Newark City Council
January 8, 2026

AGENDA
Thursday, January 8, 2026
7:00 P.M.

Michael K. Hannon, Mayor
Matthew Jorgens, Vice Mayor
Julie Del Catancio, Council Member
Terrence Grindall, Council Member
Eve Marie Little, Council Member
A. ROLL CALL
B. PRESENTATIONS
C. PUBLIC COMMENT
The public is invited to address the City Council on any item not listed on the agenda. Public Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per speaker. Please note that State law prohibits the Council from acting on non-agenda items.

D. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered to be routine and may be approved by one motion.

There will be no separate discussion on these items unless there is a request by a Council Member, a staff member, or a member of the public to remove an item for separate discussion and action.

1. Approval of December 11, 2025, City Council Minutes

2. Approval of Audited Demands

3. Waive further reading and adopt an ordinance amending the official zoning map established pursuant to Title 17 (Zoning) and Section 17.03.020 of the Newark Zoning Ordinance by rezoning a 0.84-acre parcel (Lot H) from Park to Residential High Density (RH), and rezoning a

28.26-acre parcel from Park to Residential Low Density with a Planned Overlay District for the “Mowry Village” subdivision project at 7400–7550 Mowry Avenue (APNs 537-0850-001-11, 537-0850-001-13, and 537-0850-002-00).

4. Waive further reading and adopt two ordinances: 1) Adding Chapter 2.14, “Public Art

4. Waive further reading and adopt two ordinances: 1) Adding Chapter 2.14, “Public Art Committee,” to the Newark Municipal Code and 2) Adding Chapter 12.36, “Public Art in Public Places and Private Development,” to the Newark Municipal Code.

E. PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. Hearing to waive full reading and introduce by title only an ordinance amending Section

17.18.030 and adding Chapter 17.27 to the Newark Municipal Code to update the City’s Affordable Housing Program and affordable housing requirements F. OTHER BUSINESS

1. Waive full reading and by title only introduce an ordinance adding Chapter 5.45 and adding Chapter 5.50 to the Newark Municipal Code to establish Residential Landlord and Tenant Relations regulations and a Rent Review program, and adopt a resolution to amend the 2024-2026 Biennial Budget and Capital Improvement Plan to fund the Emergency Rental Assistance Program.

2. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contractual services agreement with Dudek for the development of an Urban Forest Management Plan

3. Adopt a resolution approving the City of Newark Emergency Operations Plan 2025 Revision as the official emergency management framework for the City and affirming its alignment with the Alameda County Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan

4. Adopt a Resolution of Intention and waive full reading and introduce by title only an ordinance authorizing an amendment to the contract between the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) and the City Council of the City of Newark

5. Resolution approving an amendment to the Employment Agreement with City Manager David J. Benoun to serve as City Manager and approving an amendment to the City's salary schedule in conformance with California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5 G. CITY MANAGER UPDATES
H. CITY COUNCIL MATTERS
City Council Members report on attendance at intergovernmental agency meetings, conferences, and seminars since the last meeting. City Council Members may also announce upcoming events and coordinate attendance; report on local events attended since the last meeting; and make brief comments on issues of concern.

1. Adopt a resolution approving the Mayor's appointment of two City Council Members, or the Mayor and one City Council Member, to serve as the City of Newark’s representatives on the Fremont–Newark / AC Transit Inter-Agency Liaison Committee.

I. CLOSED SESSION
J. ADJOURNMENT

MEETING INFORMATION
Members of the public may attend the meeting in person, watch online, or watch on Cable Channel 26.

The ability to observe online or Cable Channel 26 is predicated on those technologies being available and functioning without technical difficulties.  Should those platforms not be available, or become non-functioning, or should the City Council otherwise encounter technical difficulties that make those platforms unavailable, the City Council will proceed with business in person unless otherwise prohibited by law.

How to view the meeting remotely:

Livestream online at YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@cityofnewark3077/streams. Copy/paste the YouTube URL into your browser if the link does not automatically open.

Cable Channel 26 - if the meeting does not broadcast live, please contact your service provider and request the City of Newark channel lineup.

Zoom will no longer be available for public participation unless required by Assembly Bill 2449. Should a Council Member or the Mayor attend the meeting via Zoom.com pursuant to Assembly Bill 2449, then the Webinar ID 871 7642 5976 will be activated.  The Mayor will make an announcement at the beginning of the meeting that the City will be allowing public comment via Zoom.  Raise your virtual hand to notify the City Clerk that you would like to speak during the item that you wish to speak on.

How to submit written Public Comment:

Send an email to City Clerk by 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting.  Please identify the agenda item number in the subject line of your email.  Emails will be compiled into one file and will be distributed to the City Council before the meeting.

No question shall be asked of a council member, city staff, or an audience member except through the Mayor. No person shall interrupt the meeting. Any person who refuses to carry out instructions given by the Mayor for the purpose of maintaining order may be guilty of an infraction and may result in removal from the meeting.

Council Meeting Access/Materials:

The agenda packet is available for review at Agendas and Minutes. The packet is typically posted to the City website the Friday before the meeting, but no later than 72 hours before the meeting. Pursuant to Government Code 54957.5, supplemental materials distributed less than 72 hours before this meeting, to a majority of the City Council, will be made available for public inspection at this meeting and will be posted at  https://www.newarkca.gov/departments/city-manager-s-office/agendas-minutes and will concurrently be made available for public inspection during regular business hours at the David W. Smith City Hall, 37101 Newark Boulevard, Newark CA.  Materials prepared by City staff and distributed during the meeting are available for public inspection at the meeting or after the meeting if prepared by some other person. Documents related to closed session items or are exempt from disclosure will not be made available for public inspection. For those persons who require special accommodations, please contact the City Clerk at least two days prior to the meeting at   City Clerk or 510-578-4266.

Mission Statement
Mission Statement
It is our mission to serve and partner with our community to continually enhance the quality of life of everyone in Newark.

Senior Staff Members

David J. Benoun
City Manager
Lenka Hovorka
Assistant City Manager
Kristopher J. Kokotaylo
City Attorney
Steven Turner
Community Development Director
Edwin Miranda
CIO/Information Technology Director
Krysten Lee
Finance Director
Brittney Frye
Human Resources Director
Jonathan Arguello
Police Chief
Howard Young
Public Works Director
Nicholas Cuevas
Recreation and Community Services Director
Ryan Nishimoto
ACFD Deputy Chief
Roya Gonzalez
Strategic Initiatives Manager
Neetu Salwan
City Clerk
Colleen Littire
Communications and Public Engagement Manager
Item  D. 1.

DATE 01/08/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Neetu Salwan, City Clerk
SUBJECT    Approval of December 11, 2025, City Council Minutes Attachments
December 11, 2025 City Council Minutes
City of Newark City Council DRAFT MINUTES December 11, 2025

CITY OF NEWARK

CITY COUNCIL
City Administration Building, City Council Chambers
37101 Newark Boulevard, Newark, CA 94560 | (510) 578-4266 | E-mail: [email protected]

DRAFT MINUTES
Thursday, December 11, 2025
7:00 P.M.

A. ROLL CALL
Mayor Hannon called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Vice Mayor Little, Council Members Catancio, Grindall, and Jorgens were present.

Mayor Hannon announced that he would adjourn the meeting in memory of Stephen Cassidy, a former San Leandro Mayor and Newark Chamber of Commerce President and CEO, who recently passed away unexpectedly due to a heart attack.

B. PRESENTATIONS

1. Commending the Newark Middle School Girls Soccer Team Mayor Hannon presented the commendation to the Newark Middle School Girls Soccer Team

2. Introduction of Employee(s)
Mayor Hannon introduced new employee City Clerk, Neetu Salwan.

Mayor called for a recess at 7:20 p.m. The meeting resumed at 7:29 p.m.

C. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mike Marzano, First Presbyterian Church, praised City staff for security checks and event management of church activities, requested current website information to avoid permit delays, and announced the Charlie Brown Christmas Concert on Saturday at 7:00 p.m.

A second speaker requested City review of a proposed paintball park at 7580 Mowry Avenue, citing zoning and General Plan issues and noting the property has been vacant for several years.

D. CONSENT CALENDAR
No one from the audience requested to speak.

Council Member Catancio moved, Council Member Grindall seconded, to approve Consent Calendar items D.1 to D.10, that the resolutions be numbered consecutively, and that reading of the titles suffice for adoption. The motion passed, 5 AYES.

1. Approval of Audited Demands

City of Newark City Council Draft Minutes December 11, 2025

2. Approval of November 13, 2025, City Council Minutes

3. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Contractural Service Agreement for the Comprehensive Transition Plan Update with Disabled Access Consultants, LLC for updating the Newark Transition Plan and amending 2024-2026 the Biennial Budget and Capital Improvement Plan Resolution No.11791

4. Motion approving the 2026 Local Appointments List and distribution

5. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Consultant Services Agreement with Gray -Bowen-Scott for Grant Management Services in the amount not to exceed $106,000 Resolution No.11792

6. Adopt a resolution amending the Employee Classification Plan, 2024-2026 Biennial budget and Capital Improvement Plan, and citywide salary schedule in conformance with California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5; and approve a side letter agreement with the Newark Association of Miscellaneous Employees (NAME) reflecting the classification change of Community Preservation Specialist to Community Preservation Specialist I/I.

Resolution No.11793

7. Adopt a resolution accepting the Development Impact Fee Annual and Five-Year Report for the period ending June 30, 2025, and approving findings for each fee imposed by the City of Newark in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code §§ 66000 – 66008) Resolution No.11794

8. Adopt resolutions establishing the City Council regular meeting schedule for calendar year 2026, with starting times of 7:00 p.m. and authorizing the City Manager to take administrative actions during the August Recess
Resolution No.11795
Resolution No.11796

9. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) Agreement with Tyler Technologies, Inc. to migrate the City’s on-premises Tyler New World Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system to the Tyler Software as a Service (SaaS) Cloud Resolution No.11797

10. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newark Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Fourth Amendment to the Contractual Services Agreement with Stantec Consulting Inc. to Provide Professional Environmental Services.

Resolution No.11798
E. PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. Hearing to consider the Mowry Village project entitlements including the following actions to approve:
(1) Resolution for revision of the Area 3 and 4 Specific Plan, (2) Resolution for revision of the General Plan land use for a .84 acre portion of project site from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential, (3) Ordinance to rezone project site from Park to Residential Low Density, (28.26 Acre) and Residential High Density (.84 Acre), (4) Ordinance establishing a Planned Development Overlay District, (5) Resolution for Design Review, (6) Resolution for Vesting Tentative Map (8517), (7) Resolution for Alternate Means of Compliance, (8) Resolution for Density Bonus, and (9) Resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCN 2021110436) for the Mowry Village residential subdivision project generally located at 7400 & 7550 Mowry Avenue, consisting of APN’s 537-0850-001

City of Newark City Council Draft Minutes December 11, 2025 -11, 537-0850-001-13, and 537-0850-002-00.

Resolution No. 11803
Resolution No. 11804
Ordinance No. 557
City Manager Benoun provided introductory remarks and project background.

Deputy Community Development Director Art Interiano gave the presentation. The presentation is on file with the City Clerk.

Environmental consultants; Anna Radonich, Principal Planner; Trevor Macenski, Senior Principal; and Jennifer Webset, Environmental Planner from Stantec gave the presentation. The presentation is on file with the City Clerk.

Project applicant Evan Knapp gave the presentation. The presentation is on file with the City Clerk.

Mayor called for a recess at 8:29 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:41 p.m.

Mayor Hannon opened the public hearing.

Public comments
There were 25 public speakers who provided comments during the hearing. This count includes individuals who spoke in support, in opposition, and those who offered neutral or mixed perspectives.

Mayor Hannon closed the public hearing.

Council Member Jorgens made a motion to continue the item and refer it back to the Planning Commission for further review, citing concerns about project consistency and affordable housing calculations; the motion failed for lack of a second.

Council Members asked clarifying questions regarding enforcement of the Pick-n-Pull site, sea level rise and flood resiliency, affordable housing calculations, site contamination and cleanup, wetlands status, emergency access, rail safety, and EIR mitigation measures.

Staff and consultants responded, confirming residential-level cleanup requirements, compliance with State Density Bonus Law, no jurisdictional wetlands, emergency-only access improvements, quiet zone eligibility, and mitigation enforcement through adopted conditions.

Council Members Catancio and Grindall and the Mayor expressed support for the project, citing housing needs, environmental remediation, infrastructure improvements, RHNA compliance, and economic and community benefits. The Vice Mayor expressed opposition based on concerns regarding affordability, flood risk, access, and location.

Council Member Grindall moved approval of the staff and Planning Commission recommendations, including modifications to the affordable housing agreement as requested by Mayor Hannon and subject to City Attorney approval. The motion was seconded by Council Member Catancio and passed by the following votes: AYES: Grindall, Catancio, Hannon; NOES: Little; ABSTAIN: Jorgens.

Mayor called for a recess at 11:14 p.m. The meeting resumed at 11:24 p.m.

City of Newark City Council Draft Minutes December 11, 2025 F. OTHER BUSINESS

1. Waive full reading and introduce by title only an ordinance adding Chapter 12.36, Art in Public Places and Private Development, and an ordinance adding Chapter 2.14, Public Art Committee, to the Newark Municipal Code; and adopt a resolution adopting the Public Art Guidelines to Implement Chapter 12.36, "Public Art In Public Places and Private Development"
Resolution No. 11799
Ordinance No. 558
Ordinance No. 559
City Manager Benoun provided introductory remarks and project background.

Recreation and Community Services Supervisor Jessennia Taimani gave the presentation. The presentation is on file with the City Clerk.

The City Council engaged in discussion and asked clarifying questions.

No members of the public requested to speak.

The City Council directed staff to coordinate outreach and work with the City Clerk to open the application process for the Public Art Committee, ensuring community engagement and a diverse pool of applicants.

Council Member Jorgens moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Little, to add Chapter 12.36, “Art in Public Places and Private Development,” and Chapter 2.14, “Public Art Committee,” to the Newark Municipal Code, and to adopt a resolution establishing the Public Art Guidelines to implement Chapter 12.36, with an amendment specifying five members and two alternates. The motion passed, 5 AYES.

G. CITY MANAGER UPDATES
City Manager Benoun announced:

Santa at the Firehouse: Saturday, December 20, 4–7 p.m. at Fire Station 28. Free event; toy donations accepted.

City Facility Closures: City Hall, Senior Center, Child Care Center, and Service Center: December 24, 2025 – January 4, 2026.

Police Administrative Offices: Closed December 24–25 and December 31–January 1, 2026; officers remain on duty and emergency services as usual.

Silliman Community Activity Center: Closed December 24–25 and December 31–January 1, 2026.

He concluded by wishing the community a festive holiday season.

H. CITY COUNCIL MATTERS
Council Member Catancio reported attending the Newark tree lighting, Salvation Army bell-ringing, toy donation drives through Viola Blythe and the Chamber of Commerce, and the ribbon-cutting at Chavez Market. Wished the community happy holidays and encouraged shopping locally.

City of Newark City Council Draft Minutes December 11, 2025 Council Member Jorgens noted this is the last City Council meeting of 2025, highlighted Newark’s upcoming 150th anniversary in 2026, and shared plans to celebrate the city’s history.

Council Member Grindall recognized the contributions of Stephen Cassidy to the Chamber of Commerce and extended condolences to his family. Wished the community happy holidays and encouraged shopping locally.

Mayor Hannon announced the Newark Symphonic Winds Christmas concert at Newark High School on Saturday at 7:00 p.m., featuring former Mayor David Smith and Council Member Jorgens. Wished residents a safe and happy holiday season.

1. Motion appointing Vice Mayor and adoption of resolution authorizing the execution of financial documents
Resolution No. 11800
Mayor Hannon recognized Vice Mayor Little for her service during her first year as Vice Mayor, noting her contributions to youth and senior programs.

Mayor Hannon nominated Council Member Jorgens as Vice Mayor.

No one from the public requested to speak.

Moved by Council Member Grindall, seconded by Council Member Catancio, to appoint Council Member Jorgens as Vice Mayor and to adopt the resolution authorizing the execution of financial documents. The motion passed, 5 AYES.

2. Adopt a resolution confirming the Mayor's appointments to various agencies, boards, commissions, and committees
Resolution No. 11801
The City Council approved Council Member assignments with no changes. The Tri-City Elder Coalition was removed as it no longer meets.

Alameda County Fire Advisory Committee Council Members Little and Catancio – delegate and alternate
Alameda County Library Advisory
Commission
Council Members Grindall and Little – delegate and
alternate
Alameda County Transportation
Commission
Mayor Hannon and Council Member Grindall –
delegate and alternate
Alameda County Waste Management
Authority Board (Stopwaste.org)
Council Member Jorgens and Mayor Hannon
–delegate and alternate
Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG)
Mayor Hannon and Council Member Grindall –
delegate and alternate

City of Newark City Council Draft Minutes December 11, 2025 Ava Community Energy Authority Board of
Directors
Council Members Catancio and Jorgens – delegate
and alternate
Community Development Advisory
Committee
Mayor Hannon and Council Member Grindall –
delegates
Newark City Council – Newark Board of
Education Liaison Committee
Mayor Hannon and Council Member Jorgens –
delegates
Senior Advisory Committee Mayor Hannon delegate and chairperson Southern Alameda County Geographic
Information System Authority
Council Member Catancio and Mayor Hannon –
delegate and alternate
No one from the public requested to speak.

Moved by Council Member Jorgens, seconded by Council Member Catancio, to adopt the resolution.

The motion passed, 5 AYES.

3. Adopt a resolution approving the reappointment of John Becker to the Planning Commission for a fouryear term.

Resolution No. 11802
No one from the public requested to speak.

Mayor Hannon expressed appreciation for Mr. Becker’s service and civic involvement.

Moved by Vice Mayor Little, seconded by Council Member Grindall, to adopt the resolution. The motion passed, 5 AYES.

I. CLOSED SESSION
None.

J. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hannon adjourned the meeting at 11:46 p.m. in memory of Stephen Cassidy.

Neetu Salwan
City Clerk
Item  D. 2.

DATE 01/08/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM
SUBJECT    Approval of Audited Demands
Attachments
Audited Demands 11.26.25
Audited Demands 12.11.25

Item  D. 3.

DATE 01/08/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Art Interiano, Deputy Community Development Director SUBJECT    Waive further reading and adopt an ordinance amending the official zoning map established pursuant to Title 17 (Zoning) and Section

17.03.020 of the Newark Zoning Ordinance by rezoning a

0.84-acre parcel (Lot H) from Park to Residential High Density (RH), and rezoning a 28.26-acre parcel from Park to Residential Low Density with a Planned Overlay District for the “Mowry Village” subdivision project at 7400–7550 Mowry Avenue (APNs
537-0850-001-11, 537-0850-001-13, and 537-0850-002-00).

The ordinance was introduced at the December 11, 2025, City Council meeting. A second reading of the ordinance is required prior to adoption.

Attachments
Ordinance No. 557 Mowry Village
Exhibit A - Zoning Map Amendment - Mowry Village
Exhibit B - Findings of Determination - Mowry Village
ORDINANCE NO. 557

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

NEWARK AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO TITLE 17 (ZONING) AND
SECTION 17.03.020 OF THE NEWARK ZONING
ORDINANCE BY REZONING A .84 PARCEL (LOT H) FROM
PARK TO RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY (RH). ALSO
REZONING A 28.26 ACRE PARCEL FROM PARK TO

RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY WITH A PLANNED
OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE “MOWRY VILLAGE”
SUBDIVISION PROJECT AT 7400–7550 MOWRY AVENUE
(APNS 537-0850-001-11, 537-0850-001-13, AND 537-0850-002- 00)
WHEREAS, Mowry Project Owner, LLC (“Applicant”), submitted applications for a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Design Review, Alternative Means of Compliance, and Density Bonus Waiver for the “Mowry Village” subdivision project (“Project”), an approximately 29.1 acre site located at 7400–7550 Mowry Avenue (APNs 537-0850-001-11, 537-0850-001-13, and 537-0850-002-00) (“Project Entitlements”); and
WHEREAS, the Project proposes demolition of the existing auto dismantler (“Pick-nPull”) and construction of 196 market-rate single-family detached homes, a 31-unit multifamily building consisting of 30 deed-restricted affordable units and one manager’s unit, on-site private streets, utility and drainage improvements, off-site roadway improvements (including the widening of Mowry Avenue), and approximately 4.89 acres of open space; and WHEREAS, the Project site is Residential Low Density on the General Plan Figure LU-1 (Land Use Diagram) and Golf/Recreation in Subarea D of the Areas 3 and 4 Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”). A General Plan Amendment is required to re-designate a .84 acre portion of project site to High Density Residential to allow a 31-unit multifamily building consisting of 30 deed-restricted affordable units and one manager’s unit. A zoning change is required to make the zoning consistent with the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 17.12 of the Newark Municipal Code, the Applicant applied for a Planned Development (PD) overlay district to facilitate site-specific design and development standards for the Project, in conjunction with rezoning the property; and WHEREAS, a component of the Project is an amendment to Title 17 (Zoning) of the Newark Zoning Ordinance and the Official Zoning Map, to rezone property described as follows:

Rezone Park (PK) to Residential Single-Family (RS-6000) for a 28.26 acre parcel with a Planned Development Overlay District. Rezone Park (PK) to Residential High Density (RH) for a .84 acre parcel (Lot H).
2 WHEREAS, Exhibit A to this Ordinance depicts the affected portions of real property proposed for re-zoning as shown on Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8517 in the City of Newark, County of Alameda; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2021110436) (“EIR”) consisting of the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments/Final EIR has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA” (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.)) to analyze the environmental effects of the project and alternatives, including the Partial Affordable Alternative which is the Project recommended by staff for City Council approval; and WHEREAS, on November 19, 2025, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Project Entitlements and EIR and unanimously voted (5-0) to adopt resolutions recommending that the City Council (1) certify the EIR and adopt environmental findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and (2) approve the Project and Project Entitlements; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Newark Zoning Ordinance Section 17.39.050.C, a public hearing notice was published in the Tri-City Voice on November 25, 2025, and mailed as required, and the City Council held a public hearing to consider the Ordinance at 7:00 p.m. on December 11, 2025 at the City Administration Building, 37101 Newark Boulevard, Newark, California; and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2025 the City Council of the City of Newark conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project and EIR, considered all public testimony, written and oral, presented at the meeting; and received and considered the written information and recommendation of the staff report for the December 11, 2025 public hearing related to the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council fully considered the Project application, entitlements, staff report, findings of fact, conditions of approval, public comments, and all other testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing and meeting; and WHEREAS, on December 11, 2025, after the public hearing, the City Council adopted a Resolution certifying the EIR and adopting findings on impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program relating to the Project; and
WHEREAS, as described fully in section IV of the Findings of Determinations for the Project attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein, the City Council finds that the Ordinance meets the following criteria required by Newark Municipal Code section 17.39.080:
a. The amendments are 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
3 c. The amendments will promote the growth of the City in an orderly manner and promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare; and The City Council of the City of Newark does ordain as follows:

Section 1: The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein.

Section 2: Pursuant to Section 17.39.080 of the City of Newark Zoning Ordinance, the City Council of the City of Newark does hereby make the Findings and Determinations attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein, including specifically the findings contained in section IV, which support the zoning map amendments in this Ordinance. The City Council further finds that the that this Ordinance is necessary and desirable to achieve the purposes of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Newark Zoning Ordinance; is consistent with the policies, goals, and objectives of the General Plan; and promotes the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the residents of the City of Newark.

Section 3: The City’s Official Zoning Map established pursuant to Title 17 (Zoning) and Section 17.03.020 of the Newark Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by rezoning the territory in the City of Newark, County of Alameda, State of California as shown on Exhibit A attached to this Ordinance, which is incorporated herein.

Section 4. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance, if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted.

Section 5: Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from the date of its passage. Before expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage, this ordinance shall be published in Tri-City Voice, a newspaper of general circulation published and printed in the County of Alameda and circulated in the City of Newark.

Exhibit A: Zoning Map Amendment for real property shown on Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8517
Exhibit B: Findings of Determinations for Rezone of the Mowry Village Project 'A' STREET 'C' STREET
'D' AVENUE
'E' AVENUE
'F' AVENUE
'G' DRIVE 'B' STREET
59 60
77 76 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61
78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 90 91 92
93 107 106 104 103 102 101 100 99 98 97 96 95 94
108 109 111 112 113 114 115 117 118 119
120
121
122
128 123
129 138 137 136 135 133 132 131 130
139 140
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 27 26
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 58
75 89
105
110 116
134
COURT 1 PARCEL B PARCEL D PARCEL E PARCEL F

PARCEL G
141 142 143 144
145
146
148149 150151 152153 154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
196 195 194 193 192 191 190 189 188 187 186 185 184 183 182 181 180 179 178 177 176 175 147
124
125 126 127

PARCEL C

PARCEL H

MOWRY AVENUE (PUBLIC)
'A' STREET
'C' STREET
'D' AVENUE
'E' AVENUE
'F' AVENUE
'G' DRIVE 'B' STREET
59 60
77 76 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61
78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 90 91
92 93
107 106 104 103 102 101 100 99 98 97 96 95 94
108 109 111 112 113 114 115 117 118
119
120
121
122
128 123
129 138 137 136 135 133 132 131 130
139 140
41 42
43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 27 26
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 58
75 89
105
110 116
134
COURT 1 PARCEL B PARCEL D PARCEL E PARCEL F

PARCEL G
141 142 143 144
145
146
148
149
150
151 152
153 154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
196 195 194 193 192 191 190 189 188 187 186 185 184 183 182 181 180 179 178 177 176 175 147
124
125
126
127

PARCEL C

PARCEL H

MOWRY AVENUE (PUBLIC)
F:\2872-000\ACAD\EXHIBITS\XB_41-ZONING LAND USE CHANGES.DWG

SPECIFIC PLAN AND ZONING

LAND USE CHANGES

MOWRY VILLAGE

CITY OF NEWARK ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
SCALE: 1" = 200' DATE: OCTOBER 6, 2025
0 200 400 600 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS

SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM

ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456
LEGEND

RESOURCE PRODUCTION
PARK
RS-6000: RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AREA 3 & 4 SPECIFIC PLAN SUB AREA D ORIGINAL LAND USE VS

PROPOSED LAND USE

LAND USE CATEGORY ORIGINAL LAND USE PROPOSED LAND USE PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE

PUBLIC FACILITIES

ORIGINAL LAND USE PER SPECIFIC PLAN PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE

PROJECT BOUNDARY
AREA 3 & 4 SPECIFIC PLAN SUB AREA D
RH: RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY

EXHIBIT A
Resolution No. ______ 1 of 72
RESOLUTION NO. ______

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR), AND ADOPT FINDINGS ON IMPACTS,

MITIGATION MEASURES AND ALTERNATIVES, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE “MOWRY VILLAGE” SUBDIVISION PROJECT AT 7400–7550 MOWRY AVENUE (APNS 537-0850-001-11, 537-0850-001-13, AND 537-0850-002-00) WHEREAS, Mowry Project Owner, LLC (“Applicant”), submitted applications for a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Rezone, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Design Review, Alternative Means of Compliance, and Density Bonus Waiver for the “Mowry Village” subdivision project, an approximately 29.1 acres site located at 7400–7550 Mowry Avenue (APNs 537-0850-001-11, 537-0850-001-13, and 537-0850-002-00) (“Project Entitlements”); and
WHEREAS, the project proposes demolition of the existing auto dismantler (“Pick-nPull”) and construction of 196 market-rate single-family detached homes, a 31-unit multifamily building consisting of 30 deed-restricted affordable units and one manager’s unit, on-site private streets, utility and drainage improvements, off-site roadway improvements (including the widening of Mowry Avenue), and approximately 4.89 acres of open space (“Partial Affordable Project”); and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR for the Project on August 2, 2023, announcing the availability of the Draft EIR for public review and comment (“DEIR or Draft EIR”) for a 45-day public review and comment period, which expired on September 18, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Responses to Comments/Final EIR that was released to the public, including commenting agencies, on October 3, 2025, which responded to all comments received on the Draft EIR during the comment period and made some edits to the Draft EIR. The Final EIR is incorporated herein by reference and available at www.NewarkCA.Gov; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR contains a description of the Partial Affordable Project as Alternative 5, an analysis of its impact, and a comparison of its impacts to those of the proposed Project and other alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2021110436) (“EIR”) consisting of the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments/Final EIR has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA” (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.)) to Resolution No. ______ 2 of 72
analyze the environmental effects of the project and alternatives, including the Partial Affordable Alternative; and
WHEREAS, CEQA and Section 15000 et. seq. of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (“CEQA Guidelines”) which govern the preparation, content, and processing of environmental impact reports, have been fully implemented in the preparation of the EIR; and WHEREAS, on November 19, 2025, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Project Entitlements, the EIR and proposed Resolutions to recommend to the City Council approval of the Project Entitlements and certification of the EIR and adoption of findings on impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives, a statement of overriding considerations and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (“Resolutions”). After the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to adopt the Resolutions; and WHEREAS, on December 11, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing on the Project Entitlements for the Partial Affordable Project, certification of the EIR, adoption of the environmental findings (Exhibit 1) and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit 2) and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit 3); and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the EIR, the staff reports pertaining to the EIR, all evidence received by the City Council at public meetings and hearings relating to the Partial Affordable Project and EIR, and the record of proceedings as a whole, all of which documents and evidence are hereby incorporated by reference into this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the EIR identified certain significant and potentially significant adverse effects on the environment caused by the proposed project and alternatives (including the Partial Affordable Project) most of which are mitigated to less than significant, except for the impact relating to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) which cannot be reduced to less than significant and remain significant and unavoidable; and
WHEREAS, the Statement of Overriding Considerations sets forth certain overriding economic, social, and other considerations for approving the Partial Affordable Project despite the significant and unavoidable impact on VMT; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newark certify the EIR and make findings on the environmental impacts of the Partial Affordable Project (Alternative 5 in the Final EIR) under CEQA as follows:

1. The EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

2. The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the record and the EIR prior to making its decision to certify the EIR and taking any action to approve the Partial Affordable Project.

3. The EIR represents the independent judgment, review and analysis of the City.

Resolution No. ______ 3 of 72

4. The EIR provides information to the decision-makers and the public on the environmental consequences of the Partial Affordable Project.

5. The EIR adequately discusses the potential adverse environmental effects, ways in which such effects might be mitigated, and alternatives to the Partial Affordable Project which would reduce or avoid such adverse effects.

6. The EIR is adequate to support all actions in connection with the approval of the Partial Affordable Project and all other actions necessary for approval of the Partial Affordable Project.

7. Adopt the CEQA findings in Exhibit 1 to this Resolution, including Findings on Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Rejection of Certain Alternatives and Mitigation Measures as Infeasible, and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit

2. 8. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in Exhibit 3 of this Resolution.

9. The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council has based its decision are located in and may be obtained from, the City Clerk or Planning Dept, City of Newark, 37101 Newark Blvd, Newark, CA 94560. The City Clerk is the custodian of records for all matters before the City Council.

Exhibits:
1: Findings on Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Rejection of Certain Alternatives and Mitigation Measures as Infeasible
2: Statement of Overriding Considerations
3: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Resolution No. ______ 4 of 72
EXHIBIT 1

FINDINGS ON IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES, REJECTION OF

CERTAIN ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION MEASURES AS INFEASIBLE I. Introduction
On behalf of the City of Newark (City), and pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines), the City’s Planning Division has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Mowry Village Project (proposed project). The City is the lead agency for the EIR.

Approval of a project with significant impacts requires that findings be made by the lead agency pursuant to CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.), and State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3) Sections 15043, 15091, and 15093. CEQA Guidelines Section 15092(b) requires the findings associated with the significant impacts of a project that are either: (1) mitigated to a less than significant level pursuant to the mitigation measures identified in the EIR; or (2) mitigation measures notwithstanding have a residual significant impact that requires a Statement of Overriding Consideration be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record, which includes the documents, materials, and other evidence. The Mowry Village Project Final EIR (FEIR), which includes the Draft EIR (DEIR) and responses to comments on the DEIR, and as supported by the administrative record, concluded that all project impacts, except for impacts related to transportation, would be mitigable to less than significant. The FEIR and DEIR concluded that impacts related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) under transportation would be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation measures.

These findings are organized as follows:

Section V.A: Findings Regarding No Impact or Less than Significant Impacts. This section provides the City’s findings associated with impacts identified as “no impact” or “less than significant” in the FEIR.

Section V.B: Findings Regarding Potentially Significant Impacts. This section provides the City’s findings with respect to impacts identified as potentially significant that are reduce to less than significant through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures identified in the FEIR.

Section V.C: Findings Regarding Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. This section provides the City’s findings with respected to impacts identified as significant and unavoidable that have impacts that cannot be reduced to a less than significant level even with adoption of feasible mitigation measures identified in the FEIR.

Resolution No. ______ 5 of 72
II.Project Environmental Review
The DEIR addressed the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The City distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a DEIR beginning on November 30, 2021. The NOP was distributed for a 30-day comment period that ended on January 3, 2022. The Public Scoping Meeting on the DEIR was held on December 14, 2021. The comments received on the NOP and during the Public Scoping Meeting were considered in the preparation of the DEIR. The scope of the DEIR included the potential impacts identified in the NOP and issues raised by agencies and the public in response to the NOP.

The City of Newark filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI) to begin the public review period for the DEIR (PRC, Section 21161). Concurrent with the NOC, the DEIR has been distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interested parties, as well as to all parties requesting a copy of the DEIR in accordance with PRC Section 21092(b)(3).

The DEIR was published by the City and available for review for a 45-day public review period that began on August 2, 2023 and ended on September 18, 2023. The DEIR, including the technical appendices, are available for review online on the City’s website at:
https://www.newark.org/departments/community-development/planning-division/projectsunder-environmental-review.

During the public review period, the interested public and responsible and trustee agencies were invited to submit comments on the DEIR to the City’s Community Development Department. Verbal comments on the DEIR were also accepted at the Planning Commission meeting held on August 22, 2023.

Following the completion of the public review period, the City reviewed all comments received on the DEIR and prepared a FEIR. The FEIR, which incorporates by reference the DEIR, includes all comments received during the public review period, responses to those comments, and also describes any changes to the DEIR that resulted from the comments received. All persons who commented on the DEIR have been notified of the availability of the FEIR and all responses to comments submitted on the DEIR by public agencies have been provided to those agencies at least 10 days prior to the City Council consideration of the EIR.

Section 21081.6 of CEQA requires lead agencies to adopt a mitigation monitoring or reporting program (MMRP) for any project for which it has made mitigation findings pursuant to Section 21081. The City has prepared a MMRP.

The EIR is the subject of these Findings and presented for certification consists of the DEIR and the FEIR.

Resolution No. ______ 6 of 72
The City and responsible agency approvals necessary for implementation of the project are:

Jurisdiction Permits/Approval
City of Newark Certification of CEQA document
Adoption of MMRP
Adoption of Findings of Facts and Statement of
Overriding Considerations
General Plan Amendment
Rezone Amendment
Planned Unit Development
Specific Plan Amendment
Vesting Tentative Map
Design Review
Grading, Building, and Encroachment Permit
Other Agencies USD Stormwater Discharge Permit
State Water Resources Control Borad National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Construction General Permit
San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission Administrative Permit
The EIR was prepared to meet all applicable CEQA requirements necessary to support these actions by the City Council and the responsible agencies.

III. Mowry Village Project Amendments and Environmental Review A. Record of Proceedings and Custodian of Record
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the record of proceedings consists of the following documents and testimony, at a minimum:

Resolution No. ______ 7 of 72
 The EIR, which consists of the Mowry Village Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021110436), dated August 2, 2023 and published and circulated for public review and comment by the City from August 2, 2023 through September 18, 2023 (the DEIR), and the Mowry Village Project Final Environmental Impact Report, published and made available for public review on October 3, 2025 (the FEIR), and all appendices, reports, documents, studies, memoranda, maps, testimony, and other materials related thereto;
 All public notices issued by the City in connection with the project and the preparation of the DEIR and the FEIR, including but not limited to public notices for all public workshops and scoping sessions held to seek public comments and input on the project;  All written and oral communications submitted by agencies or interested members of the general public during and immediately after the public review periods for the DEIR and FEIR, including oral communications made at public hearings or meetings held for the project;
 All minutes, testimony, statements, comments and other materials memorializing, describing or relating to workshops, meetings, scoping sessions, and hearings conducted by the City Council, City’s Planning Commission, and all other departments of the City relating to the City’s review and consideration of the project;  All other public reports, studies, documents, memoranda, maps, or other materials reviewed and/or considered by the City in connection with its review and consideration of the proposed project, the DEIR, the FEIR, and the MMRP, whether prepared by the City, its consultants, or by third parties;
 All matters of common knowledge to the members of the City’s City Council, including but not limited to: (i) the City’s General Plan, zoning ordinance, and other applicable policies and ordinances; (ii) information regarding the City’s fiscal status and economic and development patterns and trends; (iii) federal, state and local laws, regulations, guidelines and publications applicable to or affecting the project; and (iv) reports, projections, documents and other materials regarding statewide, regional, and local planning and development matters within and outside of the City; and  All other documents and materials relating to the proposed project as described in PRC Section 21167.6, as applicable.

The record of proceedings is available for review by responsible agencies and interested members of the public during normal business hours at 37101 Newark Boulevard, Newark, California. The custodian of these documents is the City of Newark Clerk’s Office.

IV. Proposed Project, Project Alternatives and Selection of Alternative 5 Partial Affordable Housing Alternative
Resolution No. ______ 8 of 72
The proposed project evaluated in the DEIR involves implementation of the Mowry Village Project which includes development of an approximately 29 acre site located in the City of Newark in southwestern Alameda County, California, southwest of the intersection of Mowry Avenue and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, west of Cherry Street as follows: demolition of existing on-site structures and remediation of the site to redevelop the site with 203 single-family detached homes. The proposed project would also include additional on- and off-site improvements including, but not limited to, construction of onstreet parking, drive aisles, utility improvements, LID drainage and water quality treatment areas, construction of secondary emergency vehicle access (EVA) point, landscaping and widening of Mowry Avenue.

The DEIR evaluated the potentially significant, adverse, and beneficial environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. As identified in the DEIR and FEIR, the proposed project was determined to result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to transportation, specifically VMT. In addition to the proposed project, the DEIR included an analysis of project alternatives which were developed to lessen the significant impacts, including the significant and unavoidable impact related to VMT, that were identified in the DEIR.

The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the project, and then evaluate the comparative merits of such alternatives. (Guidelines §15126(a)).

