Agenda packet — Newark City Council, April 9, 2026 (part 3 of 3)

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-6

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table C-2: City of Newark Sites Inventory with APNs and Acreage # Name APN Acreage
GP Land
Use Zoning
Income Level
Total
Units
Very
Low Low Mod.

Above
Mod.

Planned and Proposed Projects
1 Bridgeway /
Gateway
assorted n/a LDR, MDR BTP 0 0 0 134 134
2 FMC Willow -
North
92-100-5 7.21 TS, R BTP 47 23 21 64 155
3 FMC Willow -
South
537-852-1-8 12.67 HDR, O, TS BTP 0 0 0 215 215
4 Harbor Pointe 537-852-1-3 1.71 HDR, O BTP 0 0 0 192 192 537-852-2-9 2.29
537-852-2-16 15.70
5 Cedar Homes 92A-2375-2-6 7.16 MDR RM 0 0 0 118 118
6 Cedar
Community
Apts.
901-195-38 1.36 CC CC 124 0 0 1 125
901-195-37 1.36
7 Timber St.

Senior Living
92A-2125-10-2 1.04 MDR RM 39 39 1 0 79
8 Lepakshi Homes
- Building A
92-30-17-2 0.17 CMU CMU 0 0 0 60 60
92-30-16-2 0.17
92-30-18-4 0.31
92-30-14-3 0.19
92-30-15-2 0.17
9 Lepakshi Homes
- Building B
92-31-16-2 0.17 CMU CMU 8 4 3 13 28
92-31-15 0.08
10 SAHA
DevelopmentThornton Ave.
92A-919-17-2 0.18 HDR RH 56 0 1 0 57
92A-919-16-2 0.18
92A-919-18 0.20
11 Mulberry St.

Residential
92-29-22 0.23 MDR RM
0 0 0 8 8
92-29-21 0.23
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-7

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
# Name APN Acreage
GP Land
Use Zoning
Income Level
Total
Units
Very
Low Low Mod.

Above
Mod.
12 Bain Ave. &
Magnolia St.
92-61-11 0.43 MDR RM 0 0 0 10 10
92-61-12-2 0.36
92-61-12-1 0.14
13 Waymark
Homes
92A-2585-12-1 0.83 MDR RM 0 0 0 76 76
92A-2585-30-4 0.35
92A-2585-31 2.62
Subtotal Planned and
Proposed
274 66 26 891 1,257
Sites Zoned for Housing
14 NewPark Mall
(Phases A to D)
901-111-19 9.71 Mixeduse I
RC 36 18 18 535 607
901-111-24 7.89
901-111-30 0.82
901-111-21 4.34
901-111-24 1.21
901-111-22 6.24
901-111-31 3.30
901-111-26 5.64
901-111-26 1.54
901-111-20 7.42
901-111-26 0.64
901-111-29 1.03
901-111-25 14.71
15 Grocery Outlet
Shopping Center
92A-900-1-2 4.62 CMU CMU 27 26 0 0 53
16 Thornton Ave.

Sites (within Old
Town Specific
Plan boundary)
92-50-1-3 0.13 CMU CMU 41 41 41 41 162
92-29-20-2 0.34
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-8

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
# Name APN Acreage
GP Land
Use Zoning
Income Level
Total
Units
Very
Low Low Mod.

Above
Mod.
92-29-16-2 0.17
92-29-15-2 0.09
92-50-2-3 0.13
92-29-19-2 0.17
92-29-18-2 0.17
92-51-5-3 0.50
92-50-3-3 0.13
92-29-14-2 0.08
92-29-17-2 0.17
92-29-13 0.16
92-51-2-3 0.27
17 Cedar Blvd. and
Timber St.

Industrial Sites
92A-2125-17 1.00 MDR RM 0 0 0 61 61
92A-2125-11-2 1.67
92A-2125-13 2.00
18 E-Z 8 Motel 92A-2585-32 2.24 HDR RH 39 38 0 0 77
19 Cherry Plaza 92-50-13 0.96 CMU CMU 15 15 0 0 30
20 Thornton Ave.

Sites (outside of
Old Town
Specific Plan
boundary)
92A-919-20-2 0.24 RHD RH 18 18 18 17 71
92A-919-11-2 0.21
92A-919-15-2 0.16
92A-919-13-2 0.19
92A-919-21-2 0.24
92A-919-12-2 0.16
92A-919-22-2 0.24
92A-919-14-2 0.21
92A-919-19-2 0.19
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-9

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
# Name APN Acreage
GP Land
Use Zoning
Income Level
Total
Units
Very
Low Low Mod.

Above
Mod.
21 Sycamore St.

Vacant Lot
92-255-11 1.81 RHD RH 25 25 24 0 74
22 Cedar Blvd.

Public Storage
Sites
92A-2375-32 1.44 RMD RM 0 0 0 41 41
92A-2375-32 1.46
23 Filbert St. Villas 92-131-3 0.17 RMD RM 0 0 0 16 16
92-54-4 0.18
92-54-5 0.21
24 Filbert Ave. Sites 92-54-6 0.31 RMD RM 0 0 0 7 7
92A-623-43 0.52
92-125-10 0.43
25 Mayhews Place 92A-623-43 0.52 LMDR MDR 0 0 0 9 9
26 Locust &
Railroad
92-125-10 0.43 LMDR RS 0 0 0 6 6
27 Fahmy Homes 92-75-5-2 0.18 MDR RM 0 0 0 6 6
92-75-4-2 0.20
28 Neighborhood
Infill Lots
92-135-23 0.19 LDR RS 0 0 0 17 17
92-127-13 0.17
92-136-15 0.14
92-24-10 0.17
92-127-20 0.43
92-125-2-2 0.42
Accessory
Dwelling Units
(ADUs)
n/a n/a 48 48 48 16 160
Middle Housing
Units
n/a n/a 0 0 200 0 200
Subtotal Sites Zoned
for Housing
249 229 348 771 1,597
Total Capacity 523 295 374 1,662 2,854
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-10

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
# Name APN Acreage
GP Land
Use Zoning
Income Level
Total
Units
Very
Low Low Mod.

Above
Mod.

Newark RHNA 464 268 318 824 1,874
Surplus % 113% 110% 118% 202% 152%
Surplus Units 59 27 56 838 980
Source: City of Newark; Community Planning Collaborative, 2023.

Site Selection Process
The following is a summary of the overall sites inventory process and the methodology and assumptions that support the sites selection process. Using guidance provided by HCD, an inventory of available sites was conducted by closely examining site characteristics and other HCD-established criteria. Primarily, sites were identified by using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping software from multiple datasets to identify parcels that fit the HCD-specified criteria as adequate housing sites. Sites were further refined over a series of working sessions and through input staff, the City Council and community and development sector stakeholders through the community engagement process. The information used to generate the sites inventory database was derived from these primary resources:

1. ABAG’s Housing Element Site Selection (HESS) Tool;

2. City of Newark current and long-term planning records and planning documents;

3. County of Alameda assessor’s data.

Housing sites identified as part of the site inventory analysis were evaluated using a variety of criteria to determine their ability to meet State requirements and meet the City’s RHNA, plus a buffer. The following sections describe the screening criteria and methodology applied for the site selection process. Once all sites had been selected and verified, the realistic density assumption was informed by and calculated from precedent projects in Newark, as well as from regional data provided by ABAG through the HESS tool realistic capacity module.

