, the process of developing pathways and recommendations, please see the Centering Racial Equity in Homeless System Design report, available at https:// everyonehome.org/centering-racial-equity.
key state housing and health funding. It is also
informed by and consistent with other local and
regional efforts, including the All Home Regional
Action Plan, and Plan Bay Area 2050.
A forthcoming companion Home Together
County Implementation Plan speaks to the
specific role of the county in co-leading
efforts to address homelessness with cities
and community partners, and the roles of
specific County agencies and resources. This
Implementation Plan will lay out yearly goals
consistent with the Plan and be used to track
and report progress. Cities within Alameda
County have participated in the community
process to inform this overarching Plan and
are encouraged to develop and adopt similar
jurisdictional implementation plans to align with
the Home Together 2026 Community Plan.
The initial Centering Racial Equity report and
this Plan were supported by in-depth needs
analyses conducted by Abt Associates, a
HUD-funded technical assistance provider.
The recommendations were informed by
an extensive community input process
which included participation from system
leaders, homeless program participants,
service providers and other partners in the
homelessness response system. The process
included research using local data and multiple
focus groups with people of color who were
currently or recently homeless regarding their
race-impacted experiences. The CRE report
resulted in recommendations for significant
system additions but did not include action
steps to implement the recommendations.
12 Home Together 2026
Updating the
homelessness
response system
needs analysis
As the Home Together 2026 Community Plan
was developed it became clear that some
updating to the original needs analysis was
necessary. The COVID-19 pandemic, which
began shortly after the CRE report was
completed, has changed the landscape of
resources, and some data used from 2019
was able to be updated with more complete
information from the countywide Homeless
Management Information System (HMIS).
While some updates were made, there was a
strong commitment to maintain the critical
assumptions and decisions that were widely
discussed in the CRE planning process.
To consider changes and updates to the
homelessness response system modeling, a
planning group was jointly convened by the
Alameda County Office of Homeless Care and
Coordination (OHCC) and EveryOne Home
(EOH), which staffs the CoC. The Strategic
Planning Implementation Committee met biweekly from July 2021 to November 2021 to inform the Home Together 2026 Community
Plan. The group included city and county staff,
people with lived experience of homelessness,
service providers, nonprofit organizations,
advocates, and CoC Leadership Board
members.
3 Various technical staff also met with
Abt Associates, a HUD technical assistance
provider, to review updates to the homelessness
response system modeling. 3 See Acknowledgements for list of Home Together Contributors, including the Strategic Planning Committee members.
Pathways out of
homelessness recognize
different levels of need
— from those who can
resolve their homelessness
on their own, to those who
will need shelter, interim
support and ongoing
subsidies and services in
order to remain housed.
13 Home Together 2026
Homelessness in
Alameda County
14 Home Together 2026
Alameda County’s most recently
published full Point in Time
Count (PIT) was conducted in
2019 and estimated a total of
8,022 persons were experiencing
homelessness on a single day.4
Based on an annualization of the
PIT, it is estimated that 15,786
people in 13,135 households
experienced homelessness in
Alameda County in 2019.5
4 Alameda County conducts a homeless Point in Time (PIT) count every two years. Due to COVID-19, the scheduled PIT count for 2021 was postponed to 2022.
5 EveryOne Counts! Alameda County Homeless Count & Survey. Applied Survey Research (ASR). 2019.
Homelessness occurs across the county,
though it is concentrated most in the north
and mid portions.6 More than three-fourths
of people experiencing homelessness (78%)
report residing in Alameda County before
becoming homeless.7
6 Oakland-Berkeley-Alameda County Continuum of Care. Centering Racial Equity in Homeless System Design. January 2021. https://everyonehome. org/centering-racial-equity/
7 EveryOne Counts! Alameda County Homeless Count & Survey. Applied Survey Research (ASR). 2019.
Households of one or more adult(s)
experiencing homelessness together without
any minor children (“adult only”) are estimated
at 12,005 annually and make up 91% of
households that are homeless over a year. Most
such households are a single individual.
TABLE 1
Annual estimates and geographic distribution of people and households experiencing homelessness in Alameda County
Geographic regions
in Alameda County
Estimated
people
experiencing
homelessness
annually
Estimated
households
experiencing
homelessness
annually
Households
with only
adults
Households
with minor
children
Households
with only
children
Mid-County
(Alameda, Hayward,
San Leandro,
Unincorporated)
2,920 2,430 2,221 182 27
North County
(Albany, Berkeley,
Emeryville)
2,605 2,167 1,981 163 24
Oakland 8,004 6,659 6,087 499 73
Tri-City (Fremont,
Newark, Union City)
1,579 1,313 1,201 99 14
Tri Valley (Dublin,
Livermore,
Pleasanton)
679 565 516 42 6
Total 15,786 13,135 12,005 985 144
Source: Oakland-Berkeley-Alameda County Continuum of Care. Centering Racial Equity in Homeless System Design. January 2021. 15 Home Together 2026
Families with minor children are estimated at
985 households annually, representing 7.5%
of all homelessness households.8 Child-only
households (unaccompanied children, under
age 18, who are homeless without any adults)
represented less than 1% of the county’s
homeless population.9
People who identify as male make up more
than 60% of the homeless population. Nearly
three-fourths of the homeless population
is between the ages of 25-59, though a
growing percentage of people experiencing
homelessness are seniors (14%) and nearly
10% are between 18 and 24, referred to as
transition age youth (TAY).10
8 Oakland-Berkeley-Alameda County Continuum of Care. Centering Racial Equity in Homeless System Design. January 2021. https://everyonehome. org/centering-racial-equity/
9 EveryOne Counts! Alameda County Homeless Count & Survey. Applied Survey Research (ASR). 2019.
10 EveryOne Counts! Alameda County Homeless Count & Survey. Applied Survey Research (ASR). 2019.
TABLE 2
Gender of people
experiencing homelessness
61% Male identifying
35% Female identifying
2% Transgender
2% Non-binary
TABLE 3
Age of people
experiencing homelessness
4% Under 18
9% 18-24
73% 25-59
14% 60 and older
Source: EveryOne Counts! Alameda County Homeless Count & Survey. Applied Survey Research (ASR). 2019.
People of color make
up more than two out
of three (69%) people
experiencing homelessness
in Alameda County. Most
disproportionately affected
are people identifying as
Black or African American,
and American Indian or
Alaska Native.
16 Home Together 2026
Racial disparities
in the homeless
population
While homelessness is widespread in Alameda
County, it disproportionately impacts people of
color, especially African Americans. The 2019
Point in Time Count shows that people of color
make up more than two out of three (69%)
people experiencing homelessness in Alameda
County. The groups most disproportionately
affected are people identifying as Black or
African American, and American Indian or
Alaska Native. Black people account for 47%
of the homeless population, compared to 11%
of the general population in Alameda County.
Native Americans make up four percent of
the homeless population, compared with one
percent of county residents. Homelessness also
disproportionately affects Native Hawaiians/
Pacific Islanders and Multiracial people in
Alameda County.11
Households with only adults are more
disproportionately likely to be Black (58%) in
comparison with the general population of
Alameda County (11% Black).12
11 Oakland-Berkeley-Alameda County Continuum of Care. Centering Racial Equity in Homeless System Design. January 2021. https://everyonehome. org/centering-racial-equity/
12 Oakland-Berkeley-Alameda County Continuum of Care. Centering Racial Equity in Homeless System Design. January 2021. https://everyonehome. org/centering-racial-equity/
The many specific needs and experiences of
people of color experiencing homelessness are
described in the CRE report, often in the words
of people who have experienced homelessness.