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15126.6, the DEIR contained a comparative impact assessment of alternatives to the proposed project. The primary purpose of the assessment was to provide decision-makers and the public with a reasonable number of feasible project alternatives that could attain most of the basic project objectives while avoiding or reducing any of the project’s significant adverse environmental effects. Important considerations for the alternatives’ analyses are provided below:
 An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project;  An EIR should identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency, but rejected as infeasible during the scoping process;
 Reasons for rejecting an alternative include:
o Failure to meet most of the basic project objectives
o Infeasibility
o Inability to avoid significant environmental effects of the proposed project Resolution No. ______ 9 of 72
A range of potential alternatives was developed and subjected to the screening criteria in the Draft EIR. Several representative alternatives were considered. There was no attempt to include every conceivable alternative. The following criteria were used to screen potential alternatives:
 Does the alternative meet most of the project objectives?  Is the alternative potentially feasible?
 Would the alternative substantially reduce one or more of the significant impacts associated with the project?
The four project alternatives considered in the Draft EIR include Alternative 1: No Project Alternative, Alternative 2: Multi-Family Residential Alternative, Alternative 3: Reduced Density Alternative, and Alternative 4: 100 Percent Affordable Housing Alternative. These four alternatives were developed to lessen the significant impacts, including significant and unavoidable impact related to VMT, that were identified in the DEIR. A description of each alternative and the findings are outlined below and set forth in full in the EIR.

In addition to the four project alternatives considered in the DEIR, an additional project alternative, Alternative 5: Partial Affordable Housing Alternative was identified in the FEIR based on comments received on the DEIR and at the discretion of the project applicants. A description of the additional alternative included in the FEIR and the findings are outlined below.

A. DEIR Project Alternatives
The following four alternatives described below were analyzed in the DEIR.

Alternative 1: No Project Alternative.

Description. The No Project Alternative assumes that no additional development would occur on the project site. Under this alternative, the project site would remain developed with the existing structures for commercial uses. The existing structures and surface lot would continue to be used as an auto part and scrap metal salvage lot. The northern parcel of the project site would continue to be undeveloped land.

Finding. The No Project Alternative would reduce the significant and unavoidable impact to VMT, but it would have greater impacts to energy, geology and soils, GHGs, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, and noise.

Additionally, the No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the project objectives shown below:
 Implement the City’s General Plan by developing the site with low-density residential; Resolution No. ______ 10 of 72
 Support the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) target assigned by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG);  Provide high quality residential development including a mix of lot sizes;  Minimize environmental impacts associated with residential development by siting the project on developed and disturbed lands;
 Remediate contaminated soil on-site to levels suitable for residential development;  Create a residential development that integrates multi-modal transportation (pedestrian, bicycle, automobile) and connects the development to existing, nearby bus transit stops and active centers by improving Mowry Avenue and upgrading the at-grade vehicular and pedestrian crossing along Mowry Avenue at the UPRR railroad tracks to increase safety.

Alternative 2: Multi-Family Residential Alternative.

Description. Under the Multi-family Residential Alternative, the project would include the demolition of existing uses and remediation of existing contaminants on-site, same as the proposed project. However, under this alternative, the project would develop 405 multifamily residential units. Under the Multi-family Residential Alternative, the project would construct 405 multi-family residential units on 29 acres, resulting in a density of approximately 14 units per acre and therefore, would require a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential to allow for the increased density. This alternative would provide multi-family residential units that range from garden apartments and condominiums to townhomes and row houses that would have a maximum building height of 60 feet, in accordance with the development standards of the Areas 3 and 4 Specific Plan.

Finding. The Multi-family Residential Alternative would not eliminate or reduce the significant and unavoidable impact to VMT. This alternative would have equivalent impacts compared to the proposed project on aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. The Multi-family Residential Alternative would result in greater impacts to air quality, energy, GHG, noise public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems. The Multi-family Residential Alternative would not achieve the project objective shown below:
 Implement the City’s General Plan by developing the site with low-density residential.

All other project objectives would be achieved at an equivalent or better level than the proposed project under this alternative. This alternative would require modification of the site layout and conversion from single-family residential units to multi-family residential units. This alternative would result in a density of 14 units per acre and would require a Resolution No. ______ 11 of 72
General Plan Amendment to designate the site as medium density residential. As such, this alternative would not meet the project objective to provide low density residential uses at the site.

Alternative 3: Reduced Density Alternative.

Description. Under the Reduced Density Alternative, the project site would be developed with 64 single-family detached residential homes on the 29 acre project site. The Reduced Density Alternative would have a resulting density of approximately 2.2 dwelling units per acre which is within the allowable density of 8.7 dwelling units per acre for the Low Density Residential General Plan land use designation. The Reduced Density Alternative would continue to involve the demolition of existing uses and structures at the project site, remediation of the project site, and would involve additional on- and off-site improvements, similar to the proposed project. Though the Reduced Density Alternative’s density of 2.2 dwelling units per acre would be within the allowable density for Low Density Residential General Plan land use designation, it would underutilize the allowable density of the designation of the project site.

Finding. Though the Reduced Density Alternative would not result in a net increase in VMT above existing conditions, VMT generated by this alternative would be above the threshold of significance and therefore, this alternative would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable impact to VMT. This alternative would have equivalent impacts compared to the proposed project on aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. The Reduced Density Alternative would have less impacts compared to the proposed project on air quality, energy, GHG, noise, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems. The Reduced Density Alternative would achieve all of the project objectives. However, the Reduced Density Alternative was determined to meet two of the project objectives to a lesser degree than the proposed project as this alternative would provide substantially less units to contribute to the City’s RHNA and would not provide a significant mix of lot sizes. The remaining four objectives were determined to be met at an equivalent level to the proposed project.

Though the Reduced Density Alternative’s density of two units per acre would be within the allowable density for Low Density Residential General Plan land use designation, it would underutilize the allowable density of the designation of the project site. Additionally, the Areas 3 and 4 Specific Plan did not envision lot sizes for residential developments with a two unit per acre density. The demolition of the existing uses, remediation of the project site, and construction of single-family homes within the project site would be extensive and costly and the high costs the Applicant would incur from development of this alternative would be greater than the revenue generated by development of this alternative.

Resolution No. ______ 12 of 72
Alternative 4: 100 Percent Affordable Housing Alternative.

Description. Under the 100 Percent Affordable Housing Alternative, the project would include the demolition of existing uses and remediation of existing contaminants on-site, same as the proposed project. This alternative is similar to the Multi-family Residential Alternative; however, under this alternative, the project would develop 405 multi-family residential units that are 100 percent affordable. Under the 100 Percent Affordable Housing Alternative, the project would construct 405 affordable multi-family residential units on 29 acres, resulting in a density of approximately 14 units per acre and therefore, would require a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential to allow for the increased density. This alternative assumed that no density bonus law would be applied. This alternative would provide multi-family residential units that range from garden apartments and condominiums to townhomes and row houses that would have a maximum building height of 60 feet, in accordance with the development standards of the Areas 3 and 4 Specific Plan.

Finding. The 100 Percent Affordable Housing Alternative would not eliminate or significantly reduce the significant and unavoidable impact to VMT. Under this alternative, the project would have equivalent impacts compared to the proposed project on aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. The 100 Percent Affordable Housing Alternative would result in greater impacts to air quality, energy, GHG, noise, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems. The 100 Percent Affordable Housing Alternative would not achieve the project objective shown below:
 Implement the City’s General Plan by developing the site with low-density residential.

All other project objectives would be achieved at an equivalent or better level than the proposed project under this alternative. This alternative would require modifications to the site layout and conversion of units from single-family residential units to multi-family residential units. This alternative would result in a density of 14 units per acre and would require a General Plan Amendment to designate the site as medium density residential. As such, this alternative would not meet the project objective to provide low density residential uses at the site.

B. FEIR Project Alternative
In addition to the four alternatives described above, based on comments received on the DEIR and at the discretion of the project applicants, an additional alternative was identified in the FEIR to provide an alternative to potentially reduce the significant and unavoidable transportation impact identified in the DEIR. The Partial Affordable Housing Alternative has Resolution No. ______ 13 of 72
been included in the FEIR as an additional alternative for the proposed project. The Partial Affordable Housing Alternative is described below.

Alternative 5: Partial Affordable Housing Alternative.

Description. Under the Partial Affordable Housing Alternative, the number of single-family residential units would be reduced from 203 units to 196 units and would include the addition of 30 affordable multi-family residential units and one manager’s unit. In total the Partial Affordable Housing Alternative would provide 227 residential units consisting of 196 singlefamily units, 30 affordable multi-family units and one manager’s unit. The Partial Affordable Housing Alternative would be located on the same project site within the same footprint and would also include the demolition of existing uses and remediation of the existing soil and groundwater contamination. The 30 affordable multi-family units under this alternative would be designed as low and very-low income rental units. The 30 affordable units would be located on 0.84 acres of the total project site and would be located in the northeast corner of the project site.

Under this alternative, the single-family detached homes would retain the same range of floor plans and architectural styles as the proposed project. The multi-family units proposed under this alternative would be constructed in a three-story building and would have a maximum building height of 60 feet in accordance with the development standards of the Areas 3 and 4 Specific Plan. The gross building area of the proposed affordable building would be 29,535 square feet with Level 1 of the building proposed to be 11,135 square feet and Levels 2 and 3 would be 9,200 square feet each. The proposed affordable building would contain a combination of studios, one-bedroom units, two-bedroom and three-bedroom units.

Additionally, the architectural style of the affordable building would be consistent with the architectural styles of the single-family homes. A total of 30 parking stalls would be constructed in a parking lot on the same parcel as the multi-family structure to provide one parking space per unit. The Partial Affordable Housing Alternative would include all proposed on- and off-site improvements outlined for the proposed project and would only differ from the proposed project in the number of single-family homes provided and the addition of the multi-family affordable housing component.

Finding. The Partial Affordable Housing Alternative would not eliminate or significantly reduce the significant and unavoidable impact to VMT. However, this alternative would slightly decrease VMT generated by the project due to the inclusion of affordable housing.

Under this alternative, the project would have equivalent impacts compared to the proposed project on aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire, therefore, would have the same impact for these resources as identified in the Draft EIR for the proposed project. The Partial Affordable Housing Alternative would result in greater impacts to air quality, energy, noise, public services, Resolution No. ______ 14 of 72
recreation, and utilities and service systems but those impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation, the same impact conclusion in the Draft EIR for the proposed project. The Partial Affordable Housing Alternative would reduce impacts to GHG compared to the proposed project, but the impact would be less than significant the same impact conclusion in the Draft EIR for the proposed project. Therefore, overall, the impacts of the Partial Affordable Housing Alternative would have the same level of significance and be subject to the same mitigation measures as the proposed project identified in the Draft EIR. Additionally, this alternative would meet all project objectives at an equal level or better than compared to the proposed project.

C. Findings Regarding Environmentally Superior Alternative Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives to a project shall identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative among the alternatives evaluated in an EIR. The CEQA Guidelines also state that should it be determined that the Environmentally Superior Alternative is infeasible, the EIR shall identify an environmentally inferior but feasible alternative among the remaining alternatives.

The DEIR identified Alternative 3: Reduced Density Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative, as it would reduce, but not avoid, the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable VMT impacts, all other resource areas would be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation, would not result in greater impacts than the proposed project to any resource areas, and would meet all project objectives.

However, as outlined below, the Reduced Density Alternative would underutilize the project site and would be infeasible. Therefore, the identification of another environmentally superior alternative is required.

Finding. Alternative 3: Reduced Density Alternative is considered infeasible for specific economic, social, and policy reasons as described below.

1. Economic Infeasibility:

Alternative 3 would reduce the overall development intensity by 68 percent. The demolition of the existing uses, remediation of the project site, and construction of single-family homes within the project site would be extensive and costly and the high costs the applicant would incur from development of this alternative would be greater than the revenue generated by development of this alternative.

2. Social and Policy Considerations:

While Alternative 3 would reduce environmental impacts, it would meet the project objectives but not to the same extent as the proposed project. Alternative 3 was determined to meet two of the project objectives to a lesser degree than the proposed project as this Resolution No. ______ 15 of 72
alternative would provide substantially less units to contribute to the City’s RHNA and would not provide a significant mix of lot sizes. Alternative 3 would not provide any affordable housing and would not help the City meet the State’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) goal. Additionally, the Areas 3 and 4 Specific Plan did not envision lot sizes for residential developments with a two unit per acre density and would underutilize the allowable density of the designation for the project site.

3. Technical/Design Considerations:

Alternative 3 would result in a fragmented site layout with reduced connectivity and circulation inefficiencies and would underutilize the allowable density of the land use designation of the project site.

Conclusion. For the reasons stated above, Alternative 3 is infeasible within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3). The City Council hereby rejects this alternative.

D. Adoption of Alternative 5
The City Council selects Alternative 5: Partial Affordable Housing Alternative as the approved project. Although Alternative 5 would result in slightly greater impacts than the proposed project to several resources, the level of significance would not be different than the proposed project, would slightly reduce VMT impacts, and it incorporates affordable housing units while advancing the City’s housing and economic development objectives.

Additionally, Alternative 5 would meet all project objectives at an equal level or better than compared to the proposed project.

Finding. Alternative 5 is considered feasible for specific economic, social, and policy reasons as described below.

1. Economic Feasibility:

Alternative 5 would provide 227 units compared to the proposed project’s 203 units and would be financially feasible.

2. Social and Policy Considerations:

Alternative 5 would provide a more diverse housing typology by providing both singlefamily and affordable multi-family housing to contribute to the City’s RHNA requirements.

The inclusion of the affordable housing component would help the City meet the State’s AFFH goal. Alternative 5 better utilizes the allowable density of the designation for the project site compared to the proposed project and Alternative 3 and would be consistent with the Areas 3 and 4 Specific Plan’s envisioned lot sizes for residential development.

3. Technical/Design Considerations:

Resolution No. ______ 16 of 72
Alternative 5 would result in a well planned residential community with increased connectivity and circulation efficiency compared to Alternative 3. Additionally, Alternative 5 would better utilize the allowable density of the land use designation of the project site compared to the proposed project and Alternative 3.

Alternative 5’s findings support a positive economic feasibility, a project that is more compatible with social and policy considerations, and a project that is more compatible with technical/design considerations. Additionally, based on the project objective evaluation provided in the table above, Alternative 5 would meet all project objectives at an equal or better level compared to the proposed project and all other alternatives considered.

Additionally, Alternative 5 would slightly reduce VMT impacts compared to the proposed project. As such, Alternative 5 would be the environmentally inferior but feasible alternative.

Therefore, for the purposes of the following Findings of Facts document, Alternative 5:

Partial Affordable Housing Alternative herein referred to as “Alt 5” is recommended for approval. Because significant and unavoidable impacts would remain with Alternative 5 (e.g.

VMT), the City Council adopts a Statement of Overriding Consideration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, finding that the social, economic, and policy benefits of the project outweigh its environmental disadvantages.

To support its certification of the EIR and approval of Alternative 5, the City Council of the City of Newark makes the following findings of fact (the “Findings”). These Findings contain the City Council’s written analysis and conclusion regarding Alternative 5’s environmental effects, mitigation measures, and the overriding considerations which, in the City Council’s view, justify the approval of Alternative 5 despite its potential environmental effects. These Findings are based upon the entire record of proceedings for the EIR, as described below. The following Findings support adoption of Alternative 5 finding that the benefits of Alternative 5 outweigh its environmental disadvantages.

V. Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts
A detailed analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, and proposed mitigation measures to address all of the identified potentially significant impacts, is set forth in Section 3.0 of the DEIR, as incorporated into the FEIR. As described above, since the impacts of Alt 5 would result in the same level of significance identified in the EIR for the proposed project and would be subject to all mitigation measures in the EIR, the findings of the DEIR as incorporated into the FEIR are applicable for Alt 5. The only change from the proposed project analyzed in the EIR is the elimination of seven single family lots and units and the addition of a 31 unit multi-family development on the combined seven single family lots that previously were proposed single family units. The City Council concurs with the conclusions in the EIR, as incorporated into the FEIR, that changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the project and feasible mitigation Resolution No. ______ 17 of 72
measures implemented, which avoid or lessen some, but not all, of the Alt 5’s potentially significant environmental effects to less than significant levels, with only the impacts to VMT remaining significant and unavoidable. By these Findings, the City Council ratifies and adopts the EIR’s conclusions for all of the following potential environmental impacts, based on the analyses in the DEIR and FEIR.

A. Findings Regarding No Impact or Less than Significant Impacts This section identified impacts of Alt 5 that were determined to be no impact or less than significant and do not require mitigation measures. The City Council concurs with the conclusions in the DEIR, as incorporated into the FEIR, and makes the following findings with respect to such less than significant impacts.

1. Aesthetics
Impact AES-1: Alt 5 would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

There are no officially designated scenic vistas or view corridors in the City and the General Plan does not identify any specific vistas or views for special protection in the future. From the project site, there are views of Mission Peak to the east and northeast of the project site.

Additionally, views of hills located across the bay are available from the project site. Given the amount of separation between the project site and these views (across the bay), and no official designated scenic vistas or view corridors being located in the City, the development of Alt 5 would not substantially alter views and Alt 5 would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Impact AES-2: Alt 5 would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.

There are no officially designated state scenic highways within the City or near the project site. The closest officially designated state scenic highway is a section of Interstate 680 located approximately 5.5 miles northeast of the project site. The project site does not contain vegetation, trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings that are identified as a scenic resource by the General Plan. Therefore, Alt 5 would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway and there would be no impact.

Impact AES-3: In an urbanized area, Alt 5 would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

The Newark Zoning Code designates the project site as Park. However, Alt 5 includes rezoning of the project site from Park to PD-RS-6000 and Residential High Density to better align the zoning designation of the project site with the proposed use of the project. The existing Low Density Residential General Plan land use designation and the amendment to Resolution No. ______ 18 of 72
land use map to High Density Residential for parcel H, would be consistent with the project.

Due to the minimum lot size, setbacks, lot coverage and landscaping prescribed in the RS6000 zoning district, a Planned Unit Development is being proposed to allow a deviation from the standards listed in the RS-6000 development standards in the Newark Zoning Code.

Alt 5 would be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable regulations governing scenic quality to ensure that Alt 5 is consistent with the proposed zoning district and would be reviewed during the City’s design review and project review process to ensure that the project does not conflict with applicable zoning standards and requirements. Alt 5 would comply with the City’s Zoning Code provisions related to scenic quality including Citywide regulation related to landscaping described under Chapter 17.21 of the City’s Zoning Code and the lighting and illumination regulations described under Chapter

17.17.060 of the City’s Zoning Code, As such, with the approval of rezoning and compliance with the City’s Zoning Code regulations related to scenic quality, Alt 5 would not conflict with any applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality, and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact AES-4: Alt 5 would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

The project site is developed with existing sources of light and glare including outdoor lighting located on existing structures. However, there is no existing street lighting along Mowry Avenue and vehicle lights and glare from passing cars are limited due to the location of the project site and low volume of traffic.

Alt 5 would include new sources of nighttime lighting at the project site from exterior lighting throughout the site to illuminate the main entrances of the single-family homes, private streets, sidewalks, common space areas, and driveways for security and safety purposes. Additional lighting would be installed along the project frontage on Mowry Avenue. Alt 5 would be required to comply with General Plan Policy LU-4.7 which requires management of exterior lighting to reduce potential light and glare impacts. Alt 5 would install lighting according to the City’s lighting standards and requirements as outlined in the Newark Municipal Code Section 17.17.060 and would include shielding to ensure light spillage does not occur on adjacent properties. Alt 5 would also introduce new sources of glare at the site through the construction of new structures and increased vehicle usage of the area; however, Alt 5 would minimize the use of reflective exterior building materials to minimize new sources of glare at the site. Alt 5 would be required to comply with Newark Municipal Code Section 17.24.070 which requires that no use shall be operated such that significant, direct glare is visible beyond the boundaries of the lot where the use is located.

Compliance with the City’s requirements would ensure that light and glare impacts associated with Alt 5 would be less than significant.

2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Resolution No. ______ 19 of 72
Impact AG-1: Alt 5 would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use.

The project site is not identified as Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance and approval of Alt 5 would not convert farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, Alt 5 would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses and no impact would occur.

Impact AG-2: Alt 5 would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.

The project site is currently zoned Park and is not under a Williamson Act contract. Alt 5 includes rezoning the project site from Park to PD-RS-6000 and Residential High Density (RH). Neither the Park, RS-6000, nor RH zoning districts allow for agricultural uses.

Therefore, the project site is not zoned for agricultural uses and Alt 5 would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. There would be no impacts.

Impact AG-3: Alt 5 would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined by Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)).

The project site does not contain forestland (as defined in PRC Section 12220[g]), or timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526). Furthermore, the project site is not zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104[g]). The project site would not require rezoning of forestland or timberland production. Therefore, Alt 5 would not conflict with existing zoning or cause rezoning of forestland or timberland and there would be no impacts.

Impact AG-4: Alt 5 would not result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

The project site is designated Low Density Residential by the General Plan and there are no forestland resources that exist on the project site. Therefore, Alt 5 would not result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non-forest use and no impact would occur.

Impact AG-5: Alt 5 would not involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use, or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

The project site is classified as Urban and Built-Up Land by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) and surrounding areas are classified as Other Land or Grazing Land.

Resolution No. ______ 20 of 72
The project site is designated by the City’s General Plan as Low Density Residential and lands surrounding the project site are designated as Low Density Residential; Park and Recreation Facilities; and Salt Harvesting, Refining and Production. Lands located to the west of the project site are used for salt production ponds. The project site is generally surrounded to the northeast and east by land that was formerly used for agriculture, however, the parcels are currently being used by the City as open space. The area surrounding the project site is not under agricultural use and therefore, Alt 5 would not cause changes to the existing environment that could result in conversion of farmland outside the project site boundary to non-agricultural use and there would be no impact.

3. Air Quality
Impact AIR-4: Alt 5 would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people.

Project operations would not be anticipated to produce odorous emissions. Alt 5 consists of a residential development and would not result in any uses that generate odor sources of concern. Construction activities associated with Alt 5 could result in short-term odorous emissions from diesel exhaust associated with construction equipment. However, these emissions would be intermittent and would dissipate rapidly from the source. In addition, this diesel-powered equipment would only be present on-site temporarily during construction activities. Therefore, construction would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, and the impact would be less than significant.

4. Biological Resources
Impact BIO-2: Alt 5 would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The project site does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities.

Results of the aquatic resources delineation and analysis showed that the study area (the study area refers to the 29-acre project site and off-site improvement areas that total 35 acres) contains two artificial stormwater basins, but these features do not contain any riparian habitat. Therefore, Alt 5 would have no impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS.

Impact BIO-3: Alt 5 would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

Resolution No. ______ 21 of 72
As stated in the DEIR, the aquatic resources jurisdictional delineation surveys conducted in November 2021, March 2022, and September 2022 identified four potentially jurisdictional aquatic features; however, did not identify the presence of waters/wetlands subject to U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdiction within the study area. The project site includes two constructed stormwater basins with wetland features identified as Storm Water Detention Basin 1 and Storm Water Detention Basin 2, in the southeastern portion of the project site; however, since the on-site basins were artificially constructed, they are not regulated by USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW. Additionally, the Aquatic Resources Delineation Report identifies two off-site potentially jurisdictional resources identified as Constructed Storm Drain and Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFC&WCD) Line D, located approximately 1,500 feet east of the project site.

The USACE provided a jurisdiction determination of the extent of navigable waters of the United States and waters of the United States in a letter dated January 25, 2023. The jurisdictional determination provided by the USACE identified that the Constructed Storm Drain, Storm Water Detention Basin 1, and Storm Water Detention Basin 2 are not jurisdictional resources. However, the jurisdictional determination identified the ACFC&WCD Line D channel as a jurisdictional aquatic resource, specifically Other Waters with In-stream Wetlands. On-site construction activities of Alt 5 would have no impact on this jurisdictional resource as it is located off-site. However, extension of the potable and non -potable water mains would occur within the vicinity of ACFC&WCD Line D. Impacts to ACFC&WCD Line D from off-site construction would be avoided through the use specific construction methods to construct the extension. As the extension of the potable and nonpotable water mains would be constructed via an open trench and attached to the constructed bridge that spans the ACFC&WCD Line D channel, impacts to ACFC&WCD Line D would be avoided. On-site and off-site construction activities would avoid all nearby jurisdictional aquatic features and would not result in substantial adverse effects on state or federally protected wetlands. Therefore, the potential impacts to wetlands are considered less than significant.

Impact BIO-4: Alt 5 would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

As identified in the DEIR, the study area does not act as a corridor for species dispersal or provide migration habitat connectivity to adjacent habitat and is not part of any defined essential connectivity areas as identified in the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project; therefore, Alt 5 would not interfere with the movement of wildlife species or with a migratory wildlife corridor, and would not impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites and there would be no impact.

Resolution No. ______ 22 of 72
Impact BIO-6: Alt 5 would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.

As identified in the DEIR, the City is not within the jurisdiction of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Alt 5 would not conflict with any adopted HCPs or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, there would be no impact.

5. Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1: Alt 5 would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as identified in Section 15064.5.

No historic resources (eligible or likely eligible under state, federal, or local historic preservation criteria) were identified within or adjacent to the project site that would be impacted by development of Alt 5. According to CEQA, all buildings constructed over 50 years ago and possess architectural or historical significance may be considered potential historic resources. Historical aerial imagery available online does not show any structures present on the project site in the 1968 aerial imagery; however, the next available aerial imagery from 1979 shows the project site developed with structures that currently exist onsite. Therefore, some existing structures on the project site may be over 50 years old.

However, existing structures on-site are typical metal structures found at industrial sites and do not possess any architectural or historical signification. The existing structures on-site would not eligible for listing as a historic resource under CEQA. Thus, Alt 5 is not anticipated to have an impact on any known or potential historical resources and there would be no impacts to historical resources.

6. Energy
Impact EN-1: Alt 5 would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.

Construction of Alt 5 would require the use of fuels (primarily gasoline and diesel) for the operation of construction equipment and vehicles to perform a variety of activities, including excavation, hauling, paving, and vehicle travel. Energy in the form of electricity may also be consumed by some pieces of construction equipment, such as welding machines, power tools, lighting, etc. However, there are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment or vehicles that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in other parts of the state. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with construction of Alt 5 would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than at other construction sites in the region.

Resolution No. ______ 23 of 72
Alt 5 is a new residential subdivision with home sizes and lots comparable to others in the area and the individual units would be built in accordance with the latest energy code to maximize efficiency. Therefore, it would be expected that building energy consumption associated with Alt 5 would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than for any other similar buildings in the region. Current state regulatory requirements for new building construction contained in the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) and Title 24 standards would increase energy efficiency and reduce energy demand in comparison to existing commercial structures on the site, and therefore would reduce actual environmental effects associated with energy use from Alt 5. Additionally, Alt 5 would constitute new development within an established community and would not be opening a new geographical area for development such that it would draw mostly new trips or substantially lengthen existing trips. For these reasons, it would be expected that operational energy usage and vehicular fuel consumption associated with Alt 5 would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than for any other similar land use activities in the region, and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact EN-2: Alt 5 would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Alt 5 would not conflict with the energy objectives of the City’s General Plan nor the strategies in its Climate Action Plan (CAP). As the site is located within the City, it would not be opening a new geographical area for development such that it would draw mostly new trips, or substantially lengthen existing trips. Alt 5 would comply with the versions of California Code of Regulations (CCR) Titles 20 and 24, including CALGreen, that are applicable at the time that building permits are issued and with all applicable City measures.

Therefore, Alt 5 would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant.

7. Geology and Soils
Impact GEO-1: Alt 5 would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) rupture of a known earthquake fault; or iv) landslides.

There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones located within or near the project site and due to the lack of Alquist-Priolo fault zones near the project site, the design level geotechnical report prepared for the proposed project by Berlogar Stevens and Associated in 2021 determined that the risk of surface rupture near the project site is low and the potential for damage to structures at the project site due to rupture of a known earthquake fault is low.

As Alt 5 is located within the same project site footprint as the proposed project, the reports prepared for the proposed project would continue to be applicable for Alt 5. Thus, the Alt 5 would not exacerbate existing conditions by bringing people or structures into areas Resolution No. ______ 24 of 72
potentially susceptible to substantial effects, including fault rupture, that could result in substantial damage to proposed structures or infrastructure, or expose people to substantial risk of injury and impacts associated with surface rupture from a known earthquake fault would be less than significant.

The project site is relatively flat and the project site is not located within or near an area at risk of earthquake induced landslides. Therefore, the potential for landslides to occur at or near the project site is low and no impact would occur.

Impact GEO-5: Alt 5 would not be located on soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water.

Alt 5 would connect directly to the City’s municipal sewer system and would not require the construction of septic tanks or any other alternative wastewater disposal system. Therefore, no impact would occur.

8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-1: Alt 5 would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Sources for operational emissions include motor vehicles, indirect electricity, water transport, and waste. Because Alt 5 would replace the existing automotive recycling and parts business on the project site, Alt 5’s operational emissions would be offset by emissions from existing operations, which would be replaced. During operation, Alt 5 would result in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The proposed project was determined to result in a generation of 3.03 MTCO2e per service person per year which would not exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adjusted significance thresholds of 3.06. As Alt 5 would result in less GHG emissions compared to the proposed project as it includes affordable housing, Alt 5’s emissions would continue to be below the significance threshold and therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Impact GHG-2: Alt 5 would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

As outlined in the DEIR, the proposed project was determined to not conflict with the City’s CAP, the Senate Bill (SB 32) Scoping Plan, or the 2022 Scoping Plan adopted by the State to reduce GHG emissions. In comparison to the proposed project, Alt 5 would have a slightly reduced level of impact and therefore, would also not conflict with the City’s CAP, SB 32 Scoping Plan, or the 2022 Scoping Plan. Additionally, similar to the proposed project. Alt 5 would be subject to Title 24 energy efficiency standards. Energy-efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions. Alt 5 would comply with the CALGreen, which includes Resolution No. ______ 25 of 72
requirements to increase recycling, reduce waste, reduce water use, increase bicycle use, and other measures that would reduce GHG emissions. Motor vehicle emissions associated with Alt 5 would be reduced through compliance with State regulations on fuel efficiency and fuel carbon content. Therefore, Alt 5 would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and impacts would be less than significant.

9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-3: Alt 5 would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

The project site is not located within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school is the Newark Memorial High School, approximately 0.87 mile northeast of the project site. Alt 5 does not involve the development of a use that would emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste during operation. The use of heavy equipment and activities involving hazardous materials would be limited to the construction phase and confined to construction areas and within existing roadways. The use of hazardous materials would also be regulated by health and safety requirements under federal, state, and local laws, including handling, storage, and disposal of the materials, as well as emergency spill response. As such, Alt 5 would have a less than significant impact related to the emission or handling of hazardous materials near a school.

Impact HAZ-5: Alt 5 would not, for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.

The project site is not located within two miles of an airport and is not located within an airport land use plan. Therefore, Alt 5 would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project site. No impact would occur.

Impact HAZ-6: Alt 5 would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Alt 5, similar to the proposed project, includes modifications and improvements to the existing roadways and may result in partial or complete road closures during construction activities. However, if road closures are necessary, Alt 5 would prepare and implement a Traffic Control Plan (TCP) to ensure that construction activities do not impair or interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Alt 5 would comply with General Plan Policy EH-5.3 which requires avoiding placing new developments in areas where emergency response and evacuation cannot be provided within acceptable levels. Alt 5 would not result in permanent modification to roadways that would interfere Resolution No. ______ 26 of 72
with any adopted emergency plans. Modification to roadways that is proposed as part of Alt 5 would be constructed in accordance with the City’s standards to provide adequate emergency access.

Additionally, Alt 5 would provide a secondary emergency vehicle access (EVA) point to the project site through the adjacent Cargill property. The existing Cargill levee road has been previously developed to allow for emergency vehicle access and therefore, Alt 5 would not require any improvements to the existing EVA lane. However, Alt 5 would require minor modifications to add compacted gravel to an existing gravel crossing connecting the Cargill levee road to Mowry Avenue, which is located approximately 0.1 mile south of the southwestern corner of the project site. The addition of the compacted gravel apron to the existing crossing over the flood control channel would provide an alternative emergency route to the project site. Therefore, project construction and operation activities would not interfere with an emergency evacuation or response plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact HAZ-7: Alt 5 would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

The project site is not located in or near a state responsibility area or a very high fire hazard zone of a locally responsible area. Primary access to the project site would be through Mowry Avenue and adequate site ingress and egress to the project site for emergency vehicles would be provided. All utilities required for the new development would be located underground and Alt 5 includes installation of fire hydrants throughout the project site to mitigate fire hazards. Alt 5 would be required to implement General Plan policies, such as General Plan Policy EH-5.3 which requires new developments be placed in areas where adequate emergency response can be provided, as well as the California Fire Code (CFC) and the Uniform Building Code which would reduce effects of development on wildland fire hazard impacts to a less than significant level. As such, Alt 5 is not expected to be exposed to risks associated with wildland fires, and impacts would be less than significant.

10. Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD-3: Alt 5 would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in: ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; or iv) impede or redirect flood flows.

Similar to the proposed project, Alt 5 would result in construction of new impervious surfaces at the project site which increase the amount of stormwater runoff from the site. Alt 5 would be required to comply with General Plan Policy CSF-5.5 which requires new development to provide drainage improvements to reduce site runoff. To control runoff, Alt 5 Resolution No. ______ 27 of 72
would construct a storm drain system consisting of bioretention areas, curbs and gutters along the roadways, and underground storm drain pipes. Stormwater runoff would be directed to the storm drain pipes on-site which would convey stormwater to the two on-site bioretention areas. The bioretention treatment areas would then discharge flows through the on-site storm drain system into the adjacent City owned open space parcel, consistent with the historic drainage path. Alt 5 would also construct improvements to the off-site storm drain system which would include improvements to storm drain pipes within Mowry Avenue which would collect and convey flow towards the ACFC&WCD Channel Line B at the terminus of Mowry Avenue and construction of eight bioretention treatment areas along Mowry Avenue. Alt 5 would design and construct storm drain systems in accordance with applicable requirements to control the volume of surface runoff at the project site. Therefore, storm drain systems would be designed to handle the increased surface runoff from the site and Alt 5 would not result substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in on- or off-site flooding and impacts would be less than significant.

The project site is designated as Zone X and Zone X (Shaded). The northern part of the project site is within an area of minimal flood hazard (Zone X); however, the majority of the project site is located in an area with a 0.2 percent annual chance of shallow flooding of less than one foot (Zone X Shaded). Project construction would import clean fill to elevate the proposed pad grades for the homes above the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year flood plain elevation as required by Newark Municipal Code Section

15.40.051 and to accommodate Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s (BCDC) adopted sea level rise guidance. The import of clean fill to elevate the proposed pad grades would ensure compliance with General Plan Policy EH-3.3 which requires new residential developments to be constructed above the 100-year flood elevation.

Alt 5 would elevate the proposed pad grades for the homes above the FEMA 100-year flood plain elevation of 9.3 feet and would exceed the City’s requirement of having a minimum pad elevation of 11.25 feet. Additionally, the project site would be elevated to accommodate BCDC’s adopted sea level rise guidance and would meet the minimum pad elevation requirements of the RPC-SAT’s projected likely range for sea level rise by the year 2100. Alt 5 could have the potential to exacerbate coastal squeeze which is defined as the loss of natural habitats or deterioration of their quality arising from placement of structures along the shoreline, preventing the landward transgression of those habitats that would naturally occur in response to sea level rise. However, given the baseline condition of the project site as already developed with existing structures, development of Alt 5 would not exacerbate potential coastal squeeze impacts beyond what is already present. Therefore, this would not be a driving impact for Alt 5. The new constructed storm drainage system on-site would be designed and constructed to handle potential flood volumes. Alt 5 would not substantially Resolution No. ______ 28 of 72
alter existing drainage pattern of the site in a matter which would impede or redirect flood flows and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact HYD-4: Alt 5 would not, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.

The City is located within the inundation area of three dams; however, the California Division of Safety of Dams inspects each dam on an annual basis to ensure the dam is safe, performing as intended, and is not developing problems. Additionally, the project site is not located in a tsunami or seiche zone. The risk of dam failure is extremely low and the potential for project inundation resulting from being located in a tsunami or seiche zone is low. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

The northern part of the project site is within an area of minimal flood hazard (Zone X); however, the majority of the project site is located in an area with a 0.2 percent annual chance of shallow flooding of less than one foot (Zone X Shaded). In accordance with General Plan Policy EH-3.3, Alt 5 would be constructed above the 100-year flood elevation.

Alt 5’s pad elevations would be above the FEMA 100 year flood plain elevation of 9.3 feet which would provide the project site with flood damage protection. The proposed pad grades would exceed the City’s standards for residential structures located in a flood hazard zone and would be above the BCDC minimum pad elevation recommendation for sea level rise.

Additionally, Alt 5’s pad elevation would meet the minimum pad elevation requirements of the RPC-SAT’s projected likely range for sea level rise by the year 2100. Developing Alt 5 to exceed the BCDC sea level rise guidance for minimum pad elevation would also ensure that Alt 5 would not be inundated by potential sea level rise anticipated to affect the area in the future. Therefore, project inundation resulting from flood hazards would be a less than significant impact

11. Land Use and Planning
Impact LU-1: Alt 5 would not physically divide an established community.

The project site is currently developed with an auto parts and scrap metal salvage yard and is bounded to the northeast and east by the City’s open space parcel, and Mowry Avenue and ACFC&WCD Line B canal lies to the west. The property to the south and southwest, known as the Harwinder Singh site, was previously developed with a warehouse-type structure and was previously used as an auto-wrecking yard; however, the building has since been demolished and there are no buildings presently on the Harwinder Singh site. UPRR tracks are approximately 300 to 1,000 feet to the northwest of the project site. The project site and surrounding areas are not developed as an established community and Alt 5 would not include the construction of new roadways that could divide an established community.

Therefore, Alt 5 would not physically divide an established community and there would be no impact.

Resolution No. ______ 29 of 72
Impact LU-2: Alt 5 would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

As outlined in the DEIR, the City’s General Plan designates the project site as Low Density Residential which has an allowable density of less than 8.7 dwelling units per acre. Alt 5 would be consistent with this requirement and construct 227 residential units, resulting in a density of approximately 7.8 units per acre. The project site is located within the Areas 3 and 4 Specific Plan and the project site is designated for a golf course or other recreational uses.

Alt 5 is not consistent with the land use identified by the Areas 3 and 4 Specific Plan. As such, similar to the proposed project, Alt 5 requires a Specific Plan Amendment to change the existing designated golf course or recreational use to a residential use. While the Specific Plan designation would change following the approval of Alt 5, the change would result in a better alignment of the project site with the General Plan designation and the project site would be developed for residential uses, as planned by the General Plan. Additionally, Alt 5 would not create inconsistencies with the applicable policies of the General Plan or with the applicable policies of the Areas 3 and 4 Specific Plan.