Methodology/Evaluation of Possible Sites
To meet the City’s RHNA requirement, three primary project types are identified in the sites inventory, as described below. The methodology and assumptions that support these project types are summarized in the “General Site Evaluation Considerations” and “Sites for Rezoning” sections.

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-11

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Planned and Proposed/Pipeline Projects
Pipeline Projects include those that have been approved, permitted, or received a final certificate of occupancy since the beginning of the RHNA projection period (which started on June 30, 2022). Based on HCD guidance, these projects may be credited toward meeting the RHNA allocation based on the affordability and unit count of the development. The following is a description of the subcategories under Pipeline Projects:

Approved/Under Construction: These projects include those that have been approved or are under construction and will receive a final certificate of occupancy after the beginning of the RHNA projection period, making these projects eligible to be counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA.

Proposed Projects: These are projects that are seeking entitlements. Project status includes formal applications or pre-applications under review, master plans with development agreements approved or under review (only those portions realistically expected to start construction by 2031), and sites owned by 100 percent affordable housing developers with the intent to submit applications in the next year.

Permits or certificates of occupancy for these Proposed Projects are expected to be issued in the 6th cycle, making these projects eligible to be counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA as well.

Project Status and Barriers to Development
The City expects to accommodate a significant percentage of its RHNA through planned and proposed projects. Currently, there are 13 projects which are in various stages of the development process and are expected to provide 1,257 units, 340 of which are lower income. One project, Cedar Community Apartments, has been completed and has provided 124 units of very low income housing. Three of the projects are in the construction phase, six are entitled, and three are active applications. Newark continues to see strong demand in multifamily housing as indicated by these planned and proposed projects and development trends from the previous planning cycle.

The following table (C-3), provides an overview of the different projects, potential barriers, likelihood of development within the planning period, and expected completion date. While numerous factors affect a project’s completion, many of which are outside of the purview of the City, all of the projects are likely to be completed within RHNA 6 planning period. Six of the thirteen projects have known barriers identified by the city, the most common being that building permits must be approved or a request for an entitlement extension must be submitted. The City is closely monitoring the progress of each of these projects and is in contact with applicants to provide guidance on how to keep project progress moving forward.

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-12

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table C-3: Planned and Proposed Sites with Project Status Site Name
Development
Stage
Remaining Steps
in Entitlement
Process
Known Barriers to
Developmentin Planning
Period
Likelihood of
Development
in Planning
Period
Expected
Completion
Income Level
Total
Units
Very
Low
Low Mod.

Above
Mod.
1 Bridgeway
/ Gateway
under
construction
none none Likely 2024 0 0 0 134 134
2 FMC
Willow -
North
(Parcel C)
entitled none none Likely Building
permits
issued late
2024;
construction
complete in
2026
47 23 21 64 155
3 FMC
Willow -
South
entitled none none Likely Building
permits
issued late
2024;
construction
complete in
2026
0 0 0 215 215
4 Harbor
Pointe
under
construction
none none Likely 2024 0 0 0 192 192
5 Cedar
Homes38478
Cedar
Boulevard
entitled none Clearance required for
underground leakage
from applicable agencies
prior to grading permit
issuance.

Building permit approval
or entitlement extension
required by May 25,
2025.

Likely Building
permits
issued
mid-2024;
construction
complete late
2025.
0 0 0 118 118
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-13

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Site Name
Development
Stage
Remaining Steps
in Entitlement
Process
Known Barriers to
Developmentin Planning
Period
Likelihood of
Development
in Planning
Period
Expected
Completion
Income Level
Total
Units
Very
Low
Low Mod.

Above
Mod.
6 Cedar
Community
Apts.
complete none none Complete 2023
124 0 0 1 125
7 Timber St.

Senior
Living
entitled none Construction closing
process must be complete
and construction started
by February 19, 2024 as
required by
TCAC/CDLAC.

Building permit approval
or request for entitlement
extension required by
October 28, 2024.

Likely Building
permits
issued Q1
2024;
construction
complete by
late 2025.
39 39 1 0 79
8 Lepakshi
Homes -
Building A,
6781
Thornton
Ave.
active
application
Completeness
determination;
CEQA review;
Planning
Commission and
City Council
review.

Visibility triangle
requirements for corner
lots must be met.

Main water line
adjustment needs to be
complete and new fire
hydrants need to be
added.

Likely Entitlements
issued by mid
2024;
building
permits
issued late
2024;
construction
complete by
mid-2026.
0 0 0 60 60
9 Lepakshi
Homes -
Building B,
6781
Thornton
Ave.
active
application
Completeness
determination;CE
QA review;
review; Planning
Commission and
City Council
review
None Likely Entitlements
issued by mid
2024;
building
permits
issued late
2024;
8 4 3 13 28
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-14

Above
Mod.
construction
complete by
mid-2026.
10 SAHA
Developme
nt- 6347
-6375
Thornton
Ave.
active
application
Completeness
determination,
CEQA, public
hearings
Entitlement application
needed which is expected
in November 2023.

Likely Entitlements
issued in
2024;
construction
complete in
2026
56 0 1 0 57
11 Mulberry
Residential
36952
Mulberry
Street
entitled none Construction drawings
required which may be
delayed due to high
interest rates.

Building permit approval
or request for entitlement
extension required by
June 22, 2025.

Likely Building
permits
issued late
2024;
construction
complete in
early 2026
0 0 0 8 8
12 Bain Ave. &
Magnolia
St. - 37280
Magnolia
Street
under
construction
none none Likely 2023
0 0 0 10 10
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-15

Above
Mod.
13 Waymark
Homes -
Cedar Blvd
entitled none Closing of sale on City
property must be
complete by January 12,
2024 per the Purchase &
Sale Agreement.

Building permit approval
or request for entitlement
extension required by
September 14, 2025.

Likely Building
permits
issued 2024;
construction
complete late
2026
0 0 0 76 76
Subtotal Planned
and Proposed
274 66 26 891 1,257
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-16

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Sites Zoned for Housing
Sites zoned for housing comprise the second main type of site to accommodate the City’s RHNA, including both vacant and non-vacant sites with available infrastructure and that meet a variety of criteria that make them candidates for residential development during the 6 th cycle planning period. These sites are
considered vacant or underutilized and are eligible for residential development as is currently allowed under the existing zoning in the General Plan or in one of the City’s adopted specific plans.