Without addressing the impact of racism in
our society, homelessness will continue to
disproportionately impact African Americans
and other people of color. Creating a mix of
housing and services in order to reduce these
enormous racial disparities is a major focus of
this Plan.
FIGURE 1
Racial distribution of general population and homeless population (2019) 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
African American/
Black
American Indian/
Native Alaskan
Asian Multiracial Native Hawaiian
or Pacific Islander
White Hispanic/
Latinx
11%
47%
1% 4%
32%
2% 5%
14%
1% 2%
50%
31%
22%
17%
Alameda County General Population Homeless Population
Source: Oakland-Berkeley-Alameda County Continuum of Care. Centering Racial Equity in Homeless System Design. January 2021.
Special populations
Several special populations who experience
homelessness merit particular attention due
to their specific or additional vulnerabilities,
overrepresentation in the homeless population,
and/or dedicated resources for addressing their
needs. These include transition age youth, older
adults, veterans, people with behavioral health
needs, people impacted by intimate partner
violence and people impacted by the criminal
justice system. The Specific needs and resources
for special populations section covers key
resources available to meet the needs of these
specific groups.
17 Home Together 2026
Homelessness
response system
needs analysis
and modeling
18 Home Together 2026
People experiencing
homelessness have a variety of
needs, but the one commonality
among all is the need for a home.
The CRE process identified that
Alameda County’s homelessness
response system does not have
the interventions needed to
permanently rehouse all people
experiencing homelessness,
and that reducing disparities
and improving outcomes for
the racial and ethnic groups
most impacted by homelessness
will require new types of
housing programs, increasing
all programs’ availability, and
improving program design
and delivery.
Opportunities identified to increase racial
equity in the homelessness response
system include:13
• Increasing the availability of homeless housing
and subsidy models for people with extremely
low incomes and a range of service needs;
• Creating a variety of more flexible resources,
including homelessness prevention and rapid
resolution resources, and targeting these
resources to those who can resolve their
homelessness without ongoing supports;
• Increasing access to housing and other
programs by lowering entry and participation
barriers that unnecessarily impact privacy or
independence, and ensuring resources are
spread throughout the county; and
• Communicating clearly about available
resources, eligibility criteria and the process
for accessing resources.
It is important to note that adding enough
housing opportunities to effectively end
homelessness will not address the larger crisis
of affordability or meet the rental housing
gap for low-income households. The need
for more housing and greater affordability at
a wide range of income levels is critical and
remains, even if this plan is fully funded. An
“optimal” homelessness response system is not
necessarily an “optimal” or racially equitable
housing system, which would require a much
larger and more universal response, such as
Housing Choice Vouchers and affordable
units for everyone who is income-qualified.
Stakeholders for this Plan believe that safe,
stable, and affordable housing should be
available to all who need it, a goal that can only
be reached with a national commitment.
13 Oakland-Berkeley-Alameda County Continuum of Care. Centering Racial Equity in Homeless System Design. January 2021. https://everyonehome. org/centering-racial-equity/
Building a system
where people are
rehoused quickly
The CRE process identified a set of “pathways”
in an optimal homelessness response system
to allow every homeless person to end their
homelessness and reduce racial disparities
in homelessness. These pathways out of
homelessness recognize different levels of
need — from those who can resolve their
homelessness on their own, to those who will
need shelter, interim support and ongoing
subsidies and services in order to remain
housed. The pathways envisioned for adults
and for families are somewhat different, based
on different vulnerabilities and economic
needs, but all are designed to respond to the
root causes of homelessness and barriers to
housing stability. Among the critical pathways
envisioned is the addition of significant
affordable housing targeted specifically to
those who are experiencing homelessness.
These resources must be available in a highperforming homelessness response system to end homelessness for Black and Native
American adults, who encounter the greatest
barriers to housing, are vastly over-represented
among those who experience homelessness,
and disproportionately return to homelessness
once housed.14 [The original model and specific
pathways for different population groups can be
reviewed in the CRE report.]
14 For more detail about the CRE process to develop these pathways see Appendix A, C and D in the 2021 Centering Racial Equity in Homeless System Design Report. https://everyonehome.org/centering-racial-equity/ 19 Home Together 2026
The homelessness response system model
used in the CRE process was updated in 2021
to inform the Home Together 2026 Community
Plan. Most of the original assumptions were
retained, particularly regarding the types
and proportions of needed new housing and
program models.
Updates to the system model included:
1. The decision to propose more shelter in
addition to housing, to rapidly reduce
unsheltered homelessness. This was not
contemplated in the original system
modeling but was highly recommended
by the Strategic Planning Committee and
jurisdictional partners;
2. Updates to the length of time people are
anticipated to spend in shelter to reflect
current conditions and impacts of future
investments more accurately;
3. Updates to certain cost assumptions based
on current data; and
4. The decision to model for a modest
decrease in new entries into homelessness
by the end of the planning period, with an
increased investment in prevention.
The recommendations that follow reflect the
decisions above, including to work toward
making prevention resources available before
people lose their housing to reduce new
homelessness over time. If new homelessness
increases beyond the modeling predictions,
the gap between what the system is able to
offer and what is needed to serve all homeless
households will be greater, and more costly
to fill. [See Appendix C for a description of
different scenarios considered and Appendix D
for comprehensive system model data outputs].
Homelessness
continues to grow
unless we invest
in prevention and
housing
Every year new people experience
homelessness in Alameda County, but the
homelessness response system does not
currently have enough capacity to keep
up with annual inflow. This means that the
increasing homeless population includes newly
homeless people along with many people who
became homeless in a prior year but could
not get the assistance they needed to end
their homelessness. In 2020 to 2021, just 36%
(4,358) of adult only households experiencing
homelessness exited homeless services, and
64% (7,647) remained in the homelessness
response system. For households with minor
children, 33% (321) of households exited the
system in 2020-2021, while 67% (664) of
households remained.15
15 HMIS Jul 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021. Data used in the CA-502 System Model, Abt Associates, 1/20/2022.
Figure 2 illustrates that without significant
changes in both approach and rate of
investment, homelessness is likely to grow
dramatically (orange line). Even if the
community successfully achieves a modest
decrease in new homelessness over time,
the current level of investment will not be
enough to meet the need, and homelessness
will remain high (blue line). However, with
a significant increase in investment into the
homelessness response system and a modest
decrease in new homelessness, by year 5 (2026)
the homelessness response system would be
able to serve all of the need among homeless
households, leaving no annual unmet need
(green line).16
16 This is the point at which the system is right-sized, though recurring resources are still needed to address new inflow each year and to continue supporting ongoing system operations.
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
000 Year 0
(2021)
Year 1
(2022)
Year 2
(2023)
Year 3
(2024)
Year 4
(2025)
Year 5
(2026)
Current trajectory, current investments
Reduction in newly homeless,
current investments
Reduction in newly homeless,
increased investments
Source: CA-502 System Model, Abt Associates, 1/20/2022
FIGURE 2
Impact of investment level
on unmet need
20 Home Together 2026
Source: CA-502 System Model, Abt Associates, 1/20/2022
0 4,000
8,000
12,000
16,000
Year 1
(2022)
Year 2
(2023)
Year 3
(2024)
Year 4
(2025)
Year 5
(2026)
Unmet needs
Annual HH in the system
HHs served in pathways to housing
Source: CA-502 System Model, Abt Associates, 1/20/2022
FIGURE 3
Impact of increased investment
on homeless system outcomes
Increased
investments result
in people finding
housing quickly, not
remaining homeless
Figure 3 shows that with the modeled increase
in investment and a modest decrease in new
homelessness over time, in 5 years (by 2026)
the total number of homeless households
that need to be served annually by Alameda
County’s homelessness response system
decreases by over 3,800 from 2021. In this
scenario there is capacity to serve and assist
9,200 households into permanent housing
by the homelessness response system in
year 5 (2026). This is estimated to effectively
eliminate unmet need (sometimes referred to as
“functional zero”). Having no unmet need does
not mean that new people do not continue to
become homeless, but rather that for every new
household that becomes homeless there are the
appropriate resources available to help them
back into housing within an average of 90 days.