The Newark Zoning Code designates the project site as Park and the Alt 5 is proposing to rezone the project site from Park to PD-RS-6000 and Residential High Density. The rezoning request is to better align the zoning with the proposed use of the project and the existing and proposed General Plan designations. A Planned Unit Development is being proposed to allow a deviation from the standards listed in the RS-6000 development standards in the Newark Municipal Code. Proposed deviations include a deviation from the minimum setbacks and minimum lot sizes. Alt 5 would not meet the minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet for the RS-6000 zoning district and would not meet the minimum setbacks required at corners. However, while the zoning designation would change following the approval of Alt 5, the change would result in a better alignment of the project site with the existing and proposed General Plan designation and the project site would be developed for residential uses, as planned by the General Plan. With the approvals required, Alt 5 would be constructed in accordance with any land use plan, policy, and regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding and mitigating environmental effects and this impact would be less than significant.

12. Minerals
Impact MIN-a: Alt 5 would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.

The DOC’s Mineral Lands Classification Map of Aggregate Resources classifies the project site as being within an MRZ-3 zone. MRZ-3 zones are areas containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. However, the City’s General Resolution No. ______ 30 of 72
Plan did not identify any mineral resources of value on or near the site and no mineral extraction activities exist within City limits. Mineral extraction is not included as part of Alt 5 and the proposed zoning would not allow mineral extraction. Alt 5 would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, and no impact would occur.

Impact MIN-b: Alt 5 would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

There are no locally important mineral resource recovery sites delineated in the City’s General Plan, specific plan or any other land use plan. Therefore, Alt 5 would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site, and no impact would occur.

13. Noise
Impact NOI-2: Alt 5 would not result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

During construction of Alt 5, equipment such as trucks, bulldozers, and rollers may be used as close as 1,000 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor at the Silliman Community Center.

Equipment used during project construction could generate vibration levels between 0.00001 peak particle velocity (PPV) and 0.0008 PPV at 1,000 feet. However, all the groundborne vibration levels are below the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) vibration threshold at which human annoyance could occur of 0.10 PPV. Additionally, construction activities would be temporary in nature and would likely occur during normal daytime working hours. In addition, Union Sanitary District (USD) would be engaged during the construction process to limit the amount of vibratory equipment utilized over the existing force main lines in the area and coordination would be conducted to ensure protection of the existing lines. Therefore, construction vibrations are not predicted to cause damage to existing buildings or infrastructure or cause annoyance to sensitive receptors. As such, implementation of Alt 5 would have a less than significant impact related to vibration.

Impact NOI-3: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, Alt 5 would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

The closest airport or private airstrip to the project site is the Moffett Federal Airport, approximately 6.5 miles southwest of the project site. The project site is not within the airport influence area, or the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for Moffett Federal Airport.

Commercial aircraft overfly the project site at altitudes between 4,000 and 10,000 feet above Resolution No. ______ 31 of 72
sea level while approaching or departing the three major commercial airports in the Bay Area: the San Francisco International Airport (approximately 20 miles northwest); the Oakland International Airport (approximately 17 miles northwest); and the Norman Mineta San Jose International Airport (approximately 10 miles southeast). According to the noise exposure maps for the three airports, the project site in not within the 65 dBA CNEL contour for any of the airports. Therefore, Alt 5 would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from airports, and impacts would be less than significant.

14. Population and Housing
Impact POP-1: Alt 5 would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).

Alt 5 would develop 227 residential units, thereby directly inducing population growth at the project site and Alt 5 is anticipated to result in approximately 754 new residents. As of the 2020 census, the City’s population is identified at 47,529 people and the City’s General Plan estimated that the City’s population would grow to 52,100 by 2030. The addition of 754 residents from Alt 5 would represent approximately 16.5 percent of the City’s growth anticipated by 2030 from the 2020 census population. As such, Alt 5 would be within the 2030 population projections anticipated in the City’s General Plan. As the estimated number of residents generated from Alt 5 would be within the population projected in the General Plan, it would not result in direct unplanned population growth as the increase in population from Alt 5 was anticipated by the General Plan. Alt 5 would not result in an increase in population over what was anticipated in the General Plan.

The Areas 3 and 4 Specific Plan planned for a maximum residential unit allocation of 1,260 units within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project does not need to increase the allocated number of residential units of the Specific Plan area because the addition of the project units to the Specific Plan area to the already built and entitled number of units does not exceed 1,260. Area 3 of the Specific Plan has already received entitlements and been built and includes 386 units pursuant to a Development Agreement between the City and Newark Partners, LLC dated April 9, 2015 (the “Development Agreement”). Currently, there are 469 new housing units that have been entitled within Newark Area 4 of the Specific Plan pursuant to the Development Agreement. Therefore, there are 405 units of the 1,260 holding capacity that have not been entitled. Even with the 227 units under the Partial Affordable Housing Alternative, the 1,260 capacity would not be exceeded. Therefore, it would not result in substantial unplanned growth under the Specific plan. In addition, the growth under Alt 5 would still be within the General Plan growth projection for total housing units and resident population for the City and Alt 5 would contribute to the City’s RHNA. Therefore, Resolution No. ______ 32 of 72
Alt 5 would not directly induce substantial unplanned population growth and impacts would be less than significant.

New extensions to area roads or other infrastructure and new employment opportunities are key factors in accounting for possible indirect population growth. Alt 5 would not indirectly induce substantial unplanned population growth in the project site because it would not involve any new extensions to area roads or other infrastructure that could enable additional development in currently vacant areas not planned for growth and development in the General Plan. Alt 5 includes off-site roadway and infrastructure improvements; however, the off-site roadway and utility infrastructure improvements would not result in a removal of barrier of growth and would not result in indirect population growth. Additionally, Alt 5 does not include any elements outside of the residential and off-site improvement components and would not include new employment opportunities. Therefore, Alt 5 would not indirectly induce substantial unplanned population growth and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact POP-2: Alt 5 would not displace substantial number of existing people or housing necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

The majority of the project site is currently developed as an auto part and scrap metal salvage lot that includes a warehouse, sales office, workshop, and a large parking area. The northern parcel of the project site is currently undeveloped. The project site does not currently contain residential development and therefore, the construction of Alt 5 would not result in the displacement of existing people or housing and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Alt 5 would have no impact.

15. Public Services
Impact PUB-1: Alt 5 would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:
fire protection; police protection; schools; parks; or other public facilities.

The project site is located in an area already served by Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD) and Newark Police Department (NPD). However, development of Alt 5 would incrementally increase the demand for fire and police protection services in the area. The project site is located approximately 0.6 miles away from the nearest fire station and based on the short distance, emergency response to the project site would be able to meet the response time goal of five minutes.

The City’s General Plan EIR identified that the NPD currently operates at a staffing level of less than 1.0 officers per 1,000 residents, which is below the national average of 1.5 officers Resolution No. ______ 33 of 72
per thousand residents (City of Newark 2013b). The City’s General Plan EIR determined that buildout of the General Plan would result in a significant impact to police protection facilities as it would require a new building or expansion of the existing building. However, this impact was determined to be mitigated to a less than significant level with implementation of General Plan policies and collection of fees from new developments under the General Plan.

Alt 5 would be required to pay a Development Impact Fee as required by Chapter 3.24 of the Newark Municipal Code. The funds collected from the Development Impact Fee would be used to provide public services and facilities, including fire and police protection services, within the City and would offset cost of fire and police protection demands associated with Alt 5.

Additionally, Alt 5 would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s fire protection requirements and the California Building Standards Code which includes the CFC.

Incorporation of fire protection measures into the design of the development would minimize need for fire protection services. Therefore, though Alt 5 would increase the need for fire and police protection services in the area, it would not require the construction of new facilities or expansion of existing facilities as Alt 5 would include measures to reduce and offset the increased demand and would pay required fees to offset the increased demand. Impacts related to police and fire protection would be less than significant.

Alt 5 would include development of the project site with 227 residential units which is anticipated to result in generation of new school aged students and would increase demand for school facilities and services. Newark Unified School District (NUSD) collects school impact fees on new residential construction within district boundaries on a per square foot basis. The fees serve to offset school facility costs associated with serving new students that result from new developments. Under SB 50, school districts may collect fees to offset the costs associated with increasing school capacity as a result of development and under the terms of this statute, payment of fees by property owners and developers is considered to mitigate in full for the purposes of CEQA any impacts to school facilities associated with a project. Therefore, with the payment of required fees, impacts associated with school facilities are considered mitigated and Alt 5 would not result in the need for construction of unanticipated new or expanded school facilities and impacts would be less than significant.

Alt 5 would result in an increase of residents in the area of the project site and would result in increased uses of nearby parks. The City requires, as identified under General Plan Policy PR -2.2, that new development either dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or both, at the option of the City, for park and/or recreational purposes. Alt 5 would provide common and private on-site open space; however, a majority of the on-site open space would be provided through private open space, provided as a rear yard for each home. Though Alt 5 would provide on-site common open space areas, the construction of the common open space would not meet the requirements for park dedication and therefore, Alt 5 would be required to pay Resolution No. ______ 34 of 72
the full parks impact fee to offset increased demand to park facilities from development of the project. Payment of required fees would ensure funding for the construction or expansion of park facilities and funds are set aside to allow for construction of facilities as needed to accommodate future growth. Inclusion of open space within the project design and payment of fees would mitigate the impacts on existing park facilities resulting from development of Alt 5 and therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

The addition of 227 new residential units would create an incremental increase in the demand for library facilities and other public facilities. In accordance with Newark Municipal Code Chapter 3.24, Alt 5 would be required to pay Development Impact Fees to offset costs to public facilities. With the payment of required fees, Alt 5 would not result in the need for construction of any unanticipated new or expanded public facilities and impacts would be less than significant.

16. Parks and Recreation
Impact REC-1: Alt 5 would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.

Alt 5 would permanently increase the City’s residential population and would increase the use of existing parks and recreation facilities. As identified under General Plan Policy PR2.3, the City of Newark has adopted a 3.0 acre of parkland per 1,000 residents standard for planning purposes and its Quimby Act fee is based on this ratio. As required by General Plan Policy PR-2.2, the City requires that new development either dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or both, at the option of the City, for park or recreational purposes. Alt 5 would provide on-site open space areas which would be designed to serve residents within the subdivision, helping to avoid over-usage (accelerated deterioration) of other existing parks in the City. Though Alt 5 would provide on-site open space, it would not meet the City’s requirements for park dedication and therefore, Alt 5 would be required to pay the full parks impact fee to offset the increased demand to existing park and recreational facilities resulting from development of Alt 5. Payment of required fees would ensure funding for the construction or expansion of policies facilities and funds are set aside to allow for construction of facilities as needed to accommodate future growth. Inclusion of open space within the project design and payment of fees would mitigate potential impacts on existing parks and recreational facilities caused by Alt 5. Alt 5 would comply with all City standards and requirements related to recreation, and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact REC-2: Alt 5 would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

Resolution No. ______ 35 of 72
Alt 5 would include some common open space consisting of landscaped areas, a bioretention area, and on-site recreational area. The on-site recreation area would include amenities such as a lawn, picnic tables and a pedestrian path, none of which are expected to cause any adverse physical effects on the environment due to the small size of the park and the limited nature of the proposed improvements. Alt 5 would not involve the construction or expansion of any off-site recreational facilities; however, as required by the City’s General Plan Policy PR-2.2, Alt 5 would be required to pay a parks impact fee to contribute funding for park and recreational facilities citywide. Funds collected through the parks impact fee would be used to help fund and pay for the construction or expansion of off-site improvements, the construction of which would be required to demonstrate it would not result in adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, since no adverse environmental impacts associated with construction of on-site or off-site recreational facilities would occur, the impact is less than significant.

17. Transportation and Circulation
Impact TRANS-1: Alt 5 would not conflict with program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

As outlined in the DEIR, the proposed project does not conflict with the General Plan Circulation Element, or any other program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system. In comparison to the proposed project, Alt 5 would have a similar level of impact. Alt 5 does not propose to amend or adjust roadway classifications, the roadway network, transit routes, or bicycle network as identified in the City’s General Plan or Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (PBMP).

Alt 5 includes on-site roadway construction such as driveways, drive aisles, and sidewalks throughout the site. Additionally, Alt 5 includes the same improvements to Mowry Avenue as the proposed project including, but not limited to, widening of Mowry Avenue, construction of sidewalks, restriping, pedestrian crossing improvements, construction of amid-block crossing, and additional improvements including construction of high visibility crosswalk markings, RRFBs, advance pedestrian crossing yield markings, advance pedestrian crossing signage, median refuge, curb extensions, and ADA complaint curb ramps. The on-site and off -site roadway improvements would be designed and constructed in accordance with City standards and requirements and are not anticipated to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, automobile access, and on-site circulation.

The proposed project would be consistent with the PBMP and the General Plan and the proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing bicycle parking, access, and on-site circulation. As Alt 5 does not propose any changes to the Resolution No. ______ 36 of 72
proposed project components related on-site circulation or vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle access, Alt 5 would have a similar level of impact.

The pedestrian and on-site circulation improvements provided as part of Alt 5 is the same as the proposed project and would be consistent with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Guidelines and the City’s Crosswalk Policy and therefore, Alt 5 would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing pedestrian access, and on-site circulation.

Existing bus stops are located within the area and pedestrians would travel between the project site and the bus stops by using the sidewalk on the east side of Mowry Avenue, including the segment of new sidewalk to be constructed by Alt 5 between the project site to join the existing sidewalk just east of the railroad crossing and therefore, Alt 5 would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing transit access.

Alt 5 would provide the same crossing improvements at the UPRR crossing as the proposed project, which would be equipped with crossing arms, upgraded roadway panels, signage, striping, and pedestrian path and bicycle crossing improvements to encourage safer access to the project site, surrounding development, and recreation facilities. The UPRR crossing would also include any required gate signals, visual, and/or audio equipment, as required by UPRR or the Newark Municipal Code. Alt 5 would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing at-grade railroad crossing.

To provide a secondary EVA point to the project site, the project applicants have worked with the owners of the adjacent Cargill property to secure rights to utilize their access road as an EVA lane for the project. Alt 5 would utilize the existing Cargill levee road located to the west of the project site as the project’s EVA lane. The existing Cargill levee road has been previously developed to allow for emergency vehicle access and therefore, Alt 5 would not require any improvements to the existing EVA lane. However, Alt 5 would require minor modifications to add compacted gravel to an existing gravel crossing connecting the Cargill levee road to Mowry Avenue, which is located approximately 0.1 mile south of the southwestern corner of the project site. The addition of the compacted gravel apron to the existing crossing over the flood control channel would provide an alternative emergency route to the project site. The proposed driveway apron to connect the existing Cargill levee road to Mowry Avenue would be designed and constructed in accordance with City requirements and standards. The City’s police and fire departments have reviewed the proposed EVA lane and have confirmed through a site visit that the existing Cargill levee road would provide adequate EVA access to the project site. Therefore, Alt 5 would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing emergency vehicle access.

Alt 5 would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system and impact would be less than significant.

Resolution No. ______ 37 of 72
Impact TRANS-3: Alt 5 would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

Alt 5 would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses.

Development of the project site and site access improvements require compliance with City development guidelines and code, which follow the General Plan policies and actions that encourage the safe design of arterial roads and streets. All internal project streets would provide adequate sight distance between vehicles traveling in conflicting directions and between vehicles and pedestrians. In addition, the bulb-outs at mid-block and intersection locations proposed through the site would reduce the effective width of the streets and result in lower travel speeds for automobiles.

During construction, traffic management plans will be implemented to ensure the safety of roadway users accessing Mowry Avenue. The use of roadways by heavy construction equipment can increase the risk to drivers and cyclists in the vicinity of the project site; however, construction equipment and materials would be stored on-site. Alt 5 includes modifications and improvements to existing roadways and may result in partial or complete road closure during construction activities. If road closures or detours are required during construction, Alt 5 would be required to prepare and implement a TCP to ensure that it would not result in increased roadway hazards during construction. Alt 5 would comply with the City of Newark’s TCP Requirements for work area traffic control for work performed in the City’s ROWs. Additionally, there would be no incompatible uses introduced to the project area which could cause vehicle conflicts (e.g., farm equipment). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Impact TRANS-d: Alt 5 would not result in inadequate emergency access.

Alt 5 would not result in inadequate emergency access and development of the project site would not alter or impede emergency response routes or plans set in place by the City.

Emergency vehicles would access the project site through the two vehicular access points on Mowry Avenue and use the internal street network. In addition to access through Mowry Avenue, the project applicants have worked with the owners of the adjacent Cargill property to secure rights to utilize their access road as an EVA lane for the project to provide a secondary EVA point to the project site. The existing Cargill levee road has been previously developed to allow for emergency vehicle access and therefore, Alt 5 would not require any improvements to the existing EVA lane except for minor modifications to add compacted gravel to an existing gravel crossing connecting the Cargill levee road to Mowry Avenue. Alt 5’s internal streets would meet the fire apparatus access road requirements of the CFC. The project roadway and neighborhood design would provide adequate turning radii and drive areas for fire trucks and other emergency vehicles. Based on the project site plan, the internal Resolution No. ______ 38 of 72
streets and intersection, including the project cul-de-sacs, would accommodate fire truck access. The project site would not be gated and the fire truck would be able to access the project site freely.

The project driveways and emergency access points are designed to comply with turning radius requirements for emergency vehicles and will not cause hazardous driving conditions.

Alt 5’s detailed design will be completed in compliance with CFC requirements and not impair emergency vehicle access in the vicinity of the project site during construction and in ongoing operation. Compliance with the CFC and California Building Code (CBC) will be mandated through the plan check and approval process. This process will also ensure that adequate access for emergency services is provided and the City’s emergency response plan will be upheld during construction. Therefore, Alt 5 would not result in inadequate emergency access and impacts would be less than significant.

18. Utilities and Service Systems
Impact UTIL-1: Alt 5 would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

As outlined in the DEIR, the City’s General Plan EIR takes into account anticipated demand from existing Specific Plans and development projects within the City when developing or updating a General Plan and its EIR. Therefore, the Areas 3 and 4 Specific Plan’s demands were factored into the General Plan EIR which determined that the projected wastewater generation at buildout would be adequately handled by the Alvarado Wastewater Treatment Plant’s (AWWTP’s) existing capacity and sufficient capacity would be remaining after buildout. As such, Alt 5’s demands would be adequately handled by the AWWTP’s existing capacity and would not require the expansion of AWWTP. Alt 5 would be required to comply with the USD’s Capacity Charge Ordinance and Newark Municipal Code Chapter 3.24, Development Impact Fees which require all development applicants and new developments to pay capacity fees and pay a fee towards construction of facilities that are required by new development. The funds collected through the fee would ensure funding is provided and set aside to allow for future construction or expansion of facilities as needed to accommodate future growth. Alt 5 includes construction of a new sanitary sewer lift station on Mowry Avenue, between the UPRR tracks and the project frontage. The construction of the new sewer main, lift station, and extension of the existing sewer main would be completed in accordance with City engineering requirements for the installation of utilities and construction would comply with applicable air quality and noise reduction regulations to ensure that construction of utility infrastructure would not cause significant impacts to the environment. Alt 5 would not require or result in the construction of additional wastewater treatment facilities and impacts would be less than significant.

Resolution No. ______ 39 of 72
Alt 5 would include construction of on- and off-site water lines to serve the proposed development. The construction and extension of water mains would be completed in accordance with City engineering requirements for the installation of utilities and construction would comply with applicable air quality and noise reduction regulations to ensure that construction of utility infrastructure would not cause significant impacts to the environment. Alt 5 would not require water supplies in excess of the project demand and Alt 5 would not require the construction of or expansion of existing water facilities. Additionally, Alt 5 would be required to pay its fair share of cost of infrastructure improvements required for new developments. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Alt 5 would include installation of a storm drain systems consisting of bioretention areas, curbs and gutters along the roadways, and underground storm drain pipes and would utilize Low Impact Development (LID) techniques for the system. The construction of improvements would be completed in accordance with the City’s engineering standards and construction activities would comply with existing regulations to reduce potential environmental impacts resulting from construction activities. The constructed improvements would not result in changes to the stormwater system that would result in environmental effects. The project developed a Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan which outlines the proposed storm water infrastructure for the development and includes design strategies, measures, and requirements to ensure that the proposed storm water infrastructure is constructed in accordance with City guidelines. As the City’s storm water is directed towards local creeks and the bay without off-site treatment, Alt 5 would not require the construction of new or expanded stormwater infrastructure. Stormwater infrastructure improvements included in Alt 5 would adequately convey stormwater flows on- and off-site and impacts would be less than significant.

Alt 5 would be designed and constructed to be 100 percent electric and would not utilize natural gas during operation of the Alt 5. Although Alt 5 would demand additional electricity, electrical connections would be made with existing facilities located on-site. Alt 5 would be subject to energy efficiency standards through the California Green Building Code and Title

24. No new expanded facilities would be required for electric facilities that could potentially cause a significant environmental impact.

Impact UTIL-2: Alt 5 would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.

As identified in the DEIR, during the preparation of the Areas 3 and 4 Specific Plan RDEIR, a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared by Alameda County Water District (ACWD) in November 2008 which indicated that sufficient water supplies exist to meet the ACWD’s projected demands as well as the Specific Plan’s demands, including the proposed project, under normal year conditions. The WSA prepared in 2008 is still applicable to the Resolution No. ______ 40 of 72
Alt 5. Alt 5 would result in a reduction of water demand from the land use assumed in the WSA as the golf course that was proposed to be built on the project site would no longer be developed. As identified in the WSA, while the WSA assumed that the golf course would eventually be supplied by reclaimed water when such supplies were available, it assumed that the golf course would rely on groundwater to meet irrigation needs. Though the golf course would have been supplied with groundwater from an on-site well and not through the ACWD’s potable water system, the groundwater pulled from the on-site well would have relied on groundwater from the same groundwater source as ACWD and therefore, the demand estimate for the golf course was included in the overall Specific Plan demand of potable water. Additionally, ACWD provided a comment letter on April 15, 2024 which identified that water demands for the proposed project are consistent with previous planning by the City and have been incorporated in ACWD’s water demand forecasting. As Alt 5 would not result in a significant increase in water demand at the site compared to the proposed project, ACWD’s comment letter would continue to be applicable for Alt 5.

Because the demands of the Specific Plan are already factored into the Urban Water Management Plan’s (UWMP) demand analysis, the development of Alt 5 would not result in increased shortages beyond those already factored into ACWD’s planning under current and future conditions. The UWMP forecasts that the ACWD could withstand a repeat of past dry years conditions without any additional shortages.

Alt 5 would develop residential units in Sub Area D of Area 4 of the Newark Areas 3 and 4 Specific Plan which was originally proposed to be developed as a golf course. Although Alt 5 would not develop the land as it was proposed in the Areas 3 and 4 Specific Plan, the proposed residential units would not result in a substantial increase in water demand for the project site compared to if the project site was developed as a golf course. The WSA prepared for the Areas 3 and 4 Specific Plan identified that with compliance of the requirements provided in the WSA, ACWD would have sufficient water supplies to support the development as part of the Areas 3 and 4 Specific Plan. Additionally, in a letter provided by the ACWD dated January 3, 2022, the ACWD determined that the total water demand for the Specific Plan area has been reduced since the preparation of the WSA in 2008 and therefore, the findings and determination of the WSA that there would be sufficient water supplies available to serve buildout of the Specific Plan area still apply. The proposed project’s 203 residential units was be anticipated to result in a water demand of 30,450 gallons per day or 34.13 acre feet per year. The golf course development proposed by the Specific Plan for the project site was estimated to result in water demand of 491 acre feet per year. The water demand from Alt 5 would be slightly increased from the water demand of the proposed project, but well below the water demand of the golf course use. Therefore, Alt 5 would demand substantially less water at the site than what was identified in the Specific Plan and there would be sufficient water supplies available to serve Alt 5. Therefore, Alt 5 would not require water in excess of available existing entitlements and resources, and Resolution No. ______ 41 of 72
compliance with the requirements provided in the WSA would ensure that Alt 5 would not result in insufficient water supplies to serve the development. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Impact UTIL-3: Alt 5 would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.

The General Plan EIR determined that the increase in the generation of wastewater at buildout of the General Plan, which includes development under the Areas 3 and 4 Specific Plan, would be adequately handled by the AWWTP’s existing capacity. As Alt 5’s 227 residential units would be within the residential allocation identified for the Areas 3 and 4 Specific Plan, Alt 5’s demands would be adequately handled by the AWWTP’s existing capacity. Alt 5 would be reviewed by USD and the City as required by the USD’s Capacity Charge Ordinance. The Capacity Charge Ordinance requires all new development projects to be subject to the development review process to ensure that there is adequate capacity by the wastewater treatment provider to serve the project, during which the Newark Public Works department and USD staff would require the applicant to upgrade or expand the USD’s collection system if the USD determines the demand from Alt 5 would exceed USD’s system capacity. USD’s Capacity Charge Ordinance also requires all development applicants to pay capacity fees, similar to the Newark Municipal Code Chapter 3.24 which requires new developments to pay a fee towards the construction of facilities that are required by new development. Alt 5 would pay all required fees and would be required to complete the City and USD’s development review process prior to the issuance of building permits. Therefore, Alt 5 would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it does not have adequate capacity to serve Alt 5 and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact UTIL-4: Alt 5 would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

Alt 5 would be expected to generate waste during the construction and operation of the project. Similar to the proposed project, construction of Alt 5 would involve the demolition of existing structures on-site and is estimated to remove approximately 39,000 cubic yards (CY) of vegetation, contaminated soil, demolition debris, and other cleared material prior to construction. Construction waste generated would be disposed of by the project contractor in accordance with the City’s established programs that facilitate the diversion and disposal of construction waste including the City’s Green Ordinance under Newark Municipal Code Chapter 15.44, Green Building and Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling.

Additionally, the project Applicant would be required to complete a waste management plan, which would describe the volume of construction/demolition debris that will be recycled, Resolution No. ______ 42 of 72
landfilled, or reused, and identification of the receiving facility, and submit the plan to the City prior to the issuance of any building permits.

According to California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery’s (CalRecycle) Disposal Rate Calculator, the City of Newark had a population disposal rate of 4.7 pounds per person per day in 2020. Operation of the proposed project was anticipated to result in approximately 2,928 pounds of waste per day, or 485 tons per year. As Alt 5 would only increase the number of residential units by 24 units, it is not anticipated to result in generation of significant increase in solid waste compared to the proposed project. Solid waste from Alt 5 would be disposed of at the Altamont Landfill which has a permitted maximum throughput of 11,150 tons per day and has a remaining capacity of 65,400,000 CY.

Due to the substantial amount of available capacity remaining at Altamont Landfill, sufficient capacity would be available to accommodate Alt 5’s solid waste disposal needs. Alt 5 would implement the City’s goals, policies, and standards for reducing waste generation such as those under General Plan Goal CS-8. Alt 5 would not be expected to generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards and would not impair attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Therefore, a less than significant impact related to solid waste would occur.

Impact UTIL-5: Alt 5 would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Alt 5 would implement all applicable statutes and regulations related to solid waste that has been adopted or implemented by the City. Alt 5 would be served by curbside solid waste and recycling services and solid waste disposal is required to follow the requirements of the contracted waste hauler and disposal facility, which follows local, state, and federal statutes and regulations related to the collection and disposal of solid waste. There are numerous goals, policies, and actions in the City’s General Plan related to reducing waste generation in the City. Alt 5 would implement all goals, policies and actions identified in the General Plan such as policies and actions under General Plan Goal CS-8 which requires compliance with the City’s waste reduction program and standards set for construction and demolition debris.

Alt 5 would comply with all federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste and impacts would be less than significant.

19. Wildfire
Impact WF-1: Alt 5 would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

The project site is not located within a state responsibility area and does not contain lands classified as being within a very high fire hazard severity zone. Alt 5 involves permanent modifications to Mowry Avenue and may include partial or complete road closures during the construction phase. There are no identified evacuation routes that would be potentially impacted by the construction of Alt 5. A TCP would be prepared which would identify all Resolution No. ______ 43 of 72
detours, appropriate traffic controls, and ensure adequate circulation and emergency access are provided during the construction phase. Additionally, all roadway improvements and construction would be designed to provide adequate emergency vehicle access to the project site during construction and operation of Alt 5. Therefore, project construction and operation activities would not interfere with an emergency evacuation or response plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact WF-2: Alt 5 would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.

The topography of the project site is flat and is located in an urban area with existing developments and roadways. The area surrounding the project site is similarly flat. The project site is not in a state responsibility area and does not contain lands classified as being within a very high fire hazard severity zone. Furthermore, the risk of wildfire in this portion of the City is classified as low. Given the characteristics of the project site, Alt 5 would not exacerbate fire risk beyond what currently exists in the vicinity of the project site.

Additionally, Alt 5 would include fire safety measures and would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s fire protection requirements and the CFC which would minimize the severity of wildfire impacts on structures and residents if a wildfire was to occur nearby. Development of Alt 5 would not expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire, and there would be no impact.

Impact WF-3: Alt 5 would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.

The construction of Alt 5 would require the installation of associated infrastructure to serve the project. The project roadway and neighborhood design would provide adequate turning radii and drive areas for fire trucks and other emergency vehicles. All utilities required for the new development would be located underground and Alt 5 would include installation of fire hydrants at the project site to mitigate fire hazards. The City’s fire flow requirements are based on the standards for fire flow requirements of the CFC and Alt 5’s fire hydrants would be constructed to meet these requirements. The NFD would review the project plans to ensure that Alt 5 meets the City’s fire flow and fire protection requirements. Alt 5 would be required to implement General Plan policies along with the implementation of the Uniform Fire Code, CBC and CFC which would reduce effects of development on wildland fire hazard impacts. Alt 5 would require the installation of associated infrastructure to support the new development but would not exacerbate fire risk beyond what currently exists in the Resolution No. ______ 44 of 72
vicinity of the project site. Compliance with City’s policies and applicable building and fire codes would minimize fire risk and there would be a less than significant impact.

Impact WF-4: Alt 5 would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

The project site is not in a state responsibility area and does not contain lands classified as being within a very high fire hazard severity zone. The project site and surrounding area is relatively flat and not in an area subject to landslides. Additionally, the project site is located in an area identified as having minimal flood hazards. Alt 5 would use fill to elevate the proposed pad grades for the homes above the FEMA 100-year flood plain elevation which would offer flood damage protection, including potential flooding from sea level rise. The proposed pad grades would exceed the City’s standards of requiring a minimum elevation of

11.25 feet and would meet BCDC’s currently adopted sea level rise guidance. Additionally, the project’s pad elevation would meet the minimum pad elevation requirements of the RPCSAT projected likely range for sea level rise by the year 2100. As such, Alt 5 would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes and there would be a less than significant impact.

20. Cumulative Impacts
Aesthetics: Alt 5, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to aesthetics.

The geographic scope of the cumulative aesthetics analysis is the area surrounding the project site. All related projects considered in the cumulative are located more than one mile away from the project site, except for the Area 4 – Sanctuary West Project which is located approximately 0.4 mile east of the project site. Based on the distance of these related projects (except for the Area 4 – Sanctuary West Project) from the project site, they would not be associated with the visual character of the project area.

However, the Area 4 – Sanctuary West Project identified a significant and unavoidable impact related to changes in visual character associated with the development of the project.

The significant and unavoidable impact to visual resources for the Area 4 – Sanctuary West Project is due to the project seeking coverage under the existing Areas 3 and 4 Specific Plan which identified a significant and unavoidable aesthetic impact as it would result in development of approximately 850 acres of undeveloped area with urbanized uses and would change the existing character of the area. The Area 4 - Sanctuary West Project is already approved and would build 469 two-story single-family homes before Alt 5 and therefore, the lands surrounding and in the vicinity of the project site would already be developed with Resolution No. ______ 45 of 72
urbanized uses and Alt 5 would not result in changes to the visual character that would result in a significant cumulatively considerable aesthetics impact. Similar to Alt 5, the related projects would be required to comply with the development standards of the City and would be subject to review by the City to ensure proposed buildings are compatible with surrounding development and to mitigate potential aesthetic impacts. In addition, a portion of the Alt 5 Project site is currently developed with urban industrial uses. Therefore, Alt 5, in conjunction with related projects, would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on aesthetics.

Agricultural and Forestry Resources: Alt 5, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to agricultural and forestry resources.

Alt 5 would result in no impacts to agricultural and forestry resources. The project site is not designated for agricultural and forestry uses and no agricultural or forestry uses currently exist on-site. Other developments in the project vicinity would be required to demonstrate that development of the related project would not result in significant impacts to agricultural and forestry resources. Related projects considered in the cumulative analysis are located in urbanized areas and would not result in the conversion of agricultural or forestry land to urban uses. Therefore, Alt 5, in conjunction with related projects, would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on agricultural and forestry resources.

Energy: Alt 5, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to energy.

Alt 5 would be 100 percent electric and the structures would be designed and constructed in accordance with CALGreen and Title 24 standards to increase energy efficiency and reduce energy demand. These standards include minimum energy efficiency requirements related to building envelope, mechanical systems (heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and water heating systems), indoor and outdoor lighting, and illuminated signs. Other planned projects in the vicinity and region would similarly be designed to meet existing CALGreen and Title 24 standards and would require compliance with applicable building code standards related to energy efficiency. This would ensure that the project would not result in the inefficient, unnecessary, or wasteful consumption of energy. Thus, Alt 5, in conjunction with related projects, would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on energy.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Alt 5, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to greenhouse gas emissions.

GHG impacts are a cumulative impact. On their own, GHG emissions from one project cannot result in changes in climate conditions; therefore, the emissions from one project must Resolution No. ______ 46 of 72
be considered in the context of their contribution to cumulative global emissions. Alt 5 would not have a significant impact with regard to GHG emissions and would be consistent with the City’s CAP and State plans for achieving GHG reductions and meeting established targets.

Additionally, GHG emissions resulting from operation of Alt 5 would not exceed the BAAQMD adjusted significance thresholds. Alt 5 would be consistent with best practices for reducing GHGs through the incorporation of greater energy efficiency by developing the project’s structures to be 100 percent electric. Other projects in the region and the State would also have to show consistency with local and State GHG reduction plans and comply with the Title 24 and CALGreen requirements. Therefore, Alt 5, in conjunction with related projects, would not have a cumulatively considerable impact related to GHG emissions.

Land Use and Planning: Alt 5, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to land use and planning.

Alt 5 would be consistent with applicable goals and policies of the City’s General Plan and the General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential although a General Plan Amendment is proposed for the multi-family affordable housing development parcel.

Additionally, Alt 5 is located within the Areas 3 and 4 Specific Plan area which has been identified by the City as an area for future growth, including residential developments. Alt 5 is requesting a rezoning and Specific Plan Amendment to better align the project site with the proposed use and existing and proposed General Plan land use designation. Alt 5 would be consistent with the requirements of the Specific Plan and PD-RS-6000 and multi-family zoning districts with the approval of a Specific Plan Amendment and rezoning. Other development in the project vicinity would be required to demonstrate consistency with the General Plan and development standards through project design or the implementation of mitigation measures. Therefore, Alt 5, in conjunction with related projects, would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on land use.

Mineral Resources: Alt 5, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to mineral resources.

Alt 5 would have no impact on mineral resources as the project site and its vicinity does not contain any known mineral resources of value and no mineral extraction activities exist within City limits. Other developments in the City would be required to demonstrate that development of the related project would not result in significant impacts to mineral resources. Therefore, Alt 5, in conjunction with related projects, would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on mineral resources.

Resolution No. ______ 47 of 72
Population and Housing: Alt 5, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to population and housing.

The geographic area for cumulative population and housing impacts aligns with the City boundaries and can be extended further to Alameda County and the San Francisco Bay region. Alt 5, in conjunction with the future development in the City, is within the planned growth projections provided by the City’s General Plan. Additionally, the number of residential units proposed under Alt 5 would be within the City’s projected growth under the General Plan and would contribute to providing a housing quantity closer to the intended housing unit allocation envisioned within the General Plan. Alt 5 would not have a significant impact on housing and job balance and would help the City meet its RHNA. Other related projects would be required to demonstrate consistency with the growth projections identified in the City’s General Plan. Therefore, Alt 5, in conjunction with related projects, would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on population and housing.

Public Services: Alt 5, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to public services.

Alt 5 would result in generation of new residents which would increase demand for public services including police, fire, schools, parks, and other public facilities. However, as the project site is located in an area already served by police and fire protection services, Alt 5 is not anticipated to significantly increase demand. Similar to Alt 5, related projects in the City would be required to pay a Development Impact Fee as required by Chapter 3.24 of the Newark Municipal Code to offset the cost of police and fire protection demands associated with development of a new project. Though implementation of Alt 5 would result in increased demand on police and fire services, it is not anticipated to exacerbate any staffing issues by increasing the service population. The General Plan EIR identified that continued implementation of required fees and General Plan policies related to the police department, including requiring police department review of major new development plans, would ensure that the NPD is actively involved in planning to accommodate future growth in the City and that funds are set aside to allow for construction of new facilities as needed to accommodate future growth. Additionally, Alt 5 and related projects would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s fire protection requirements and the CBC. Alt 5 is not anticipated to have a cumulative impact on police protection or fire and emergency services such that it would necessitate the construction of new or expanded facilities the construction of which would have adverse environmental impacts. Other related projects would be reviewed for impacts on police or fire and emergency services and would be required to address any potential impacts with mitigation. Therefore, Alt 5, in conjunction Resolution No. ______ 48 of 72
with other related projects, would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on police or fire and emergency services.

Alt 5 would be required to pay school impact fees collected by NUSD which would offset school facility costs associated with serving new students that result from new residential developments. Under SB 50, payment of school impact fees is considered to fully mitigate impacts to schools from new development for the purposes of CEQA. Other related projects that would result in the development of new residential units would also be required to pay fees to offset their impacts. Alt 5 is not anticipated to have a cumulative impact on schools such that it would necessitate the construction of new or expanded school facilities, the construction of which could have adverse environmental impacts. Other related projects would be reviewed for impacts on schools and would be required to address any potential impacts with mitigation. As such, related projects are not anticipated to result in significant impacts to schools. Therefore, Alt 5, in conjunction with related projects, would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on schools.

Alt 5 would result in an increase in the demand for nearby parks; however, Alt 5 would provide on-site open space areas and would pay a parks impact fee as required by the City.

Alt 5 is not anticipated to have a cumulative impact on parks such that it would necessitate the construction of new or expanded park facilities the construction of which would have adverse environmental impacts. Other related projects would be reviewed for impacts on parks and would be required to address any potential impacts with mitigation. Other related projects would be required to either dedicate land, or pay a fee in-lieu thereof, or both, at the option of the City as required for all new development within the City. The dedication of land and payment of fees would offset potential impacts from increased demand for park facilities.