Accessory Dwelling Units and SB 9 Units
Accessory Dwelling Units are considered opportunities for residential development and are based on projected development during the planning period as is currently allowed under the existing zoning or General Plan. The sites inventory provided in Table C-1 assumes that Newark will continue to approve on the order of 15 units per year
15 . In addition, it is anticipated that homeowners in Newark will begin to take advantage of the opportunities to add additional housing units through the addition of new units on existing residential lots or through urban lot splits as provided in SB 9. 16 16 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/docs/planning-and-community-development/SB9FactSheet.pdf 15 The affordability levels assumed by Newark in the sites inventory for ADU production is supported by research conducted for ABAG’s RHTA program and is based on a robust statewide survey of ADUs by affordability level. https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-03/ADUs-Projections-Memo-final.pdf APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-17

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
General Site Evaluation Considerations
This section provides a summary of the evaluation considerations made as part of the analysis and a description of each consideration. As most of the city is already built with limited vacant parcels remaining, sites in the inventory primarily include non-vacant parcels that already have access to infrastructure and meet a variety of HCD criteria that make them suitable candidates for housing redevelopment. While sites not included in the sites inventory can also be developed for housing to meet RHNA targets, those sites identified in the inventory are considered optimal and most likely to develop and contribute to housing production in the 6th cycle. The following considerations were evaluated and are described in more detail in the following sections:
● Infrastructure Availability;
● Environmental Constraints;
● Site Status and Capacity (i.e., vacant, underutilized, existing uses, and residential zoning); ● Site Size;
● Permitted Density; and
● Evaluating Sites from Prior Housing Element(s).

Infrastructure Availability
The availability of utility infrastructure to a site can be a constraint to housing development and was considered as an evaluation criterion when working to identify sites for the inventory. As a primarily developed community, the City of Newark is well-served by existing infrastructure systems, including both wet and dry utilities. As much of Newark already has available or nearby access to water and wastewater services, wet utilities are not a constraint to residential development though minor upgrades to these services (e.g., expanded sewer and water hookups to the trunk line) may be needed to develop select sites for residential uses. All sites have been screened to have available infrastructure.

Environmental Constraints
The analysis of environmental constraints included a review of all parcels identified in the inventory using different GIS-based data screens as well as ABAG’s HESS tool to determine if sites possess one or more environmental constraint, including hazard risks such as parcel shapes, flood zones or wetlands, easements, contamination, steep slopes, and other possible constraints to development feasibility. Two sites, both in the construction phase, Bridgeway/Gateway and Harbor Pointe have floodplain exposure, which was mitigated during the entitlement process. None of the sites in the inventory, either planned or proposed or zoned for housing, have irregular shapes, or are impacted by either wetlands or critical habitat.

The sites zoned for housing in the sites inventory are located in urbanized areas of the City and do not have special hazard risks or significant environmental challenges. However, some of the sites zoned for housing have current or former industrial uses which may need contamination mitigation. Additional regulatory constraints or mitigation efforts have not been an issue for the projects that have been entitled or are in the entitlement process (for example, Waymark Homes and Timber St. Senior Living) in this APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-18

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
formerly industrial/warehouse area. For instance, the Environmental Impact Report for the Bayside Newark Specific Area Plan, an area that had considerable previous industrial contamination, outlines and addresses contamination and other environmental concerns which has led the way for significant housing construction. Where siting housing on parcels with environmental constraints may be unavoidable to accommodate the City’s housing need, risks would be addressed through building codes and other mitigation measures.

Site Status and Capacity
Sites in Newark which are zoned to accommodate housing include vacant and nonvacant sites in the zoning districts summarized in Section 4A. Residentially zoned sites, either vacant or underutilized, were considered as potential buildable residential sites and were evaluated for site adequacy and capacity.

Government Code Sections 65583(a)(3) and 65583.2 require that the inventory of suitable land look at criteria for vacant and underutilized sites as outlined below:
● Vacant sites that are zoned for multi-family development ● Vacant sites that are not zoned for multi-family development, but that allow such development ● Underutilized sites that are zoned for residential development and capable of being developed at a higher density or with greater intensity
● Sites that are not zoned for residential development, but can be redeveloped for and/or rezoned for multi-family residential development
● Sites owned or leased by the City that can be redeveloped for multi-family residential development within the housing cycle
● Sites controlled by the State, a city/county, or another public agency where there is agreement/documentation that the site can be developed within the housing cycle ● Non-vacant sites require substantial evidence to demonstrate that existing development will not preclude housing production during the planning period
A methodology to determine “underutilized” sites was necessary given that the City has shrinking supply of vacant land. Sites were removed from consideration in the underutilized methodology if sites: did not initially allow residential uses, were historic resources, were sites that support community-serving uses (parks, utilities, transportation, schools, hospitals), had structures that were recently built or modified, and were generally built out to their allowed density.

Sites owned by the City and other public agencies were also evaluated for affordable housing development, but none were identified as suitable at this time.

Site Size
Per State law, sites smaller than half an acre or larger than 10 acres are not considered adequate to accommodate lower income housing needs unless it can be demonstrated that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during prior planning periods, or other evidence is provided that sites at this size can be developed as lower income housing.

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-19

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Large Sites – There are no individual sites in the inventory larger than 10 acres (with the exception of one parcel within the NewPark Place Specific Plan Area which is 14.7 acres).

Small Sites – The sites inventory includes parcels that are less than or slightly greater than one-half acre in size. A screening of these smaller parcels and common ownership was conducted. Where smaller parcels were immediately adjacent to other Opportunity Sites that had the same landowner, these parcels were consolidated to create larger sites, given the likelihood of these consolidated sites being developed together as a single project (the SAHA Thornton Avenue project falls in this category). Recent proposals and projects underway confirm trends toward lot consolidation in Newark. Sites 8-13 are all recent examples of projects where lot consolidation is happening, entitlements have been issued (Sites 11 and 13) or are under review (Sites 8-10), and in some cases, construction is progressing (Site 12). In addition, interviews with the owners of Site 23 and 27, which have expired entitlements, confirm continued interest in parcel assembly (Site 23 has already been assembled) and development and do not indicate that lot consolidation is a barrier to development. In combination with Program 2.11, which will provide incentives for lot consolidation, conditions for the potential development of small parcels in Newark are promising. A full list of these and other sites is included in the sites inventory form to be prepared for submission to HCD for review.

Permitted Density
State law (Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)) establishes a “default density standard” of 30 units per acre for lower income units in a metropolitan jurisdiction such as Newark. This is the minimum density that is deemed appropriate in State law to accommodate the City’s lower income RHNA. In accordance with the State’s default density standards, sites that could support a minimum of 30 units per acre were considered appropriate for very low and low income units, as well as for moderate income units. All underutilized Opportunity Sites in the inventory can accommodate at least the default density.