Table 4 shows numerically how these decreases
in inflow and increases in capacity might
occur over time, until the need is equal to the
resources available.
TABLE 4
Impact of investments on unmet need over 5 years
Year 0
(2021)
Year 1
(2022)
Year 2
(2023)
Year 3
(2024)
Year 4
(2025)
Year 5
(2026)
New homeless 4,000 4,800 5,300 5,300 4,700 4,300
Annual HH in the system 13,000 14,000 14,700 14,400 12,600 9,200 HHs served in pathways
to housing
4,700 5,600 6,500 7,400 8,310 9,200
Unmet need 8,300 8,400 8,200 7000 4,200 0
% unmet need 64% 60% 56% 49% 33% 0%
21 Home Together 2026
Additions to
housing inventory
To meet the reduction targets, a combination of
new subsidy slots and housing units is needed.
Table 5 details the specific inventory growth in
different program models and housing types
needed to meet existing and anticipated future
need among homeless households.
TABLE 5
5-Year homelessness response system inventory needs
“Something like [Rapid
Re-Housing] would do me
good. I’m a commercial
truck driver. It would put
me in a position that
would help me. I would
not have to worry about
rent for six months. I could
get my bank account, my
necessities… I would be
able to regroup.”
— CRE Focus Group Participant,
Latino man, age 50-64
Table 5 also shows that in 2021 (the baseline
year, or Year 0) Alameda County had 3,215
supportive housing units and 535 Rapid
Rehousing slots for households experiencing
homelessness, and in order to serve all of
the current and projected need of homeless
households, our system will need an inventory
of 25,910 permanent housing units and short
and long-term subsidies by year 5 (2026) of the
implementation plan.
*Note that a decreased inventory of shelter is reflected here, and in the 2021 system modeling, to account for shelter decompression that occurred due to COVID-19 regulations. Source: CA-502 System Model, Abt Associates, 1/20/22 Baseline
inventory (2021)
Year 1
(2022)
Year 2
(2023)
Year 3
(2024)
Year 4
(2025)
Year 5
(2026)
Prevention & rapid resolution 56 140 160 190 260 230
Crisis response beds (emergency
shelter, transitional housing,
safe haven)
1,785* 2,760 3,410 3,140 1,810 1,390
TH for youth 153 100 120 140 200 170
Rapid re-housing 535 1,180 1,370 1,560 2,180 1,940
Permanent housing resources
Supportive housing (PSH) 3,215 3,790 4,500 5,290 6,490 7,410 Supportive housing (PSH) for
older/frail adults
0 520 1,090 1,690 2,530 3,190
Dedicated affordable housing 0 1,570 3,320 5,240 7,870 10,070 Shallow subsidies 0 830 1,740 2,750 4,090 5,240
22 Home Together 2026
Additions to shelter
inventory
In addition to the significant expansion of
housing resources, reducing unsheltered
homelessness will require short-term growth
in shelter availability. This Plan includes an
immediate surge in shelter during the first two
years, followed by a leveling off and then small
decrease in shelter beds (orange line). This
strategy, when combined with the addition
of housing modeled above, results in a rapid
and then sustained decline in unsheltered
homelessness (blue line). It is important to note
that the estimated result, effectively ending
unsheltered homelessness in Alameda County,
only occurs when both housing and shelter
capacity grow.
*For Adult Only Households | Source: CA-502 System Model, Abt Associates, 1/20/2022
FIGURE 4
Impact of shelter increase on
unsheltered homelessness*
“The people that bring food
help. And outreach people
do a good job. Showers
and laundry are very
helpful.”
— CRE Focus Group Participant,
White woman, age 25-39
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
Year 1
(2022)
Year 2
(2023)
Year 3
(2024)
Year 4
(2025)
Year 5
(2026)
Unmet need-unsheltered
Shelter and crisis beds
23 Home Together 2026
New investment
needed
The total cost of scaling up both the shelter
and housing inventory over the coming five
years is an estimated $2.5 billion. This includes
roughly $430 million for additional shelter
capacity, $1.68 billion for permanent housing
such as dedicated affordable and supportive
housing, and $388 million for prevention,
rapid rehousing and shallow (more limited)
subsidies. These estimates include the ongoing
operations of programs and buildings, and
the services and subsidies to help people rent
TABLE 6
5-year operations cost for homelessness response system inventory* *Operations only, not development. | Source: CA-502 System Model, Abt Associates, 1/20/2022 Year 1
(2022)
Year 2
(2023)
Year 3
(2024)
Year 4
(2025)
Year 5
(2026)
5-year
total
Prevention & rapid resolution $2,502,000 $3,022,000 $3,533,000 $5,055,000 $4,680,000 $18,792,000 Crisis response (shelter/interim) $85,667,000 $109,121,000 $103,566,000 $61,480,000 $48,402,000 $408,236,000 Transitional for youth $3,796,000 $4,549,000 $5,344,000 $7,777,000 $7,107,000 $28,573,000 Rapid re-housing $26,166,000 $31,374,000 $36,824,000 $52,978,000 $48,683,000 $196,025,000 Supportive housing (PSH) $95,786,000 $117,213,000 $142,068,000 $179,312,000 $210,917,000 $745,296,000 Supportive housing-seniors &
medically fragile
$15,630,000 $33,557,000 $53,819,000 $83,004,000 $107,846,000 $293,856,000 Dedicated affordable housing $33,099,000 $72,010,000 $116,971,000 $180,761,000 $238,329,000 $641,170,000 Shallow subsidies $9,050,000 $19,666,000 $31,881,000 $48,613,000 $64,196,000 $173,406,000 Total $271,696,000 $390,512,000 $494,006,000 $618,980,000 $730,160,000 $2,505,354,000 existing housing. They do not include the onetime development costs for constructing or acquiring new buildings.
The investments need to align with the
household types in the homeless population:
roughly 10% ($194 million) for households
with minor children and 90% ($2.3 billion) for
the resources to serve adult only households,
including transition age youth.
Based on the system modeling, costs should
drop substantially in years six and beyond, or
whenever the unmet need is eliminated, as only
those newly becoming homeless or returning to
homelessness after housing need to be served.
Services outside
the model
Although not represented in in the system
modeling, there are many critical services and
resources that serve people during the time
they are unhoused. These include Coordinated
Entry, street outreach, housing navigation and
landlord liaison programs, among others. These
programs contribute to outcomes such as
shortening the length of time that households
remain homeless, improving health outcomes
and behavioral health support, and increasing
exits to housing. Some increases in these
services are anticipated within this Plan as well.
24 Home Together 2026
Goals and
strategies
25 Home Together 2026
Drawing from the CRE
recommendations to reduce
racial disparities, the need
for resources demonstrated
by the system model and the
feedback of people experiencing
homelessness, the Home
Together 2026 Community
Plan calls for a focus on four
primary goal areas. Each area
below includes goals and action
steps that align with the system
model and overall homelessness
reduction strategy.
These core goal areas largely correspond to
critical system performance measures required
by HUD and by the State of California, which
will be tracked and reported on annually. In
addition, the Alameda County community
has determined to also measure its impact on
rates of unsheltered homelessness and racial
disparities in homelessness. Specific targets
for reductions and improvements for each of
the system performance measures below will
be set in consultation with the community and
with the State of California during FY 21–22 and
adopted as an addendum to this Plan.