Therefore, Alt 5, in conjunction with related projects, would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on parks.

Recreation: Alt 5, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to recreation.

Alt 5 would result in an increase in demand for parks and recreational facilities but would have a less than significant impact on parks as Alt 5 would develop on-site open space, including a new recreational area, and would pay the required parks impact fees. Related projects in the area would have the potential to result in a cumulative impact associated with increased demand for parks, resulting in deterioration of existing parks or requiring construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Related projects would be required to either dedicate land, or pay a fee in-lieu thereof, or both, at the option of the City as required for all new development within the City. The Area 4 – Sanctuary West Project would provide three parks and four boardwalk overlooks that would result in a combined park area of approximately 4.70 acres that would be available for public use, including for use by Alt 5’s Resolution No. ______ 49 of 72
residents. Related projects would be reviewed for impacts on parks and would be required to address any potential impacts with mitigation. As such, the Alt 5, in conjunction with related projects, would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on recreation.

Utilities and Service Systems: Alt 5, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to utilities and service systems.

Alt 5 would generate an increased demand for water and wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, and solid waste services, and would increase demand for water supplies. However, Alt 5’s increased demand would be adequately handled by existing systems and would not result in significant impacts to utilities and service systems. Additionally, a WSA prepared for the Areas 3 and 4 Specific Plan found that there were sufficient water supplies available to serve the developments proposed under the Specific Plan. Similar to Alt 5, other related projects would be required to demonstrate that existing systems have the capacity to handle the increase in water, wastewater, stormwater and solid waste generated from the project and that there would be sufficient water supplies to serve the increased demand during normal, dry, and multiple dry year scenarios. Other related projects would be reviewed for impacts on utilities and service systems and would be required to address any potential impacts with mitigation. Therefore, Alt 5, in conjunction with related projects, would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on utilities and service systems.

Wildfire: Alt 5, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to wildfire.

Alt 5 would have no significant impacts related to wildfire as the project site is not located in an area identified as a very high fire hazard severity zone. Similar to Alt 5, all other related projects would be required to implement General Plan policies identified to reduce wildfire risk along with the Uniform Building Code, CBC, and the CFC which would reduce effects of development on wildfire hazard impacts. Other related projects would be reviewed for impacts on wildfire risk and would be required to address any potential impacts with mitigation. As such, Alt 5, in conjunction with related projects, would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on wildfires.

B. Findings Regarding Potentially Significant Impacts
The following potential environmental impacts of Alt 5 were determined to be potentially significant and to require mitigation measures to avoid their effects or to reduce their severity. The City Council concurs with the conclusions in the DEIR, as incorporated into the FEIR, and makes the following findings with respect to such potentially significant impacts.

1. Air Quality
Resolution No. ______ 50 of 72
Impact AIR-1: Alt 5 could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Implement Construction Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measure AIR-2: Tier 4 Certified Construction Equipment will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact AIR-1: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact AIR-1 for Alt 5, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would minimize impacts resulting from fugitive dust emissions during construction activities by requiring implementation of basic construction mitigation measures recommended by the BAAQMD. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2 would reduce potential air pollutant emissions resulting from use of construction equipment by requiring use of diesel-powered off-road equipment that are U.S. EPA Tier 4 certified, or have CARB approved engine retrofit kits certified to have emissions equivalent to Tier 4 standards. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts related to construction air pollutant emissions to a less than significant level and ensure Alt 5 would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

Impact AIR-2: Alt 5 could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Implement Construction Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measure AIR-2: Tier 4 Certified Construction Equipment will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact AIR-2: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact AIR-2 for Alt 5, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Impacts for emission of NOx during remediation and construction would exceed the BAAQMD threshold, and the impact would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2 would require project construction to utilize Tier 4 certified construction equipment which would reduce the impact to a less than significant level and would not result in a significant impact. Additionally, implementation of Basic Construction Mitigation Measures as required by Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would reduce impacts of emission of PM10 and PM2.5 during construction and remediation to a less than significant level and would not result in a significant impact. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2, Alt 5 would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is non-attainment under an Resolution No. ______ 51 of 72
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and the impact would be less than significant.

Impact AIR-3: Alt 5 could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Implement Construction Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Remediation of Contamination will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact AIR-3: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and HAZ-1 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact AIR-3 for Alt 5, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Project construction would generate fugitive dust that may impact nearby sensitive receptors and result in potentially significant impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would require project construction to implement fugitive dust control measures that are consistent with BMPs established by the BAAQMD, which would reduce the project’s construction-generated fugitive dust impacts to a less than significant level.

Similar to the proposed project, Alt 5 would require the demolition of an existing facility where there may be potential for asbestos to be present. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would require an asbestos survey prior to demolition and soil and ground water quality investigations prior to demolition activities and grading activities and would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and HAZ-1, Alt 5 would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and impacts would be less than significant.

2. Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1: Alt 5 could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications on any species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Standard Construction Best Management Practices, Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Environmental Awareness, Mitigation Measure BIO-3:

Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey, Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Burrowing Owl PreConstruction Surveys, Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Burrowing Owl Mitigation, Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Special-Status Bat Species, Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Reduce the Spread of Invasive Species, and Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Post-Construction Predator Management Plan and Program will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact BIO-1: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact BIO-1 for Alt 5, such that this potential impact would be less than Resolution No. ______ 52 of 72
significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8 would protect special status species by requiring site-wide BMPs, environmental awareness training, preconstruction surveys, guidelines to follow in the event relocation of wildlife is required, and preparation and implementation of an Invasive Species Management Plan and postconstruction predator management plan and programs. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to listed or special-status plants and wildlife to a less than significant level.

Impact BIO-5: Alt 5 could conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Tree Preservation Plan will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact BIO-5: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure BIO-9 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact BIO-5 for Alt 5, such that this potential impact would be less than significant.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-9 would require preparation of a Tree Preservation Plan prior to the issuance of construction-phase permits and would ensure Alt 5 does not conflict with the City’s tree preservation ordinance. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

3. Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-2: Alt 5 could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Archaeological Monitoring Program will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact CUL-2: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact CUL-2 for Alt 5, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require the preparation of an archaeological monitoring program to be implemented during construction and demolition activities prior to the start of construction activities. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, potential impacts related to archaeological resources would be less than significant.

Impact CUL-3: Alt 5 could disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Human Burials Encountered During Construction will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Resolution No. ______ 53 of 72
Findings Regarding Impact CUL-3: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact CUL-3 for Alt 5, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure CUL-2 outlines procedures to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of human remains during project construction activities including PRC Section 5097.98, stopping all work in the area of discovery, and handling of human remains. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2, potential impacts related to undiscovered human remains would be less than significant.

4. Geology and Soils
Impact GEO-1: Alt 5 could directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: ii) Strong seismic groundshaking; and ii) seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Implement Recommendations included in the Geotechnical Studies and Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Mitigation of LiquefactionInduced Impacts on Buildings will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact GEO-1: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact GEO-1 for Alt 5, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires implementation of all mitigation measures and design recommendations contained within the preliminary and design level geotechnical reports into the relevant project plans and specifications. Mitigation Measure GEO-2 requires implementation of all mitigation measures and design recommendations relating to liquefaction contained within the preliminary and design level geotechnical reports into the relevant project plans and specifications and requires the project site plans to be submitted to the City and reviewed as part of the development review process. These mitigation measures would ensure that the proposed development is designed and constructed to withstand seismic related impacts and reduce the potential risks to people and structures. With implementation of mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant.

Impact GEO-2: Alt 5 could result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Prepare and Implement a SWPPP will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact GEO-2: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact GEO-2 for Alt 5, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure HYD-1 requires preparation and implementation of a Resolution No. ______ 54 of 72
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that identifies BMPs to control the discharge of sediment and other pollutants during construction. Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would ensure that construction of Alt 5 would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact GEO-3: Alt 5 could be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Implement Recommendations included in the Geotechnical Studies, Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Mitigation of Liquefaction-Induced Impacts on Buildings, Mitigation Measure GEO-3: Prepare and Implement Dewatering and Shoring Plans, and Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Remediation of Contamination will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact GEO-3: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measures GEO-1, GEO-2, GEO-3, and HAZ-1 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact GEO-3 for Alt 5, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 require implementation of all mitigation measures and design recommendations contained within the preliminary and design level geotechnical reports into the relevant project plans and specifications and requires the project site plans be submitted to the City and reviewed as part of the development review process. Mitigation Measure GEO-3 would require preparation and implementation of a dewatering plan and potentially a shoring plan if shoring methods are determined to be required for excavation. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires remediation of on-site soils prior to the start of construction activities and evaluation of clean imported fill by a soil engineer prior to use in accordance with recommendations included in the design level geotechnical report to ensure imported fill are suitable for use at the project site to mitigate any potential impacts from unstable soils. These mitigation measures would ensure that the proposed development is designed and constructed to reduce the potential risks to people and structures resulting from unstable soils. With implementation of mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant.

Impact GEO-4: Alt 5 could be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Implement Recommendations included in the Geotechnical Studies and Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Remediation of Contamination will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact GEO-4: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and HAZ-1 would substantially Resolution No. ______ 55 of 72
lessen the severity of Impact GEO-4 for Alt 5, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires implementation of all mitigation measures and design recommendations contained within the preliminary and design level geotechnical reports prepared into the relevant project plans and specifications and requires the project site plans to be submitted to the City and reviewed as part of the development review process. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires remediation of on-site soils prior to the start of construction activities and evaluation of clean imported fill by a soil engineer prior to use in accordance with recommendations included in the design level geotechnical report to ensure imported fill are suitable for use at the project site to mitigate any potential impacts from expansive soils. These mitigation measures would ensure that the proposed development is designed and constructed to reduce the potential risks to people and structures resulting from expansive soils. With implementation of mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant.

Impact GEO-6: Alt 5 could be directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic features.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure GEO-4: Procedures for Paleontological Resources Discovered During Construction will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact GEO-6: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure GEO-4 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact GEO-6 for Alt 5, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure GEO-4 outlines procedures to be followed if unknown unique paleontological resources are discovered on-site during construction, such as requiring all activities to be stopped within a 50 foot radius of the identified resource until a qualified paleontologist evaluates the finding. This mitigation measure would ensure that Alt 5 does not result in inadvertent destruction of unknown and undiscovered paleontological resources and with implementation of the mitigation measure, impacts would be less than significant.

5. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1: Alt 5 could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Remediation of Contamination will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact HAZ-1: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact HAZ-1 for Alt 5, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires remediation of existing soil and groundwater Resolution No. ______ 56 of 72
contamination at the project site to residential standards prior to the start of construction activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would ensure that all existing onsite soil and groundwater contamination is remediated prior to the start of construction activities and would ensure that impacts associated with the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during remediation activities for Alt 5 would result in a less than significant impact.

Impact HAZ-2: Alt 5 could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Remediation of Contamination and Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Prepare and Implement a SWPPP will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact HAZ-2: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HYD-1 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact HAZ-2 for Alt 5, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires remediation of existing soil and groundwater contamination at the project site to residential standards prior to the start of construction activities. Mitigation Measure HYD-1 requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP to prevent contaminated runoff from leaving the project site during construction activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would ensure that all existing soil and groundwater contamination is remediated prior to the start of construction activities to prevent contaminated materials from being released into the environment and Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would ensure construction impacts related to accidental release of hazardous materials are less than significant.

Impact HAZ-4: Alt 5 could be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Remediation of Contamination will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact HAZ-4: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact HAZ-4 for Alt 5, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires remediation of existing soil and groundwater contamination at the project site to residential standards prior to the start of construction activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would ensure that hazardous site conditions are no longer present and ensure that development of Alt 5 would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Implementation of the mitigation Resolution No. ______ 57 of 72
measure would mitigate impacts caused by existing soil and groundwater contamination to a less than significant level.

6. Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD-1: Alt 5 could violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Prepare and Implement a SWPPP and Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Remediation of Contamination will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact HYD-1: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and HAZ-1 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact HYD-1 for Alt 5, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would require preparation of a SWPPP and incorporation of BMPs to control sedimentation, erosion, and hazardous materials from contacting stormwater, with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off-site into receiving waters to protect water quality. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would require remediation activities including the remediation of contaminated surface waters in the existing retention basins with discharge of the contaminated surface water being completed in accordance with USD permit requirements. Implementation of the mitigation measures would protect water quality from potential impacts and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact HYD-2: Alt 5 could substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure GEO-3: Prepare and Implement Dewatering and Shoring Plans will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact HYD-2: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure GEO-3 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact HYD-2 for Alt 5, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure GEO-3 requires the preparation and implementation of a dewatering plan in accordance with the waste discharge requirements of the RWQCB.

Mitigation Measure GEO-3 would ensure Alt 5 would comply with General Plan Policy CD3.1 which requires the consideration of potential impacts to groundwater quality and water quality. Implementation of the mitigation measure would protect groundwater quality and the impact to groundwater would be less than significant.

Impact HYD-3: Alt 5 could substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through Resolution No. ______ 58 of 72
the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite; or iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Prepare and Implement a SWPPP will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact HYD-3: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact HYD-3 for Alt 5, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure HYD-1 requires the preparation of a SWPPP in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit. The SWPPP would include BMPs and pollution prevention measures (erosion and sediment control measures and measures to control non-stormwater discharges and hazardous spills) that would be implemented during construction activities to prevent, control, and reduce polluted runoff and reduce the potential of erosion impacts. Implementation of the mitigation measure would reduce potential erosion and polluted runoff impacts and the impact would be less than significant.

Impact HYD-5: Alt 5 could conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Prepare and Implement a SWPPP and Mitigation Measure GEO-3: Prepare and Implement Dewatering and Shoring Plans will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact HYD-5: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and GEO-3 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact HYD-3 for Alt 5, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would require obtaining coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit and preparation of a SWPPP that includes BMPs to meet water discharge requirements. If construction activities encounter groundwater, Alt 5 would implement Mitigation Measure GEO-3 and would be required to prepare a dewatering plan in accordance with the discharge requirements of the RWQCB. Implementation of the mitigation measure would reduce potential water quality and groundwater impacts and ensure Alt 5 would not conflict with any plans adopted for the purpose of protecting water quality or providing sustainable groundwater management. As such, the impact would be less than significant.

7. Noise
Resolution No. ______ 59 of 72
Impact NOI-1: Alt 5 could result in a generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise level in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Project-Specific Acoustical Study, Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Project Fixed-Source Noise, and Mitigation Measure NOI-3:

Construction Activity will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact NOI-1: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measures NOI-1, NOI-2, and NOI-3 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact NOI-1 for Alt 5, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would require the preparation of a projectspecific acoustical analysis to determine necessary noise control treatments to reduce interior traffic and train noise level impacts. Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would require a noise analysis be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and design of operational equipment in accordance with the measures provided in the analysis such as shielding, barriers, and/or attenuators to reduce noise levels that may affect nearby properties from on-site equipment required for operation of the Alt 5. Mitigation Measure NOI-3 would restrict construction and remediation to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday; and between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Saturdays; and no construction would be permitted on Sundays and holidays to ensure compliance with the City’s construction noise requirements.

With implementation of the mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant.

8. Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact TRIB-1: Alt 5 could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to California Native American tribe, and that is: i) listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Archaeological Monitoring Program and Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Human Burials Encountered During Construction will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Resolution No. ______ 60 of 72
Findings Regarding Impact TRIB-1: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact TRIB-1 for Alt 5, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require the preparation and implementation of a monitoring program which would include, but not limited to, identification of qualified archaeologists, preconstruction briefing for construction personnel on procedures to be followed in the event that unknown resources are encountered during construction, and construction monitoring. Additionally, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 requires consultation with a Native American tribal representative from a tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated to the geographic area where the project is located to determine the significance of the discovered resource and ensure proper handling of the resource. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, Alt 5 would be required to implement Mitigation Measure CUL-2 which requires the stoppage of all ground disturbing work so that the County Coroner may determine in the remains are Native American. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, potential impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

9. Cumulative Impacts
Air Quality: Alt 5, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to Air Quality.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Implement Construction Best Management Practices, Mitigation Measure AIR-2: Tier 4 Certified Construction Equipment, and Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Remediation of Contamination will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Cumulative Air Quality Impact: As discussed in the EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with the Clean Air Plan with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1. Alt 5 would have the same level of impact as the proposed project and would require implementation of the same mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure AIR-1 requires the implementation of basic construction mitigation measures recommended by the BAAQMD to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Additionally, Alt 5 is required to implement Mitigation Measure AIR-2 which requires project construction to utilize Tier 4 certified construction equipment. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR1 and AIR-2 would reduce project construction emissions and ensure emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds. In addition to Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2, Alt 5 would be required to implement Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 to ensure that asbestos surveys are conducted for the existing structures on-site prior to demolition to ensure that demolition does not result in NOA pollutant concentrations to sensitive receptors nearby. Project Resolution No. ______ 61 of 72
operational emissions would be below the BAAQMD daily and annual significance thresholds.

The closest related project, the Area 4 – Sanctuary West Project, is located approximately 0.4 mile east of the project site and the analysis prepared for the Area 4 – Sanctuary West Project did not identify significant air quality impacts. All other related projects are located more than one mile away from the project site and there are no related projects located near the project site that would result in construction activities during the same construction period as Alt 5. Related projects would be required to implement similar mitigation measures as Alt 5 to reduce construction related emissions and ensure that construction related air quality impacts are less than significant. Additionally, related projects would require project specific air quality analysis be conducted to analyze impacts and determine project specific mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts. Therefore, Alt 5’s impacts would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact. Operation of Alt 5 would not expose future residents of the project site to substantial pollutant concentration that may cause harmful effects as the risk would be below the threshold of significance. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measures, Alt 5, in conjunction with related projects, would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on air quality.

Biological Resources: Alt 5, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to biological resources.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Standard Construction Best Management Practices, Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Environmental Awareness, Mitigation Measure BIO-3:

Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey, Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Burrowing Owl PreConstruction Surveys, Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Burrowing Owl Mitigation, Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Special-Status Bat Species, Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Reduce the Spread of Invasive Species, Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Post-Construction Predator Management Plan and Program, and Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Tree Preservation Plan will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Cumulative Biological Resources Impact: The project site is located in an area with agricultural and industrial uses in the southwestern portion of the City. Of the 29 acre project site, 19 acres are currently disturbed and developed with the existing auto parts and scrap metal salvage lot and is primarily covered by existing structure and pavement. The approximately 10 acre northern parcel is undeveloped ruderal/disturbed habitat. Additionally, Alt 5’s construction would extend outside of the 29 acre project site to include off-site utility and circulation improvements along Mowry Avenue. Vegetation communities/land covers for the project area consist of developed land, ruderal/disturbed habitat, stormwater detention basins. Project site portions identified as developed land generally lacks significant habitat value for plants and wildlife and wildlife within developed Resolution No. ______ 62 of 72
areas is comprised of species that can tolerate regular human disturbance. The ruderal/disturbed area is comprised of vegetation dominated by naturalized or invasive nonnative species and ruderal native annuals and provide marginal nesting and foraging habitat for bird species in the region as well as habitat for disturbance-tolerant wildlife. The stormwater detention basins support patches of rapidly colonizing wetland plants.

Alt 5 would implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 to reduce potential impacts during construction and operation of Alt 5 to wildlife species and City protected trees to a less than significant level and would be consistent with the City’s biological policies and tree ordinance. Other related projects in the project vicinity and region would be required to implement similar mitigation to reduce potential impacts to special status species and comply with local biological policies and ordinances. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measures, Alt 5, in conjunction with related projects, would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on biological resources.

Cultural Resources: Alt 5, in conjunction with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the City, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to cultural resources.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Archaeological Monitoring Program and Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Human Burials Encountered During Construction will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Cumulative Cultural Resources Impact: The geographic scope of the cumulative cultural resources analysis is the project site. The project site does not contain any historical resources and is not located within an identified historic district and therefore, would not result in the destruction of historical resources and there would be no impact. The project site does not contain any recorded archaeological or paleontological resources or burial sites. However, as discussed in the DEIR, there is the possibility that previously undiscovered resources could be encountered by construction activities. Therefore, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 were identified to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Implementation of identified mitigation measures would ensure that undiscovered cultural resources are not adversely affected by project-related construction activities, which would prevent the destruction or degradation of potentially significant undiscovered cultural resources in the area and would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Related projects would be required to identify and implement similar mitigation measures to protect undiscovered cultural resources during construction. The Area 4 – Sanctuary West Project identified significant and unavoidable impacts to cultural resources; however, the geographic scope of impacts for cultural resources is the project site and does not contribute to cumulative impacts. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measures, Alt 5, in conjunction with related projects, would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on cultural resources.

Resolution No. ______ 63 of 72
Geology and Soils: Alt 5, in conjunction with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the City, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to geology and soils.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Implement Recommendations included in the Geotechnical Studies, Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Mitigation of Liquefaction-Induced Impacts on Buildings, Mitigation Measure GEO-3: Prepare and Implement Dewatering and Shoring Plans, Mitigation Measure GEO-4: Procedures for Paleontological Resources Discovered During Construction, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Remediation of Contamination, and Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Prepare and Implement a SWPPP will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Cumulative Geology and Soils Resources Impact: Alt 5 would result in significant impacts related to geology and soils if it would result in substantial adverse effects involving rupture of earthquake faults and seismic ground shaking, seismic related ground failure, expansive or unstable soils, erosion impacts, or destruction of a unique paleontological resource. Alt 5 would not result in substantial geology and soils impacts; however, Alt 5 would implement mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts from seismic related ground failure, expansive or unstable soils, erosion impacts and impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-4 requiring implementation of design recommendations identified in the preliminary and design level geotechnical reports, as well as requiring preparation of dewatering and shoring plans, and outlining procedures for instances where paleontological resources are discovered during construction, would be implemented to reduce all potential geology and soils impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would be implemented to ensure the clean imported fill utilized are suitable for use at the project site. Additionally, Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would be implemented to ensure construction would not result in substantial soil erosion impacts. Other related projects would be required to implement similar mitigation to reduce impacts related to geology and soils if investigations determine that they were necessary for the related project. Other related projects would be reviewed for impacts related to geology and soils and would be required to address any potential impacts with mitigation. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measures, Alt 5, in conjunction with related projects, would not have a cumulatively considerable impact related to geology and soils.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Alt 5, in conjunction with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the City, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to hazards and hazardous materials.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Remediation of Contamination and Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Prepare and Implement a SWPPP will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Resolution No. ______ 64 of 72
Findings Regarding Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact: Alt 5 would not result in the use of substantial quantities of hazardous materials or the creation of new hazards. However, there is the potential for hazardous materials, including contaminated soil and water at the site, to be released into the environment resulting from construction activities. Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HYD-1 requiring preconstruction surveys to identify existing hazardous conditions on-site, remediation of on-site soils and water identified as being contaminated from previous site uses, and requiring the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, would be incorporated into Alt 5 to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. It is reasonable to assume that other related projects would be required to implement similar mitigation to reduce impacts from hazardous materials if investigations determine that they were necessary for the related project. Other related projects would be reviewed for impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials and would be required to address any potential impacts with mitigation. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measures, Alt 5, in conjunction with related projects, would not have a cumulatively considerable impact related to hazards and hazardous materials.

Hydrology and Water Quality: Alt 5, in conjunction with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the City, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to hydrology and water quality.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Prepare and Implement a SWPPP and Mitigation Measure GEO-3: Prepare and Implement Dewatering and Shoring Plans will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Cumulative Hydrology and Water Quality Impact: Alt 5 would not result in substantial degradation to water quality or result in substantial hydrology impacts.

However, there is potential for construction related impacts to water quality and increased polluted runoff from the project site. Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and GEO-3 requiring preparation and implementation of a SWPPP and requiring implementation of design recommendations identified in the preliminary and design level geotechnical reports, would be incorporated into Alt 5 to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. It is reasonable to assume that related projects would be required to implement similar mitigation to reduce impacts related to hydrology and water quality if it were determined that they were necessary for the related project. Related projects would be reviewed for impacts related to hydrology and water quality and would be required to address any potential impacts with mitigation. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measures, Alt 5, in conjunction with related projects, would not have a cumulatively considerable impact related to hydrology and water quality.

Noise: Alt 5, in conjunction with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the City, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to noise.

Resolution No. ______ 65 of 72
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Project-Specific Acoustical Study, Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Project Fixed-Source Noise, and Mitigation Measure NOI-3:

Construction Activity will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Cumulative Noise Impact: The geographic scope of the cumulative noise analysis is the immediate project vicinity. Construction activities associated with Alt 5 would increase noise levels. However, construction noise and vibration would be temporary and limited to the restrictions set by the Areas 3 and 4 Specific Plan RDEIR, as required by Mitigation Measure NOI-3. Operation of Alt 5 would also be required to implement Mitigation Measure NOI-1, which includes compliance with City requirements to reduce interior noise levels within the buildings. Additionally, Alt 5 would implement Mitigation Measure NOI-2 which requires compliance with requirements in Section 17.24.100, Paragraph A.2.a in the City of Newark Municipal Code and preparation of a noise analysis and incorporation of design measures as needed, such as shielding, barriers, and/or attenuators to reduce noise levels that may affect nearby properties.

Cumulative impacts from construction generated noise could result if other future planned construction activities take place near the project site and/or along the off-site improvements and cumulatively combine with construction noise from the project. The nearest related project to the project site is the Area 4 – Sanctuary West Project which is located approximately 0.4 mile east of the project site. Similar to Alt 5, the Area 4 – Sanctuary West Project would be required to implement mitigation measures and comply with the City’s construction noise requirements to limit construction-related noise impacts such as restricting construction hours and implementing measures such as shielding to reduce noise from construction equipment and activities. Additionally, the Area 4 – Sanctuary West Project would conduct a project-specific acoustical analysis and incorporate operational noise reduction measures to ensure that development does not result in operational noise impacts or contribute to a cumulative noise impact in the vicinity of the project, similar to Alt 5. The Area 4 – Sanctuary West Project’s environmental analysis identified that there would be no significant environmental effects related to noise from development of the Area 4 – Sanctuary West Project and that impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures. All other related projects considered in the cumulative analysis are located more than one mile away from the project site and given the distance between the other related projects and the project site, short-term construction noise and vibration generated by Alt 5 would not combine with any other related construction project.

Furthermore, the construction and operation of the related projects would be required to comply with the same City noise requirements and implement mitigation to reduce noise level and vibration. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measures, Alt 5, in conjunction with related project, would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on noise.

Resolution No. ______ 66 of 72
Tribal Cultural Resources: Alt 5, in conjunction with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the City, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to tribal cultural resources.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Archaeological Monitoring Program and Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Human Burials Encountered During Construction will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Cumulative Tribal Cultural Resources Impact: The geographic scope of the cumulative tribal cultural resources analysis is the project site. According to CEQA, the importance of tribal cultural resources is the value of the resource to California Native American tribes culturally affiliated with the project area. Therefore, the issue that must be explored in a cumulative analysis is the loss of tribal cultural resources. For tribal cultural resources that are avoided or preserved through dedication within open space, no impacts would occur. However, if avoidance or dedication of open space to preserve tribal cultural resources is infeasible, those impacts must be considered in combination with tribal cultural resources that would be impacted for other projects included in the cumulative project list.

Related projects located in the region would have the potential to result in a cumulative impact associated with the loss of tribal resources through development activities that could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. Any related projects that involve ground disturbing activities would have the potential to result in significant impacts to tribal cultural resources. All projects would be regulated by applicable federal, state, and local regulations to avoid the destruction of tribal cultural resources. No tribal cultural resources have been identified within the project site during the cultural evaluation. In the event that tribal cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during construction, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would be implemented to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. As such, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be unlikely to occur with implementation of the project. Related projects would be required to identify and implement similar mitigation measures to protect undiscovered tribal cultural resources during construction. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measures, Alt 5, in conjunction with related projects, would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on tribal cultural resources.

C. Findings Regarding Significant and Unavoidable Impacts The following potential environmental impacts of Alt 5 were determined to be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation measures to reduce their severity.

The City Council concurs with the conclusions in the EIR, and makes the following findings with respect to such significant and unavoidable impacts.

1. Transportation
Resolution No. ______ 67 of 72
Impact TRANS-2: Alt 5 would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision(b).

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Plan will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact TRANS-2: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 would not substantially lessen the severity of Impact TRANS-2 for Alt 5, such that this potential impact would be significant and unavoidable.

As outlined in the DEIR, the analysis included an estimate of VMT per resident generated by the proposed project which identified that the proposed project would have an average a VMT per resident of 27.9, which is above the threshold of significance of 19.4. Based on the revised analysis provided by Fehr & Peers, Alt 5 would result in an average VMT per resident of 27.4, which is above the threshold of significance of 19.4. Therefore, Alt 5 would cause a significant impact on VMT because it would exceed existing citywide household VMT per capita minus 15 percent. Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 would be implemented to reduce project-generated VMT which requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan that would include measures that discourage the use of single-occupant automobiles and encourage the use of other travel modes. TDM Plan describe implementation of strategies to provide incentives that encourage walking, biking, and transit and reduce private automobile trips and parking demand. TDM strategies include, but are not limited to, offering to provide free parking spaces for car share vehicles and offering carpool matching to project residents. However, it is estimated that a TDM Plan would reduce the project-generated VMT by less than one percent which would not be adequate to reduce the project-generated VMT to below the threshold of significance. No other feasible mitigation measures have been identified that would avoid or substantially lessen this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, even with implementation of mitigation measures and the policies and strategies described in the EIR, Alt 5 would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to VMT. The City Council adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Exhibit 2 finding that this significant unmitigated impact is outweighed by Alt 5’s overriding benefits.

2. Cumulative Impacts
Transportation: Alt 5, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would result in a significant cumulative impact related to transportation.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Plan will be implemented as provided in the MMRP.

Resolution No. ______ 68 of 72
Findings Regarding Cumulative Transportation Impact: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 would not substantially lessen the severity of cumulative transportation impacts for Alt 5.

According to OPR’s Technical Advisory for Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, a project’s cumulative impacts are based on an assessment of whether the “incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The related projects considered in the cumulative analysis would not have a bearing on the VMT analysis since the cumulative condition VMT data would come from the regional traffic model’s 2040 horizon. A project that falls below an efficiency-based threshold that is aligned with long-term environmental goals and relevant plants would have no cumulative impact distinct from the project impact.

Alt 5 would not conflict with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element, any program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system. However, Alt 5 would exceed the Countywide VMT threshold and result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Mitigation Measure TRANS-1, which requires the preparation and implementation of a TDM Plan, was identified to reduce VMT impacts. However, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1, implementation of the TDM Plan would reduce project-generated VMT by less than one percent which would not be adequate to reduce the project-generated VMT to below the threshold of significance. No other feasible mitigation measures have been identified that would avoid or substantially lessen this impact to a less than significant level.

Therefore, even with implementation of mitigation measures and the policies and strategies described in the EIR, Alt 5 would have a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to VMT and result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact related to transportation.

The City Council adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Exhibit 2 finding that this significant unmitigated impact is outweighed by Alt 5’s overriding benefits.

Resolution No. ______ 69 of 72
EXHIBIT 2

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council adopts and makes this statement of overriding considerations concerning the Alt 5’s significant impact on VMT to explain why Alt 5’s benefits override and outweigh its unavoidable impact. Having (i) adopted all feasible mitigation measures, (ii) rejected as infeasible other alternatives as discussed above, (iii) identified and considered the significant, unavoidable impact on VMT, and (iv) balanced the benefits of Alt 5 against Alt 5’s significant and unavoidable impact, the City Council find that the benefits outweigh and override the significant unavoidable impacts for the reasons stated below. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 et. seq. and after review of the entire administrative record, including the Draft and Final EIR, the staff reports, and the oral and written testimony, and the evidence provided in the record as a whole, the City Council finds that Alt 5’s significant unmitigated impact on VMT is outweighed by Alt 5’s overriding benefits. The below stated reasons summarize the benefits, goals, and objectives of the Project and provide the rationale for the benefits of Alt 5. Each benefit set forth below constitutes an overriding consideration warranting approval of Alt 5, independent of the other benefits, despite the unavoidable impact on VMT.

Environmental Benefits
Remediation of Hazardous Materials. The Mowry Village Project site is currently occupied by a legally non-conforming auto dismantling facility and has been used for those operations since 1966. Environmental investigations have identified the presence of contaminated soil and groundwater. As part of Alt 5, all known hazardous materials will be remediated in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements and oversight. This remediation will remove existing environmental hazards and facilitate safe residential reuse of the site, thereby improving public health and environmental quality.

Preservation of Sensitive Environmental Resources. Alt 5 advances long-term environmental preservation by reallocating residential units from wetland-constrained portions of Subareas B and C to a previously developed and disturbed portion of Subarea D. This approach avoids direct impacts to sensitive biological and aquatic resources and supports the City’s broader environmental stewardship goals.

Sustainable Site Design and Stormwater Management. Alt 5 incorporates sustainable site design elements, including landscaped parkways, tree-lined streets, and approximately 4.89 acres of open space that enhance stormwater infiltration and reduce urban runoff. Alt 5 integrates low- Resolution No. ______ 70 of 72
impact development (LID) techniques and bioretention features to meet regional water quality standards under Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit.

Economic Benefits
Revitalization of Underutilized Land. Alt 5 transforms a long-standing legally non-conforming industrial use (an auto dismantling facility) into a high-quality residential neighborhood, significantly improving land use efficiency and contributing to the economic revitalization of the surrounding area.

Fiscal Revenue Generation. Alt 5 is expected to generate substantial one-time revenues through development impact fees, permit fees, and construction-related taxes. In addition, ongoing revenues will be generated through property taxes, public service taxes, and related assessments that contribute to the City of Newark’s general fund and support public services such as parks, police, and fire protection.

Support for Local Services and Commerce. With the addition of 227 new homes (including affordable units), Alt 5 will increase the City’s residential population, thereby supporting local schools, retail centers, and service providers in Newark.

Job Creation and Employment-Based Expansion. Alt 5 will generate short-term construction employment opportunities across multiple trades and disciplines, and contribute to the regional economy through construction-related spending on materials, labor, and services. Additionally, the growth in population and residential investment will support local and regional sustainability goals by expanding the employment base for neighborhood-serving businesses, schools, and public services.

Social Benefits
Multimodal Connectivity and Walkable Neighborhood Design. Alt 5 promotes walkability and multimodal access by incorporating an internal network of sidewalks and tree-lined private streets that via Mowry Avenue connect residents to nearby parks, schools, and commercial services. The site design emphasizes pedestrian-scale features and safe, comfortable routes for walking and biking.

Access to Community Amenities. Alt 5 includes approximately 4.89 acres of open space, including one neighborhood park, landscaped sidewalks, and a private park that supports community interaction, outdoor recreation, and social well-being. These spaces are integrated throughout the neighborhood and are accessible to all residents, including those in the affordable multifamily building.

Integrated Affordable Housing. The inclusion of 30 deed-restricted affordable units and one manager’s unit within the project site advances social equity and promotes economic integration Resolution No. ______ 71 of 72
within the community. Affordable units are located adjacent to market-rate homes and will have access to the same community amenities, supporting a mixed-income neighborhood fabric.

Health and Sustainability. Alt 5 incorporates Bay-Friendly landscaping practices, droughttolerant plantings, and low-water irrigation systems that support a healthy environment and reduce water use. Stormwater management features, including bioretention areas and landscaped parkways, enhance environmental quality and provide additional green space benefits for residents.

Conclusion
After carefully balancing the specific economic, environmental, social, planning, and other benefits of Alt 5, the City Council has determined that the project’s single significant and unavoidable environmental impact related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) may be considered acceptable in light of the substantial benefits identified herein. These benefits include the removal of a non-conforming industrial use, the creation of new market-rate and affordable housing, environmental remediation, infrastructure improvements, and the preservation of environmentally constrained lands elsewhere within the Areas 3 and 4 Specific Plan.

Recognizing that this significant and unavoidable impact will result from the implementation of the project, the City Council adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. Having adopted all feasible mitigation measures and considered the EIR and administrative record, the City finds that each individual benefit of Alt 5 constitutes an overriding consideration, independent of other benefits, sufficient to warrant approval of the project. Accordingly, the City finds that the collective and individual benefits of Alt 5 outweigh and override the unavoidable adverse environmental effects and justify approval of Alt 5.

Resolution No. ______ 72 of 72
EXHIBIT 3

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
See attached
Item  D. 4.

DATE 01/08/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Jessennia Taimani, Recreation and Community Services Supervisor I
SUBJECT    Waive further reading and adopt two ordinances: 1) Adding Chapter 2.14, “Public Art Committee,” to the Newark Municipal Code and 2) Adding Chapter 12.36, “Public Art in Public Places and Private Development,” to the Newark Municipal Code.

The ordinance was introduced at the December 11, 2025, City Council meeting. A second reading of the ordinance is required prior to adoption.

Attachments
Ordinance No. 558 Chapter 2.14 Public Art Committee
Ordinance No. 559 Chapter 12.36 Public Art in Public Places and Private Development ORDINANCE NO. 558

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWARK ADDING CHAPTER 2.14, “PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE”,

TO THE NEWARK MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, in 2024 the City Council adopted the Public Art Master Plan update to develop, administer and maintain a vibrant and inspiring public art program in the City of Newark; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a public art requirement for private development projects in the City of Newark to provide public art on site or, alternatively, contribute to a public art fund so that public art can be established elsewhere in the community, and to ensure that public art is present and sustained throughout the community; and WHEREAS, the City council is authorized to establish boards, commissions and committees of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to formally establish the Public Art Committee as an independent City Committee advising the City on matters pertaining to public art.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWARK DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals (“Recitals”) are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance.

SECTION 2. CEQA. The City Council independently finds and determines that this action is exempt from further California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15060(c)(2) (no direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment).

SECTION 3. Newark Municipal Code Chapter 2.14. Chapter 2.14 “Public Art Committee,” of the Newark Municipal Code is hereby added to read as displayed in Exhibit A, incorporated and made a part of this Ordinance.

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

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

EXHIBIT A
Chapter 2.14 PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE

2.14.010 Created; Purpose.

There is created a committee to consist of five members, which shall constitute a quorum, one non-voting advisory member, and two alternate members, which shall be designated as the Public Art Committee of the City of Newark. The Committee is to support the provision of visual public art in the City.

2.14.020 Membership; Appointment; Term of Office.

A. The Committee shall consist of five (5) members, constituting a quorum and meeting the qualifications identified in Section 2.14.030. The Committee shall also consist of two (2) alternate members who shall attend the regular and special meetings of the committee in the absence of a regular member. In the absence of a regular member at a regular or special meeting, the alternate shall move to the seat of a regular member and participate as a regular member. The qualifications, appointment, removal and other requirements applicable to the alternate members shall be the same as those for regular members.