Evaluating Sites from Prior Housing Element(s)
To accommodate the 2023-2031 RHNA, sites from both the 4th and 5th cycle housing elements were evaluated to determine their viability for the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period. As reflected in Program H3.6 and Table 6-2, the city has identified all parcels that need to be rezoned to accommodate RHNA during the planning period. Specifically, by January 31, 2024, Newark will implement zoning text amendments to provide adequate capacity for up to 602 units. This program will provide for a minimum density of 30 DU/A for sites to accommodate lower income RHNA units. The City will incorporate a replacement housing provision for any sites with existing residential use and will permit multifamily uses without discretionary action.

Pursuant to AB 1397, Newark will also amend the Zoning Ordinance to require by-right approval of housing development that includes 20 percent of the units as housing affordable to lower-income households, on sites being used to meet the 6th Cycle RHNA that represent “reuse sites” previously identified in the 4th and 5th Cycles Housing Element. The ten sites listed in Table 6-2 will be adjusted by text amendment to accommodate the lower income RHNA as needed.

Sites for Rezoning
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-20

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Government Code section 65583.2(h) sets requirements if sites are identified for rezoning to accommodate a lower income RHNA shortfall. The City’s sites inventory does not have a lower income shortfall, and therefore is not subject to those requirements.

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-21

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Realistic Capacity Evaluation - Approach and Methodology As required by Housing Element law, local governments must analyze available sites based on a determination of their realistic residential development capacity. Consistent with this requirement, Newark collected and analyzed data on precedent projects to evaluate the realistic capacity of both vacant sites and non-vacant/underutilized sites in both residential and commercial/mixed-use zones.

Specifically, the typical achieved densities of existing or approved residential development on sites in all zoning districts were analyzed to confirm their realistic capacity to achieve the identified number of housing units for each site by AMI level.

Land Use, Zoning and Development Standards and Realistic Capacity The precedent projects used as reference housing developments for this analysis are subject to the same land use controls and site improvement standards as the sites in the inventory. Local precedent projects were supplemented by sub-regional data provided from the ABAG HESS tool regarding typical achieved densities on projects in the Newark/Tri-City Market Area.

Realistic Capacity in Multifamily-Residential (RM, RH zones) For housing opportunity sites identified in the City’s multi-family residential districts (RM, RH), the realistic capacity assumption applied to total site capacity is 80 percent. This assumption is conservatively set lower than representative projects currently in the City’s development pipeline (see, for example, Site 7 in the below sites inventory, which is being built out at more than 100 percent of the maximum allowed density in the RM zone). This more conservative realistic capacity adjustment factor for sites in the RM and RH zones is also broadly consistent with 357 projects built in the Multi-Family Residential districts of the Tri-City area between 2018 and 2020.
17 Realistic Capacity in Commercial Mixed-Use, Regional Commercial (CMU, RC zones) and Other Non-Residential Zones
Per State Housing Element law, the realistic development capacity calculation for nonresidential, non-vacant, or overlay zoned sites must be adjusted to reflect the realistic potential for residential development capacity on the sites in the inventory. Specifically, when the site has the potential to be developed with non-residential uses, requires redevelopment, or has an overlay zone allowing the underlying zoning to be utilized for residential units, these capacity limits must be reflected in the Housing Element.

For this analysis, Newark has taken into account both recently developed and planned and proposed residential development in Newark as well as data from comparable projects in the Tri-City area obtained from the HESS tool. As detailed in the realistic capacity analyses provided for Sites 14 through 28, factors used to make the adjustment included:
● Local and regional residential development trends in non-residential zoning districts. 17 ABAG HESS tool
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-22

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
● Local or regional track records, past production trends, and development yields for redeveloping sites or site intensification.
● The likelihood for residential development based on recent precedents, market demand and City efforts to incentivize the development of 100 percent residential development on formerly commercial sites (see, for example, Site 14 Newpark Place, which contemplates new residential development on several sites that were formerly commercial).

Market data provided by the HESS tool identified 128 project(s) built in the non-residential districts of the Alameda South County/Tri-Cities Area between 2018 and 2020. The average number of units built as a percentage of the maximum allowable units on these sites was 130 percent. However, due to ground floor retail requirements and the experience of comparable pipeline projects, a more conservative feasibility multiplier of 80 percent was used in the sites inventory analysis to reflect local conditions in Newark, and also to take into account the unlikely event that commercial-only development would occur on these sites, despite recent development trends.

Development Trends in Commercial and Mixed-Use Zones
As noted, precedent projects were evaluated to determine the likely density of 100 percent residential development in each of the zones that permit housing in Newark. In general, throughout Newark and the larger Tri-City market area, residential uses have been outcompeting retail and office uses, and the overwhelming trend has been towards the conversion of existing commercial centers. The NewPark Place Specific Plan reflects this trend in that there is a planned downsizing of the commercial retail portions of the existing center in favor of higher density residential product types.

During the fifth cycle RHNA planning period, only five (5) non-residential commercial projects were developed on commercial or mixed-use sites in Newark. Specifically, these 100 percent commercial uses consisted of the following projects: three hotels developed on commercial and mixed-use sites; a new restaurant replacing an existing restaurant in a commercial zone; and, a Costco retail warehouse replacing existing commercial uses in the NewPark Place Specific Plan Area resulting in a net decrease in commercial floor area.

This Limited commercial development occurred in the context of over 30 residential development projects that were approved during the same time frame in residential and specific plan areas, representing thousands of new units. In addition, the City receives regular inquiries from developers interested in developing housing on existing commercial land, reflecting the strong trend towards the conversion of existing commercial land to residential and mixed-uses. Taking these development trend factors into account, the realistic capacity factor of 80% is extremely conservative in accounting for the limited possibility that future development on these sites may be 100% non-residential.

Overall Planning and Development Context for Residential Development in Formerly Non-Residential Areas
Newark has a history of reimagining underutilized sites for new housing development. As described in Section 4, Section A (Housing Constraints, Governmental Constraints) Newark has adopted specific plans in important transitional areas of the City that can accommodate a variety of uses, including residential APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-23

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
uses:
● Bayside Newark Specific Plan (formally known as the Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan) an area of over 200 acres that contained various industrial, manufacturing, chemical processing, and salt production facilities. Extensive environmental and hazardous materials remediation has been completed to allow the construction of dense single-family and multiple-family residential buildings. As of 2023, over 2,000 units have been approved, built, and/or are in a phase of construction.
● Old Town Specific Plan, an area of 76 acres representing some of Newark’s oldest neighborhoods.

The specific plan’s vision is the development of this corridor into a mixed-use area that accommodates a range of housing types, retail and service businesses, expanded public spaces, and mobility improvement. Through zoning amendments,streetscape improvements, and public and private investments, the plan envisions Old Town Newark as a revitalized mixed-use neighborhood with a strong sense of place. The specific plan envisions approximately 400 net-new residential units to be located within the specific Plan area. ● NewPark Place Specific Plan provides a comprehensive planning and development implementation strategy for a 125-acre area in the southeastern portion of the city adjacent to I-880, which includes the existing NewPark Mall retail center (mall), the parking facilities that surround it, and commercial uses on the perimeter of the center. Thisspecific plan envisions over 1,500 residential units located in the existing shopping malls surface parking area. Residential uses are permitted uses within these surface parking areas; conditional use permits are not required.