1 Prevent homelessness
for our residents
Many of the people experiencing homelessness
in Alameda County have been homeless for
long periods of time or have had multiple
episodes of homelessness. However, every year
people experience homelessness for the first
time and seek assistance from the homelessness
response system, which lacks adequate
resources to meet the needs of people who are
already homeless. Data from the 2019 PIT count
indicates approximately 31% of the people who
are homeless at a point in time have become
homeless for the first time.
Racial disparities among newly homeless
households are even more extreme than
among the homeless population overall,
especially for African Americans, Native
Americans, Native Hawaiian and Pacific
Islanders and multiracial people.
TABLE 7
Racially disparate rates of new homelessness
African
Americans
Native
Americans
Multiracial Native HI/
Pacific Islander
Percent of county population 11% 1% 5% 1%
Percent of newly homeless 58% 5% 6% 2%
Rate of new homelessness
compared to population
5.3x 5x 1.2x 2x
Source: Oakland-Berkeley-Alameda County Continuum of Care. Centering Racial Equity in Homeless System Design. January 2021. 26 Home Together 2026
Prevention assistance is typically administered
outside the homelessness response system
and covered by social service and community
development funding streams. Research shows
that while many low-income people experience
housing crises that could lead to homelessness,
people who are most likely to become homeless
have specific risk factors including extremely
low incomes, histories of homelessness, and
living in highly impacted neighborhoods.17 To
be effective, resources to prevent homelessness
must target those with the greatest likelihood
of becoming homeless. To reduce new incidents
of homelessness, we must direct resources to
those closest to becoming homeless who also
lack assistance, and to those who have lost
housing but can recover it with timely support.
Another contributing factor to continuing
homelessness is that some households
assisted into permanent housing through
the homelessness response system may lose
their housing again when program resources
run out or circumstances change. Returns to
homelessness in Alameda County are higher
among African Americans and Native Hawaiian/
Pacific Islanders.
17 Center for Evidence-based Solutions to Homelessness. Homelessness Prevention, A Review of the Literature. January 2019.
18% System average
21% African Americans
23% Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Islanders
TABLE 8
Disparities in rates of return to
homelessness, FFY 2019
Source: Oakland-Berkeley-Alameda County Continuum of Care. Centering Racial Equity in Homeless System Design. January 2021.
The Home Together 2026 Community Plan
proposes to reduce the rates of return to
homelessness by half, from 21% in 2022 (Year
1 of the Plan) to 9% in 2026 (Year 5 of the
Plan).18 To address racial disparities in new
homelessness and returns to homelessness,
programs will be targeted and tailored to
specific household needs and the county’s
providers and administrators will target and
track these disparities.
18 Source: Adult Only Household Model. CA-502 System Model, Abt Associates. 1/20/22. Note rates are for Adult Only households.
To address racial disparities
in new homelessness and
returns to homelessness,
programs will be targeted
and tailored to specific
household needs and the
county’s providers and
administrators will target
and track these disparities.
1 Prevent homelessness
for our residents
27 Home Together 2026
STRATEGY 1
Address racial disparities in mainstream/
upstream systems to prevent racially
disproportionate inflow into homelessness.
1. Partner with school districts, social services
agencies, child welfare, community health
organizations and others to connect people
to prevention and economic supports in a
timely manner and through trusted sources.
2. Work with criminal justice institutions to
create housing planning and homelessness
prevention resources.
3. Ensure that workforce services are accessible
to and structured to support people whose
housing is unstable.
STRATEGY 2
Focus resources for prevention on people most
likely to lose their homes.
1. Work with government and private funders
to increase targeted prevention for people
most likely to become homeless. Highlight
risk factors including extremely low incomes,
histories of homelessness, and living in
neighborhoods with high rates of poverty
and evictions.
2. Tailor outreach and prioritization to reach
those at highest risk and coordinate these
efforts in all areas of the county.
3. Implement and expand shallow subsidy
availability for people with fixed or
limited income with housing insecurity to
relieve rent burden and reduce the risk of
becoming homeless.
STRATEGY 3
Rapidly resolve episodes of homelessness
through Housing Problem Solving.
1. Add resources to flexible funding pools
for Housing Problem Solving, a practice
of helping people newly homeless or on
the verge of homelessness to identify
rapid solutions to their situation with light
financial support.
2. Offer Housing Problem Solving training
and funding throughout the system so that
providers can quickly assist people when and
where they seek help.
STRATEGY 4
Prevent racially disproportionate returns
to homelessness.
To reduce disparities based on race, learnings
from the CRE process demonstrate that
providing ongoing or renewed support to
people who have been homeless will improve
equitable housing outcomes. Some specific
areas highlighted as effective include:
1. Target time-limited Rapid Rehousing
resources to serve households with an
ability to increase income. Given the high
cost of rent in Alameda County, time-limited
resources should be matched with people
who have a feasible plan to pay market-rate
rent or identify a replacement subsidy.
2. Partner with educational, vocational and
employment services to ensure that people
moving toward employment have strong
support in obtaining and maintaining
employment. Build connections to
educational programs with career pathways,
supported employment for people who
are formerly homeless, and job placement
assistance for people seeking new roles.
3. Establish a flexible funding pool for
preventing homelessness, including a shallow
subsidy option.
4. Review and evaluate methods for
determining types of housing placements
to ensure high rates of success and avoid
unsustainable housing placements.
5. Provide additional support services,
such as behavioral health care and case
management, in existing sites and programs
for people who have transitioned from
homelessness to permanent housing.
Progress on this goal area will be tracked
using two system performance measures
and corresponding measures of increased
racial equity.
System Performance Measure: Reduce
the number who become homeless for the
first time.
Racial Equity Measure: Reduce the racial
disparities among people overrepresented within
who becomes homeless for the first time: African
Americans, Native Americans, Multi-racial people,
and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders.
System Performance Measure: Reduce the
number of persons who return to homelessness
after exiting homelessness.
Racial Equity Measure: Reduce the racial
disparities among people overrepresented within
who returns to homelessness: African Americans,
and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders.
Four activity areas specifically targeting reductions
in new homelessness and returns to homelessness
28 Home Together 2026
People experiencing homelessness need access
to shelter and critical service supports while
in crisis and while in the transition to housing.
This will require expanding and supporting
the network of agencies that serve as entry
points for the homelessness response system
and provide housing problem solving and
housing navigation services. It necessitates
reducing the barriers to entry to services for
people experiencing homelessness. It will also
require continued collaboration between local
cities and the county to provide more robust
and responsive services for both sheltered and
unsheltered people experiencing homelessness.
In 2020 and 2021, Alameda County’s
homelessness response system significantly
expanded access points and undertook
improvements to the Coordinated Entry
process which connects people experiencing
homelessness to shelter and housing. Changes
were made to increase the availability of
Housing Problem Solving services targeting
creative housing solutions and allowing
Housing Resource Centers (designated
access points) to support everyone who
is experiencing homelessness who access
their services. A separate crisis queue and
process for shelter and transitional housing
resources was recently established to shorten
the time people in need wait for shelter.
Greater transparency was built into the new
process, with access points providing real-time
communication to participants about available
housing resources, their likelihood of receiving
a match, and support to identify and pursue
appropriate next steps.
Continued oversight and improvement of
the Coordinated Entry system is a priority
for the future, and monthly Regional
Housing Coordination meetings and
Learning Communities are currently focused
on improving coordination of care and
increasing collaboration.
While this Plan focuses primarily on expanding
housing availability to end homelessness, it
also plans for a significant increase in shelter
to provide homeless households safe places to
be off the street and to connect to the rest of
the homelessness response system’s resources.