Alternate members shall rotate participation in the absence of a regular member in the event that more alternate members are available than regular members are absent.

B. The Committee shall also consist of one (1) non-voting advisory member who shall be a Newark Memorial High School student meeting the qualifications identified in Section

2.14.040.

C. The Mayor shall appoint members to the Committee, subject to approval of the City Council.

D. In making appointments, the City Council shall consider the following categories:
1) Active members of a City-based, art focused, registered nonprofit organization, entity or facility.
2) Persons with experience in the public art field as either an artist, installer, or designer, including any person with professional credentials and work experience as exhibiting or performing artists, contemporary museum and gallery art curators, arts management professionals, arts educators, or design professionals such as architects, landscape architects, and urban planners.
3) Members of the general public, including students and community members with a passion for art.

2.14.030 Qualifications.

Members of the Committee shall have demonstrated, through community service or business experiences, a strong commitment to and knowledge of the artistic, aesthetic, and cultural quality of life in Newark, and will appreciate the role the arts can play in the cultural development and economic vitality of the community. In addition, the non-voting advisory member must be a Newark Memorial High School Student.

2.14.040 Terms of Office.

The terms of office of the voting members of the Committee shall be for four years; provided, however, that of the five members first appointed two shall be appointed for the term of two years, and three for the term of four years. The term of office for the non-voting advisory member of the Committee shall be one year. All Committee members, including the non-voting member, may be considered for reappointment, subject to the Mayor's recommendation and City Council approval.

2.14.050 Removal From Office; Vacancies.

A. Any appointed members of the Committee may be removed either by the Mayor, subject to the approval of the City Council, or by a majority vote of the City Council. Any time a Committee member has unexcused absences during a consecutive six-month period in excess of three meetings, their seat shall be automatically vacated. The following shall constitute valid excuses for failing to attend a meeting: 1. serious illness and/or injury of the Committee and/or their immediate family; 2. death in the family; 3. employment conditions requiring travel outside the Bay Area, evening meetings, etc.; 4. lack of transportation to the meeting; 5. previously scheduled vacation or travel.

B. Any vacancies among the appointed members shall be filled by appointment by the Mayor, subject to approval of the City Council, for the unexpired portion of the term.

2.14.060 Organization.

As soon as practicable following the termination of the term of office of any Committee member, the Public Art Committee shall organize, by electing from its members a Chairman and Vice Chairman to serve at the pleasure of the Committee. A secretary shall be designated for the recording of minutes of the Committee and to keep a record of its resolutions, proceedings and transactions. The secretary may be, but need not be, a member of the Committee and shall serve at the pleasure of the Committee.

2.14.070 Meetings.

The Committee shall fix the times and places of regular meetings of the Committee, which shall be held a minimum of twice per year. All meetings of the Committee shall be open to the public.

2.14.080 Powers and Duties.

The Public Art Committee shall have the following duties and responsibilities:

A. The powers and duties conferred and imposed upon the Public Art Committee by Chapter

12.36 of this code and the City Council approved Guidelines.

B. In accordance with City Council-approved guidelines, conducting public art proposal processes (such as requests for proposals, reviewing and acting on artist/artwork selection panel for public art fund projects,) for City-sponsored projects requiring public art installations.

C. Establishing and approving the Public Art Program mission and curatorial and programmatic goals, policies, and guidelines and developing and updating a Public Art Workplan outlining specific public art projects, locations, and budgets.

D. Reviewing and approving recommendations for maintenance and conservation of artwork, deaccession of artwork, and acceptance of artwork gifts and loans, in accordance with each respective policy.

E. Encouraging and promoting art programs and activities within the City.

F. Making recommendations to the City Council regarding local visual and performing art needs, activities and programs.

G. Receiving and gathering input from the community on issues relevant to art policies.

H. Enhancing community awareness of art resources.

I. Performing such other functions and render such other reports and recommendations as may be directed by the City Council.

J. Exercising only the powers herein above enumerated or as otherwise designated by the City Council.

ORDINANCE NO. 559

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWARK ADDING CHAPTER 12.36, “PUBLIC ART IN PUBLIC PLACES AND PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT”,

TO THE NEWARK MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, in 2024 the City Council adopted the Public Art Master Plan update to develop, administer and maintain a vibrant and inspiring public art program in the City of Newark; WHEREAS, the City Council finds and declares that Public Art provides the following benefits to the community:
a. Public art contributes to the public's understanding, enjoyment and experience of cultural diversity, and helps to attract and anchor a large and diverse creative sector, enriching the City's cultural identity which is a key component of the City's economic vitality.
b. The incorporation of public art into private and public development will create a unique sense of community as well as public identity and enhance the visual and aesthetic quality of such developments.
c. The incorporation of public art in private and public development is in the public interest and enhances the economic sustainability of artists and arts organizations as a key to the vitality of the City of Newark. d. The provision of public art supports and implements General Plan policies to use public art that is accessible or visible to the public and conveniently or prominently situated in public places and new developments to commemorate Newark's cultural diversity.
e. Artistic assets should be included in private development projects, especially major gateways into Newark and along major arterials because gateways make an important first impression and can define a city's image for residents, businesses, and visitors.
f. Artistic resources foster economic development and tourism, revitalize urban areas, increase real property values, and improve the overall business climate by creating a more desirable community within which to live and work. g. The provision of public art supports and implements the City of Newark Public Art Master Plan goals to:
i. Provide diverse and engaging public art throughout Newark. ii. Commission community-focused art in publicly accessible places. iii. Integrate public art into all qualified municipal capital construction projects.
iv. Celebrate Newark’s cultural diversity through public art. v. Connect and build the artist community in Newark.
vi. Provide ongoing financial and administrative support for public art. vii. Maintain and expand the City’s collection of public art; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that to ensure that public art is present and sustained throughout the community, it is necessary to require that private development projects in the City of Newark provide public art on site or, alternatively, contribute to a public art fund so that public art can be established elsewhere in the community; and
WHEREAS, the City has broad authority, under its general police power, to regulate the development and use of real property within its jurisdiction to promote the public welfare.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWARK DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

The above recitals (“Recitals”) are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance.

SECTION 2. CEQA. The City Council independently finds and determines that this action· is exempt from further California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15060(c)(2) (no direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment), 15061 (b)(3) (no significant effect on the environment), and 15183 (projects consistent with a community plan, general plan, or zoning), each of which provides a separate and independent basis for CEQA clearance and when viewed collectively provide an overall basis for CEQA clearance.

SECTION 3. Newark Municipal Code Chapter 15.60

Chapter 12.36 “Public Art In Public Places And Private Development,” of the Newark Municipal Code is hereby added to read as displayed in Exhibit A, incorporated and made a part of this Ordinance.

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

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

Exhibit A

Title 12 - STREETS, SIDEWALKS, AND PUBLIC PLACES
Chapter 12.36 PUBLIC ART IN PUBLIC PLACES AND PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT

12.36.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this Chapter is to implement Goals LU-4-9 and LU-4-D of the City of Newark’s General Plan to use public art that is accessible or visible to the public and conveniently or prominently situated in public places and new developments to commemorate Newark's cultural diversity, and goals of the Public Art Master plan update adopted by the City of Newark in 2024.

The City Council finds and declares:
a. Public art contributes to the public's understanding, enjoyment and experience of cultural diversity, and helps to attract and anchor a large and diverse creative sector, enriching the City's cultural identity which is a key component of the City's economic vitality. b. The incorporation of public art into private and public development will create a unique sense of community as well as public identity and enhance the visual and aesthetic quality of such developments.
c. The incorporation of public art in private and public development is in the public interest and enhances the economic sustainability of artists and arts organizations as a key to the vitality of the City of Newark.
d. The provision of public art supports and implements General Plan policies to use public art that is accessible or visible to the public and conveniently or prominently situated in public places and new developments to commemorate Newark's cultural diversity. e. Artistic assets should be included in private development projects, especially major gateways into Newark and along major arterials because gateways make an important first impression and can define a city's image for residents, businesses, and visitors. f. Artistic resources foster economic development and tourism, revitalize urban areas, increase real property values, and improve the overall business climate by creating a more desirable community within which to live and work.
g. The provision of public art supports and implements the City of Newark Public Art Master Plan goals to:
i. Provide diverse and engaging public art throughout Newark. ii. Commission community-focused art in publicly accessible places. iii.

Integrate public art into all qualified municipal capital construction projects. iv.

Celebrate Newark’s cultural diversity through public art. v. Connect and build the artist community in Newark.
vi. Provide ongoing financial and administrative support for public art. vii. Maintain and expand the City’s collection of public art.

12.36.020 Definitions.

As used in this Chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
“Alteration” means the rehabilitation, renovation, remodeling or improvement of an existing building that requires the issuance of a building permit by the City of Newark. “Construction” means the new construction (in whole or in part) of a building that requires the issuance of a building permit by the City of Newark. “Construction Cost “means the total value of the project as determined by the Chief Building Official and indicated on the building application submitted to the City in order to obtain a building permit, or permits, for the project. Building permit applications shall include, but not be limited to, all grading, building, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical permit applications for the project.

12.36.030 Applicability.

The provisions of this Chapter apply to all construction or alteration except as set forth below. a. This Chapter does not apply to residential alterations. b. This Chapter does not apply to the portion of a residential project consisting of dwelling units that are restricted to very low, low or moderate income households (as defined in this Code).
c. This Chapter does not apply to alterations with a construction cost of less than five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00).
d. This Chapter does not apply to projects that have received entitlements or been deemed complete by written notification from City staff prior to the effective date of this ordinance. If this Chapter does not apply to a project for these reasons, such project must comply with City Council Resolution No. 6582.

12.36.040 Public Art Requirement.
a. For any project subject to this Chapter, public art must be provided as described in Section

12.36.060 or an equivalent payment must be made to the public art fund as provided in Section 12.36.070.
b. Except as provided elsewhere in this Chapter, the public art requirement applies for each incidence where construction or alteration occurs. No exemptions or credits for previously installed public art or previous payments to the public art fund will apply.

12.36.050 Guidelines for Implementation of this Chapter.

The City Council has established guidelines for implementation of this Chapter.

12.36.060 On-Site Public Art.
a. Anyone seeking to satisfy the public art requirement by placing art on a project site must comply with this section.
b. Except as provided below, construction or alteration projects must provide art with a value equal to at least one percent (1%) of the construction cost. The value of the public art includes the cost of the development, acquisition, and installation of the public art, the administrative costs associated with creating and installing the art, and any costs charged for the administration of this Chapter.
c. Public art may include sculpture, murals, photography and original works of graphic art, earthworks, fiber works, waterworks, neon, glass, mosaics, or any combination of forms of media, furnishing or fixtures permanently affixed to the building or its grounds, or a combination thereof, and may include architectural features of the building or elements of landscape design.
i. Public art may also include any other artwork determined by the Public Art Committee, or City Council on appeal, to satisfy the intent of this section. ii.

The creator of public art shall be a practitioner in the visual arts who is not a member of the project engineering, architecture or landscape architecture firm. d. The public art must be located (1) in areas on the site clearly visible from the public street or sidewalk, or (2) in publicly accessible outdoor areas, or (3) on adjacent public property (subject to the approval of any relevant public agency), or (4) in a publicly accessible area such as a hotel lobby. Public art must be displayed in a manner that will enhance its enjoyment by the general public.
e. Written proof to the City of a contractual agreement to commission (or purchase) and to install the requested artwork on the development site must be provided at the time of filing the building permit application.
f. The public art must be installed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy unless the Community Development Director concludes that it is not feasible to install the public art within this time frame and adequate assurance (which the Director may require to be in the form of a letter of credit or bond) is provided that the public art will be installed in a timely manner, in which case the Community Development Director may extend the time for installation.
g. Each piece of art shall provide an approved identification plaque or monument which shall be placed near the artwork.

12.36.070 Contribution to Public Art Fund.
a. Any person subject to this Chapter may choose to make a payment to the City's public art fund that is equivalent to the valuation required for providing art as set forth in Section

12.36.060. When the value of the public art would be fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) or less, it is encouraged, but not required, that a payment be made to the public art fund. b. Public art payments must be made prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

15.6012.36.080 Use of Public Art Fund.

The City of Newark Public Art Fund must be used to further City-owned art or City-sponsored exhibitions that are accessible to the public. The fund must be used exclusively to (1) prepare sites for works of art, (2) acquire and install works of art, (3) maintain works of art, (4) support the exhibition of art, and (5) fund administrative costs associated with the public art program.

The Public Art Committee shall recommend utilization of monies in the public art fund.

12.36.090 Appeal of Public Art Committee Decision.

The appeals process will be pursuant to the City Council approved Public Art Guidelines.

12.36.100 Maintenance and Removal of Works of Art.
a. The owner of the real property on which public art is located must maintain the public art installed pursuant to this Chapter, or cause to be maintained, in good condition the on-site artwork continuously after its installation and shall perform necessary maintenance thereto to the satisfaction of the City. No work of art may be removed unless a replacement work of public art is approved pursuant to this Chapter.
b. Should the property owner wish to remove the on-site artwork, the City must be notified in advance. The property owner shall replace the on-site artwork with on-site artwork of equal or greater value, and consistent with the California Preservation of Works of Art Act and the Federal Visual Artists' Rights Act and any other relevant law. c. The City reserves the right to inspect the artwork at any time to ensure it is being maintained as required pursuant to this section.

12.36.110 Waiver.

The City Council, at its discretion, may waive, wholly or partially, the requirements of this Chapter and approve alternative methods of compliance with this Chapter if the applicant demonstrates, and the City Council finds, that such alternative methods meet the purposes of this Chapter.

12.36.120 Violations.

In addition to other fines or penalties provided by State or municipal law, the City may revoke or suspend any permit granted to any developer and/or owner who violates the provisions of this Chapter.

Item  E. 1.

DATE 01/08/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Michael Coulom, Housing Policy and Programs Manager SUBJECT    Hearing to waive full reading and introduce by title only an ordinance amending Section 17.18.030 and adding Chapter 17.27 to the Newark Municipal Code to update the City’s Affordable Housing Program and affordable housing requirements
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The City Council approved resolution 11,201 adopting the 2021-2023 Affordable Housing Work Plan (Work Plan) in 2021 and adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element into the General Plan in December 2023. Both the Work Plan (Work Plan) and the Housing Element call for amending Newark Municipal Code Chapter 17.18, Affordable Housing Program, to require that new residential developments include a minimum percentage of affordable dwelling units, also known as inclusionary housing. The Affordable Housing Program is the City’s only ongoing source of affordable housing development resources. Put in other words, building new affordable housing in Newark is dependent on building new market-rate housing. Staff have taken this into careful consideration to ensure the City may continue to address the housing needs of everyone in the community, at all income levels.

Staff recommends the City Council waive full reading and introduce by title only an ordinance to incorporate a build-first requirement for qualifying residential development with appropriate alternative means of compliance. Recommended actions would implement Housing Element Program H4.1 and Policy H5.4 (Housing Element pages 229 and 211).

BACKGROUND
While the City’s approach to inclusionary housing requirements has changed over time, the consistent and primary purpose of its Affordable Housing Program, as codified in Newark Municipal Code (NMC) Chapter 17.18 and consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan, is to produce affordable housing without stifling development overall.

The City Council approved Resolution No. 11,201 adopting the 2021-2023 Affordable Housing Work Plan (Work Plan) in 2021 and adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element into the General Plan in December 2023 (see Attachment 1: Housing Element and Attachment 2: Affordable Housing Work Plan). Both the Work Plan and the Housing Element call for amending NMC 17.18 (hereafter, the “Program”) to require new residential projects to include a minimum percentage of affordable dwelling units, also known as inclusionary housing. The City contracted with Community Planning Collaborative (CPC) and Century | Urban to assist with preparing and evaluating the impacts of a proposed inclusionary housing ordinance, in accordance with Section 65850.01 of the Government Code.

Separately, both the Housing Element and Work Plan call for adopting a policy requiring that Newark community members (those who work in or already live in Newark) receive a preference in the lease or purchase of new affordable homes. The City contracted with Seifel Consulting and the Concord Group to evaluate the need for this “live/work” preference policy, based on the risk of displacement to lower income households.

Staff have accepted the requisite inclusionary housing and preference policy studies from the consultants and coordinated with the City Attorney’s office to prepare an ordinance amending NMC 17.18 and establishing NMC 17.27 (Attachment 3: Draft Ordinance). The proposed ordinance would require that developers of residential projects with 20 or more dwelling units restrict 10 percent of all units to low- and/or moderate-income households. The ordinance would further require that income-qualifying households living or working in Newark, as well as any households displaced by the residential project (i.e., through an eviction or demolition required for construction), receive a preference in the lease or purchase of affordable units. In accordance with state law and in consideration of stakeholder feedback, the Planning Commission, and best practice, the proposed ordinance includes alternative means of complying with the 10 percent build requirement so as not to stifle housing production.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Local Preference Policy
Housing Element Program H4.1 calls for applying a local preference policy to new residential development in the Old Town area (page 229 of the Housing Element).

Local jurisdictions have increasingly turned to preference policies as a means of combating residential displacement — the relocation of lower and moderate-income households out of the jurisdiction because they can no longer afford housing. In practice, Newark has required developers of recently entitled affordable housing communities citywide to include a live/work preference, as incorporated into those projects’ regulatory agreements or affordable housing satisfaction agreements. The Timber Senior Housing project is the first completed project to implement the live/work preference. Three other projects – Lepakshi Homes on Thornton Avenue, the SAHA Thornton Avenue Apartments and Terracina at FMC Willow – will apply the live/work preference once built.

Implementation of a local preference policy is often dependent on findings that the policy would not have a disparate impact on members of a protected class. Senate Bill 649 (Cortese, 2022) further required that preference policies be supported by a demonstrated risk of displacement to lower-income individuals. Seifel Consulting and the Concord Group completed the “City of Newark Policy Study- Evaluation of the the Concord Group completed the “City of Newark Policy Study- Evaluation of the Need for a Local Affordable Housing Live/Work Preference Given Displacement Risks” in August 2022 (the “Displacement Study”) (see Attachment 4). The Displacement Study found that lower-income Newark residents and workers are disparately impacted by the housing shortage and are at greater risk of displacement. The Displacement Study concluded that a live/work preference would “provide people from varied racial backgrounds and other protected classes with greater access to housing in the City by offsetting displacement.”
Staff shared the Displacement Study with the County of Alameda, California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), and the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The County responded approving of the study and proposed preference policy, and required the City to indemnify the County against any suits arising from implementation of the policy as it applies specifically to Timber Senior Housing, for which the County is also a funder.

The City and County entered into an indemnification agreement in September 2025 (see Attachment 5). HCD did not comment on the study or proposed policy, but SB 649 requires local jurisdictions to report local ordinances and supporting materials to HCD within 90 days of the ordinance becoming operational. HUD did not provide a formal endorsement or rejection of the live/work preference. A summary of agency responses is included in Attachment 6: Local Preferences Policy Update Memo.

The live/work preference policy is incorporated by ordinance into the proposed amendments for NMC 17.18. For all affordable units included in new residential developments entitled by the City and/or receiving City financing, income-qualifying Newark residents, workers, and individuals displaced by development of the residential project would receive a preference in the lease or purchase of said units. While the preference for those displaced by the residential project was not specifically evaluated in the Displacement Study, it is considered a best practice and is common among inclusionary housing and tenant protection programs.

Certain funding programs and other laws or regulations may limit to which units the preference policy could apply. For example, units that receive vouchers from the Housing Authority of the County of Alameda or that are reserved for homeless households receiving case management services from the County are typically incompatible with local preference policies. Other than these specific exempt units, the live/work and displacement preference would apply to all new affordable dwelling units entitled by or receiving funding from the City, including units built through the City’s inclusionary housing requirements.

Adoption of the live/work preference policy by ordinance will implement Housing Element Program H4.1 and expand the preference to apply to new affordable homes citywide.

Inclusionary Housing
Newark has a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) of 1,874 new homes, of which 464 shall be for extremely low-income (VLI) households, 268 for low-income (LI) households, and 318 for moderate-income (MI) households. Including completed projects, the City has a development pipeline of 281 VLI homes, 92 LI homes, and 11 MI homes, with a combined gap of 666 below market-rate homes. Building out the City’s full RHNA will be dependent on implementing multiple production strategies, as the City has historically done.

One production strategy is inclusionary housing, also known as inclusionary zoning because it is frequently incorporated into a jurisdiction’s zoning code. Inclusionary housing aims to increase the availability of affordable housing by requiring residential developers to include a certain percentage of affordable units within new residential projects alongside market-rate housing. “Affordable” in this context typically means units would be restricted to households with incomes between 50 and 120 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI), which is currently equivalent to $79,900 to $191,750 for a four-person household.

Housing Impact Fees, in contrast, are a production strategy that collects fees from developers of new residential or commercial development to build affordable housing.

Commercial development fees are assessed based on the assumption that new commercial development will employ or generate jobs for low- or moderate-income individuals. The assumption continues because a jurisdiction typically does not have enough affordable homes for these employees, a commercial developer should pay a fee to support building affordable homes for the new workforce, thereby reducing the shortage of affordable homes.

There are pros and cons to both strategies. Inclusionary housing policies tend to integrate affordable housing units alongside market-rate units, within the same neighborhood if not the same buildings. In addition, inclusionary housing policies aim to deliver affordable units on the same schedule as the market-rate component.

On the other hand, while housing impact fees may take longer to deliver units since sufficient funding may need to accumulate over the course of multiple market-rate projects, they tend to support the development of 100 percent affordable housing projects that serve households with lower incomes and greater need. These 100 percent affordable housing projects may also leverage additional subsidy from other sources and may offer more comprehensive services targeted to their residents.

Housing impact fees may also be preferable for small projects to make long-term compliance and oversight responsibilities easier for the jurisdiction.

Inclusionary housing requirements and housing impact fees need to be set carefully, to both enable as much affordable housing as possible and to ensure that requirements do not stymie overall development. Requirements set too low could miss out on the opportunity to build more affordable housing; set too high, and new development becomes infeasible and no market-rate or affordable housing will be produced.

History of Inclusionary Housing in Newark
Housing Element Policy H5.4 calls for amending NMC 17.18 to require on-site production of affordable dwelling units – rather than requiring payment of a housing impact fee – to support increased access to affordable housing opportunities across the city and in high opportunity areas (page 211 of the Housing Element). To maximize production and effectively use resources, Housing Element Program H2.7 also calls for the City to provide financing for construction of at least 343 lower-income units through administration of the Affordable Housing Impact Fee Fund (the “Fund”) (pages 218-219 of the Housing Element).

The City has had some form of inclusionary housing requirement since at least 2004, and has amended those requirements from time to time in response to market conditions. The City last amended its inclusionary housing policy in January 2018 (Ordinance No. 503). As currently in effect, residential and non-residential projects must pay a per square foot housing impact fee. Alternatively, applicants may comply by providing on-site affordable housing at the percentages prescribed in Resolution 10,184 (Alternative Means of Compliance) (see Figure 1). Alternative Means of Compliance is subject to consideration by the Planning Commission and approval or denial by City Council. City Council may elect to waive collection of the housing impact fee upon finding that the project would otherwise produce more community benefit than payment of the fee. Examples of community benefit include the provision of senior housing, the generation of significant sales taxes, or the elimination of nuisances.

Fig. 1: Alternative Means of Compliance- Affordability Requirements In Current Effect
Required
Affordable Units
Single
Family
Large
Lot
Single
Family
Small
Lot
Town
Home Condo Apartment
Very Low-Income 11% 10% 8% 9% 6%
Low-Income 5% 5% 4% 4% 3%
Moderate-Income 5% 4% 4% 4% 3%
TOTAL 21% 19% 16% 17% 12%
Measuring Affordable Housing Program Impact
To date, the Affordable Housing Program (the “Program”) has deposited significant fees into the Fund and built or entitled affordable units via Alternative Means of Compliance.

The Fund serves three purposes. The first is to collect Housing Impact Fees and disburse them to build new affordable housing. The second is to disburse funds from certain County, state, and federal sources, such as American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds. The third is to disburse funds for other Work Plan programs, like the First-Time Homebuyer Program.

As of October 2025, the Fund has loaned $19 million in housing impact fees and $1.5 in ARPA funds to affordable housing developers for production of new low-income homes. This includes 125 units completed at the Homekey Cedar Community Apartments, 79 units under construction at the Timber Senior Housing project, and 59 units entitled at the SAHA Thornton Avenue Apartments project. In sum, the Fund has units entitled at the SAHA Thornton Avenue Apartments project. In sum, the Fund has supported development of 263 new homes for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households in the last six years.

NMC 17.18 has also successfully secured affordable housing commitments through inclusionary agreements within larger market-rate projects. In the last 11 years, the Program facilitated development of 208 homes for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households across four projects. Of these projects, 42 affordable units are entitled as integrated components of the NewPark Place Phase A and Lepakshi Homes projects through a traditional inclusionary approach. The two other projects consist of the combined inclusionary requirements of various Bayside Newark developments; in these cases, the market-rate developers partnered with affordable housing developers to build stand-alone 100 percent affordable housing buildings, financed by low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC) and developer equity. One of these projects (Newark Station Seniors) is complete, and the other (Terracina at FMC Willow) is entitled and applying for LIHTC funding.

Fig. 2: Affordable Housing Production Under Current Affordable Housing Policy Housing Impact Fees Units
*Cedar Community Apartments (Abode)  $4.5 million, excluding ARPA 125 *Timber Senior Housing (Eden)  $2.765 million, excluding Measure A1 79 Thornton Avenue Apartments (SAHA)  $12 million 59
Total 263
Inclusionary (Alternative Means of Compliance Units
*Newark Station Seniors (SHH, Torian and Atrium Projects)  726 MR Units 75 Terracina (FMC Willow and Harbor Point Projects)  471 MR Units 91 **NewPark Place Phase A  319 MR Units 29
Lepakshi Homes  75 MR Units 13
Total 203
*Projects that have been built or which are under construction **Projects where entitlements have expired
Inclusionary Housing Study
Conscious of the City’s goal to increase production of affordable and market-rate housing alike, the City contracted with CPC and Century | Urban to assess the financial feasibility of various inclusionary models. This study (the “Inclusionary Study”) began in the summer of 2024 and included financial analysis as well as stakeholder engagement. The completed Inclusionary Study is included as Attachment 7.

Staff engaged both market-rate and affordable housing developers with experience working in Newark or surrounding communities, and delivered an informational update to the Planning Commission at its September 23, 2025 meeting. Common themes across these groups included an emphasis on providing flexible alternatives to account across these groups included an emphasis on providing flexible alternatives to account for unique development circumstances and changing market conditions, the importance of continuing to collect a housing impact fee to support deeper levels of affordability and leverage other funding sources, and caution about the cumulative effect of City fees and requirements on overall housing production.

The Inclusionary Study identified six residential development prototypes based on recently-entitled, permitted, or constructed residential or mixed-use projects in Newark.

These include Multifamily Rental, Multifamily Infill Rental, Townhome Rental, For-Sale Condominiums, For-Sale Townhomes, and For-Sale Single Family Home projects. In addition to differences in typology, each prototype varied in its number of units, site size, unit size and mix, and average parking spaces per unit. Development costs were informed by stakeholder input and research conducted by Century | Urban, and took into account development impact fees as well as land, hard costs, soft costs, and sales/closing costs.

The Inclusionary Study also considered projected returns and profitability of each prototype, recognizing that constructing inclusionary affordable units reduces rental and sales revenue, which in turn reduces the amount of development cost that a project can support. The study made four primary conclusions.

Under the current Affordable Housing Program (payment of the housing impact fee), only For-Sale Townhomes and For-Sale Single Family Home projects are financially feasible.

1. Without the payment of the Housing Impact Fee or inclusionary requirement, all prototypes are slightly more profitable, but still only the For-Sale Townhome and Single Family Home projects are feasible.

2. Under a revised Program where projects must make 10 percent of all units affordable, all prototypes are slightly less profitable and none are financially feasible.

3. Under a revised Program where projects must make 10 percent of all units affordable AND market rents increase by five percent, all projects are slightly more profitable and the For-Sale Townhome and Single Family Home projects are financially feasible.

4. The Inclusionary Study confirms anecdotal findings from across the region that the current development market is not conducive to many types of new residential development. Nonetheless, adopting a modest build-first inclusionary requirement now will have minimal impact on the City’s current residential development pipeline and will prepare the City to capture additional affordable units when the market recovers from its current slump.

Inclusionary Study Recommendations
The Inclusionary Study recommends revising the Affordable Housing Program to require that 10 percent of dwelling units in all residential projects of 20 units or more (large projects) be affordable. The impact of the ten percent requirement on project (large projects) be affordable. The impact of the ten percent requirement on project feasibility is intended to most closely reflect the current impact of the housing impact fee. The 20-unit threshold was selected based on the challenge of managing and monitoring individual units scattered throughout the city. Non-residential projects and residential projects with 19 or fewer units (small projects) would pay the housing impact fee.

For large rental projects, the Inclusionary Study recommends that no individual affordable unit be restricted above 80 percent AMI, and that the average restriction across the affordable units must not exceed 50 percent AMI. For large ownership projects, no individual affordable unit may be restricted above 120 percent AMI, and the average restriction across all affordable units must not exceed 110 percent AMI.

Administration of affordable ownership units would be managed by the City’s Below Market-Rate Homeownership Program contractor, Hello Housing. The ordinance would require City staff to review and consider updates to the inclusionary requirements every three years.

Unless the City finds compelling reasons to the contrary, affordable units shall be delivered on the same timeframe as the market-rate units and be reasonably dispersed throughout the development with the same access to amenities as the market-rate units. Affordable units shall have comparable bedroom counts but may be of smaller square footage. The interior finishes of affordable units may differ from those in the market-rate units but must be functionally equivalent, new, durable, and of good quality. Exterior finishes shall be comparable to the market-rate units.

Best practice and stakeholder feedback strongly advise providing Alternative Means of Compliance to inclusionary housing requirements. Staff recommend the following Alternative Means of Compliance:

Onsite/Adjacent Clustering: Allow master developers to “cluster” affordable units on the same site or a site adjacent to the market-rate component, including in different housing types but with comparable bedroom counts (e.g. allowing duplexes or small apartments instead of single-family homes, or a larger standalone multifamily housing structure). The majority of Newark’s existing inclusionary housing units are clustered. This option would require approval by City Council.

1. In-Lieu Fee: Allow developers to pay the housing impact fee instead of building affordable units. The fee would be deposited into the Affordable Housing Impact Fee Fund and support the City’s affordable housing production programs. This option would require approval by City Council.

2. Offsite: Allow the developer or a City-approved non-profit partner to build the required affordable homes at a different location, with a preference for sites in high or highest resource areas as determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development and within 0.5 miles of public transit. This option would require approval by the City Council.

3. Land Donation: Allow developers to offer a site of equal or greater value to the estimated housing impact fee with a preference for development locations in high or highest resource areas as determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development and within 0.5 miles of public transit. The City has the sole right to accept or reject a proposed site. This option would require approval by the City Council.

4. Other: Allow developers to propose an alternative means of developing new affordable housing in Newark, including a combination of Alternative Means of Compliance. The developer must demonstrate that the proposed alternative will create more homes affordable to low-income households than would the build requirement or other alternatives, with a measurable timeline for unit completion and occupancy, and penalties for failure to deliver. This option would require approval by the City Council.

5. FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with adoption of the ordinance.

ENVIRONMENTAL/PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Article 20, §15378(a), the Affordable Housing Program does not qualify as a project. Furthermore, the Affordable Housing Program is an administrative activity conducted by the City that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. Therefore, the Affordable Housing Program is exempt from review under CEQA Guidelines, Article 5, §15061(b)(3). The activity is covered by the commonsense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider recommending approval of the proposed ordinance at its December 9, 2025 meeting. The Commission passed Resolution 2030 by a vote of 5 - 0 - 0 recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Section 17.18.030 of the Newark Municipal Code and adding Chapter 17.27 to the Newark Municipal Code to update the Newark Affordable Housing Program and Affordable Housing Requirements (Attachment 6).

The Draft Ordinance (Attachment 3) recommended by staff for City Council approval differs from the the draft ordinance recommended for approval by the Planning Commission in one way. Staff's recommendation for Section 17.27.060(B) regarding Alternative Means of Compliance has been changed to require that City Council approve affordable housing obligations satisfied by "clustering" affordable units.

REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by - Michael Coulom, Housing Policy and Programs Manager Prepared by - Michael Coulom, Housing Policy and Programs Manager Reviewed by - Steven Turner, Community Development Director Reviewed by - Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Reviewed by - Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Approved by - David J. Benoun, City Manager
Attachments
Staff Presentation
Attachment 1: 2023-2021 Housing Element
Attachment 2: 2021-2023 Affordable Housing Work Plan
Attachment 3: Draft Ordinance
Attachment 4: Displacement Study
Attachment 5: County Indemnity Agreement
Attachment 6. Local Preferences Policy Update Memo
Attachment 7: Inclusionary Study
Attachment 8: Planning Commission Resolution No. 2030
City Council Meeting
January 8, 2026
Inclusionary Housing
Policy Update
It is our mission to serve and partner with our community to continually enhance the quality of life of everyone in Newark Newark City Council Meeting: January 8, 2026
Inclusionary Housing Policy Update
Public Hearing to:
• Waive full reading and introduce by title only an ordinance amending Section 17.18.030 and adding Chapter 17.27 to the Newark Municipal Code to update the City’s Affordable
Housing Program and affordable housing requirements.

Agenda

1. Introductions

2. Housing Element and Work Plan

3. Local Preference Policy

4. Displacement Study

5. Inclusionary Housing

6. Inclusionary Study

7. CEQA

8. Next Steps

9. Staff Recommendation

10. Q&A
3 Photo by Avel Chuklanov on Unsplash
Introductions
City of Newark
Michael Coulom, Housing Policy and Programs Manager
Community Planning Collaborative (CPC)
Kristy Wang, Principal
Century | Urban
Leo Ma, Managing Principal
4 California needs 2.5 million more homes
5 California’s Statewide Housing Plan
estimates 2.5 million more homes are
needed by 2030 to adequately address
the state’s housing affordability crisis.

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

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

2.5 million homes
New Housing Need (RHNA)
643,352
384,910
420,814
1,051,177
2021 – 2031 Affordable Housing Work Plan
• Council Resolution No. 11,201 approved
the 2021-2023 Work Plan in 2021.
• The Work Plan established an
investment framework for Fifth Cycle
Housing Element targets (2015-2023).
• Target allocations for use of Housing
Impact Fees (HIF)
o 80% for development/acquisition of new
affordable homes
o 5% for First Time Homebuyer Program
o Remaining allocations for various programs
6 Work Plan Investment
Framework
NOFA Acquisition First-Time Homebuy Other
40%
40%
15%
5%
2023 – 2031 Housing Element
Newark’s Housing Element is an
affordability strategy
6th Cycle Housing Targets
• 1,874 new homes
o 464 Very Low-Income
o 268 Low-Income
o 318 Moderate-Income
o 824 Above Moderate
• 0.4 percent of regional RHNA
• 2,507 homes permitted in
Cycle 5
7 2023-2031 Housing Element Goals

1. Preserve and Improve Existing Housing

2. Facilitate the Development of More
Homes for More People

3. Reduce and Remove Constraints to
Affordable Housing Development

4. Help People Stay in Their Homes and
Communities

5. Increase Access to Affordable Housing

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

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

Program Quantified Objectives
8 Housing Policy Groupings
Policies intended to speed up land use approvals and permitting Policies and programs intended to improve sustainability Policies intended to improve project financial feasibility Policies intended to reduce displacement and homelessness 9 1. Housing Element Goal, Program and Quantified Objectives

2. The Displacement Study

3. Related Projects

4. Implementation
Local Preference Policy
10 Anti-Displacement and Homelessness Prevention
Photo by Photo by OPPO Find X5 Pro on Unsplash Jixiao Huang on Unsplash Goal H4: Help People Stay in Their
Homes and Communities
11 Shortage Contributes to Cost Burden
12 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091 • Newark homeowners and
renters alike are housing cost
burdened.
• 1 in 3 households spend over
30% of their income on housing.
1 in 10 spend over 50%.
• Renters disproportionately
experience housing cost burden.

Share of Households
Owner Occupied Homes

75.3%

50.8%

29.7%

16.2% 14.1%
Housing Cost Burden in Newark
Renter Occupied Homes
Housing Costs Contribute to Displacement
13 Source: Bay Area to Central Valley Migration and Its Impacts Many Southern Alameda County
residents are seeking cheaper/
better housing elsewhere.
• “Newcomers” from other Bay Area
communities have higher incomes,
putting pressure on existing residents.
• Families who have lived here for
generations are priced out of the
rental market but make too much for
affordable housing.
• Renters looking to buy are unable to
afford the average Bay Area home.

Heighted Risk of Homelessness
14 • City Council endorsed the Alameda
County Home Together Community
Plan in 2022.
• Extremely low-income residents are
at greater risk of homelessness.
• Homelessness prevention is typically
administered outside of the
homelessness system via community
development funding streams.
• Home Together outlines several
homelessness prevention strategies.

Program H4.1 commits to develop anti-displacement programs for Old Town, including a local preference policy for Below-Market Rate (BMR) homes Quantified Objectives
1) Adopt and apply a local preference policy to BMR units (Immediate)  Newark residents and employees receive preference at Timber Senior Housing and three other entitled communities.
 Incorporate preference policy into NMC and notify state HCD 2) Partner with community to design larger program for Old Town area, including commercial displacement (2026)
H4:1 Anti-Displacement Programs
15 Definition: People who live or work in Newark shall receive a preference in the purchase or lease of new affordable homes. This “Live/Work Preference” would be codified in Newark Municipal Code.

Considerations: The policy shall have a demonstrated purpose and need, and shall have no disparate impact on protected classes (the preference policy will not be discriminatory).

Process: Property developers would be required to implement the preference in the sale or lease of new units, with technical assistance and monitoring by the City.

Preference Policy
16 “City of Newark Policy Study- Evaluation of the Need for a Local Affordable Housing Live/Work Preference Given Displacement Risks”
• In August 2022, Siefel Consulting and The Concord Group completed a City-commissioned study on displacement risk in Newark. • The Study identifies housing needs and conditions affecting housing affordability in Newark that contribute to residential displacement. • The Study evaluates whether and how the housing crisis disproportionately and negatively affects lower income renters and workers. • The Study considers whether a preference policy would negatively and disparately impact a protected class (e.g. race, gender, national origin).