In addition to adopting specific plans, the city has rezoned other areas of the city from commercial and industrial uses to residential uses. For example, through various zoning amendments and project entitlements, the light industrial neighborhood on the eastside of Cedar Boulevard between Central Avenue and Mowry Avenue is transforming into a dense urban neighborhood. Since 2014, over 700 residential units have been approved or constructed within this area.

Newark has consistently approved residential development on lands that have transitioned from industrial and other uses into high-quality residential neighborhoods, resulting in the production of thousands of units. This development is in addition to residential development on lands identified in the general plan and in zoning districts specifically for residential uses. Residential development is expected to continue, especially in areas where mixed-uses are allowed, based upon the implantation of housing element policies and State legislation that remove barriers to residential development on commercial and mixed-use sites.

Policies and Programs Incentivizing Residential Development in Commercial and Mixed Use Area
This above realistic capacity analysis is further supported by a range of policies and programs that the City has committed to implementing during the planning period. These policies include, but are not limited to, the following:

PROGRAM H2.3: Investigate Opportunities in the Four Corners Area to facilitate market-rate and affordable housing and promote neighborhood revitalization through increased mixed use development APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-24

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
and walkability.

POLICY H2.4: Work with community partners and property owners to revisit a community visioning plan for the Four Corners neighborhood/community commercial area.

PROGRAM H3.4: Adjust Zoning to Allow Mixed Use in Current Commercial Zones PROGRAM H4.10: Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Special Needs Housing In order to support an increase in this housing type in the city, SROs will be permitted use in Residential Medium Density, Commercial Mixed Use and Residential High Density zones, with a priority for SRO development to occur along transit corridors.

To align zoning with planned development areas and associated policies of developing pedestrian friendly, walkable neighborhoods, the city proposes to implement State laws SB6 and AB 2011 to encourage residential and mixed-use developments in current commercial zones.

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-25

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Evaluation of Sites to Accommodate Varied Income Levels One of the most important evaluation considerations of the sites selection process is to evaluate a site’s ability to accommodate households with varying income levels. To satisfy the RHNA requirement, the amount of lower, moderate, and above moderate income units is specified for each site in the inventory.

Furthermore, the unit capacity must be maintained throughout the 2023-2031 planning period.

Therefore, a buffer of at least 15 percent to 30 percent is generally recommended by HCD, and Newark’s sites inventory buffer is well beyond this recommendation. If sites listed in the inventory are redeveloped with other uses or different income levels than what is identified, the difference can be made up with the buffer sites to ensure there is “No Net Loss” of Suitability of Non-Vacant Sites.

Suitability of Non-Vacant Sites for Development
The lack of vacant land in Newark and the relatively high value of new residential development means that the City consistently sees the redevelopment of underutilized sites, a fact which is reflected most notably in the adoption and ongoing implementation of the Newpark Place Specific Plan. Developer and property interest in non-vacant commercial sites for future residential development has been strong in recent years, and the inventory included here is, by many measures, relatively conservative in terms of the number of non-vacant commercial sites included relative to market pressures.

Non-vacant opportunity sites in the inventory were screened based on the criteria previously described.

The consultant team worked closely with city staff to identify suitable properties and analyze existing uses and the conditions of buildings or lots on non-vacant sites. Property owner outreach was also conducted for the relevant sites, as well as analysis on constraints and market conditions. In each case, the analysis indicated that the opportunity sites included in this Housing Element Have a strong likelihood of developing as residential projects during the planning period.

Lower Income RHNA vis-a-vis Non Vacant Sites
State law requires additional analysis of existing uses in the sites inventory if more than 50 percent of the City’s low-income RHNA is accommodated on non-vacant sites. HCD has published guidance for how to determine this, which includes adjustments for proposed lower income projects and ADU capacity, in addition to vacant sites in the inventory. A substantial amount of the City’s lower-income units (more than 50 percent of the lower income RHNA) are within Pipeline Projects. In addition, the inventory includes affordable ADU units. In summary, less than 34 percent of Newark’s lower income RHNA is accommodated on non-vacant sites, which is below the 50 percent threshold. Therefore, no additional analysis is needed to support the site inventory’s non-vacant sites.

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-26

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table C-4: Lower Income RHNA vis-a-vis Non Vacant Sites, 2023 Site Location
Lower Income
Units
Percent of Lower
Income RHNA
Planned and Proposed Sites 340 46.4%
Vacant Sites (Sycamore St.) 50 6.8%
ADUs 96 13.1%
Total Lower Income RHNA 732 100%
Lower Income RHNA vis-a-vis Non Vacant Sites 246 33.6%
Site Profiles
The following site profiles provide specific information about each of the opportunity sites listed in Table C-1 and displayed vis-v-vis AFFH factors in the maps provided above. The sites include both planned and proposed projects as well as sites zoned for housing that will be available to be developed during the planning period. Each profile includes a description of the site’s general plan land use designation, zoning, site size and maximum allowable density. Notes regarding realistic capacity are included as well as available links to relevant planning documents and plans. Sites 1 through 13 are in the development pipeline process (either under construction, fully entitled or active applications) and sites 14 through 28 are locations identified for housing either from previous Housing Elements or new analysis. Sites identified as zoned for housing include detailed analyses of development standards, government constraints and environmental constraints. Tables summarizing development standards and unit yield are provided for sites 15 through 19, 21, 22, 24, and 25.

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-27

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
1 Bridgeway / Gateway (Bayside Newark) - under construction Zoning: Residential High Density, Residential
Medium Density
Specific Plan Designation: Medium/High
Density Residential
APNs: Consolidated sites with APNs to be listed
in the HCD electronic inventory form.

Size: 41 acres
Max Allowable Density 60 units per acre.

Realistic capacity based on approved entitlements or
developer proposal
On March 10, 2016, Newark City Council adopted Ordinance No. 492 which was a zoning amendment on property shown in Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8099 from MT-1 (High
Technology Park District) to MDR-FBC (Medium Density
Residential-Form Based Codes) and HDR-FBC (High Density Residential-Form Based Codes) as part of the Bayside Newark (formerly known as the Dunbarton TOD Specific Plan) to
develop the land as Gateway Station West.

The project, proposed by Integral Communities, calls for the phased development of 589 market-rate residential units within approximately 41 acres of the 54.5-acre project site, at an approximately density of 14.36 DU/A. A total of 321 single family detached homes and 268 attached condos are planned, along with streets, 1,473 parking spaces, sidewalks, trails, landscaping, parks, water quality treatment basins and
permanent open space. In addition, several off-site roadway, sidewalk and landscaping improvements may be constructed in conjunction with the project. The development site is located within the Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan Project area.