During the 2019 PIT Count, nearly 80% of
the population experiencing homelessness in
Alameda County was unsheltered. During the
COVID-19 pandemic the community rapidly
stood up over 1,200 temporary shelter units
in non-congregate settings such as hotels and
trailers. People sheltered in these sites were
connected to housing at much higher rates than
those in traditional (congregate) shelter and
unsheltered settings.19
An analysis of the unsheltered population using
homelessness data and health system data
indicates at least 48% of unsheltered people
contacted by a street outreach program have
one or more vulnerabilities such as advanced
age, a health or mental health condition, and/
or barriers to housing like eviction history or
criminal justice system contacts. Vulnerable
19 Zeger, Cody. Evaluating Project Roomkey in Alameda County: Lessons from a Pandemic Response to Homelessness. May, 2021. Available at: https:// homelessness.acgov.org/reports.
2 Connect people to shelter
and needed resources
unsheltered people in the county are also
more likely to be African American than any
other race or ethnic group. Shelter resources
will be added to the portfolio of resources
in the county for vulnerable adult only and
family households, while still focusing most of
the homelessness response system resources
on housing additions to ensure homeless
households can move quickly from shelter to
housing. It is the goal of the Home Together
2026 Community Plan to gradually repurpose
non-congregate shelter sites to be used as
housing as the immediate need for additional
shelter capacity subsides.
Behavioral health services are a critical
component of service delivery in all areas of
the homelessness response. Efforts are being
made to increase clinical support available
through Street Health, Shelter Health, and other
teams as part of Health Care for the Homeless
programs, in housing planning, and in tenancy
sustaining services, in order to prevent returns
to homelessness. Connections to mental health
services are built into pathways to housing in
the homelessness response system through
emergency shelter, Rapid Re-Housing and
supportive housing.
29 Home Together 2026
Five activity areas specifically helping to connect people experiencing homelessness to shelter and needed resources STRATEGY 1
Expand access in key neighborhoods and
continue improvements to Coordinated Entry.
1. Expand neighborhood-based access
points to the system’s housing and shelter
resources in places where people are most
likely to lose housing or are currently
experiencing homelessness.
2. Add access point outreach staff to connect
people to these services in the field.
3. Set up monthly training for 211 operators.
4. Develop the capacity for 211 to track and
follow up with people seeking resources.
5. Continue to track and evaluate the impact
of updates to the Coordinated Entry System
to ensure impacts are effective and support
reductions in racial disparities.
STRATEGY 2
Lower programmatic barriers to crisis
services such as prevention, problem solving
and shelter.
1. Ensure that emergency shelters reduce
unnecessary program requirements that
discourage use or exclude people who
need shelter.
2. Add additional resources such as laundry
facilities, storage options, hygiene, harm
reduction, health care and safety resources
and available services that meet needs of
sheltered and unsheltered people.
3. Prioritize using a harm reduction approach
and making efforts to meet the specific
and varied needs of people experiencing
unsheltered homelessness. Improve
communication to advertise the availability
of resources for households experiencing
homelessness.
4. Provide training systemwide on
diversity, equity, and inclusion, harm
reduction, housing strategies, and other
foundational topics.
STRATEGY 3
Prevent discharge from mainstream systems to
homelessness.
1. Increase medical and mental health respite
by 300 beds and include resources for
rehousing. Stabilize and expand the board
and care portfolio through new state funding
and land trust to correspond with needs
identified in the behavioral health system
gaps analysis.
2. Implement an exit strategy for all unhoused
criminal justice clients that includes shelter,
housing, and supportive and behavioral
health services.20
3. Connect transition age youth leaving
foster care to youth-dedicated rapid and
supportive housing programs through
ongoing resources targeted to youth nearing
exit from foster care.
20Evidence indicates a promising model in low-barrier non-congregate shelter for people exiting criminal justice settings, paired with housing navigation and tenant-based vouchers.
STRATEGY 4
Significantly increase the availability of shelter,
especially non-congregate models, to serve
vulnerable adults and families with children and
to reduce unsheltered homelessness.
1. Add 1,625 temporary additional shelter beds
to serve vulnerable adults and families with
children. New shelter should be primarily
non-congregate and include access to
support services including behavioral health
and health care to provide more supportive
environments for residents.
2. As new housing comes online, transition
non-congregate shelters into permanent
housing or remove these shelter beds from
the system as demand is reduced.
3. Ensure health and safety conditions in
shelter programs through countywide
standards and track and monitor input by
shelter residents.
STRATEGY 5
Provide accessible behavioral health services to
people with serious mental illness or substance
use needs who are unsheltered, in shelter, or in
supportive housing programs.
1. Ensure crisis response and support is
accessible for unsheltered people, and that
mental health and harm reduction services
are available for people in shelters and other
programs in the homelessness response
system.
2. Allocate resources towards increased
behavioral and support services that will
help people who are in permanent housing
to maintain their housing.
30 Home Together 2026
Progress on this goal area will be tracked
using the two measures above related
to new and returning homelessness, and
these two measures of reductions in
unsheltered homelessness.
System Performance Measure: Increase
successful placements from street outreach to
indoor locations.
Racial Equity Measure: Monitor for racial
disparities in placements from street outreach
and address any disparities.
Additional Measure: Reduce the number of
people who are unsheltered at a point in time.
Racial Equity Measure: Reduce the racial
disparities among people overrepresented
among those who are unsheltered.
Vulnerable unsheltered
people in the county
are more likely to be
African American. Shelter
resources will be added to
vulnerable adult only and
family households, while
focusing most resources on
housing additions to ensure
homeless households can
move quickly from shelter
to housing.
31 Home Together 2026
3 Increase housing
solutions
Both the homelessness response system
modeling and interviews with people
experiencing homelessness indicate that
the single most important step to reduce
homelessness dramatically and permanently is
to create permanent housing opportunities for
people experiencing homelessness throughout
the county.
New projects to increase inventory include
expansions in pathways and resources to
exit homelessness such as Rapid Rehousing
and supportive housing, as well as significant
investment in newer program models such
as dedicated affordable housing and shallow
subsidies that provide people with housing that
allows them independence and autonomy — a
strategy recommended to be more effective in
reducing racial disparities.
At publication of this Plan, a pipeline of new
subsidies and housing projects in development
are expected to increase available inventory by
approximately 1,500 units in the first two years,
but resources must be identified for thousands
more units in order to achieve the inventory
goals set forth in this Plan. New one-time
resources are anticipated from both the federal
and state governments which will assist with
this goal, but ongoing local resources will be
needed to meet the ambitious targets that are
necessary to bend the curve.
4,195 Additional supportive housing
needed
3,190 New supportive housing for
older/frail adults
10,070 New dedicated affordable
5,240 New shallow subsidies
1,645 Additional rapid rehousing slots
24,340 Total units and subsidy slots
TABLE 9
Estimated number of
housing solutions, by type,
needed by 2026
Source: CA-502 System Model, Abt Associates, 1/20/22
“It [supportive housing]
will put me in a basic
stable environment,
compared to something
temporary. It would help
me work on my longterm issues. Go back to
the root.”
— CRE Focus Group Participant,
Latino man, age 25–39
32 Home Together 2026
STRATEGY 1
Add units and subsidies for supportive housing,
including new models for frail/older adults.*
1. Expand the supply of supportive housing
subsidies and units through prioritization
and matching strategies, and new
development funding.
2. Create a new model of supportive housing
for older/frail adults with more intensive
health service needs.
3. Provide services funding for supportive
housing and supportive housing for frail/
older adults through expansions of Medi-Cal
enrollment and the California Advancing and
Innovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM) program.
STRATEGY 2
Create dedicated affordable housing subsidies
for people who do not need intensive services.