The “Displacement Study”
17  Displacement pressures on lower income households intensified due to lack of housing production relative to job creation.
 The number of lower income households decreased by 2,000 while higher income households increased by 3,200.
 Rents and home prices increased while wages stagnated.  The number of cost-burdened households increased 20%.  More than 1,700 residents live in overcrowded or severely overcrowded conditions- doubling or tripling up.
 Households of color are disproportionately lower income, overcrowded, and at risk of displacement.
 5% of NUSD students experienced homelessness in 2021-2022.

Displacement Study Findings (2010-2020)
18 Finding: 3 to 1 Jobs:Housing Imbalance
19 Alameda County Cumulative Housing Permit Growth
Finding: 45% increase in 2-bedroom rents
20 Growth in Rent and Median Incomes for Renters from
2010 to 2019
Monthly Affordable Housing
Cost for 3-Person Household
and 2-Bedroom Units
Finding: 32% Fewer Lower Income Households
21 2010 2019 2010 2019
Finding: POC HH are disproportionately LI
22 Conclusion: Preference is justified
23 “…having a local preference is necessary to address growing displacement pressures that have negative impacts on individuals, families and communities. The demographic breakdown of the population income-qualified for affordable housing in the City, as compared to the County, suggests that such a preference would not result in limits to access to housing by any individual protected class.

Consequently, any civil rights concerns/discriminatory impacts in violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act and Title VI regulations are minimized because the income-eligible population for affordable rental developments are more diverse in terms of race and ethnicity as compared to Newark’s general population.”
Oversight Agency Review
24 The Study and proposed preference policy were shared with Alameda County, the State Department of Housing and Community
Development, and US Department of Housing and Urban Development. • Alameda County approved the Study and proposed preference, and required the City to indemnify the County against claims resulting from the preference policy as it applies to Timber Senior Housing. • The State did not comment on the Study, but the City will report the policy, if adopted, to HCD in accordance with SB 649.
• HUD did not provide a formal endorsement or rejection.

Related City Efforts
25 • While not yet formal policy, the City has negotiated a live/work preference into approvals for recent projects.
o Timber Senior Housing
o Terracina at FMC Willow
o SAHA Thornton Avenue Apartments
o Lepakshi Homes
• Depending on a project’s other funding sources, the live/work preference may not be applicable to all affordable units, commonly:
o Units for formerly homeless / at-risk of homelessness households o Units with County housing vouchers
Policy Implementation If Adopted
26 New residential projects with affordable units will be required to implement the live/work preference policy, unless exempted by City Council, and to the extent permissible by other laws and funding. • Rental: Most affordable housing projects are regulated by state agencies.

City regulations are lighter but can include occupancy reports. • For-Sale: In September 2025, the City contracted with Hello Housing to design and administer a Below-Market Rate Homeownership Program o Hello Housing’s contract includes assisting for-sale property developers with City regulatory compliance, marketing, sale, and resale of affordable homes. o If the City’s pipeline of non-state-regulated affordable rental homes increases, the City could consider contracting for similar services for rental units.

Inclusionary Housing
27 Graphic: Deutsch, Sam. “Everything You Need to Know about Inclusionary Zoning.” Better Cities, Substack, 6 Feb. 2023

1. Housing Element Goal, Program
and Quantified Objectives

2. Definitions: Build vs. HIF

3. Current Program

4. The Inclusionary Study

5. Recommendations
Photo by Jakub Żerdzicki on Unsplash
Goal H5: Increase Access to
Affordable Housing
Photo by Nina Strehl on Unsplash
Affordable Housing Production
28 Policy H5.4: Inclusionary Housing
Policy H5.4 commits to updating the Affordable Housing Program (NMC

17.18) to require that residential project applicants deed-restrict a portion of proposed units to very low-, low-, and/or moderate-income households.

Program Concept
• Inclusionary housing requirements will support production targets. • Alternative development scenarios will be accepted, in line with state law and local development contexts.
• Requirements will be reassessed regularly to ensure they neither become an impediment to new development nor leave affordable homes on the table.
29 Program H5.2: Affordable Housing Development
Program H5.2 commits to ensuring an adequate amount of affordable housing through three programs.

1. Percentage of affordable units shall be included in new development to mitigate the effects of new development.

2. Density Bonus Law (NMC 17.19)

3. Affordable Housing Fee Program (NMC 17.18)
Quantified Objective
1) 778 housing units over the period of the Housing Element.  326 very low-, 326 low-, and 126 moderate-income units 30 Refining Our Tools
31 Build Requirements and
Housing Impact Fees
are different tools that do the
same job:

Build More Affordable Housing.

Photo by Carlos Felipe Ramírez Mesa on Unsplash
Defining “Inclusionary Housing”
Government Code 62540(i): “Inclusionary housing policy” means a requirement, as a condition of development of residential units, that the development include a certain percentage of residential units affordable to, and occupied by, households with specified income limits. “Inclusionary housing policy” includes any alternative means of compliance that is provided for, including, but not limited to, inlieu fees, land dedication, offsite construction, or acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units. “Inclusionary housing policy” includes an affordable housing impact fee.
32 Government Code 62540

1. Build Requirement: Residential developers should set aside a certain percentage of units for income-qualifying households, usually lower income but also moderate income.

2. “Alternative Means of Compliance”: Instead of setting aside units, the developer can satisfy requirements through other means, such as dedicating land, building affordable housing elsewhere, or any other manner the local jurisdiction approves.

3. Housing Impact Fee: In lieu of building units, the developer pays a fee to the local jurisdiction, which will then use those fees toward affordable housing needs.
33 NMC 17.18 Affordable Housing Program
34 Newark Municipal Code currently requires residential and nonresidential developers to mitigate their impact on affordable housing through payment of a housing impact fee.

Alternatively, developers can comply by building affordable units at the percentages set forth in City Council Resolution No. 10,184 (2014).

Commercial Industrial Residential ≤ 1,000 sq. ft Residential > 1,000 sq. ft $4.39/sq.ft. $0.82/sq.ft $24.46/sq ft. $9.80/sq.ft
Single Family Large Lot Single Family Small Lot Townhome Condo Apartment 21% 19% 16% 17% 12%
NOFA
Acquisition
Other
First-Time Homebuyer
Work Plan Budget for Housing Impact Fees
35 Activity Budgeted Committed Remaining
First-Time
Homebuyer
$2.5 $0.2 $2.3
NOFA $19.8 $19.3 $0.5
Acquisition $19.8 $0 $19.8
Other $7.4 $0 $7.4
Total $49.6 $21.6 $28
Values represented in millions of dollars. Figures are
approximate.

Measuring Program Impact
36 Project Units HIF Contribution
*Cedar
Community
Apts. (Homekey)
125 $4.5 million
*Timber Senior 79 $2.765 million
SAHA 59 $12 million
Total 263 $19.3 million
*Complete or under construction
Project Units
*Newark Station
Seniors
75 Terracina (FMC Willow) 91
NewPark Place Phase A 29
Lepakshi Homes 13
Total 208
HIF-Funded Affordable Units Inclusionary Units
(Alternative Compliance)
Project Example: HIF-Funded Homes
37 Low Income
Housing
Tax Credits
(LIHTC)
Bank Loan
State Subsidy 2
State Subsidy 1
City Subsidy
Other
Graphic adapted from Reid, Carolina. 2020,
The Costs of Affordable Housing Production:

Insights from California’s 9% Low-Income
Housing Tax Credit Program.

Timber Senior Housing. Image included for reference only. Bar chart does not reflect exact capital stack for Timber Senior Housing.

Subsidies from various government agencies
“stack” to finance 100% affordable housing.

Project Example: Inclusionary- Build Homes
38 Graphic: Origin
Investments. NewPark Plaza Phase A. Image included for reference only. Capital stack may not correspond to actual project.

Project is entirely privately funded. Market
land costs adjust to absorb the cost of the
set-aside affordable units.
39 Affordable Housing Depends on Subsidy
• Bay Area development costs are the highest in the nation. • Subsidies are needed to make new development affordable. • Inclusionary housing policies collect subsidy from new market-rate development.
• New market-rate development is necessary to develop new affordable homes.
• Inclusionary housing policies must be carefully calibrated so as to not prohibit new market-rate development, or to leave affordable homes on the table.
40 41
Slowdown in Multifamily Housing Starts
High interest rates, depressed rents, and increased construction costs are making all projects less feasible, but particularly multifamily construction.

The Inclusionary Study
42 Government Code Section 65850.01
requires local agencies to demonstrate an
inclusionary ordinance does “not unduly
constrain the production of housing”.

Kristy Wang, Principal
Community Planning Collaborative
Leo Ma, Managing Principal
Century | Urban
Stakeholder Engagement: With whom did we talk?
43 • 11 Interviews
• 2 Developer stakeholder meetings in Nov 2024 and April 2025 Market Rate
Developers
Affordable Housing
Developers and
Stakeholders
Stakeholder Engagement: What did we hear?
44 • Development costs are high for both market-rate and affordable development
• Strong desire for flexibility from all stakeholders
• Multiple alternative means of compliance
• Options for design, product type, and parking standards • Concerns about the cumulative impact of fees and requirements Peer City Comparison
45 City % Inclusionary Rental % Inclusionary For-Sale
Dublin
Projects with <10 units exempt
10% requirement @ 50-80% AMI
Projects with <10 units exempt
15% requirement @ 50-110% AMI
Emeryville
Impact fee applies to all projects
Onsite alternative: 12% req @ 50-80% AMI
Projects with <10 units exempt
20% @ 120% AMI
Fremont
Projects with <5 units exempt
10% @ 60% AMI
Projects with one unit exempt
15% requirement @ 70-110% AMI
San Leandro
Projects with <4 units are exempt
15% requirement @50-60% AMI
Projects with 2-6 units can pay fee, projects
with one unit are exempt
15% requirement @80-120% AMI
Union City
Projects with <7 units can pay a fee
15% requirement @ 50-80% AMI
Projects with <7 units can pay a fee
15% requirement @ 80-120% AMI
Feasibility Analysis – Prototypes
46 Multifamily
Rental
Multifamily
Infill Rental
Townhome
Rental
Condo
For Sale
Townhome
For Sale
Single Family
For Sale
Units 320 75 160 88 160 203
Acres 4 1.5 7.6 1.3 7.6 29
Unit Mix
Studio – 13%
1BR – 56%
2BR – 29%
3BR – 2%
1BR – 60%
2BR – 40%
2 BR – 30%
3 BR – 70%
1BR – 36%
2BR – 52%
3BR – 8%
4BR – 3%
2 BR – 30%
3 BR – 70% 4BR – 100%
Unit Size (sf) Avg: 825 sf Avg: 715 sf Avg: 1,650 sf Avg: 1,370 sf 1,650 sf 2,800 sf Avg Parking
per unit 1.6 1.5 2.5 1.6 2.5 2.7
Feasibility Analysis – Input Assumptions
47 • Development Costs
• Rental: $200-365 psf
• For-Sale: $150-405 psf
• Revenue Assumptions
• Rental Market Rents: $2.70-3.75 psf per month
• For-Sale Market Prices: $690-725 psf
• Operating Costs (Rental): $2,000-6,500 per unit per year • Profit
• Rental Target Target Return: 7.75% yield on cost
• For-Sale Target Return: 20-25% of development cost
Feasibility Analysis – Fees in Prototype Analysis
48 Multifamily
Rental
Multifamily
Infill Rental
Townhome
Rental
Condo
For Sale
Townhome
For Sale
Single Family
For Sale
Total Devt Costs
(per unit) $549K $410K $885K $882K $885K $1.48M
Impact Fees (per
unit) $79,000 $76,000 $106,000 $94,000 $106,000 $133,000 Impact Fees (% of
Devt Cost) 14.4% 18.6% 12.0% 10.7% 12.0% 8.98%
Impact Fees w/o
Housing Impact
Fee (per unit)
$58,000 $58,000 $75,000 $65,000 $75,000 $91,000
Impact Fees on Residential Development
• Park Impact Fee
• Public Safety
• Community Service/Facilities
• Transportation
• Housing
• Community Development Maintenance
• Water Capacity
• Sewer Permit and Inspection
• Unified School District
• Public Art Fee (NEW)
Inclusionary Analysis – Feasibility Results
49 Multifamily
Rental
Multifamily
Infill Rental
Townhome
Rental
Condo
For Sale
Townhome
For Sale
Single Family
For Sale
Target Return 7.75% 7.75% 7.75% 20.0% 25.0% 25.0%
Projected Return
with HIF 4.6% 5.1% 4.6% 9.0% 28.5% 26.5%
Projected Return
WITHOUT HIF 4.8% 5.4% 4.8% 13.2% 33.2% 30.2%
Projected Return
with 10% Set Aside 4.5% 5.2% 4.5% 5.7% 24.2% 19.4%
Projected Return
with 10% Set Aside
AND 5% increase in
market rents or sales
prices

4.8% 5.4% 4.7% 10.6% 30.1% 25.2%
Proposed Amendments and Additions to NMC
50 Based on findings from the Inclusionary Study, stakeholder feedback, and the City’s Housing Goals, staff recommend text amendments to:

Title 17 ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 17.18.030 Affordable Housing Program
Chapter 17.27 Affordable Housing (New)
Purpose and Need of zoning text amendments:

1. Apply a build-first requirement to residential projects of 20 or more units, restricting 10% of all units below market rates.

2. Clarify and streamline City requirements and expectations.

3. Provide flexibility and discretion to accommodate unique development characteristics.

4. Review and update requirements regularly.

Proposed Amendments and Additions to NMC
51 Title 17 ZONING ORDINANCE
Chapter 17.18 Affordable Housing Program
Section 17.18.030
(NEW) (H) Chapter 17.18. Residential development projects that fulfill the requirements of Chapter 17.27
Purpose and Need of revised zoning text:

1. Retain affordable housing obligations for residential projects that submitted complete applications prior to the date 17.27 takes effect.

2. Ensure continued assessment of Housing Impact Fee to non-residential development.

NMC 17.27.030 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
52 10 Percent Requirement
• Projects of 20 or more units must make 10 percent of all units affordable. o Homeownership Projects: An average of 110% of Area Median Income (AMI), not to exceed 120% (AMI)
o Rental Projects: An average of 50% AMI, not to exceed 80% AMI. • Fractional units would pay the Housing Impact Fee (HIF) Income and % of AMI 1 person 2 people 3 people 4 people Extremely Low- (≤30%) $16,751-$33,600 $19,151 - 38,400 $21,551 - 43,200 $23,951 - 47,950 Very Low- (30 to 50%) $33,601-$55,950 $38,401 - 63,950 $43,201 - 71,950 $47,951 - 79,900 Low- (50 to 80%) $55,951-$87,550 $63,951 - 100,050 $71,951 - 112,550 $86,301 - 135,100 Moderate- (80 to 120%) $87,551-$134,250 $100,051-153,400 $112,551 - 191,750 $135,101 - 207,100 Median-Income (100%) $111,850 $127,850 $143,800 $172,600 NMC 17.27.030 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
53 Concurrent Construction
• All affordable units shall be made available for occupancy concurrently with or in advance of market rate units
Design and Distribution of Affordable Units. Affordable units shall:
• Reflect the range of unit sizes (number of bedrooms) provided in the project as a whole;
• Have access to the amenities provided to market rate units; • Not be distinguished by exterior design, construction, or materials; and • Be reasonably distributed throughout the project.

NMC 17.27.040 GENERAL PROCEDURES
54 Agreements
• Resale restrictions and/or rental controls shall be recorded against the affordable parcels prior to certificate of occupancy
• 99-year affordability terms
Right of First Refusal
• City shall have right to purchase any affordable for-sale unit upon resale Selection Criteria.
• Tenants and buyers must meet all eligibility requirements. • Property owner shall apply the City’s local preference policy. • The City has contracted with Hello Housing for homeownership eligibility.

NMC 17.27.050 PUBLIC SUBSIDY ASSISTANCE
55 Intent
• It is the intent that the requirements of this chapter for construction and maintenance of affordable units shall not depend upon availability of government subsidies. This does not preclude the use of such subsidies.

Technical Assistance
• Upon request, the City or its designee may provide assistance to developers concerning information regarding financial subsidy programs and economic analysis designed to indicate the most suitable methods by which the terms of this chapter may be implemented.

NMC 17.27.070 ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
56 Density Bonus
• A developer proposing affordable
units may request to have the
provisions required under this
Chapter incorporated into any
density bonus agreement
requirement pursuant to GC
65915 et seq and NMC 17.19, or
other affordable housing
streamlining laws.

Image included for illustrative purposes only and may not reflect actual outcomes of Density Bonus Law applicability.

Graphic: Deutsch, Sam. “Everything You Need to Know about Inclusionary Zoning.” Better Cities, Substack, 6 Feb. 2023 NMC 17.27.070 SMALL PROJECT IN LIEU FEE
57 Small Projects: Residential Projects of
19 or fewer units
• May pay the Housing Impact Fee, or
voluntarily build affordable units
• Fees shall be paid prior to certificate
of occupancy
• Accounts for the inevitability of
fractional units
• Avoids challenges of managing and
monitoring individual scattered units
• Predictable cost for small developers
Graphic: Opticos Design for Missing Middle Housing Collective NMC 17.27.060 ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE
58 Affordable Housing Production is the Goal
Under certain circumstances, a developer may satisfy the requirements to provide affordable units through the following means, as documented by an affordable housing agreement:

A. Large Project In-Lieu Fee
B. Clustered Affordable Units
C. Off-Site Affordable Unit Development
D. Site Dedication
E. Other Contractually Binding Alternative Means of Compliance NOFA
Acquisition
Other
First-Time Homebuyer
NMC 17.27.060(A) Large Project In-Lieu Fee
59 Affordable Housing Production is the Goal
• Developer shall pay the large project in-lieu fee
prior to building permit
• Fee shall be set forth in the City’s Master Fee
Schedule
• Approval: City Council
NMC 17.27.060(B) Clustered Affordable Units
60 Affordable Housing Production is the Goal
• Developer shall build the affordable units on the same site as the larger residential project or on a contiguous site.
• Affordable units must be of comparable bedroom counts, finishes and materials, and have same access to amenities.
• Affordable units are not required to be dispersed throughout the development, and may be of smaller square footage.
• Property management and resident services will be comparable to market rate units and better meet resident needs.
• Approval: City Council
NMC 17.27.060(B) Clustered Affordable Units
61 • 75 one and two-bedroom homes
low-income for seniors
• Joint affordable housing obligation
for SHH, Torian, and Atrium projects
• Financed via master developer
contributions, debt, and lowincome housing tax credits Clustered Units Example: Newark Station Seniors
NMC 17.27.060(B) Clustered Affordable Units
62 • Any mix of single-unit
dwellings, duplexes, or
stacked flats.
• Entirely privately funded.
• Private debt and equity
cross-subsidize affordable
units.

Clustered Units Example: Mixed Housing Types
Image: Flickr, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development NMC 17.27.060(C) Off-Site Development
63 Affordable Housing Production is the Goal
• Developer demonstrates the General Requirements pose a financial burden that would otherwise make the residential project infeasible.
• The proposed alternative development of affordable units is financially feasible • The developer has site control of the non-contiguous site. • The non-contiguous site has capacity to accommodate the required affordable units as determined at the City’s sole discretion.
• The developer has a written partnership with an affordable developer if not building the affordable units themselves.
• Property management and resident services will be comparable to market rate units and better meet resident needs.
• Approval: City Council
NMC 17.27.060(D) Site Dedication
64 Affordable Housing Production is the Goal
• Developer demonstrates the General Requirements pose a financial burden that would otherwise make the residential project infeasible.
• The site proposed for dedication is competitive for public subsidy programs. • The site proposed for dedication is appraised at a value equal to or greater than the value of the housing impact fee.
• The developer has site control of the site proposed for dedication. • The site proposed for dedication has capacity to accommodate required affordable units. • Development of the proposed site will provide an equal or greater number of affordable units.
• Approval: City Council
NMC 17.27.060(E) Other Contractually Binding Means
65 Affordable Housing Production is the Goal
• Set forth in a binding agreement, such as a government code development agreement, disposition and development agreement, disposition and development loan agreement, owner participation agreement, or affordable housing agreement with the City. • City Council finds that such alternative program will provide an equal to or greater than level of affordable units.
• Approval: City Council
• Staff do not anticipate an immediate fiscal impact as a result of the proposed amendments and additions to NMC.
• Approximately $19.3 million remains available from Housing Impact Fees (HIF).
• City Council may decide in the future that it is in the City’s interest to accept the Large Project In-Lieu Fee should HIFs substantially reduce.

Fiscal Impact
66 The Project is exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) since the proposed amendments would not result in any physical changes and it can be seen with certainty that the amendments would not have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed changes to the NMC do not provide entitlements for any land use development projects, nor do they change the allowed uses of land or the intensity of any previously authorized use of land. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that adoption of the proposed amendments and additions would not have a significant effect on the environment.

California Environmental Quality Act
67 • The Planning Commission unanimously approved Resolution 2030 at a public hearing of its December 9, 2025 meeting, recommending City Council approve the draft ordinance.
• Planning Commissioners discussed the following:
o Positive views of the local preference and 10 percent build requirements, but concern that the 50 percent AMI average requirement may inhibit development.
o Concern regarding the cumulative effect of development impact fees on project feasibility, including requests that staff consider this cumulative impact on new development as a next step, with particular focus on special fee treatments for affordable units in residential projects. o Request that staff assess overlap between local policy and state density bonus law to maximize housing production, in alignment with City goals.

Planning Commission Action
68 1. If adopted, the ordinance would go into effect February 8, 2026 (30 days from now).

2. Staff will consider updates to the Housing Impact Fee upon completion of the City’s 2025-2026 Nexus Study.

3. Projects with complete applications submitted prior to February 8, 2026 will continue with payment of the HIF or approved alternative means of compliance under 17.18.

4. Large Projects with complete applications submitted on or after February 8 will be required to set aside 10% of units as affordable housing, or seek alternative means of compliance under 17.27.

Next Steps
69 • Waive full reading and introduce by title only an ordinance amending Section 17.18.030 and adding Chapter 17.27 to the Newark Municipal Code to update the City’s Affordable Housing Program and affordable housing requirements.

Recommendation
70 Question and Answer
Staff and consultants welcome questions from the Commission.

City of Newark
Michael Coulom, Housing Policy and Programs Manager
Community Planning Collaborative
Kristy Wang, Principal
Century | Urban
Leo Ma, Managing Principal (attending virtually)
71 Income Inequality is Getting Worse
72 Change in Bay Area Household Income Distribution, 1999-2018 Karlinksy, Sarah, and Kristy Wang. What It Will Really Take to Create an Affordable Bay Area, SPUR, April 2021.

Alameda County Median Incomes (2025)
73 AB 1043 (2021) and California’s New Income Band: Acutely Low-Income Income and % of AMI 1 person 2 people 3 people 4 people Extremely Low- (≤30%) $16,751-$33,600 $19,151 - 38,400 $21,551 - 43,200 $23,951 - 47,950 Very Low- (30 to 50%) $33,601-$55,950 $38,401 - 63,950 $43,201 - 71,950 $47,951 - 79,900 Low- (50 to 80%) $55,951-$87,550 $63,951 - 100,050 $71,951 - 112,550 $86,301 - 135,100 Moderate- (80 to 120%) $87,551-$134,250 $100,051-153,400 $112,551 - 191,750 $135,101 - 207,100 Median-Income (100%) $111,850 $127,850 $143,800 $172,600 Income and % of AMI 1 person 2 people 3 people 4 people Acutely Low- (0-15%) Max. $16,750 Max. $19,150 Max. $21,550 Max. $23,950 Extremely Low- (15-30%) $16,751-$33,600 $19,151 - 38,400 $21,551 - 43,200 $23,951 - 47,950 Very Low- (30 to 50%) $33,601-$55,950 $38,401 - 63,950 $43,201 - 71,950 $47,951 - 79,900 Low- (50 to 80%) $55,951-$87,550 $63,951 - 100,050 $71,951 - 112,550 $86,301 - 135,100 Moderate- (80 to 120%) $87,551-$134,250 $100,051-153,400 $112,551 - 191,750 $135,101 - 207,100 Median-Income (100%) $111,850 $127,850 $143,800 $172,600 Timber Senior Housing
74 79 Total Homes
1 Manager’s Unit
20 County Voucher
20 Formerly Homeless
38 Preference-Eligible
Homeless Housing Pipeline
75 Homeless Housing Pipeline
76 CITY OF NEWARK
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT

HCD COMPLIANT DRAFT
December 1, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Preserving and improving existing housing

2. Removing governmental and other constraints to housing development

3. Promoting and expanding fair and equitable housing opportunities

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

5. Providing sites for new housing to be built

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outreach Methods Utilized:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The three biggest issues to address for housing affordability:

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

2. More affordable rental opportunities

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

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

2. Housing for smaller households

3. Housing for low income and underserved households

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

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

2. Affordable, safe, and healthy housing choices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOUSING NEEDS 21

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

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

HOUSING NEEDS 22

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

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

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

HOUSING NEEDS 23

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOUSING NEEDS 25

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

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

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

HOUSING NEEDS 26

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

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

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

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

HOUSING NEEDS 28

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOUSING NEEDS 31

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.00 occupants per
room or less

1.01 to 1.50
occupants per
room

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

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

HOUSING NEEDS 39

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

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

HOUSING NEEDS 40

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOUSING NEEDS 43

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOUSING NEEDS 44

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

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

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

HOUSING NEEDS 46

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

HOUSING NEEDS 47

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOUSING NEEDS 51

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
SECTION 3 AFFIRMATIVELY

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

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 52

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

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

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 53

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

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 54

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

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

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 55

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 57

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

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

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

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 58

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 61

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING

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

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

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

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

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

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

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 63

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

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

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

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

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

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

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 64

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

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

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 65

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

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 66

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 71

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 73

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Affordable, safe, and healthy housing choices

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

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

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

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

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 76

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The census tract is 47 percent Hispanic / Latinx, Asian (26.6%) and African American (4.1%) residents. This area has an overall pollution burden percentile of 61 and 76th percentile for asthma, while areas with higher environmental outcomes are in the Northwestern corner of the city. Long-term exposure may increase the risk of respiratory disease, heart disease, decreased lung function, premature birth, and reduced life expectancy. For Newark, with a high percentage of families with children in the city, addressing environmental issues is vital to addressing environmental justice.

According to an analysis conducted by ESA towards the preparation of an Environmental Justice Element in Newark, the following are major indicators of environmental contamination:

1. Ozone Concentrations,

2. PM 2.5 Concentrations

3. Diesel PM Emissions

4. Drinking-Water Contaminants

5. Pesticide Use

6. Toxic Releases from Facilities

7. Traffic Density

8. Cleanup Sites

9. Groundwater Threats

10. Hazardous Waste Generators and
Facilities

11. Impaired Water Bodies

12. Solid Waste Sites and Facilities
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 82

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-13: Environmental Opportunity Score, 2021
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 83

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-14: CalEnviroScreen and Non-White Population, 2021 and 2018 Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

Education
Equitable access to culturally relevant and engaging educational opportunities is foundational in increasing opportunities for all residents. Newark Unified school district has 11 schools in total, with 2 of its eight elementary schools either closed within the past year or scheduled to close in following the 2022 school year. The school board is making the choice to close schools in response to a 6 million dollar budget shortfall, due to declining enrollment.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 84

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-15: Newark School Enrollment, 2017-2022
Source: Data collected by the California Department of Education (CDE) through the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS)
The racial and ethnic makeup of the district is highly diverse, with Hispanic/Latinx students comprising the majority of the population at 51.9 percent, followed by Asian at 16.8 percent, White at 10 percent and Filipino at 8.9 percent . Figure 3-16 goes into detail of the full district breakdown.

Figure 3-16: Race and Ethnicity of Newark Unified School District, 2020-2021 School Year AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 85

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Source: Data collected by the California Department of Education (CDE) through the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS).

Students in the Newark Unified school district have a comparable percentage of students qualifying for free or reduced lunch as Alameda County, at 40.5 percent and 40.7 percent respectively. Both are below the state average at 57.8 percent. Within the district there is a wide range of students that qualify for free and reduced lunch. The California Department of Education district level data for the 2021 to 2022 school year finds Shilling Elementary with the highest percentage of students that qualify for free or reduced lunch at 60 percent, followed by Musick Elementary at 57 percent, one of the schools that is slated to be closed for the 2022-2023 school year, with students distributed among other schools. Schools with the lowest levels of students qualifying for free or reduced lunch are John F Kenedy Elementary school at 23 percent, and Birch Grove Intermediate and Primary schools at 28 and 30 percent respectively.

Table 3-8: Selected District Level Data - 0161234--Newark Unified for the year 2021-2022 School Free or Reduced Price Meals
Non-public non-sectarian schools 3 (42.9%)
August Schilling Elementary 227 (59.9%)
Birch Grove Intermediate 118 (28.0%)
Birch Grove Primary 108 (30.0%)
Bridgepoint High (Continuation) 29 (46.8%)
Coyote Hills Elementary 260 (50.0%)
Crossroads High (Alternative) 70 (43.2%)
E. L. Musick Elementary 101 (57.4%)
John F. Kennedy Elementary 92 (23.0%)
Lincoln Elementary 174 (46.8%)
Newark Junior High 280 (41.2%)
Newark Memorial High 632 (38.7%)
District Total: 2,094 (40.5%)
County Total: 87,363 (40.7%)
State Totals: 3,404,572 (57.8%)
Source: California Department of Education, 2022
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 86

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
The city asked residents through the housing survey what would need to change to feel that their neighborhood is high in opportunity, and residents identified education as one of the top three things. Educational opportunity is measured by Math and Reading Proficiency, High School Graduation Rate, Student Poverty, High Segregation and Poverty. Overall according to the HCD AFFH Data viewer, the majority of Newark has lower than average education opportunities. The one area of Newark that has more positive educational outcomes is near Birch Grove Primary school. The elementary schools have similar performance levels on state indicators, which indicates the role of student poverty in the classification. We recognize that although measures of achievement such as test scores and levels of poverty are indicators, it is difficult to fully measure what a school means for a community. When Graham Elementary was threatened with closure, the primarily Latinx school community rallied together to share what the school community means to them to the school board in hopes of evading closure. Ultimately the school was combined with Snow elementary to form a new school, Coyote Hills Elementary.

Figure 3-17: Educational Opportunity Index, 2021
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 87

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Transportation Access and Cost
To better understand housing affordability, it is important to look at transportation costs associated with a location. Figure 3-19 shows the combined housing and transportation costs in Newark. Due to Newark being low density and auto oriented, with a lack of high frequency public transportation options, the majority of households spend more than 45% of their income on housing and transportation. Only 4 percent of households have combined costs less than 30% of income. Newark has no neighborhoods identified as location efficient, with housing that is close to jobs and services, with a number of transportation options. Due to this fact, 49 percent of residents spend 45 to 54 percent of their income on housing, with 23 percent spending 54 to 66 percent.

Currently, Newark is served by Alameda County Transit (AC Transit) bus service. Public transportation is accessible on major arterials such as Newark Blvd, Ceder, and Thorton. Unlike neighboring Union City and Fremont, there is no BART station in Newark, although a number of bus routes do connect with the Fremont BART station. Public transit options are more accessible in the northern portion of the city, with the addition of three school bus lines from AC Transit during the school year to Newark Memorial High School. Residents in our community meeting expressed the desire for more options beyond the personal automobile such as increased bus service and infrastructure for biking to reduce traffic congestion and be responsive to climate change. Newark’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master plan outlines a number of improvements, such as protected bike lanes, pedestrian overpass for train tracks and an increase in the number of bike lanes.
“Housing close to walkable parks and transit. Also need more transit options.” – Community comment AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 88

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-18: Alameda County Transit Bus Stops and Proposed Transit Stations, 2022 Source: AC Transit, adapted by Community Planning Collaborative, 2022 AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 89

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-19: Housing and Transportation Costs as a Percentage of Income Source: The Center for Neighborhood Technology’s Housing and Transportation (H+T®) Affordability Index, G. Disproportionate Housing Needs for Low-income
Households and Protected Classes
Familial Status
The Fair Housing Act (FHA) bans discrimination based on certain protected classes, including "familial status," which refers to the presence of at least one child under 18 years old. Under the FHA, familial status discrimination occurs when a landlord, property manager, real estate agent, or property owner treats someone differently because they have a family with one or more individuals who are under 18 years of age. A “family” also includes people who are pregnant and people who are in the process of securing legal custody of a person under 18 years of age, including a family that is in the process of adopting a child, or foster parents. All families with children are protected by the FHA against familial status discrimination, including single-parent households and same-sex couples with children. Rules that unreasonably restrict children or limit the ability of children to use their housing or the common facilities at the property may violate the FHA. Moreover, enforcing certain rules only against families with children may also violate the FHA. The following are the types of conduct that may violate the FHA:

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 90

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
● Refusing to rent, sell, or negotiate with a family because the family has one or more children under 18 years of age.
● Advertising a preference for households without children or otherwise discouraging such families.
● Telling an individual or family no unit is available even though a unit is in fact available. ● Forcing families into housing units that are larger than necessary. ● Designating certain floors or buildings for families with children, or encouraging families with children to reside in particular areas.
● Charging additional rent, security deposit, or fees because a household has children under 18 years of age.

Figure 3-20: Percentage of Households With Children Under 18 Years of Age, 2015- 2019 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Table B11005 Newark has many family households with an average family size of 3.61 people (ACS 2016-2020).

The city has 37 percent of households with a child under 18 years of age. This rate is higher than both Alameda County (32%) and the Bay Area (30.5%). Although discrimination based upon family status has not been reported in Newark, it has been reported at the county level. Households with children face additional challenges accessing housing that meets their needs for both size and cost.

Survey results found that when asked what are the most urgent housing needs at this time, 50 percent responded that housing for families was the greatest need.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 91

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-21: Family Structures in Newark, 2015- 2019
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Table S1101 “I would love to see more housing programs accessible for families currently in Newark” – Community Member
Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, particularly female headed households, who may be supporting children or a family with only one income. In Newark, the largest proportion of households are Married-Couple Family Households at 75% of total, while Female Headed Households make up 17 percent of all family households and male headed comprise 8 percent. Throughout engagement with the community, the city has heard from residents that housing for families, and single parents in particular is a high need. "I’m an inside wireman electrician for 26 years. I cannot afford to buy a home in thistown as a single father of 2. $2million per home isridiculously high. I am a critical worker, not just essential, and cannot afford to stay with these house prices."
Female-headed households with children may face particular housing challenges, with pervasive gender inequality resulting in lower wages for women. Moreover, the added need for childcare can make finding a home that is affordable even more challenging.

Figure 3-24 shows In Newark, 22.8% of female-headed households with children fall below the Federal Poverty Line, while 5.7% of female-headed households without children live in poverty (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012 ).

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 92

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-22: Percent of Married Couples with Children, 2015- 2019 Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

Figure 3-23: Percent of Children in a Female Headed Household, 2015- 2019 Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 93

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-24: Poverty Levels of Female Headed Households in Newark, 2015- 2019 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Table B17012 Household Size
Figure 3-25: Comparison of Household Size for Owners and Renters in Alameda County and Newark, 2015- 2019
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Table CP04, Comparative AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 94

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Housing Characteristics
Seniors
The senior population in Newark has increased significantly since 2010, with a 47 percent increase, compared with a 39 percent increase from Alameda county. This could partially be attributed to the construction of Newark Station, a 75 unit building completed in 2019. Figure 3-27, shows seniors in Newark are overwhelmingly home owners at all income levels, with seniors at the lowest income level having the highest percentage of renters at 37 percent. Housing needs change as we move through life, and due to seniors living on fixed incomes in smaller households, Newark needs housing types and programs to support seniors to age in place and remain in their community.
“Developing a shared housing program with othersthat need a room to rent, connectseniors with single people who need affordable housing. Helpsseniors on limited incomes” – Community meeting comment
Figure 3-26: Increase of Senior Population, 2010 to 2019 Source: American Community Survey 2015- 2019, 5-Year Estimate AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 95

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-27: Seniors Income Level, Owners and Renters, 2015 -2019 Source: American Community Survey 2015- 2019, 5-Year Estimate Disability Status
The U.S. Census Bureau defines disability as one of the following: hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty. In Newark 3,561 residents over the age of 5 had a disability in 2018. This group equates to approximately 8 percent of the non-institutionalized population over age five in the City, which is slightly lower than the county (10 percent) and lower than the Bay Area (11 percent). Figure 3-28 shows the population of persons with a disability by age in the City. At the local level, seniors in Newark have the highest rates of disability of all age groups at 52 percent. Ambulatory difficulty and independent living were the highest for seniors at 23 and 22 percent, followed by hearing difficulty (13%). African Americans have significantly higher rates of disability compared to other racial and ethnic groups in the city at 22 percent, followed by White residents at 13 percent. Those living with a disability often have specialized housing needs due to living on a fixed or limited incomes, physical or intellectual disabilities or increased health care costs. This points toward a need for housing that incorporates universal design, is integrated within the community, in close proximity to public transportation, and supports seniors to age in place.

In conversation with Darin Lounds, executive director of the Housing Development Consortium of the East Bay, he shared a number of ways that the city of Newark can support inclusive housing options for people with developmental disabilities:

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 96

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
● Work with tax credit developers in larger multi families, to have a percentage devoted to people with disabilities. It is key for jurisdictions to work with developers when they are proposing new developments.
● Transit lines are most important. Only 10% of the demographic own a vehicle. Parking needs are more of a commercial need to provide services, less of a residential need. ● Discrimination: when property owners hear the income is SSI or disability, or someone with visible disability, they form assumptions about their ability to maintain a home. The regional center helps people to live in the community, they have a circle of support. ● Maximum integration is key, not just a big building with one demographic Table 3-9: Residents With A Disability, Newark and Region, 2015- 2019 Geography No disability With a disability Percentage
Newark 43,583 3,561 8%
Alameda County 1,496,381 151,368 10%
Bay Area 6,919,762 735,533 11%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year estimate 2015-2019. Table B18101 Figure 3-28: Disability Status By Age, 2016- 2020
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Table S1810 AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 97

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-29: Newark Senior Population with Disability, 65 years and Older, 2016- 2020 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Disability Characteristics, Table S1810
Figure 3-30: Disability Status by Race, 2016- 2020
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Disability Characteristics, Table S1810
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 98

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Cost Burden and Overpayment
From 2010-2019, Newark has experienced large increases in both rental and homeownership costs. Two-bedroom rents increased by 45 percent, while two-bedroom home prices have increased by 122 percent (Costar, 2010 and 2019 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Redfin). The growth in housing costs has outpaced the growth in income leading to large numbers of households cost burdened and experiencing homelessness.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development considers housing to be affordable for a household if the household spends less than 30% of its income on housing costs. A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” In Newark, 44 percent of households spend 30%-50% of their income on housing, while 14 percent of households are severely cost burdened and use the majority of their income for housing. Over time, households have become increasingly cost burdened, with a 20 percent increase from 2010 to 2019. Figure 3-31 shows how households in Newark are cost burdened by income. While residents are cost burdened and severely cost burdened at all income levels, residents making below 50 percent area median income experience the highest levels. Fifty-seven percent of residents earning up to 30 percent of the area median income are severely cost burdened, with 22 percent spending 30 to 50 percent of their income on housing. Homeowners Median income households are still finding themselves costburden with 60 percent of households making 50 to 80 percent of median income are cost burdened.