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-28

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-29
2 FMC Willow - North (Bayside Newark) - entitled
Zoning: Business and Technology Park
Specific Plan Designation: Transit Station,
Commercial/Retail
APN: 92-100-5
Size: 7.2 acres
Max Allowable Density: Form-based code
Realistic capacity based on approved entitlements or
developer proposal
On 9/22/22, The City of Newark approved land use
modifications proposed by Lennar Home Builder, FMC
Corporation, and Integral Communities within the FMC
Willow and Grand Park portion of the Bayside Newark
Specific Plan area. The proposed modifications would
redevelop the 22.1-acre site into a 370-unit multi-family community including 279 townhouse units, a 1.6-acre
mixed-use area with 3,600 sq. ft. of retail, club room, fitness center, and 90 affordable units (plus 1 manager unit) within a 6-story building, a 5-acre community park (Grand Park), and a 1,485 sq. ft. community building, along with approx. 1.8 acres set aside for a future transit station.

The north site, known as FMC Willow - North” would contain the 91-unit affordable housing, mixed-use building, 64
multifamily units and the future transit station parcel for a total of 155 units. The 64 market-rate units would be UA Stack (multifamily). The UA Stacks would have five floor plans ranging from 1,696 square feet to 2,015 square feet, and they would be three-stories high.

Link to approved Application (Resolution No. 11,407)
Link to FMC Willow Staff Report

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
3 FMC Willow - South (Bayside Newark) - entitled
Zoning: Business and Technology Park
Specific Plan Designation: High Density
Residential, Commercial Office, Transit Station
APN: 537-852-1-8
Size: 12.6 acres
Max Allowable Density 60 units per acre.

Realistic capacity based on approved entitlements or
developer proposal
On 9/22/22, The City of Newark approved land use
modifications proposed by Lennar Home Builder, FMC
Corporation, and Integral Communities within the FMC
Willow and Grand Park portion of the Bayside Newark
Specific Plan area. The proposed modifications would
redevelop the 22.1-acre site into a 370-unit multi-family community including 279 townhouse units, a 1.6-acre
mixed-use area with 3,600 sq. ft. of retail, club room, fitness center, and 90 affordable units (plus 1 manager unit) within a 6-story building, a 5-acre community park (Grand Park), and a 1,485 sq. ft. community building, along with approx. 1.8 acres set aside for a future transit station.

The South Site of the project, known as “FMC Willow South”, (Grand Park, PA 3, and PA 4) would include a 1,485 square foot community building, 123 multifamily units, and 92
townhomes for a total of 215 units. The 123 units would be UA Split (multifamily), and 92 would be UA Towns
(townhomes). The UA Stacks would have 5 floorplans ranging from 1,696 square feet to 2,015 square feet. The UA Splits would have a standard option with 4 floorplans ranging from 1,307 square feet to 2,108 square feet and a 4-story option with 4 floorplans ranging from 1,307 square feet to 2,422 square feet. The homes would be 3-5 stories high.

Link to project plans.

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-30

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
4 Harbor Pointe, FMC Parcel C (Bayside Newark) - under construction Zoning: Business and Technology Park
Specific Plan Designation: High Density
Residential, Commercial/Office
APN: 537-852-2-9, 537-852-1-3, 537-852-2-16
Size: 13.6 acres
Max Allowable Density 60 units per acre.

Realistic capacity based on approved entitlements or
developer proposal
In line with the Bayside Newark Specific Plan (formerly known as the Dumbarton TOD), the City of Newark approved a title sheet and site plan submitted by Parcel C Project Owner, LLC.

The date on the filing is from 12/17/2018.

The developable area of 13.6 acres was subdivided to
accommodate 192 units over three planning areas. Planning Area 1 has a total 72 units at a density of 11.56 units to the acre, Planning Area 2 has a total of 75 units at 16.13 units per acre, and Planning 3 has a total of 45 units at 16.48 units per acre. The plan has multiple typologies which are both three and four bedroom single family units which will be sold at market rate. The project is being built in phases and multiple final maps may be filed.

Link to project plans.

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-31

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
5 Cedar Homes - 38478 Cedar Boulevard - entitled
Zoning: Residential Medium Density
General Plan Designation: Medium Density
Residential
APN: 92A-2375-2-6
Size: 7.76 acres
Max Allowable Density 30 dwelling units per
acre.

Realistic capacity based on approved entitlements or
developer proposal
According to application materials, Robson Homes, LLC
proposes to construct 118 residential units composed of single family residences and two-unit attached townhomes on a 7.76-acre site located at 38288-38594 Cedar Blvd. The site would be subdivided to create 124 lots including six common and 118 residential lots. The project would include
landscaping and open space areas, a new private street, and on-site and off-site improvements. Below is a rendering of an example unit.

Link to project plans.

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-32

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
6 Cedar Community Apartments - complete
Zoning: Community Commercial
General Plan Designation: Community
Commercial
APN: 901-195-37, 901-195-38
Size: 2.7 acres
Max Allowable Density 25-60 dwelling units per
acre.

Realistic capacity based on approved entitlements or
developer proposal
The Cedar Community Apartments project was selected for a Homekey grant valued at $38.2 million. This grant assisted with the acquisition and conversion of Town Place Suite into 125 apartment units that are affordable to extremely low-income households and households experiencing homelessness,
including 11 units that are reserved for military veterans. The grant also assists with the provision of resident services including education and employment services. 1 unit is at market rate for management.

The owner of the Towne Place Suites (TPS) extended-stay hotel in Newark and Allied Housing/Abode Services entered into an option agreement for the sale of the property. The hotel suites were converted into 124 supportive, affordable residential units to be known as Cedar Community Apartments. 60 units are for households who have experienced homelessness, and the other 64 are set aside for people at risk of homelessness.

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-33

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
7 Timber St. Senior Living - entitled
Zoning: Residential Medium Density
General Plan Designation: Medium Density
Residential
APN: 92A-2125-10-2
Size: 1.0 acre
Max Allowable Density 30 dwelling units per
acre.

Realistic capacity based on approved entitlements or
developer proposal
Timber Street Senior, developed by Eden Housing, will provide 79 units of new affordable housing for seniors in a convenient location in Newark, CA. The project will redevelop the 1-acre site and fulfill the city’s vision of transforming the surrounding neighborhood from light industrial and warehouse space to a vibrant, walkable residential neighborhood.

The project has been granted $21.7 million in funding for its construction with the City of Newark and Alameda County (Measure A1 Affordable Housing Fund) both as financial
partners. The project’s funding is a part of Governor
Newsom’s recent commitment of more than $825 million to help expand the state’s affordable housing stock and increase capacity for additional climate-smart infill housing.