1. The CRE report and system model
includes providing affordable housing
without time limits for approximately 30%
of the adult only households and 28% of
family households in the homelessness
response system.
2. Add capacity within the homelessness
response system to support new dedicated
affordable units including staff for a new
flexible local operating subsidy program,
additional Coordinated Entry staffing and
lighter and variable supportive services.
Six activity areas are planned to grow the
housing inventory and increase access to it
STRATEGY 3
Create shallow subsidies for those who can
exit or avoid homelessness with more limited
assistance.
1. Develop shallow subsidies that provide
fixed levels of support for those who are
precariously housed or who have been
previously homeless and need longer term
but limited support.
STRATEGY 4
Add new slots of Rapid Rehousing for those
who can pay full rent over time.
1. Couple Rapid Rehousing resources with
expansions in employment programs.
STRATEGY 5
Ensure new housing funding is distributed
across the county according to need.
1. The numbers of people and the significant
subpopulations in each region are
different. As much as possible, housing
resources should be distributed based on
the regional needs.
STRATEGY 6
Reduce entry barriers to housing and ensure
racial equity in referrals and placements.
Progress on this goal area will be tracked
using two system performance measures
and corresponding measures of increased
racial equity.
• System Performance Measure: Increase the
number of people exiting homelessness into
permanent housing.
• Racial Equity Measure: Monitor for any
emerging disparities and maintain racial
equity within people exiting homelessness into
permanent housing.
• System Performance Measure: Reduce the
length of time persons remain homeless.
• Racial Equity Measure: Monitor for racial
disparities in length of time homeless and
address disparities.
*See Table 9 for numbers of units.
33 Home Together 2026
4 Strengthen coordination,
communication and capacity
This plan emerges at a time of great uncertainty.
While new resources to expand Alameda
County’s homelessness response system are
anticipated, how much will become available
when, and what may happen with COVID-19 and
other factors which may impact homelessness,
are unknown. For this reason, this Plan must
be closely tracked and refined over time
and its projections will be updated as new
resources become available. A communitywide commitment to improve and use the community’s HMIS data for tracking and
accountability is a central tenet of the Plan.
Improved communication about efforts
to reduce homelessness and impacts are
also key to keeping the buy-in of partners
and the confidence of the community. This
includes expanding the range of partners
from other systems of care that overlap with
the homelessness response system (such
as health care, child welfare, and criminal
justice), and ensuring that both housed and
unhoused people have access to the best
information about current and anticipated
homeless resources.
Finally, the network of homeless programs and
providers will have to be strengthened and will
need to grow to reach the goals of the Home
Together 2026 Community Plan. Alameda
County benefits from a strong network of
nonprofit agencies committed to addressing
homelessness and delivering services and
housing to those in need. But these agencies
are stretched to close to capacity, are often
under resourced, and do not fully represent the
communities that experience homelessness.
Support will be needed to help these partners
recruit and retain staff. In particular, resources
must be targeted to strengthen providers
and partners and to expand contracts for
organizations that serve, employ and are led
by historically marginalized communities and
Black, Indigenous and People of Color.
The network of
homeless programs and
providers will have to be
strengthened and will need
to grow to reach the goals.
In particular, resources
must be targeted to
strengthen providers and
partners and to expand
contracts for organizations
that serve, employ and
are led by historically
marginalized communities
and Black, Indigenous and
People of Color.
34 Home Together 2026
STRATEGY 1
Use data to improve outcomes and track racial
equity impacts.
1. Improve HMIS coverage and confidence in
HMIS to be the primary method for future
data tracking.
2. Consider increasing the frequency of the PIT
Count to annual (currently biennial) so that
impacts to both sheltered and unsheltered
homeless populations are able to be tracked
and monitored more quickly.
3. Improve tracking of resources and inventory
to support ongoing evaluation and reporting.
4. Improve data quality and regularly review
system and program outcome data
disaggregated by race.
5. Work to incorporate a Results Based
Accountability framework systemwide
when tracking and measuring
performance metrics.
Three activity areas are planned to expand data, track equity, improve messaging and build capacity and infrastructure STRATEGY 2
Improve messaging and information availability.
1. Centralize homeless related resource
information and provide regular system
updates to a wide variety of partners.
2. Provide an annual Home Together 2026
Community Plan update on progress and
challenges with proposed modifications to
the following year’s action plan.
3. Complete a full inventory of current and
anticipated resources for all key partners
in order to identify gaps in funding and
strategies to fill these gaps.
STRATEGY 3
Build infrastructure to support and monitor
new and expanded programs.
1. Develop and strengthen career pathways in
housing and service provider organizations.
2. Provide support to service providers, clinics,
outreach teams and nonprofit organizations
serving homeless populations to improve
their ability to hire, train and retain staff.
3. Prioritize supporting the advancement
of people with lived experience of
homelessness in our county’s systems
of care.
4. Expand provider networks to incorporate
historically marginalized communities and
more organizations led by and serving
communities of color and support increased
capacity within these networks.
5. Ensure public and community agencies have
staffing to meet expanded contracting and
capacity needs.
6. Ensure behavioral health services are
accessible and resources are available to
smaller service provider organizations.
There are no state required system
performance measures that correspond to
this goal area. The community will use the
improved data collection process to track
progress on all the other outcomes for this
Plan. The partners will also track resources
and investments to meet the Plan goals and to
identify outstanding gap areas.
In addition, community partners will collect
data to track the capacity of system partners
and especially to expand resources for provider
organizations serving historically marginalized
communities and communities of color.
The sum of the activities undertaken in this
Plan are expected to result in:
• System Performance Measure: Reduce
the number of persons experiencing
homelessness.
• Racial Equity Measure: Reduce the
overrepresentation of African Americans,
Native Americans, Multi-racial people and
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders among
persons experiencing homelessness.
35 Home Together 2026
Specific needs
and resources
for special
populations
36 Home Together 2026
Several special populations
who experience homelessness
merit attention due to their
particular vulnerabilities,
overrepresentation in the
homeless population, and/or
specific needs and resources
for addressing their needs.
These include transition age
youth, veterans, older adults,
people impacted by intimate
partner violence, people
with behavioral health needs
and people impacted by the
criminal justice system.
The housing pathways and resources described
above are intended to meet the needs of all of
Alameda County’s homeless populations. Some
resources are specifically targeted to certain
subpopulations such as supportive housing for
older/frail adults, and transitional housing for
young adults in a transitional period of life.
Needs assessments conducted for each of
these populations point to certain additional
needs that the strategies of this Plan seek
to encompass within the overall framework
of increases in housing, shelter capacity and
services inventory.
Transition age youth
Youth ages 18-24 comprised 9% of the overall
population experiencing homelessness
in Alameda County in the 2019 PIT count
(702 individuals). Unaccompanied children,
under age 18, represented less than 1% of the
homeless population (29 individuals).21 These
numbers represent a point in time and only
include youth who were counted as sheltered
in the homelessness response system or as
unsheltered. During the 2019-2020 school year,
public schools in Alameda County reported
4,445 homeless students, a number that
includes young people under 18 who were
doubled up or in hotel settings as well as those
in shelter or unsheltered situations.22
21 EveryOne Counts! Alameda County Homeless Count & Survey. Applied Survey Research (ASR). 2019.
22 Alameda County Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program. Application July, 2021.
Youth who experience homelessness in
Alameda County are very disproportionately
African American, identify as LGBTQ and
experience behavioral health issues at much
higher rates than county or state residents.23
The 2019 PIT Count shows that 82% of TAY
experiencing homelessness in Alameda County
are unsheltered.24
Transition Age Youth (TAY) experiencing
homelessness have particular needs due to their
stage of development, and often include youth
who have been impacted by the foster care
system, the juvenile justice system, or both.