Figure 3-33 shows that renters are more likely to be cost burdened, with twice the number of renters (30%) spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing compared to 16 percent of homeowners, and 14 percent of renters are severely cost burdened. This places renters at a greater risk of living in overcrowded housing, displacement and homelessness.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 99

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-31: Cost Burden Renter Households in Newark Over Time, 2015- 2019 Source: American Community Survey 2015-2019, 5-Year Estimate Figure 3-32: Cost Burdened by Income, 2013- 2017
Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy. ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 100

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-33: Cost Burdened Households, Renters and Homeowners, 2015- 2019 US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5 year data, 2015-2019, Table B25070, B25091 Figure 3-34: Overpayment by Renters, 2015- 2019
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 101

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-35: Overpayment by Homeowners, 2015- 2019
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

Cost Burdened Households by Race
Residents who are cost burdened in Newark are disproportionately experienced by some ethnic groups more than others. Figure 3-36 exhibits the changing demographics of being cost burdened in Newark. Black (41%), Indigenous (46%), Multi Racial (46%), and Latinx (47%) residents are the highest cost burdened, and most vulnerable to displacement, overcrowding and homelessness.

Asian and White residents are the least cost burdened at 27 percent and 21 percent respectively.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 102

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-36: Cost Burdened Residents by Race, 2013-2017 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release Note: Hispanic category is not exclusive of other categories.

Overcrowding
An overcrowded household is defined as having more than one person per room, with severe overcrowding with more than 1.5 people sharing a room. Often immigrant communities, low income families and renter-occupied households are more likely to experience household overcrowding. Referred to as "doubling up"—living with family members or friends for economic reasons—is the most commonly reported living situation for families and individuals before experiencing homelessness.
10 Renters in Newark are more likely to live in overcrowded conditions than homeowners. Figure 3-37 shows renters experience overcrowding at 3 times the rate as homeowners at 18 percent, and severe overcrowding at 9 percent.

Central Newark in the Old Town area has 9 percent of households experiencing overcrowded housing, with 5 percent of households experiencing extreme overcrowding in the Northwest corner of the city. As shown in Figure 3-39, these two areas are predominantly occupied by communities of color, with 80 to 100 percent of residents in the Old Town area. Mixed race residents face the highest rates at 33 percent, followed by Hispanic/ Latinx (30%) and Indigenous residents at 22 percent. The Old Town Neighborhood specific plan has zoning changes that 10 Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project, California Department of Public Health, Percent of Household Overcrowding, 2017
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 103

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
remove constraints to the production of affordable housing. The upcoming development in the Old Town neighborhood by Satellite Affordable Housing, will provide 56 units of affordable housing, a quarter are 3 bedrooms specifically for large families. “Familiesthat are doubled up, tripled up can really use some programsthat help them find more suitable accommodationsin the community they want to stay in”
— Community meeting breakoutsession comment
Figure 3-37: Percent of Owner and Renter Households Living in Crowded Conditions, 2013- 2017 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS Tabulation 2013-2017
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 104

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-38: Overcrowding by Race and Ethnicity, 2015- 2019 Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5 year data, 2015-2019, Table B25014 Figure 3-39: Overcrowding and Severe Overcrowding in Newark and Non-White Population, 2015- 2019 and 2018
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 105

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Housing Choice Vouchers and Subsidized Housing Developments Newark has seen minimal development of subsidized housing, with three subsidized senior housing developments in the city, and a fourth subsidized senior housing development under construction with 79 units. The use of housing choice vouchers is low in Newark, with the majority of the city seeing a 5 to 15 percent use, and the remainder with 5 percent or less. Table 3-10 details the current subsidized housing in Newark. The city has 274 low income units at a low risk of conversion, with no units at the moderate, high and very high income brackets. The majority of subsidized housing in Newark is found in moderate resource areas, with one development in a low resource designated area
Table 3-10: Housing Units at Risk of Conversion, 2022
Name Address
Affordable
Units
Total
Units
Active
Program(s)
Risk
Level
2021 TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map
Designation
Newark Station
Seniors
37433 Willow
Street,
Newark
74 75 LIHTC Low Low resource
Rosemont aka
Newark Gardens I
35300 Cedar
Blvd, Newark
150 150 HUD Low Moderate resource
Newark Gardens II
35322 Cedar
Blvd, Newark
50 50 HUD Low Moderate resource
Source: California Housing Partnership, 2022
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 106

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-40: Subsidized Housing and Housing Choice Vouchers, 2021 Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

Rates of Homeownership
Homeownership in the United States has functioned as the key to generational wealth. Due to historic discrimination from the federal government, the real estate industry, BIPOC communities have lower homeownership rates in comparison to White residents. Addressing disparities between races in rates of homeownership is one way to address historic discrimination and access to wealth, furthering fair housing work. Newark has higher rates of homeownership at 69 percent, than Alameda County (54%) and the Bay Area (56%). Figure 3-42 shows homeowners in Newark are predominantly identified as White and Asian, with the lowest rates of homeownership being found with Indigenous, Black and Hispanic or Latinx residents. This corresponds with rates of acceptance for mortgages. Figure 3-43 shows that White and Asian residents have the highest rate of loan approval with Indigenous and Hispanic/ Latinx residents having the highest rates of application denied.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 107

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-41: Housing Tenure in Newark, 2015- 2019
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 year data, 2015-2019, Table B25003 Figure 3-42: Rates of Homeownership by Race, 2015- 2019 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 year data, 2015-2019, Table B25003 AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 108

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Mortgage Loan Access/Rates of Denial Loan Access/Rates of Denial Figure 3-43: Mortgage Applications and Acceptance by Race, 2018-2019 Source: Federal Financial Institutions Examination Councils(FFIEC) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Loan/ Application register Files
Substandard Housing
Concern over increased risk of displacement due to code enforcement violations has prompted a look at how substandard housing is addressed in communities. The majority of the community’s housing stock is older than 40 years old, which can increase the need for repairs. Oftentimes it is low income renters and homeowners that will be living in substandard housing conditions. While rates of substandard housing, including housing without kitchen or bathroom facilities, is less than one percent, these units could be underreported. As described in section 2 of the housing needs assessment, the neighborhoods of Mirabeau and Old Town / Central Newark through code enforcement data show significant need of rehabilitation. Currently Newark is responsive to code enforcement reports of housing in need of repair, and is planning to develop a new system for addressing code violations that reduce the risk of housing being removed from the market.

Program H1.2 outlines how the city will develop a rental inspection program that will provide a structured process for property owners to address code violations. There will be a process of reinspection, and the creation of an online reporting process for tenants. Program H1.1 Programs for housing repair and rehabilitation works to expand upon the existing program, to incorporate targeted outreach to identified neighborhoods of need.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 109

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
People Experiencing Homelessness
The City has provided continuous support for regional efforts to end homelessness, such as the Alameda County EveryOne Home Program, which prioritizes supportive housing. Newark adopted a resolution declaring a shelter crisis, and authorized the City’s participation in the Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP).

People experiencing homelessness have steadily increased at the county level since 2017, with 9,747 sheltered and unsheltered people at the most recent point in time count on February 22, 2022. The city of Newark has a documented reduction from 89 people experiencing homelessness in 2019, to 58 people in 2022. Data from a 2021 Newark Police Department report provides an overview of unsheltered persons in Newark including known encampments:
● Eucalyptus Grove (Highway 84, north of Jarvis Avenue) ● Highway 84 Eastbound off-ramp to Newark Boulevard
● Residence Inn hotel area (near the off-ramp)
● Sycamore Street at the Union Pacific railroad tracks
● Thornton Avenue at Interstate 880
● Home Depot and surrounding businesses parking lot
Housing and homeless support is the most prevalent service request for Newark callers to the countywide 2-1-1 referral service, representing about 42% of all service requests. Newark residents are seeking referrals for low cost rental listings, rent payment and deposit assistance, supportive and transitional housing, emergency shelter, among other services (Eden I&R Referral Service, January 2020 through March 2022). Currently Second Chance provides transitional housing for those experiencing homelessness in Newark. The facility has 32 beds, with the shelter at 81 % capacity on the point in time count. The city has engaged in a number of actions to address homelessness in Newark. There is a partnership with the Fremont Family Resource Center to provide support to Newark households at risk of becoming homeless, and has been awarded a HomeKey grant to convert the Towne Place Suites extended stay hotel into 124 supportive, affordable residential units known as Cedar Community Apartments. Most recently the city has created a Homelessness Committee with members from various City departments to develop a cohesive plan to address homelessness.

Through community engagement, the city has been alerted to the high number of residents experiencing homelessness that are finding shelter in local motels. The challenge with this is that these populations are uncounted, so while the city does not have a full sense of how many individuals and families are there, through communication with parent liaisons with the Newark Unified School district and from a community member experiencing homelessness that those residing in the hotels hold jobs outside of the home, but due to a variety of issues such as the cost of housing, requirements such as three times the income, and credit scores, these community members are kept from accessing stable housing.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 110

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Although the documented number of people experiencing homelessness in Newark is low, there are high rates of racial disparity compared to the population of Newark and Alameda County as a whole. As exhibited in Figure 3-46, although the African American population in Newark is 3 percent, they make up 27 percent of the population experiencing homelessness. The Latinx population of Newark is almost equal to that of those experiencing homelessness at 31 percent.

White residents have the highest rate of residents experiencing homelessness at 58%, with their portion of the population in Newark at 29 percent.

Figure 3-44: Total Count of People Experiencing Homelessness For The Point In Time Count On February 22, 2022
Source: 2022 Point in Time Count. Everyone Count, February 22, 2022.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 111

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-45: Unsheltered Individuals in Newark and Alameda County, 2022 Source: 2022 Point in Time Count. Everyone Count, February 22nd 2022.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 112

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-46: Sheltered Individuals by Race, 2022
Source: 2022 Point in Time Count. Everyone Count, February 22nd 2022.

Access to affordable, stable housing is foundational for children and their families to be healthy - mentally and physically and support student success in school. Over the past few years the pandemic has amplified the disparities in housing, and with learning transferring online, many students did not have the resources to make that transition. Although schools have returned to in-person teaching, the number of families that are still struggling to access resources and affordable housing are high.

In Newark, the student population experiencing homelessness totaled 300 during the 2019-20 school year and increased by 9 percent since the 2016-17 school year. By comparison, Alameda County has seen a 18.7 percent decrease in the population of students experiencing homelessness since the 2016-17 school year, and the Bay Area population of students experiencing homelessness decreased by eight percent. During the 2019-2020 school year, there were still some 13,718 students experiencing homelessness throughout the region, adding undue burdens on learning and thriving, with the potential for longer term negative effects.

The number of students in Newark experiencing homelessness in 2019 represents 10.5 percent of the Alameda County total and two percent ofthe Bay Area total.

In the most recent school year (2021-22), NUSD had 251 students that were homeless (about 5% of all students), which further indicates the lack of affordable housing. Notably, about 96 percent of homeless students in Newark are students of color, with over 167 of these students being Hispanic or Latino. While NUSD has only a small number of Pacific Islander students (98 students), AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 113

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
about 10.8 percent of them are homeless (Source: California Department of Education (ED-Data).

Table 3-11: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness, 2016 to 2020 Academic Year Newark Alameda County Bay Area
2016-17 275 3,531 14,990
2017-18 236 3,309 15,142
2018-19 192 3,182 15,427
2019-20 300 2,870 13,718
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools. Notes: The California Department of Education considersstudentsto be homelessif they are unsheltered, living in temporary sheltersfor people experiencing homelessness, living in hotels/motels, or temporarily doubled up and sharing the housing of other persons due to the loss of housing or economic hardship. The data used for thistable was obtained at the schoolsite level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography. Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020). Thistable isincluded in the Data Packet Workbook as Table HOMELS-05.

Farmworkers
The number of farmworkers living in Newark has declined over the years, with the student population at 57 students for the 2019-2020 school year. The previous years saw 79 students for 2017-2018 and 72 for the 2018 to 2019 school year. Table 3-12 shows the trends for both Alameda county and the greater Bay Area see a similar decline in the migrant farmworker student population. Generally, the number of farmworkers living in Alameda county has been declining since 2012, with fewer than 400 residents working in the industry in a permanent position. It is important to recognize that farmworkers could be under-counted by the census due to their migrant nature. Farming and farmworkers are a significant element of the state's economy, but play less of a role in the Bay Area. Due to lower wages, language barriers, and inconsistent work, farmworkers can have difficulty securing housing, and for these reasons could experience overcrowding and substandard housing conditions.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 114

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table 3-12: Migrant Farmworker Student Population, 2016 to 2020 Geography 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2020
Newark 75 79 72 57
Alameda County 874 1,037 785 790
Bay Area 4, 630 4,607 4,075 3,976
Source: California Department of education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data system, Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020) Figure 3-47: Permanent and Seasonal Farmworkers at the County Level, 2022 to 2017 Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers(2002,2007,2012,2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor.

Note: Farm workers are considered seasonal if they work on a farm lessthan 150 days a year, while farm workers who work on a farm more than 150 days are considered to be permanent workersfor that farm.

Gentrification and Displacement
“It isreally sad to see what is happening to our little old town of Newark. I moved here back in 1995 to raise my family. It was a small town and where I wanted to raise my family. My children are NUSD and now currently in college. The Tech Giants have moved into our backyards causing GENTRIFICATION raising rentsthat our families can't afford. Forcing them to leave and forsome to become homeless sleeping in their cars with school-aged children. Also the high number of Homeless on ourstreets with mental health issues on the corners of all freewaysintersections. How isit that we all live in one-million-dollar houses and see all this around us? This breaks my heart we need to see more affordable housing, rent control, good schools with proper equal education for all of ourstudentsin our community.

All the tech giants use these Big Charter busesto send their employeesto Facebook, Google, and Yahoo.

Newark should start charging them a fee so that we can have funds available to provide free tutoring for school-aged studentsstruggling in math.” – Newark Resident AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 115

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Defining Sensitive Communities: (Urban Displacement Project, 2020) Communities sensitive to displacement were measured through a number of indicators.

Neighborhoods with a high proportion of residents vulnerable to displacement in the case of rising housing costs, and market-based displacement pressures present in and/or near the community.

Communities were designated sensitive if they currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost.

Vulnerability includes metrics for the share of very low income residents, share of renters, share of people of color, and share of very low income households (50% AMI or below) that are severely rent burdened (spending 50% of income on rent). Market-based displacement pressures include percent change in rent between 2012-2017 above county median rent increases.

The City of Newark has grown its job base by 37% since 2010, significantly outpacing the County’s job growth, which was also strong. While the City has a higher share of job growth in high-paying industries compared to the County, over 40% of the City’s job growth still came from lower wage industries paying less than $75,000 a year. Currently, residents are unable to find housing at a cost and requirements accessible to them, which has led to residents finding shelter in motels. Concern around gentrification is a consistent narrative from residents, many of whom find themselves unable to find housing in a city they have grown up in, and have community connections. “Programas de vivienda que combaten la gentrificación.” (Housing programsthat combat gentrification) – Community Meeting Comment
Figure 3-49 shows areas in Newark that are vulnerable to gentrification and displacement, according to the 2017 study from the Urban Displacement Project, University of California, Berkeley. The area corresponds to a majority of BIPOC populations with an average of 82 percent non white, specifically Hispanic/ Latinx communities, cost burdened and overcrowded households.

The city of Newark has a number of redevelopment projects underway in the Old Town Area, Bayside, and ParkPlace. These projects are working to add more housing to the city through the redevelopment of industrial land into a walkable neighborhood close to commuter rail, repurpose an aging shopping mall, and revitalize a historic district.

Old Town
Old Town is the historic commercial district of Newark that has experienced disinvestment over the years. The neighborhood has a history of a variety of housing types and businesses, with a number of food manufacturing and local restaurants. The Old Town Specific plan looks to revitalize the neighborhood, making it more pedestrian friendly and implement zoning changes to bring higher density housing and mixed use buildings into the neighborhood.

The area has lower rents than the surrounding areas of the city, and is home to a predominantly AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 116

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Hispanic/ Latinx population of residents and associated small businesses (fig 3-49). The neighborhood has the highest level of low income residents, with 53 percent of renters cost burdened.

With improvements to the Dumbarton transportation corridor, connecting Newark and the surrounding area to Silicon Valley, this will open up the area for increased development pressure that could result in displacement of existing residents and small businesses.

Bayside Newark
Bayside Newark is a 200-acre planned neighborhood on land previously used for industrial production and manufacturing. The city is implementing a specific plan for a walkable neighborhood with a variety of housing types, recreational open space, and everyday services adjacent to the future Dumbarton rail line. Although there was no residential or small business in the planning area, it is still important to note the impact that the commuter rail line and the inclusion of hundreds of new market rate housing units will have on the demographics of the city.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 117

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-48: Map of Plan and Dumbarton Corridor, 2010
Source: Dahlin Group, 2010
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 118

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-49: Areas in Newark Vulnerable to Displacement and Percentage of Communities of Color, 2018 and 2022
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 119

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Displacement From Environmental Hazards
Environmental hazards can cause both physical and social vulnerabilities specifically in low income, disabled, and BIPOC communities. Many communities and households face social vulnerabilities that are intensified during the short- and long-term recovery period after a disaster.

Access to information, housing, and social services are disrupted during and after a disaster, straining local housing markets and service providers. Due to the lack of affordable housing due to a mismatch between housing costs and income, communities are vulnerable to local shocks such as a natural disaster. For households that were struggling to find and/or maintain affordable housing before a major event, resulting in displacement of residents and an increase in homelessness.

These events also compromise the ability for residents with disabilities to find accessible temporary shelter.

Newark is susceptible to multiple major types of environmental hazards that are visible through the Association of Bay Area Governments Hazard Viewer: Flooding due to sea level rise, tsunamis, and earthquakes. Figure 3-50 of the FEMA flood map shows extreme flooding at the 100 year flood line, engulfing much of the southern portion of the city. At the 500 year flood level, the flooding will move well into established housing, schools and commercial establishments. Flooding most significantly affects areas that are identified as high in opportunity currently, but also encroaches on areas in the city that have been identified as vulnerable to displacement through the Urban Displacement Project.

With Newark being in close proximity to the Hayward fault line, there is the possibility of severe shaking in the event of an earthquake. Residents in our community survey cited multi-year drought as their greatest environmental concern at 52 percent, followed by flooding and sea level rise (44%) and earthquakes (35%). In our community meeting, concern about development in sensitive areas was highlighted, especially ensuring that vulnerable residents are aware of the environmental hazards in their neighborhood.
“Restrict or limit construction of new development in zones or overlay areasthat have been identified or designated as hazardous areasto avoid or minimize impactsto coastal resources and property from sea level rise impacts.” – Community meeting comment
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 120

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-50: 100 Year and 500 Year Flooding Projections for the City of Newark Source: Association of Bay Area Governments Hazard Viewer AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 121

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
H. AFFH Analysis of Sites
State law, Government Code Section 65583(c)(10), requires the sites analysis to be analyzed with respect to AFFH to ensure that affordable housing is dispersed equitably throughout the City rather than concentrated in areas of high segregation and poverty or low resource areas that have historically been underserved. By comparing the sites inventory to the fair housing indicators in this assessment, this section analyzes whether the sites included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element sites inventory improve or exacerbate patterns of segregation, fair housing conditions, and access to opportunity throughout the City.

Newark was allocated a total of 1,874 new housing units to plan for during the Sixth Cycle Housing Element planning period. This RHNA allocation includes 464 very low-, 268 low-, 318 moderate-, and 824 above moderate-income units. Using data and research from the HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool 1.0, Table 3-13 presents the housing unit capacity and existing conditions as they relate to indicators of fair housing analyzed in this assessment for each census tract in the city. For more information about the indicators, refer to the local assessment discussed previously in this chapter. The census tracts and sites inventory are mapped and shown in Figure 3-51.

Newark has several physical constraints that present challenges in developing the sites inventory and planning for future growth. These constraints include sensitive wetland habitat and flood plains along the western city boundary and limited vacant land. Because of these constraints, sites included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element inventory are largely located in specific plan areas that are redeveloping existing shopping malls and former industrial lands, with several additional sites located in the Old Town/ Central area.

Newark is a racially and ethnically diverse city, with higher levels of segregation than neighboring jurisdictions such as Union City. As shown in the Table 3-13 BIPOC residents are the majority of the population in all census tracts. Residents identifying as Hispanic/ Latinx compose the largest segments of the population in census tract 4443.02 (Bayside/ Old Town), and census tract 4444 (Old Town/ Central Newark). The sites inventory provides some opportunity to balance the distribution of the various racial/ethnic groups in the city as well as access to opportunity, as sites at all income levels are found in areas with high opportunity and lower predominance of Hispanic/ Latino populations. The sites in NewPark Place, Birchwood, Bayside /Old Town, and Old Town/Central Newark open up opportunities to diversify the area through income and race/ethnicity. Although there are no sites included in the inventory in the northern neighborhoods of the city (Lake-Rosemont, Mirabeau, and Mayhews Landing), proposed programs will work to address the concentration in specific neighborhoods and open up single family neighborhoods to new missing middle housing types identified through community engagement as filling a crucial need for large and small households throughout the city.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 122

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-51: Housing Sites for the RHNA 6th Cycle
Source: Community Planning Collaborative, 2023.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 123

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table 3-13: Distribution of Housing Capacity by Census Tract with AFFH Indicators RHNA Capacity
AFFH Indicators
Integration and Segregation
Access to
Opportunity
Displacement
Risk
Census
Tract
Neighborhood
Total
Households
Owner
Households
Renter
Households
Lower Moderate
Above
Moderat
e
Median
Household
Income
AMI less
than 50%
AMI
50 -
80%
AMI 80
- 100%
AMI
greate
r than
100%
Hispanic /
Latino
Non-White
Population
Disability
Rate
Resource
Designation
Overcrowding
Rate
4441
LakeRosemont
2,573 2,162 411 0 0 0 $116,812 20% 8% 10% 62% 28% 74% 10% Moderate
Resource
0%
4442
Mirabeau
Park
1,887 1,484 403 0 0 9 $126,028 14% 12% 9% 64% 35% 81% 7% Moderate
Resource
2%
4443.01
Mayhews
Landing
1,189 862 327 0 0 0 $121,156 11% 6% 12% 72% 38% 76% 8%
Moderate
Resource
2%
4443.02
Bayside/ Old
Town
1,500 762 738 70 21 649 $105,188 24% 12% 13% 51% 66% 89% 6% Moderate
Resource
6%
4444
Old Town /
Central
Newark
1,519 848 671 201 44 120 $93,094 19% 13% 19% 49% 59% 86% 8% Moderate
Resource
0%
4445
Old Town /
Central
Newark
2,025 879 1,146 118 42 36 $109,441 16% 14% 9% 60% 21% 88% 7% Moderate
Resource
5%
4446.01 Birch Grove 1,779 1,543 236 155 1 296 $139,119 9% 11% 4% 76% 18% 84% 7% High
Resource
0%
4446.02
NewPark
Place
1,575 1,129 446 178 18 536 $128,229 14% 5% 8% 74% 11% 90% 5% High
Resource
0%
Source: Community Planning Collaborative, City of Newark. HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 124

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Potential Effects of Segregation and Integration
Race and Ethnicity
In Newark, neighborhoods are predominantly Hispanic/ Latinx. Lake-Rosemont and Birch Grove Neighborhoods are the only neighborhoods in the city where White residents have a slim or sizable gap. The NewPark Place and Sanctuary West areas throughout the city have a predominantly Asian population (composed of a mix of different ethnicities). Generally, the sites inventory will provide some opportunity to balance the distribution of the various racial/ethnic groups in the city. As described above, Hispanic/ Latinx residents are the most segregated group and Asian residents are the most isolated compared to other groups. The sites inventory will not exacerbate segregation by race and ethnicity in Newark due to the high numbers of housing sites in areas that are predominantly Hispanic/ Latinx and Asian, providing new opportunities for housing mobility in the city.

Using the residential sites identified in the site inventory, we look to understand how new housing will impact segregation and integration of race, ethnicity and income level. Figure 3-52 shows the majority of identified sites are concentrated in the areas with a predominantly Latinx/Hispanic population. These areas correspond with the Old Town specific plan, that increases zoning to encourage investment in affordable housing and the transit oriented nature of Bayside Newark. In the Birchwood area, with the highest median incomes in the city, two housing projects, one the Timber Affordable senior housing project and the second, the E-Z 8 Motel site will provide 184 low and moderate income homes, and opportunities for those of other races with lower incomes in an area that has a slim white majority. The redevelopment of NewPark Mall, within the NewPark Place area, will provide 174 low and moderate income units in a high resource neighborhood with a predominantly Asian population. While the increase in above moderate income housing in areas that are predominantly low and moderate income will increase the diversity of incomes and increased investment in the area, it can also lead to higher rents for the surrounding households, and displacement. In response to the concentration of housing opportunity sites located in the central and southern portions of the city, Newark will be implementing a number of programs to expand housing development and housing choice for multiple incomes throughout the city.

Programs include: Program H2.1 SB9 and SB10 ordinance as well as H2.8 Zoning for Missing Middle Housing, H2.2 to reduce constraints and expand accessibility for ADU production, in order to achieve a greater geographic diversity of housing type and location. Program H2.6 looks at public school sites in Newark as locations for affordable housing to district employees, and has the potential to both provide affordable family sized housing and increase access to opportunities throughout the city.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 125

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-52: Sites by Racial Predominance, 2010
Source: Adapted by Community Planning Collaborative, 2022. HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

Income
Newark has a population with a high median income, with 50% of residents making more than 100 percent of the median income. Despite this, there is still a large population of residents who are low income, with 10 percent of residents making less than 30 percent of the median income and 13 percent with moderate incomes. Through a variety of programs, the City is working to increase the development of housing for all income types, including housing for those with extremely low incomes, seniors, large families and those with moderate incomes. The Housing Element includes programs to establish development standards that facilitate missing middle housing that is affordable to middle-income households in single-family neighborhoods (Program H2.8) and promoting the development of ADUs throughout the city (Program H2.2).

Fifty percent of sites (2,075 units) are located within the NewParkPlace and the areas, which have a median income of $139,000. The NewParkPlace developments have 28 percent of the total low income units, the largest number of low income units in the city, along with the largest percentage AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 126

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
of above moderate units at 58 percent. Although the lower income sites are distributed amongst The Old Town/ Central, Bayside, Birch Grove and NewParkPlace areas, these census tracts have a range of median incomes between $93,094 to $1390,111, and accounts for 91 percent of the lower-income capacity, 84 percent of the moderate-income capacity, and a majority (2,291 units) of the above-moderate income capacity. The sites in the Bayside /Old Town area are zoned for a variety of housing options to be built, with the greatest capacity of low and moderate income sites which will in turn help to diversify income levels in the area. Table 3-14 show that 23 percent of the lower-income sites are in census tracts with incomes below $93,000. This is driven by the capacity on sites in the Old Town/ Central area along Thornton Boulevard and works to ensure that housing is affordable to existing residents in order to support them to stay in place as investments come to the area. The sites inventory for all other income levels (i.e., lower-income sites, moderate income sites, mixed income sites, and pipeline projects) will not have a significant impact on patterns of segregation and integration by the remaining fair housing indicators including familial status and disability status due the even distribution of those populations in the City.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 127

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-53: Site Distribution by Median Income, 2015- 2019 Source: Adapted by Community Planning Collaborative, 2022. HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 128

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table 3-14: Site Distribution by Median Income, 2015- 2019 Census
Tract
Neighborhood
Lower
income
Moderate
income
Above
Moderate
Total Units
units % units % units %
unit
s
%
Median
Household
Income
AMI less
than 50%
AMI 50
- 80%
AMI 80
- 100%
AMI
greater
than
100%
4441
LakeRosemont
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% $ 116,812 20% 8% 10% 62%
4442 Mirabeau Park 0 0% 0 0% 9 0.5% 9 0.4% $ 126,028 14% 12% 9% 64% 4443.01
Mayhews
Landing
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% $ 121,156 11% 6% 12% 72%
4443.02
Gateway /
Bayshore/ old
Town
70 10% 21 17% 649 39% 740 30% $ 105,188 24% 12% 13% 51% 4444
Old Town /
Central
Newark
201 28% 44 35% 120 7% 365 15% $ 93,094 19% 13% 19% 49%
4445
Old Town /
Central
Newark
118 16% 42 33% 36 2% 196 8% $ 109,441 16% 14% 9% 60%
4446.01 Birch Grove 155 21% 1 1% 296 18% 452 18% $ 139,119 9% 11% 4% 76% 4446.02 NewPark Place 178 25% 18 14% 536 33% 732 29% $ 128,229 14% 5% 8% 74% Source: Community Planning Collaborative, 2023.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 129

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-54: Site Distribution By Percent of Low and Moderate Income Residents, 2015- 2019 Source: Adapted by Community Planning Collaborative, 2022. HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

Potential Effects on Access to Opportunity
According to 2022 TCAC data, Newark is a mix of moderate and high resource areas. The Birchwood, NewParkPlace areas comprise Newark’s high resource areas, while the rest of the city is considered moderate resource areas, as highlighted in Figure 3-56. Newark does not have any low resource areas, areas of high segregation, or highest resource areas.

A percentage breakdown of proposed and sites zoned for housing by resource area in Figure 3-56 shows that 46 percent of low income units are located in high resource areas. A significant percentage of planned and proposed moderate income housing, 85 percent, are located in moderate resource areas as are 54 percent for low income units. For the most part, both low and above moderate housing are relatively evenly distributed across moderate and high resource areas. While a high percentage of moderate units are planned and proposed for moderate resource areas, this figure does not take into account the additional units expected from missing AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 130

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
middle and ADU programs which will be prioritized for high resource areas.

In the higher resource areas there is a mix of housing both in the pipeline for development and sites identified for new housing. Pipeline projects include site 9, Cedar Community Apartments, a HomeKey project that provides 124 units of housing for those with extremely low incomes. The focus will be on providing housing for those that are homeless and those at risk of homelessness, with 11 units reserved for veterans that have experienced homelessness. The redevelopment of NewPark Mall consists of two mixed income projects providing housing for very low, low and moderate income households, and one pipeline project serving those with above moderate incomes. Pipeline and housing opportunity sites in the Birchwood and NewPark Place areas will provide 352 units of low and moderate income housing in high opportunity areas. By providing housing opportunities for very low, low and moderate income households in high resourced areas the city is addressing the need to expand housing choices available to those looking for affordable housing close to shopping, parks, transportation and quality schools and support vulnerable populations.

Newark is making targeted investments in the Old Town/ Bayside area, with active transportation infrastructure improvements connected to the Old Town Specific Plan and the Bicycle master plan, and supporting small businesses and community members through facade improvement grants for small businesses in the Old Town area and the construction of a family resource center. See the chapter on transportation and the Public Realm for more details on city lead investments. These investments will provide needed improvements in an area that is lower income than surrounding areas.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 131

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Environmental Outcomes
Figure 3-55: Site Distribution by CalEnviroScreen Percentile Score, 2021 Source: Adapted by Community Planning Collaborative, 2023. HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool and CalEnviroScreen Data
CalEnviroScreen is a mapping tool that helps identify California communities that are most affected by many sources of pollution, and where people are often especially vulnerable to pollution’s effects. The tool uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic information to produce scores at the census tract level and is indexed allowed for cross community comparison.

Tracts with high scores experience a much higher pollution burden than areas with low scores.

As displayed in Figure 3-55 above, sites identified by Newark as being suitable for accommodating lower-income RHNA housing during the planning period are located in areas with low to very-low levels of environmental risk. Both planned and proposed projects and sites zoned for housing are in areas with a relatively low incidence of environmental contamination per CalEnviroScreen.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 132

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Environmental Quality
Bayside Newark
This project area includes 233 acres of land that historically has contained various industrial, manufacturing, chemical processing and salt production facilities since the early twentieth century. Due to the history of industrial use on the site, the city has remediated portions of the site. One form of contamination was a groundwater plume that exists in shallow groundwater beneath portions of the Plan area. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is directing mitigation of this groundwater plume in collaboration with the Alameda County Water District (ACWD). Some properties within the Specific Plan area also contain soil impacted hazardous substances. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is directing the remediation of impacted soils at these properties.

The specific plan includes neighborhood focused retail, new infrastructure to support new residential and commercial development, new parks and the Bayside Trail, as well as new residential units in a variety of sizes and types.

Old Town Specific Plan Area
Central Newark and sites within the Old Town Specific Plan are at high risk of exposure to particulates from diesel fuel. In an effort to increase health equity in the area, and create a safer environment for walking and biking, the city will conduct a truck route study in 2023, looking to remove semi trucks from using Thornton avenue in the old town district.

Transportation and the Public Realm
Through public participation, pedestrian improvements and access to public transportation have been consistent themes that are associated with opportunity for a variety of populations, as well as being conscientious of climate change and the environment.

Figure 3-57 shows the distribution of housing sites and bus routes in Newark. We have heard from the disability community that having affordable housing in close proximity to transit is important for their community. There is also an understanding that transportation can be a significant expense, to providing housing in close proximity to transportation, new developments can lessen the cost burden and support more sustainable development.

In 2017 Newark City Council approved the Pedestrian and Bicycle master plan, in order to prioritize and implement infrastructure improvements and educational/enforcement programs that will improve the biking and walking environment in Newark. The following is an overview of pedestrian and bicycle improvements to be undertaken during the Housing Element cycle:

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 133

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
● Cherry street will be improved by a class 4 separated bike lane from Central Ave to Stevenson blvd.
● The Central ave overpass, with an estimated completion in 2025, will eliminate railroad grade crossing for pedestrians, creating a separated crossing at Sycamore and Filbert, make it easier for pedestrians to cross safety, and the addition of new bike lanes ● In Old Town, with an estimated completion date of 2025 there will be bike and pedestrian improvements: a road diet, widened sidewalks, bike lines where there are none, high visibility crosswalks.
● The Bay Trail will be extended through the Bayside Newark development ● The city has received grant funding to add sidewalks and for the development of a cycle track on Thornton ave, between Gateway blvd and Hickory street, to improve access to the wildlife refuge. This will add bike lanes to the west side to make it safer to access the wildlife refuge. Estimated project completion will be in 2029. ● Grant funding to install the rapid fire beacons where the residents have expressed concerns over safe crossing, especially for students. One is planned for Old Town at Mulberry street, and near the Bayshore district on Enterprise drive.

Through area specific plans, Newark is investing in their public realm through pedestrian improvements for active transportation and pedestrian safety through more human scale streets.

The Old Town Specific plan will be directing infrastructure investments in the form of streetscape improvements, such as wider sidewalks, bike lanes, high visibility crosswalks and traffic calming.

Through the Old Town Area, Thornton Avenue will be reduced to slow traffic and increase space for walking and biking. Public art and new gathering spaces will support placemaking efforts to celebrate Newark past and present.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 134

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table 3-15: Sites along transit lines and High or Moderate Opportunity Areas, 2022 Housing Site
Specific Plan Area and / or
Opportunity area Pedestrian Improvements
14 High Resource (NewPark
Place)
5, 6, 7, 13, 17, 22 High Resource (Birchwood)
8, 9, 16, 19, 21, 28
Moderate Resource (Old
Town)
Changes will be made to Thornton Ave to facilitate
safer walking and biking in the area. There will be
traffic calming measures, bike lanes and wider
sidewalks.
10, 15, 20, 21, 24, 25
Moderate Resource (Old
Town / Central Newark)
Source: Tax Credit Allocation Committee, 2022, ACTrans 2022, City of Newark Figure 3-56: Percentage of Housing Units by Resource Opportunity Area, 2022 Source: Tax Credit Allocation Committee, 2022, Community Planning Collaborative Sites Analysis AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 135

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-57: Site Distribution by Resource Level and Transportation Access, 2022 Source: Adapted by Community Planning Collaborative, 2022. HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool Potential Effects On Disproportionate Housing Needs
As previously mentioned, Newark has a large portion of residents that have housing needs that make them vulnerable to displacement due to being cost burdened, large families, female headed households or a senior. As highlighted in Figure 3-59 the areas vulnerable to displacement also correspond with portions of the city with BIPOC populations above 80%, specifically Hispanic / Latinx residents. The areas that are vulnerable to displacement in the Old Town, Bayside area also have higher rates of cost burden. With a focus on increasing affordable housing opportunities in the Old Town/ Central area, 57 percent of sites are for lower income households, as well as sites identified as mixed income developments will provide housing options that will support community members ability to remain in their neighborhoods.

The city is planning to develop and implement a number of policies and programs to support residents to stay in place such as a local preference policy, program H4.2 a community/tenant AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 136

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
opportunity to purchase act, and program H4.1 Develop Anti Displacement programs for the Old Town area.

Figure 3-58 Distribution of Sites by Rates of Cost burdened, 2015- 2019 Source: Adapted by Community Planning Collaborative, 2022. HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

Cost Burdened Households
● 30% of housing sites are affordable for very low, low and moderate income households and are distributed throughout the city.
● Recognizing the role that access to transportation plays, 25 percent of housing units are along existing bus lines and are affordable to very low, low, and moderate income households.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 137

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-59: Distribution of Sites by Displacement Risk and Percent BIPOC population, 2017 and 2018 Source: Adapted by Community Planning Collaborative, 2022. HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

People with Disabilities
Residents with disabilities in Newark are a lower percentage then the county at 8 percent, and are equally distributed throughout the city. Through conversation with the executive director of the Housing Consortium of the East Bay, he identified important aspects of housing development for those with physician and developmental disabilities. Having housing in close proximity to public transit to connect with jobs and services is key, as only 10 percent of the demographic owns a car.

In Newark, major transit lines run along Thornton Ave, Central Ave and Sycamore street. Housing sites are well positioned to be within a half mile walking distance of transit as shown in Figure 3-57. With The majority of sites centrally located near parks, libraries and transit, new housing in Newark will be accessible to those with limited mobility. Fifty two percent of housing sites along existing transit routes are to be affordable to those with very low, low and moderate incomes, yielding an expected total of 754 units.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 138

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-60: Housing Sites Vis-a-Vis Disability Status, 2015- 2019 Source: Adapted by Community Planning Collaborative, 2022. HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 139

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
I. Contributing Factors and Meaningful Actions
The City of Newark has a significant Asian and Hispanic/Latinx population, a large number of families, and few affordable rental and home ownership opportunities available for residents. A history of housing discrimination and disinvestment have brought uneven opportunity and quality of life for BIPOC residents. Housing pressures from workers in Silicon Valley are increasing housing costs for long term residents. The city is constrained by ecologically sensitive marshlands of the San Francisco Bay, and is vulnerable to flooding and sea level rise, which plays a key role in planning for growth in a sustainable manner.