The building will include a community room with a kitchen and attached courtyard with space for planter boxes and
organized activities, a computer learning center, an exercise room, a bicycle storage room, and offices to house on-site services staff. All of the units are 1-bedrooms, so the community will support seniors living on their own as well as couples. A rendering of the project is shown below.

Link to project plans.

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-34

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
8 Lepaskshi Homes - 6781 Thornton Ave. Building A (Old Town Newark Area Plan) - active application
Zoning: CommercialMixed Use
General Plan Designation: Commercial Mixed
Use
APN: 92-30-16-2, 92-30-15-2, 92-30-14-3,
92-30-18-4, 92-30-17-2
Size: 1.0 acres
Max Allowable Density 100 dwelling units per
acre (Old Town Newark Area Plan)
Realistic capacity based on approved entitlements or
developer proposal
The developer, Lepakshi Homes, has proposed a residential project at the gateway to the City’s Old Town neighborhood.

The project consists of two sites with a single building on each site. “ Building A” with 60 market rate units, 12 one-bedroom, 37 two-bedroom, 6 three-bedroom, and 5 live-work units. The proposed plan is approximately 60 units per acre for Building A.Building A’s building height is 57 feet with a clocktower at 72 feet.

As of October 2023, the application is under review. The city anticipates that the application will be complete in early 2024 with public hearings scheduled shortly thereafter.

Entitlements include a Planned Development and Design
Review.

Link to project plans.

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-35

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-36
9 Lepakshi Homes - 6781 Thornton Ave. Building B (Old Town Newark Specific Plan) - active application
Zoning: Commercial Mixed-Use
General Plan Designation: Commercial Mixed
Use
APN: 92-31-15, 92-31-16-2
Size: 0.25 acres
Max Allowable Density 100 dwelling units per
acre (Old Town Newark Specific Plan)
Realistic capacity based on approved entitlements or
developer proposal
The developer, Lepakshi Homes, has proposed a residential project at the gateway to the City’s Old Town neighborhood.

The project consists of two sites with a single building on each site. “ Building B” is across the street from Building A and would contain 15 affordable units and 13 market rate units.

The proposed plan is at 94 units per acre, and the building height is 59 feet. Below is a rendering of the project, with Building B in the foreground. The smaller “Building B” parcels are part of the same application and approval process as Building A.

As of October 2023, the application is under review. The city anticipates that the application will be complete in early 2024 with public hearings scheduled shortly thereafter.

Entitlements include Planned Development and Design
Review.

Link to project plans.

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-37
10 SAHA - 6347 -6375 Thornton Ave. - active application Zoning: Residential High Density
General Plan Designation: High Density
Residential
APN: 92A-919-18, 92A-919-17-2,
92A-919-16-2
Size: 0.54 acres
Max Allowable Density 60 dwelling units
per acre.

Realistic capacity based on developer proposal
assubmitted to city in NOFA process.

According to application materials, SAHA proposes a
multi-family housing development of 57 deeply affordable homes targeted to individuals and families including 15 twobedroom apartments and 16 three-bedroom apartments, on three underutilized parcels, 6347-6375 Thornton Avenue.

The proposal calls for a single 60 foot. 5-story building on 0.54 acres at 105 DU/A (a waiver or concession is needed).

SAHA proposes to develop a five-story building using Type 5A wood-frame construction for the upper four floors over a Type 1A concrete ground floor and parking garage. The design includes numerous family-friendly common area amenities such as a computer lab, an acoustically-insulated music practice room, a bicycle repair station, building wide wireless internet service free to residents, an outdoor tot play area and wheelchair-accessible raised garden beds in a sunny spot where SAHA’s Resident Services team will expand its
successful gardening program.

To fund this transformation, SAHA requested and received $12M of seed capital from the City of Newark which will cover approximately 25% of the total development cost.

The developer will submit a formal design review, minor use permit, and a map application before the end of 2024.

Entitlements are expected in late 2024.

Link to project plans.

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-38
11 Mulberry Residential - 36952 Mulberry Street - entitled Zoning: Residential Medium Density
General Plan Designation: Medium
Density Residential
APN: 92-29-22, 92-29-21
Size: 0.46 acres
Max Allowable Density 30 units per acre.

Realistic capacity based on approved
entitlements or developer proposal
According to application materials, Rajesh Rao, proposes to demolish the existing single-story residence and detached garage, and construct eight for-sale market-rate
condominiums with new landscaping, open space areas, a
private driveway, and guest parking on the property located at 36952 Mulberry St. The property is zoned RM-OT
(Residential Medium Density with the Old Town Overlay
District). The proposed project would merge two existing lots to create a 0.46-acre lot with 4 three-bedroom units and 4 four-bedroom units at a density of 17.4 DU/A. Below is a proposed rendering of the project.

Link to project plans.

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-39
12 Bain Ave. & Magnolia St. - 37280 Magnolia Street - under construction Zoning: Residential Medium Density
General Plan Designation: Medium Density
Residential
APN: 92-61-11, 92-61-12-1, 92-61-12-2
Size: 0.93 acres
Max Allowable Density 30 units per acre.

Realistic capacity based on approved entitlements or
developer proposal
According to application materials, Goldsilverisland Homes, LLC is proposing 10 market-rate single family homes at 37280 Magnolia Street. The applicant is also proposing a PD overlay district to allow for lower lot sizes of 3,500 square feet instead of 6,000 square feet. The density of the development is approximately 10.75 DU/A.

Link to project plans.

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-40
13 Waymark Homes - Cedar Blvd. - entitled
Zoning: Residential Medium Density
General Plan Designation: Medium Density
Residential
APN: 92A-2585-30-4, 92A-2585-12-1,
92A-2585-31
Size: 3.44 acres
Max Allowable Density 30 units per acre.

Realistic capacity based on approved entitlements or
developer proposal
The applicant, Waymark Development, proposes to demolish the existing buildings currently occupied by
commercial/industrial uses and construct 76 three-story attached townhomes within 14 buildings on a 3.44-acre site located at 38600 Cedar Blvd. The project calls for 34
three-bedroom units and 46 four-bedroom units with a total density of 22 DU/A. The project would include landscaping and open space areas, a new private street, and on-site improvements. The property is zoned RM (Residential
Medium Density District). The project requires a Design Review, Minor Use Permit for a building height up to 40 feet, and a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map. Below is a render of an example unit.

Link to project plans.

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-41
14 NewPark Place (Phases A to D)
Zoning: Regional Commercial
Specific Designation: Mixed-Use I
APN: 901-111-19, 901-111-30, 901-111-29,
901-111-24, 901-111-22, 901-111-20,
901-111-25, 901-111-21, 901-111-26,
901-111-31
Size: 52.03 acres
Max Allowable Density 160 units per acre.