23 Alameda County Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program. Application July, 2021.
24 EveryOne Counts! Alameda County Homeless Count & Survey. Applied Survey Research (ASR). 2019.
TABLE 10
Characteristics of Alameda
County homeless youth
Characteristic % of general
population
% of
homeless TAY
population
AfricanAmerican
11% (Alameda
County Youth)
63%
LGBTQ 10% (Alameda
County)
42%
Experiencing
mental health
issues
25%
(California)
43%
Source: Alameda County Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.
Application July, 2021.
37 Home Together 2026
Youth report a need for greater access to all
resources, increased supports to maneuver
through and transition from program to
program within the homelessness response
system, and increased youth development
trainings for service providers. Youth and
providers have indicated that the homelessness
response system should be improved to be
more welcoming to youth, that stronger housing
and employment connections for youth are
needed so that youth can find and sustain
housing, and that increased access to youth
dedicated permanent housing and long-term
subsidies would significantly build capacity to
serve youth.
In work done to identify the specific needs
of youth for Alameda County’s application to
HUD’s Youth Homelessness Demonstration
Program (YHDP), the following issues
were identified as contributing to youth
homelessness in Alameda County:25
• Lack of affordable housing
• Lack of supports and resources to successfully
transition out of institutional systems such as
foster care and the juvenile justice system and
into permanent housing
• Stigma, trauma and marginalization that
creates barriers to accessing resources and
maintaining housing
• Risk of return to homelessness from timelimited programs, especially for AfricanAmerican and parenting youth • Symptoms related to PTSD or other
mental health issues that make it difficult
to navigate the homelessness system and
maintain stable housing
25 Alameda County Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program. Application July, 2021.
• Lack of safety at home or in home
communities due to gender identity or
sexual orientation
• High risk for commercial and sexual
exploitation
• Unique challenges affecting the ability of
unaccompanied immigrant youth to maintain
safe and stable housing
• The impacts of racism, discrimination, and
institutional racism for youth of color and
Black and Native American youth in particular
Resources for youth
Currently, some shelter and housing inventory is
set aside to meet young people’s unique needs,
and Alameda County’s homelessness response
system model for adult only households also
includes specific pathways for TAY.26
Additional resources currently available for
TAY in Alameda County include the THP-Plus
program and dedicated Continuum of Care
grants.27 The State of California requires that
communities set aside at least eight to ten
percent (in different funding rounds) of their
Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention
(HHAP) funds for the needs of Transition Age
Youth. Alameda County and the CoC have
used initial HHAP funding on increasing system
access, additional interim housing, and services
paired with housing subsidies dedicated to TAY.
26 Oakland-Berkeley-Alameda County Continuum of Care. Centering Racial Equity in Homeless System Design. January 2021. https://everyonehome. org/centering-racial-equity/
27 Transitional Housing Program for young adults who exited foster care (including those supervised by Probation) on or after their 18th birthday and are not yet 24 years of age.
“I was trying to go to
school but also needed
to find housing, so I went
to transitional housing. I
dropped out of school and
[am] trying to work full
time and find housing.”
— CRE Focus Group Participant,
Black man, age 18–24
38 Home Together 2026
In September 2021, the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
awarded Alameda County CoC a $6.5 million
Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program
(YHDP) grant. The funding will be used to
create an in-depth plan and establish programs
to meet the needs of youth at-risk of or
experiencing homelessness and to work towards
ending youth homelessness in the community.
Veterans
Historically, veterans have experienced
homelessness at much higher rates than
their proportion of the population. Recent
resources and efforts have brought down the
population of homeless veterans, however,
they continue to be a significant part of
the population. During the 2019 PIT Count
in Alameda County, 692 veterans were
experiencing homelessness, representing
9% of the county’s homeless population. Of
those, 690 were single individuals, and 79% of
veterans were unsheltered.28
Veterans experience additional needs and
challenges based on their veteran status and,
for many, their experiences in the military are
linked to conditions such as Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder (PTSD). In the 2019 PIT
Count survey, unsheltered veterans most
frequently cited mental health issues as the
primary cause of their homelessness (18%),
while sheltered veterans most frequently
cited a rent increase (13%) as the primary
cause of their homelessness. Unsheltered
veterans attributed their homelessness to
job loss at nearly twice the rate as sheltered
veterans (15% and 8% respectively).
28 EveryOne Counts! Alameda County Homeless Count & Survey. Applied Survey Research (ASR). 2019.
Resources for veterans
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
provides a broad range of benefits and services
to veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces. These
benefits may involve different forms of financial
assistance, including monthly cash payments to
disabled veterans, health care, education, and
housing benefits. Assistance to obtain these
resources is critical, and not all veterans qualify.
In addition to these supports, the VA and
HUD partner to provide targeted housing
and support services to veterans currently
experiencing homelessness or at risk of
experiencing homelessness. These include the
VASH (Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing)
and SSVF (Supportive Services for Veteran
Families) programs which provide permanent
subsidies with services, and transitional
subsidies, shallow subsidies and prevention
support to veterans and their families. These
resources provide a critical piece of the
homelessness response system for most
veterans, though some must still rely on general
population resources as they are precluded
from accessing VA supports based on discharge
status or length of service.
39 Home Together 2026
Older adults
Data from the 2019 PIT Count found that 14%
of Alameda County’s homeless population was
over the age of 60. Thirteen percent (13%) of
2019 PIT Count survey respondents indicated
that they were between 50 and 64 years old
when they first experienced homelessness, and
3% were over the age of 65.29
Recent national research predicts that
the number of older adults experiencing
homelessness will increase significantly over the
next decade.30 This population has unique and
often complex needs that require consideration
in homelessness response system design.31
Geriatric conditions are common among
older adults experiencing homelessness, and
their health and risk of adverse impacts are
comparable to housed adults who are 20 years
older.32 Services and housing that address
geriatric conditions are needed for older
homeless adults.
29 EveryOne Counts! Alameda County Homeless Count & Survey. Applied Survey Research (ASR). 2019.
30 “The Emerging Crisis of Aged Homelessness: Could Housing Solutions Be Funded by Avoidance of Excess Shelter, Hospital, and Nursing Home Costs?” (2019) | Culhane et al | University of Pennsylvania. https://aisp. upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Emerging-Crisis-of-AgedHomelessness-1.pdf 31 Geriatric Conditions in a Population-Based Sample of Older Homeless Adults (2017) | Kushel et al | The Gerontologist, Volume 57, Issue 4, August 2017, Pages 757–766. https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/ article/57/4/757/2631974
32 Geriatric Conditions in a Population-Based Sample of Older Homeless Adults (2017) | Kushel et al | The Gerontologist, Volume 57, Issue 4, August 2017, Pages 757–766. https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/ article/57/4/757/2631974
Resources for older adults
Recognizing that older adults often have
additional and specific service needs,
supportive housing for older/frail adults is
included as a future inventory need for the
homelessness response system as a more
service-intensive version of supportive housing
for formerly homeless adults who can no
longer live independently. Stakeholders in
the CRE process determined that our ideal
homelessness response system should include
enough inventory to serve 10% of adult only
households with supportive housing for older/
frail adults.33 In addition, the model recognizes
that many older adults live on fixed incomes
which are often low and stagnant compared to
housing costs. Dedicated affordable housing
for older adults can ensure that many formerly
homeless older adults will be able to live
independently on fixed incomes. Alameda
County‘s homelessness response system
model includes pathways out of homelessness
for older adults through access to dedicated
affordable housing from both sheltered and
unsheltered homeless living situations.