There is an urgent need for affordable housing, especially for families and seniors. There is a high percentage of students experiencing homelessness, single parent households in poverty, and multigenerational families - all with disparate housing needs. Old town and Central Newark have low environmental outcomes, due to pollution from industrial and truck traffic that disproportionately affects children and seniors.

Newark’s BIPOC community are disproportionately cost burdened renters, who face increasing rents with few protections. Many residents shared the challenge of finding affordable rental housing, and the desire for stability and the opportunity to build wealth through homeownership.

The city is committed to furthering fair housing in Newark and has identified the contributing factors, and policies and programs to implement in order to increase access to opportunity and affordable housing options in the city, especially for those communities most vulnerable to gentrification and displacement.

Mobility Strategies Removing barriers to housing in areas of opportunity and strategically enhancing access.

PROGRAM H2.8: Zoning for Missing Middle Housing Types.

PROGRAM H5.1: First-Time Homebuyer Assistance
PROGRAM H7.1: Develop training programs in collaboration with Alameda County Housing Authority for property owners to understand the housing choice voucher program
PROGRAM H4.6: Support tenant stability though minimum lease terms and relocation assistance
PROGRAM H4.8: Connect Residents with Foreclosure Assistance PROGRAM H7.4: Affirmatively Market Affordable Housing
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 140

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
New Housing Choices in Areas of Opportunity Promoting housing supply, choices and affordability in areas of high opportunity and outside of areas of concentrated poverty
PROGRAM H2.1: Encourage New Housing options in areas of the city close to services such as parks, schools and grocery stores.

PROGRAM H2.2: Accessory Dwelling Unit program
PROGRAM H2.6: Work in Partnership with Newark Unified School District to develop new housing
PROGRAM H2.7: Affordable housing development fund.

PROGRAM H2.8: Zoning for Missing Middle Housing types
PROGRAM H2.10: Single Room Occupancy Housing
PROGRAM H4.5: With community partners, connect residents to existing shared housing programs
PROGRAM H5.2: Affordable Housing Development Programs
PROGRAM H5.6: Affordable Housing Overlay Zone
PROGRAM H5.3: Public Lands for dedicated affordable housing.

PROGRAM H2.3: A Community Plan for the 4 Corners Area
Place Based Strategies (Amenities, Economic Development) Conserving and improving assets in areas of lower opportunity and concentrated poverty such as targeted investment in neighborhood revitalization, preserving or rehabilitating existing affordable housing, improving infrastructure, schools, employment, parks, transportation and other community amenities.

PROGRAM H1.1: Housing Rehabilitation and Repair Programs.

PROGRAM H2.9: Area Specific Plans
PROGRAM H4.1: Develop anti displacement programs for the Old-Town Newark Specific Plan area
PROGRAM H6.3: Cool Roofs for cool homes
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 141

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Anti Displacement Strategies + Tenant Protection (Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement) strategies that protects residents in areas of lower or moderate opportunity and concentrated poverty and preserves housing choices and affordability
PROGRAM H1.2: Develop a citywide rental inspection program to maintain high quality housing throughout the city
PROGRAM H4.2: Develop a Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase Policy PROGRAM H4.3: Develop a Just Cause Eviction Ordinance
PROGRAM H4.4: Small Sites Program
PROGRAM H4.9: No Net Loss of Units
PROGRAM H5.1: First-Time Home Buyer Assistance
PROGRAM H7.2: Partner with community organizations to ensure that community members have access to tenant rights information and Fair Housing in multiple languages
PROGRAM H7.3: Work with Newark Unified school district to distribute housing resources to families enrolled in the district
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 142

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table 3-16: Summary of Contributing Factors and Actions Regarding Housing Issues in Newark Fair Housing Identified Issue Contributing Factor
Prioritization and
Geographic target Meaningful actions
Population of children and
families experiencing
homelessness.

Lack of available rental housing
that is affordable to those making
at or below the median income.

There is no affordable housing
available for rent and for those
transitioning out of homelessness.

HIGH.

City wide with a
focus in supporting
the students in
schools in the Old
Town/ Central area
● Develop a strong working relationship and partnership with the Newark Unified School district to increase access to resources to families in the District. PROGRAM H7.3
● Build more housing for low and extremely low income residents and those transitioning from and experiencing homelessness.

PROGRAM H2.7
● Prioritize publicly owned land for affordable housing development. PROGRAM H5.3
● Implement an affordable housing overlay zone to incentivize the construction of affordable housing for very low, low, and moderate income households in targeted areas. PROGRAM
H5.6
● Develop a local response to support people experiencing homelessness, with specific attention to the racial disparities and large population of youth and families. PROGRAM H2.5; PROGRAM H7.3
● Support Tenants through minimum lease terms and relocation assistance. PROGRAM H4.6
● Work with partners to develop scattered sites for shared housing utilizing funding sources such as Project Home Key.

PROGRAM H4.11
Ineffective outreach and
access to information for
renters and property
owners,those with limited
English, lack of existing
knowledge of resources, or
limited time
Resources for renters are not
easily accessible currently. Those
with limited English language, lack
of access to a personal computer
and or internet connection need
additional support and resources
tailored to their needs. Landlords
need training to better understand
laws and regulations
HIGH
Citywide with a
focus on supporting
the significant
Hispanic/ Latinx
and Asian
populations in the
Old Town / Central
area
● Partner with a local non profit to co produce tenants rights materials and support systems for communities that have not been equitably served by existing resources and processes.

PROGRAM H7.2
● Update the city website to make housing resources easier to access for populations that have limited English. PROGRAM H7.2; PROGRAM H7.3; PROGRAM H7.4
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 143

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Fair Housing Identified Issue Contributing Factor
Prioritization and
Geographic target Meaningful actions
Significant negative
environmental outcomes for
existing low income BIPOC
communities & increased
risk of climate related
displacement
Due to high levels of air pollution
from freeway pollution and truck
traffic on Thornton Avenue, and
high levels of cost burden
residents, the majority of Newark
has less positive environmental
outcomes.

MEDIUM
Focus on the
Bayside/Old Town
● Flood Risk Disclosure for New Development. As a significant portion of Newark falls within the 100 and 500 year flood plain, ensuring that development is built in response to climate change. PROGRAM H6.4
Displacement pressure for
BIPOC communities. Large
cost burden BIPOC
community and a low
inventory of affordable
rental homes for all
segments ofthe population
Due to close proximity to Silicon
Valley, the housing market has
become more attractive to those
working in the tech industries in
the area. As rents continue to
increase, residents with incomes
at or below the median income are
not able to find rentals they can
afford.

HIGH
Focus on areas
identified as
vulnerable to
displacement such
as the Old
Town/Central,
Bayside areas and
renters around the
city
● Increasing renter support by developing and implementing a Just Cause Eviction Ordinance, to ensure that renters clearly know their rights. PROGRAM H4.3
● Developing a Local Preference policy to support housing that prioritizes those residents currently living in Newark. POLICY H4.1
● Developing a community / tenant opportunity to purchase ordinance. PROGRAM H4.2
● Develop an anti displacement plan for the Old Town/ Central Newark areas. PROGRAM H4.1
● Support tenant stability though minimum lease terms and relocation assistance. PROGRAM: H4.6
● Develop a city wide rental inspection program. PROGRAM H1.2
Lack of affordable rental
homes for all segments ofthe
population, with protected
classes being the most
affected. A large number of
single parentfamilies in
Newark in poverty
Newark’s housing stock is
primarily composed of market rate
single family homes for ownership
or rent. The most recent
subsidized housing constructed
was the first built in the city in over
20 years, and currently all
subsidized housing is for seniors.

HIGH
Citywide focus on
new housing on
Newark Unified
school district sites,
and a focus on
missing middle
housing types in the
Birch Grove, Lakes,
Mirabeau, and
● Develop an Affordable Housing NOFA to encourage affordable housing developers to locate projects in the city for high need populations. POLICY H5.5
● Develop a program for the development of low and moderate income Accessory Dwelling Units in the city, with the intention of increasing housing options for public service workers and residents that are in need of affordable housing such as single parents. PROGRAM H5.5
● Update the inclusionary zoning policy to include home AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 144

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Fair Housing Identified Issue Contributing Factor
Prioritization and
Geographic target Meaningful actions
Mayhews Landing
neighborhoods.
ownership opportunities, encourage more on site affordable units and ensure affordability requirements will address those at residents at low incomes
● Generate local funds for affordable housing production and programming through an affordable housing fee program.

PROGRAM H5.2
● In collaboration with a non profit organization, implement a shared housing program in Newark. PROGRAM H4.5
● Work in partnership with the Newark Unified School District to plan for affordable housing production and build upon the existing partnership between the City of Newark and Newark Unified School District to bring forward implementable plans for affordable housing school owned properties. PROGRAM H2.6
● Develop new housing options in established neighborhoods of the city close to services such as parks, schools and grocery stores. PROGRAM H2.1
Low homeownership levels
for Black, Indigenous and
Hispanic/ Latinx residents
History of housing discrimination
in Newark as well as mortgage
lending discrimination has led to a
lack of access to home ownership
opportunities for Black,
Indigenous and HIspanic/ Latinx
residents.

MODERATE
Focus on supporting
BIPOC residents, as
part ofthe Newark
Affordable Housing
Action Plan work
● Develop a below market rate homeownership program in
partnership with a non profit organization to expand home ownership for first time homebuyers and BIPOC community members. PROGRAM H5.1
● Connect residents to foreclosure assistance, With a focus on Hispanic/Latinx, Indigenous and Black residents. PROGRAM H4.8
Disproportionate access to
opportunity across the city.

Areas with low access to
opportunity are primarily in
areas with high proportion of
Hispanic/ Latinx, Asian and
Older areas of the city such as Old
Town have seen a lack of
investment over the years in the
historic commercial and
residential district and private
investment has gone into newer
HIGH
Programs and
policies focused in
the Old Town/
Central Newark
area. Family sized
● Develop new affordable homes in opportunity areas
throughout the city, close to parks, schools and public transportation. PROGRAM H2.1
● Invest in improving the infrastructure and affordable housing opportunities in Old Town and Bayside neighborhoods in
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 145

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Fair Housing Identified Issue Contributing Factor
Prioritization and
Geographic target Meaningful actions
Indigenous residents
High segregation of Hispanic
/ Latinx population
developments. Due to the
disinvestment, the area has
supported lower rents than the
surrounding neighborhoods,
supporting a primarily BIPOC
neighborhood of residents.
housing and
pedestrian
improvements are
planned/in process
Newark through the Old Town specific plan, to create areas of high opportunity where residents currently reside. PROGRAM H2.9
● Open up single family zoning in larger portions of the city for low scale “missing middle housing” types such as courtyard housing that were identified in the housing survey. PROGRAM H2.8
● Update inclusionary zoning policy to ensure new affordable homes are built on site, with no in lieu fee option
● Accessory Dwelling Unit program to support the development of new housing distributed throughout the city and with 25 percent in high opportunity neighborhoods. PROGRAM H2.3 ● Develop an Anti Displacement program for the Old
Town/Central areas, PROGRAM H4.1
● Develop a program for the preservation of unsubsidized affordable housing in the city, especially in areas of high displacement risk. PROGRAM H4.4
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 146

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
SECTION 4 HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
State housing law requires the City to review both governmental and non-governmental constraints to the maintenance and production of housing for all income levels. Examples of such constraints include development standards, local processing and permit procedures, development fees, construction costs, and compliance with various State laws to facilitate housing for lower-income and special needs households. State law requires the local governments to take action through their Housing Element to “address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities,” (Government Code Section 65583(c) (3)). A thorough understanding of the potential constraints to development can help to create appropriate policy responses
A. Governmental Constraints
Government regulations can potentially constrain the supply of housing available in a community if those regulations limit opportunities to develop housing, impose requirements that unnecessarily increase the cost to develop housing, or overcomplicate the development process for developers. State law requires that housing elements contain an analysis of the governmental constraints on housing maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels including special needs households and persons with disabilities (Government Code, Section 65583(a) (4)). Potential constraints to housing include land use controls, development processing procedures and fees, impact fees, on- and off-site improvement requirements, and building and housing codes and enforcement. This section discusses these standards and assesses whether any serve as a constraint to affordable housing development in Newark.

Land Use
The City of Newark controls the location, type, density, and scale of new development through the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and various specific plans.

General Plan
Every jurisdiction in California is required to prepare a comprehensive, long-term General Plan to guide decision making. Newark’s General Plan, adopted in 2013, sets forth the City’s vision, goals, and policies to shape development of the city. The updated plan created new opportunities for residential and mixed-use development throughout the city and has subsequently been supplemented by Specific Plans (described below) that further set forth plans and policies to HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 147

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
accommodate a range of housing types in key priority growth areas to create inclusive housing opportunities for Newark residents. These new residential development opportunities are reflected in the increased capacity of the Housing Element sites inventory. The Land Use Element of the General Plan has five land use designations that allow for residential use as follows:

Table 4-1: General Plan Land Use Designations
Land Use
Designation
Housing Capacity General Uses
Low Density
Residential
Less than 8.7 units
per net acre
This designation is intended for single-family residential development on lots larger than 5,000 square feet. It corresponds to most of Newark’s residential neighborhoods. Multiple zoning districts apply within Low Density Residential areas to distinguish areas with different minimum lot sizes. Other compatible uses, such as schools, childcare centers, parks, and religious facilities may also be located in areas with this designation, subject to appropriate permitting requirements.

Low-Medium
Density
Residential

8.7 to 15 units per
net acre
This designation is intended for small lot single-family homes, zero lot line and patio homes, mobile home parks, and other areas characterized by a mix of older single-family homes and small multi-unit buildings.

These areas have the basic characteristics of single-family neighborhoods, such as front and rear yards, driveways, and garages, but have smaller lots and a wider variety of housing types. Densities in areas with this designation range from 8.7 to 15 units per net acre, but the higher end of this range (e.g. from 11 to 15 units per acre) will only be allowed on properties which have their primary access on an arterial or collector street and which are found to be compatible with the character and intensity of residential development in the immediate area. Other compatible uses, such as schools, childcare centers, parks, and religious facilities may be located in all areas with this designation, subject to appropriate permitting requirements.

Medium
Density
Residential
14 to 30 units per
net acre
This designation is intended for garden apartments and condominiums, townhomes, row houses, 4 to 8 plexes, and older areas that contain a mix of multi-family and single-family homes within this density range. These areas tend to be multi-family in character but retain some of the characteristics of suburban neighborhoods such as landscaped yards, off-street parking, common open space, and low building heights.

Densities in areas with this designation range from 14 to 30 units per net acre, but the higher end of this range (e.g. from 22 to 30 units per acre) will only be allowed on properties which have their primary access on an arterial or collector street and which are found to be compatible with the character and intensity of residential development in the immediate area.

Additionally, to ensure that land with this designation is used as efficiently as possible, a minimum density standard of 14 units per net acre applies. Other compatible uses, such as schools, childcare centers, parks, and religious facilities may also be located in areas with this designation, subject to appropriate permitting requirements.

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 148

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Land Use
Designation
Housing Capacity General Uses
High Density
Residential
25 to 60 units per
net acre
This designation is intended for apartment and condominium complexes that are generally three stories or more. On larger parcels with this designation, common open space and other shared amenities are typically provided. Structured (or basement level/ podium) parking is also common. Densities range from 25 to 60 units per acre, corresponding to site area allowances of 725 to 1,450 square feet of lot area per each dwelling unit. To ensure that land with this designation is used as efficiently as possible, a minimum density standard of 25 units per net acre applies. Other compatible uses, such as schools, childcare centers, parks, and religious facilities may also be located in areas with this designation, subject to appropriate permitting requirements.

Commercial
Mixed-Use
30 to 60 units per
net acre.

FAR of 0.5 to 2.0
This designation supports a combination of office, residential, and retail use, with an emphasis on specialty commercial uses such as antique stores, boutiques, galleries, cafes, and restaurants. Development standards should foster a walkable, pedestrian-oriented character that emphasizes a fine-grained building scale and streetscape. Structures that are entirely residential or entirely commercial are both permitted, but the optimal development form on larger sites would include housing located above ground level retail shops or services. This designation is used in Old Town Newark, where it recognizes the historic scale, lot pattern, and context of this district. Floor area ratios (FARs) are generally in the range of 0.5 to 2.0. The actual intensity of development on any given site is dictated by a number of factors, including height limits, parking and landscaping requirements, and site size and dimensions.

Multiple zoning districts apply in this designation, with one zone focused on ground floor retail uses and the other allowing more diverse ground floor uses, such as offices and housing.

Regional
Commercial
Greater than 30
units per acre.

FAR of 0.2 to 4.0
This designation supports the largest and most complete shopping facilities in the city. The emphasis is on a broad array of goods and services, including department stores, retail shops, restaurants, entertainment facilities, and similar uses which draw patrons from throughout Newark and the surrounding region. This designation is applied to NewPark Mall and some of the commercial areas on the Mall’s perimeter. Uses such as hotels and corporate office buildings are acceptable in areas with this designation. Housing at densities greater than 30 units per acre may be included in Regional Commercial areas if such housing is a component of a large-scale planned development which is primarily oriented around regional retail commercial uses. FARs are generally in the range of 0.2 to 4.0. The actual intensity of development on any given site is dictated by a number of factors, including height limits, parking and landscaping requirements, and site size and dimensions.

Source: City of Newark General Plan, 2013
HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 149

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Zoning
The City’s zoning and development regulations establish permitted and conditionally permitted uses within each zone and standards which dictate how much development can occur on a given parcel of land such as minimum and maximum densities, height, setbacks, and lot coverage. The City Zoning Ordinance is adopted as Title 17 of the Municipal Code. Title 17, as well as all the other titles that comprise the Newark Municipal Code, are easily accessible on the city’s website at www.newark.org.

The current zoning ordinance includes four residential zoning districts (RS Residential Single Family, RL Residential Low Density, RM Residential Medium Density, RH Residential High Density, and two mixed-use/commercial districts that allow for residential development (CMU Commercial Mixed Use, RC Regional Commercial). These “base” zoning districts are supported by combining districts or “overlay” districts, including the Form Based Code Overlay District, Planned Development and Old Town Newark Overlay District (Table 4-2).

As shown in Table 4-1, the current zoning districts which permit multifamily housing provide a base density range of 30-60 DU/A with the exception of the RC zone, which permits higher densities. In practice, projects in Newark such as the Newpark Place Phase 1A have significantly exceeded these base densities.

Development Standards
Residential development standards established in the Zoning Ordinance are designed to provide orderly development of the City and to protect and promote the health, safety, and welfare of local residents and to implement the policies of the General Plan. An analysis of the residential standards, shown in Table 4-2, shows that Newark’s development standards (prior to the adoption of the zoning amendment required by Program H3.6) are typical for Bay Area communities and are not a constraint to the development of housing. These standards are intended to balance the need for predictable, orderly development with the need to allow the maximum possible residential density. Through program H2.12, the City will address potential barriers to residential development at all density levels through regular review and if necessary, amend the relevant development standards.

Minimum Lot Area
In the RS district, the vast majority of residential development during the planning period is anticipated to occur through ADUs and SB 9 Urban Lot Splits and Urban Housing Developments. These development types are not required to observe minimum lot size requirements for the underlying zoning district. The minimum lot sizes for the RS district HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 150

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
range from 6,000 to 10,000 square feet depending on the zoning designation which correlates to the development patterns of the surrounding subdivisions. The minimum lot sizes for the RM and RH districts, 6,000 square feet, do not affect the development potential of multi-family developments which allow multiple units to be constructed on a single parcel. The minimum lot size for CMU is 20,000 square feet which could be considered a constraint since many of the CMU parcels abutting Thornton Avenue are less than half an acre which would require lot consolidation in order to facilitate redevelopment. The City will investigate this possible constraint as part of Program H2.12 Setbacks
In the RS district, the vast majority of residential development during the planning period is anticipated to occur through ADUs and SB 9 Urban Lot Splits and Urban Housing Developments.

These development types are not required to observe setback requirements for the underlying zoning district. As a program of the Housing Element, a local SB 9 ordinance will be prepared to provide specific development standards for SB 9 projects. A standard residential subdivision in an RS district would not be constrained from achieving maximum density by setback requirements.

As shown in the Table 4-2, front setbacks decrease from 20 feet in RL to 15 feet in RM and RH districts, Street side setbacks decrease from 10 feet in RL to 8 feet, and rear setbacks decrease from 15 feet to 10 feet. CMU and RC districts can be developed to the lot line, but have setbacks imposed if they are adjacent to RS districts or a lot which is developed with a single family residence. The City’s setbacks are typical for a community of its size and development patterns and are not considered barriers to achieving maximum density.

Height
Height limitations are intended to allow projects to achieve the maximum allowable density, while also being responsive to community character. In the RS district, the height limit is 30 feet which allows for the construction of typical two-story homes. In the RM and RH districts, heights greater than 35 feet and up to 75 and 100 feet respectively are permitted with a Minor Use Permit, which may be granted at the discretion of the Community Development Director without a public hearing. In practice, these height limits are reasonable to allow the maximum density and range of product types that are typical in these zones. However, the requirement for an MUP may still be a constraint to development, so Program H2.12 includes the objective of removing this barrier. In the RL, RM, and RH districts, the height limits are 35, 75, and 100 feet respectively, which allow for the construction of three-story townhomes up to multi-story apartments or condominiums in the upper range.

Planned and proposed projects included in the Element generally do not reach the maximum allowable heights for their respective zoning districts but still achieve considerable residential densities. The proposed SAHA development, zoned RH, shows that heights are not a barrier in HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 151

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
achieving maximum densities since the project has a height of 60 feet and achieves a density of 105 dwelling units per acre. Waymark Homes, a proposed three-story attached townhome development which is zoned RM, reaches a height of 37 feet and a density of 22 dwelling units per acre, which is the maximum for the district.

The districts that provide the highest densities for residential development also provide for the highest maximum heights, including the RC district which is 250 feet and the CMU district which is 60 feet or 75 feet within the Old Town Newark Specific Plan area. According to an analysis of the CMU zone, currently only one parcel is outside of the Old Town Specific Plan area and is subject to the 60-foot height limit. While few parcels are zoned CMU in Newark, the 60-foot height limit could potentially be a barrier to reaching maximum allowable densities, especially if the City decides to use this zoning in future locations. The City will review this concern (Program H2.12) and provide flexibility as needed to make maximum densities achievable.

In order to be responsive to community character, the City has scaled height restrictions if the parcel is adjacent to a less intensive zone district. However, this restriction only applies to the area of the parcel which is within 20 feet of the less intensive district, including setbacks, therefore it is not considered a barrier to achieving maximum density. As with other development standards described in this section, height limits and any associated city processes will be continually evaluated during the course of the planning period per Program H2.12.

Lot Coverage
Maximum lot coverage standards vary from 50 percent in RS and RL districts to 55% in RM and RH districts. Lot coverage increases in the RM district to 65% for development within the Old Town Specific Plan area. The CMU and RC districts have no maximum standards. These standards are typical in many Bay Area communities and in Newark have not been perceived as a barrier to development and achieving maximum densities.

Parking
Because off-street parking often requires large amounts of land and structured parking is expensive to build, parking requirements are one of the development standards that can most negatively impact the feasibility of new housing development. Compared to many neighboring jurisdictions, Newark currently has somewhat higher parking requirements for most housing types than neighboring jurisdictions. For multifamily housing, Newark has higher requirements for studio and one-bedroom units than Fremont, as well as higher requirements for covered parking.

Although Newark and Fremont have the same guest parking requirement of 0.5 spaces per unit, Fremont does not have the same requirements for covered parking, and removes minimum parking requirements entirely in areas near transit. Additionally Newark requires one space per unit to be located in a garage, a requirement that can significantly increase the cost of development.

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 152

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Senior housing. Although it has been found that seniors do not have the same rates of driving, Newark has higher parking requirements than neighboring Union City and Fremont, at one space per unit.

ADUs. Union City does not list a parking requirement for ADU’s, but Newark has a higher parking requirement than Fremont, which has no parking requirements at all for ADU and JADU units.

Because Newark has higher parking requirements for multi-family, senior housing and accessory dwelling units this Housing Element update provides an opportunity for significant changes in parking requirements such as removing parking minimums and aligning requirements to be more in line with neighboring jurisdictions. Although the City complies with State density bonus parking standards upon request, the City’s parking requirements can be a potential constraint on the production of housing in some cases. In order to address this constraint, the City will implement Program H3.5 and will commit to developing new, lower parking standards to facilitate residential development, particularly on sites identified for the development of lower-income housing. This will also include a reduction of required guest parking from 0.5 to 0.25 spaces per unit.

Open Space Requirements
Newark has open space square footage requirements per unit in the RL, RM, RH and CMU and RC districts which are 400, 300, 200, 50, and 50 square feet respectively. The required open space is the product of the number of units multiplied by required square footage. Required open space consists of two types: common and private. This is no minimum private open space requirement.

Common open space must be a minimum of 50% of the required open space, but may be more, up to 100% of the requirement. Within the Old Town Specific Plan area, the RM district only requires 100 square feet of open space per unit. The open space requirements in the RL and RM districts may be considered high and have the potential to limit densities. Through Program H2.12, the City will review and revise the open space requirements as necessary including adjustments to the minimum area and dimensional requirements, as well as to provide more flexibility for open space types, location, and usability.

Minimum Commercial Component in Mixed Use Zones
Parcels within the CMU zone that have frontages on Newark Blvd. and Thornton Ave. between the Union Pacific Railroad and Olive Street are required to have nonresidential uses that occupy no less than 15% of the gross lot area on their ground floors. Ground non-residential use is also a requirement for all development in the RC district. The intent of this standard is to promote walkable and vibrant mixed-use neighborhoods with a strong sense of place, however the standard is a potential barrier since recent development in Newark has been predominantly residential. Outside of these major commercial corridors, 100% residential projects are permitted.

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 153

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table 4-2: Residential Development Standards, Newark 2022 Zoning
District
Minimum Lot
Area (sq. ft.)
Max Units Per
Acre
Minimum
Lot Width
(ft.)
Minimum/
Maximum
Setbacks (ft)
Maximum Main
Building
Coverage (%)
Maximum
Height(ft.)
Required
Open Space
Per Unit(sq.
ft.)
RS
RS-6,000:
6,000;
RS-7,000:
7,000;
RS-8,000:
8,000;
RS-10,000:
10,000

8.7 RS-6,000:
60;
RS-7,000:
65;
RS-8,000:
70;
RS-10,000:
80 Front: 20
Interior Side: 5
Street Side: 10
Rear: 20
50 30 n/a
RL
6,000; 3,000
for Single unit
dwelling,
detached
11, up to 15 with
CUP depending
on street
classification
60 Front: 20
Interior Side: 5
Street Side: 10
Rear: 15
50 35 400
RM 6,000
22; up to 30 with
CUP depending
on street
classification, 50
within the Old
Town Specific
Plan area
60 Front: 15
Interior Side: 5
Street Side: 8
Rear: 10
55, 65 within the
Old Town Specific
Plan area
75 (over 35
requires a MUP),
48 within the Old
Town Specific
Plan area, 35
within 20 ft. of an
RS or RL District
300; 100
within the Old
Town Specific
Plan area
RH 6,000 60 60
Front: 15
Interior Side: 5
Street Side: 8
Rear: 10
55 100 (over 35
requires a MUP);
35 within 20 ft. of
an RS or RL
district
200
HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 154

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Zoning
District
Minimum Lot
Area (sq. ft.)
Max Units Per
Acre
Minimum
Lot Width
(ft.)
Minimum/
Maximum
Setbacks (ft)
Maximum Main
Building
Coverage (%)
Maximum
Height(ft.)
Required
Open Space
Per Unit(sq.
ft.)
CMU 20,000
60, 100 within
the Old Town
Newark Specific
Plan area
100
Front: 0, max. of 10
Interior Side: 0, 20
abutting a RS
district or any lot
developed with a
single family
residence
Street Side: 0, max
of 10.

Rear: 0, 10 abutting
a RS district or any
lot developed with a
single family
residence
n/a
60; 75 within the
Old Town Specific
Plan area; 48
within 20 ft of an
RM District
boundary, 35
within 20 ft. of an
RS or RL District
boundary
50 RC 20,000 120 100
Front: 0
Interior Side: 0
Street Side: 0
Rear: 0
n/a 250 50
Source: City of Newark Zoning Ordinance, 2022
HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 155

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
An analysis of the residential standards, shown in Table 4-2, indicates that these requirements overall are not a constraint to the development of housing.

Specific Plans
The City has four (4) adopted specific plans which have significantly increased the City’s capacity to accommodate new housing development through the coming Housing Element update period and beyond. These plans are expected to guide new housing development during the timeframe of the 2023-2031 Housing Element and are described in more detail below.

Bayside Newark Specific Plan, Adopted July 2021
The Bayside Newark Specific Plan, formerly known as The Dumbarton Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), provides the framework for a proposed new neighborhood that will provide a broad range of new housing, retail and business opportunities in Western Newark, centered around the proposed Dunbarton Commuter Rail station.

This project area includes 233 acres of land that has contained various industrial, manufacturing, chemical processing and salt production facilities since the early twentieth century. The plan steers the development of a contemporary version of a pedestrian oriented neighborhood where housing, recreation, neighborhood retail center and employment opportunities are integrated and connected via pedestrian and bicycle networks. The community would include shops, parks and open space amenities, including a bayside trail. Approximately 8% of the area is designated as low density residential, 33% for medium density residential, 29% for medium/high residential, and 2% for high density residential.

In the proposed design, higher densities of residential development-such as condos-would be located within a quarter-mile radius of the transit station, medium densities-such as townhomes-are located slightly further, and single family dwellings are located farthest from the station. Retail stores and shops are concentrated near the transit station at the intersection of Willow Street and Enterprise Blvd. Higher density housing would be adjacent to the retail area and the transit station. Neighborhood parks would be located within the residential areas and a larger community park would be included. Blocks are generally short and pedestrian-oriented. The street circulation network of streets will have one travel lane in each direction and will utilize traffic calming measures such as bike lanes in both directions, on street parking, and single lane roundabouts with the goal of prioritizing active transportation. The plan has a unit cap of 2,500.

Old Town Specific Plan, Adopted September 2021
The Old Town Specific Plan addresses a 76-acre area which encompasses Thornton Avenue spanning seven blocks from Elm Street to Cherry Street, and residential parcels north and south of the commercial corridor. The plan seeks to develop this corridor into a mixed-use area that accommodates a range of housing types, retail and service businesses, expanded public spaces, and mobility improvement. The Old Town Specific Plan does not allow single unit dwellings, HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 156

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
requires densities between 30 and 100 dwelling units per acre, and height maximums of up 75 feet (48 feet within 20 feet of a RM district and 35 feet within 20 feet of an RS or RL district). The plan also requires ground floor retail commercial uses on projects that front Newark Boulevard and Thornton Avenue between The Union Pacific Railroad Tracks and Olive Street.

Through zoning amendments, streetscape improvements, and public and private investments, the plan envisions Old Town Newark as a revitalized mixed-use neighborhood with a strong sense of place, thriving retail and commercial businesses, a range of housing choices for existing and future residents, a streetscape that prioritizes bicyclists and pedestrians, and public spaces. The plan’s grand visions are matched by clear realistic steps for implementation of long-standing goals for revitalization and provide steps to maintain the existing housing stock and avoid displacement of existing residents and businesses.

NewPark Place Specific Plan
The NewPark Place Specific Plan (Plan), adopted in 2018 and implemented as revised in 2021, provides a comprehensive planning and development implementation strategy for a 125-acre area in the southeastern portion of the city adjacent to I-880 which includes the existing NewPark Mall retail center (mall), the parking facilities that surround it, and commercial uses on the perimeter of the center.

The Plan’s vision is to transform the Greater NewPark Mall area into a vibrant urban place through thoughtful land use design, which includes mixed-income residential areas, retail and dining opportunities, community venues, a movie theater, inviting pedestrian-oriented streets and public spaces, and enhanced sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and transit facilities. Creating a premier Bay Area and local destination will re-power the regional retail uses within the mall itself as a vital economic engine for the city. Higher-density multifamily housing across types and affordability levels will comprise the predominant land use type in this reconfigured and revitalized area.

The Plan includes guidance in the form of plans, policies, development standards, and design guidelines and serves as an extension of the general plan making it both a policy and regulatory document. To achieve the development vision for the Greater NewPark Mall area, the Plan contains a framework that is flexible in land use types, development standards, and design guidelines. In collaboration with the city, the developer project sponsor will work within this framework to deliver project designs and programs with desired uses, development form, mobility improvements, and public amenities that create a unique “sense of place”.

The plan is anticipated to build out over an approximate 20-year timeframe, with a total capacity of 1,519 multifamily residential units. The Mixed Use I area (where Phases A through D are located and highlighted in this Element) is expected to redevelop first based on the expressed interest of the property owner/developer. Diverse affordable housing will be an important component of the overall unit mix in the plan area, with at minimum 6 percent of units being affordable to very-low income households, 3 percent to low-income households and 3 percent to moderate-income households per City Council Resolution 10,184.

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 157

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
The plan calls for building heights between 30 and 200 feet, with a preferred minimum of 60 feet.

The residential densities must be within a minimum of 60 dwelling units to the acre and a maximum of 160 dwelling units per acre, which can be accommodated within the overall plan development area under the Specific Plan’s development standards. Building heights are currently constrained by the lack of adequate emergency response infrastructure Newark and the surrounding communities to safely respond to emergencies on high rise buildings. Because of this, the current plan shows densities on the lower edge of the spectrum.

Southwest Newark Residential and Recreational Project (Area 3 and 4 Specific Plan) This is the largest area proposed for future development in Newark, comprising 856 acres in the area bordered by Mowry Avenue on the west, Stevenson Boulevard on the east, Cherry Street on the north, and Mowry Slough on the south. The Union Pacific Railroad bisects the area. Most of the land is vacant, although the area near the end of Mowry Avenue includes an auto-dismantling yard. The remainder of this area has been disked and graded for agricultural use since the early 1900s.

A Specific Plan was adopted in 2010 and 2015 (Newark Specific Plan - Area 3 and 4 of the General Plan). The Plan calls for the development of housing, a major recreational facility such as an 18-hole golf course, and the dedication of conservation open space on some of the low-lying areas south of the railroad tracks. Areas 3 and 4 contain sub areas where development would be focused.

Area 3, Sub Area B has been developed with 386 single-family residential units; construction was substantially complete by early 2021. This sub area, on land facing Cherry Street just east of Ohlone College, has been developed with a three acre community park, as well as a possible future elementary school on a six acre parcel.

A residential project within Area 3, Sub Area C and Area 4, Sub Area B was approved by City Council in November 2019. This project would include 469 detached single-family homes, open space, new utility infrastructure, and roadways, including a new connecting roadway at the existing terminus of Stevenson Boulevard to the project area. A substantial number of homes are expected to be constructed within the period of the Housing Element.

The City is currently considering a development application for 203 detached single-family homes within Area 4, Sub Area D on a parcel which contain an automobile dismantling yard with retail sales. Entitlements have not been granted as of the publication of the Housing Element.

Once the proposed project within Area 4, Sub Area D has been considered and a final decision has been made, the city may take action to retire the plan in a manner consistent with applicable laws and conforming to previously adopted agreements and approved entitlements.

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 158

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Zoning for a Diversity of Housing Types
Housing Element Law (Government Code Section 65583(c) (1) and 65583.2(c)) requires that local governments analyze the availability of sites that will “facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units (SROs), emergency shelters, and transitional housing.” This section discusses relevant regulations that govern the development of the types of housing listed above as required by Government Code Section 65583(a) (3). Table 4-3 summarizes the permitted housing types by zone.

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 159

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table 4-3: Housing Types Permitted by Zone, Newark 2022 Land Use RS RL RM RH CMU RC
Accessory Dwelling Units Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Single-Unit, Detached Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted - - Single-Unit, Attached - Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted 11 -
Two-Unit Dwelling - Permitted Permitted Permitted -
Multi-Unit Development - Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted 12 Conditional Use
Permit
Required
19 Manufactured/Mobile Home - - - - - -
Employee Housing (6 or
fewer persons)
- - - - - -
Residential Care Facilities (6
or fewer persons)
Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted -
Residential Care Facilities (7
or more persons)
- Minor Use
Permit Required
Minor Use
Permit Required
Minor Use
Permit Required
- -
Family Day Care (Group
Residential)
- - Minor Use
Permit Required
Minor Use
Permit Required
Minor Use
Permit Required
-
Family Day Care (Large) Minor Use
Permit Required
Minor Use
Permit Required
Minor Use
Permit Required
Minor Use
Permit Required
- -
Family Day Care (Small) Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted - 12 Not allowed on the ground floor. Residential units shall be intended to support retail commercial uses of the project. 11 Single-Unit Dwelling, Attached uses are not permitted in the Old Town Newark Specific Plan area. Residential uses are not allowed on the ground floor along Newark Boulevard frontage and Thornton Avenue frontage, between the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and Olive Street.

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 160

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Land Use RS RL RM RH CMU RC
Single-Room Occupancy
Units
- - -
Conditional Use
Permit Required
Conditional Use
Permit Required
-
Emergency Shelters
- - Minor Permit
Required
Permitted _ -
Supportive Housing Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted - Transitional Housing Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted - Source: City of Newark Zoning Ordinance, 2022
HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 161

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Multifamily Housing
As shown in Table 4-3, multifamily housing is permitted throughout the City of Newark in all RL, RM, RH and CMU zones. Multifamily housing is also permitted in RC zones with a conditional use permit.

Manufactured Housing and Mobile Homes
State law limits the extent to which cities and counties can regulate the installation of manufactured homes, including mobile homes. Government Code Section 65852.3 requires that cities allow installation of certified manufactured homes on foundation systems on lots zoned for conventional single-family residences. This section and Government Code Section 65852.4 generally require that manufactured homes be subject to the same land use regulations as conventional homes. Government Code Section 65852.7 deems mobile home parks to be a permitted use in all areas planned and zoned for residential use. The City of Newark permits manufactured and factory-built housing in designated residential zoning districts. Because of the high cost of land, manufactured housing is not commonly placed on private property, except perhaps as caretaker residences within industrial districts. There are currently no mobile home parks or manufactured housing in Newark. Pursuant to State law, any site that can be developed for site-built residential development is also available for the development of factory-built (manufactured) housing or for mobile homes. There are no specific restrictions upon the development of manufactured housing or mobile home parks within the Newark Municipal Code or General Plan.