33 Oakland-Berkeley-Alameda County Continuum of Care. Centering Racial Equity in Homeless System Design. January 2021. https://everyonehome. org/centering-racial-equity/
“I first became homeless
when I was 59. I had a bad
heart attack and couldn’t
work. I had savings, then
the money ran out and I
had no place to go.”
— CRE Focus Group Participant,
Black man, age 50–64
“I am still looking [for
housing] and two years
into it…. Antioch and other
places are miles away. I
built a life here for myself
and want to stay here. I
want to be close to my son
and grandsons. Nothing
has come up in Oakland.
— Participant 30, Black woman,
age 65+
40 Home Together 2026
People impacted
by intimate partner
violence (IPV)
Histories of domestic violence and partner
abuse (referred to in this plan as intimate
partner violence) are prevalent among
individuals experiencing homelessness and
can be the primary cause of homelessness.
Survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV)
often lack the financial resources required
for housing, as their employment history or
dependable income may be limited.
For individuals in families with children
surveyed in the 2019 PIT Count, the most
frequently reported cause of homelessness
was family or domestic violence (26%). Six
percent (6%) of respondents from the 2019
Homeless PIT Count survey reported currently
experiencing domestic violence or abuse.
There was no difference observed between
unsheltered and sheltered respondents (6%
each). Domestic violence did vary by gender,
as 4% of male respondents reported current
experience compared to 10% of females.
While there were very few transgender and
gender non-conforming respondents, 8% and
3% reported currently experiencing domestic
violence, respectively.
Twenty-six percent (26%) of 2019 PIT Count
survey respondents reported a history of ever
experiencing physical, emotional, or sexual
abuse by a relative or by a person with whom
they have lived, such as a spouse, partner,
sibling, parent, or roommate. This also varied by
gender, with 17% of male, 40% of female, 39% of
transgender, and 16% of gender non-conforming
respondents experiencing domestic violence in
their lifetime.
Persons fleeing or impacted by intimate partner
violence (IPV) have similar needs to others
experiencing homelessness when it comes to
housing and services but have other needs and
circumstances that make their engagement with
the homelessness response system even more
challenging. Most victims of IPV often do not
have access to unmonitored technology, making
seeking help and client follow-ups difficult.
The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted IPV
providers and programs significantly and the
population fleeing violence that they serve.
• Crisis hotlines have seen a 30-70% increase
in calls34
• Some providers are reporting increases of up
to 150% in requests for mental health services
(from 44,000 to 109,000)
• To address health concerns and follow
COVID-19 protocols, shelter capacity including
in domestic violence shelters has been
decreased, and leaving some providers to
serve between 30-50% fewer clients
These impacts have made access to the kind
of support survivors need, including temporary
crisis assistance, affordable housing, and
supportive housing even more difficult. The
Alameda County Health Care Services Agency’s
Office of Homeless Care and Coordination,
Building Futures, Family Violence Law Center,
and Eden I&R 211 have created a program
design to establish a parallel and connected
Coordinated Entry System for survivors of
domestic violence, sexual assault, and human
trafficking in Alameda County so they can
better access needed support services, health
care, and housing resources to begin to live a
life free from abuse and homelessness.
34 Family Violence Law Center. Presentation to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. ”Gender-Based Violence COVID-19 Coordinated Response.” October 25, 2021.
Resources for survivors of
intimate partner violence (IPV)
Resources for programs that meet the needs
of survivors of IPV include dedicated shelters
and transitional programs. Since COVID-19,
Project Roomkey was created to use hotels to
provide non-congregate shelter for people who
are homeless and at high risk for complications
from the disease. The Marina Village Inn in
the City of Alameda provided 51 rooms of
temporary shelter for women and children to
allow for decompression of Domestic Violence
shelters (to comply with COVID-19 protocols).
These guests, as other Roomkey guests, are
now prioritized for permanent housing.
The 2021 HUD-funded Emergency Housing
Voucher program, also part of the COVID-19
relief effort, includes a partnership with victim
services providers and a set-aside of 87
vouchers for survivors of violence. Voucher
recipients will also be provided tenancy
sustaining support services, including coaching
for independent living and community
integration. A new grant from HUD specifically
for setting up Coordinated Entry to serve
survivors will increase access to the rest of the
homelessness response system resources.
41 Home Together 2026
People with
behavioral
health needs
According to the 2019 PIT Count, adults with
serious mental illness (SMI) comprised nearly
one-third (32%) of Alameda County’s homeless
population, compared to 29% in 2017 and 18%
in 2015. As reflected in the overall homeless
population, close to 80% of homeless adults
with SMI were unsheltered. The most frequently
reported health conditions among survey
respondents were psychiatric or emotional
conditions (39%), followed by post-traumatic
stress disorder (30%) and substance use
(30%). Twelve percent (12%) of PIT Count
survey respondents cited the primary event or
condition that led to their current homelessness
as mental health issues, and 10% said substance
use issues. Twenty-one percent (21%) indicated
that mental health services might have helped
them retain their housing and 38% cited the
need for behavioral health services (e.g., mental
health and substance use counseling).
Structural racism and racial disparities in
homelessness contribute to and exacerbate
mental health needs. A wide body of research
points to links between racial discrimination and
negative effects on mental health.35 Additional
research also links the adverse impacts of
experiencing homelessness such as stress,
anxiety, isolation, and sleep loss to worsening
35 American Public Health Association. Structural Racism is a Public Health Crisis. APHA Policy Statement. October 24, 2020. https://www.apha. org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policydatabase/2021/01/13/structural-racism-is-a-public-health-crisis mental health problems.36 An analysis of people
experiencing unsheltered homelessness in
Alameda County that had encounters with
street outreach indicates that nearly half (48%)
are particularly vulnerable due to advanced
age and/or one or more health or behavioral
health conditions including mental health and
substance use disorders.37
California’s Department of Health Care
Services (DHCS) recently conducted a needs
assessment for behavioral health care services
statewide and surveyed consumers and family
members on needed housing supports. Many
of the comments corresponded closely to the
Alameda County CRE report findings. Unmet
needs cited as priorities included:
• Additional housing capacity, due to low
vacancy rates and lack of affordability
• Additional supportive housing options
for adults that provide wraparound
behavioral health services, such as Full
Service Partnerships
• Additional capacity in longer-term adult
residential facilities, sober living and
recovery residences
• Efforts to address barriers to building or
siting housing for individuals living with
mental health issues and individuals living
with substance use disorders (SUD), and to
ensuring that housing providers are willing to
accept behavioral health clients38
36 Mental health problems are often a consequence—not a cause—of homelessness. KALW San Francisco. Published December 7, 2016. https:// www.kalw.org/show/crosscurrents/2016-12-07/mental-health-problemsare-often-a-consequence-not-a-cause-of-homelessness#stream/0 37 From a 2021 Analysis of SHIE and HMIS data for unsheltered persons with a street outreach contact.
38 State of California Department of Health Care Services, Assessing the Continuum of Care for Behavioral Health Services in California Data, Stakeholder Perspectives, and Implications, January 10th, 2022 Resources for those with
behavioral health needs
Alameda County (through Alameda County
Behavioral Health and Berkeley Mental Health)
receives specific funding to meet the needs
of homeless and formerly homeless people
with behavioral health needs. This includes
Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funding,
which supports 13 Full Service Partnership
contracts (representing $31m) with behavioral
health providers. Full Service Partnerships
provide intensive services and supports and
coordinate access to housing, education, and
employment for formerly homeless people
with severe mental illness (SMI). The State’s
No Place Like Home program provides funding
for housing dedicated for people with SMI
and Alameda County has secured $129m. For
several years the Whole Person Care program
provided significant support for housing and
for navigation and tenancy sustaining services.