Realistic capacity based on Specific Plan
As described above in Section 4 and in other sections of this Housing Element, the NewPark Place Specific Plan will guide the redevelopment of this entire area, comprising 52.03 acres with an expected residential build-out capacity of 1,519 across 5 major phases as follows (see Phase A in top aerial, Phases B-D in bottom aerial):
● Phase A: Type-III multifamily development. A total of 319 units on.3.98 acres at a density of 80 dwelling units per acre. The development includes six levels of parking.
● Phase B1: Type-III multifamily development. A total of 195 units on 3.47 acres at a density of 56 dwelling units per acre. The development includes a six level garage.
● Phase B2: Type-III multifamily development with a
podium. A total of 310 units on 4.30 acres at a density of 72 dwelling units per acre. The development includes a 3 -evel structure parking facility.
● Phase C: Type-III multifamily development with a podium.

A total of 300 units on 3.70 acres at a density of 81
dwelling units per acre. The development includes a 2
level garage and 1 sub-t.
● Phase D2: Type-III multifamily development. A total of 395 units on 5.67 acres at a density of 70 dwelling units per acre.

The development includes a five level garage.

The phases are regulated by the Mixed-Use Area I standards, which include a maximum building height of 200 feet, with buildings adjacent to the streets to be a minimum of 30 feet, but preferably 60 feet. Residential density may be up to 160 units per acre, but not less than 60 dwelling units per acre.

While the specific plan has a relatively high maximum density, it is largely unachievable for multiple reasons. First, the plan has a cap on the total number of units at 1,519. An adjustment of this number would require City Council action and a new EIR process.

Second, taller developments than Type-III multifamily would require new emergency vehicle typologies, procedures, and training which the City of Newark currently does not have nor does the surrounding area. Therefore, it is not surprising that the actual densities of the proposed

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-42
developments are somewhat lower than the maximum would permit.

Residential uses may be within residential only multiple story buildings and/or in buildings with a mix of uses. First floor residential is allowed in non-active frontage locations, which are outlined in the plan. Parking demand for development within areas designed Mixed-Use I must be accommodated by a combination of surface and structured parking per the Parking Sub Plan. The residential uses within each “block” must be self-parked within the boundary of the individual block. For a more detailed account of all applicable development standards, refer to the Specific Area Plan.

The NewPark Place plan has a 20 year planning arc, therefore it is expected that only 40% of the total units will be complete for the 8 year RHNA 65 Housing Element Period. As feasible, the City will continue to work with the property owner to encourage the inclusion of larger percentages of affordable units in future phases of development.

The build out capacity and affordable housing assumptions for NewPark Place provided in this sites inventory reflects City Council Resolution NO. 10,184 which went into effect on June 9, 2014 and is the guiding document which outlines that for apartment development, the affordability breakdown starting point should be 6% VLI, 3% LI, and 3% MOD in order to fully mitigate the impact of the residential development. The document gives City Council the authority to determine that an alternative distribution of affordable units will fully mitigate the impacts of the development on the need for affordable housing, based on community needs and the characteristics of the development. In the case of NewPark Phase A, Council advocated strongly for onsite affordable units instead of a mitigation fee.

As described in full in the Specific Plan, this area has adequate infrastructure to accommodate the planned residential development and there are no known environmental constraints. In addition, each separate phase of this development would comprise a land area of less than 10 acres.

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-43
Link to the project plans for Phase A.

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
15 Grocery Outlet Center
Zoning: Commercial Mixed Use
General Plan Designation: Commercial Mixed
Use
APN: 92A-900-1-2
Size: 4.62 acres (1.54 acres under the assumption
that ⅓ of the site will redevelop)
Max Allowable Density 60 units per acre.

The Grocery Outlet Center site is an aging multi-tenant retail center with a large surface parking lot, which takes up approximately 40% of the site, located on the corner of Newark Boulevard and Mayhews Landing Road. The site was previously included in the 5th Cycle Housing Element. The shopping center is a collection of four different buildings, each with multiple tenants providing a range of retail and service options for the community, including a well established Grocery Store.

Realistic Capacity
Since the leases are current and tenants like Grocery Outlet are popular among residents, the approach here is that only a third of the site will feasibly redevelop throughout the eight-year planning period.

Newark code requires ground floor retail adjacent to Newark Boulevard, so a realistic capacity of 80% was applied to this site yielding a total of 57 units as detailed below. The density is at 45 dwelling units per acre giving it 100% affordable potential. The existing establishments, a liquor store, Southeast Asian restaurant, and flower shop would be able to continue to operate on the ground floor.

Analysis of Redevelopment Potential
● In Newark and the Tri-City Area, similar commercial centers have recently developed as mixed-use and/or 100 percent residential projects at similar densities. The redevelopment of the NewPark mall and surrounding area are an important comparable example of the residential redevelopment potential provided by this key site. ● The redevelopment potential of this site is also supported by the relatively low improvement to land value ratio of 0.49, which shows that the built improvements are valued lower than the underlying land. This indicates a strong propensity for the site to redevelop during the planning period.

RedevelopmentIndicators
● Low improvement to land value ratio (0.49) meaning that the appraised value of the land is greater than the appraised value of the built improvements, indicating a propensity for redevelopment to another land use
● Large and underutilized surface parking lot (greater than 2 acres) ● Aging structures and lack of recent improvements (auto-oriented single story commercial from 1964-1986)
● Single ownership of parcel
● Adjacent redevelopment occuring (Mayhews Place)
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-44

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
● Similar redevelopment occuring in Newark (NewPark Place) Rezoning
Since the site was included in the 5th Cycle Housing Element, per Program H3.6 described above, this site will be subject to a zoning text amendment that will require by-right approval of any new housing development in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households.

Realistic Capacity Analysis
The following summary table provides a step by step analysis of the realistic capacity factors applied to this site, as well the reasoning for applying these adjustment factors to arrive at a realistic yield of net units.

Table C-5: Grocery Outlet Center Realistic Capacity Analysis APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-45

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
16 Thornton Ave. Sites (within Old Town Neighborhood)
Zoning: Commercial Mixed Use
General Plan Designation: Commercial Mixed
Use
APN: 92-51-2-3, 92-29-20-2, 92-29-19-2,
92-51-5-3, 92-29-18-2, 92-29-17-2, 92-29-13,
92-29-16-2, 92-29-15-2, 92-50-1-3, 92-29-14-2,
92-50-2-3, 92-50-3-3
Size: varies by parcel,total of 2.5 acres
Max Allowable Density 100 units per acre per
Old Town Specific Plan
The Thornton Avenue area comprises a number of
underutilized parcels which are primed for residential
development during the planning period. Improvement to
land value ratios for the sites range from 0.22 to 0.79 indicating a propensity to redevelop, and the Old Specific Plan (Specific Plan) also includes policies encouraging residential and mixed-use development. The size and shape of these
contiguous sites lend themselves to parcel assembly and lot consolidation.

The major constraints facing these parcels are the need for assemblage (most parcels are less than half an acre) and ground floor retail requirements along Thornton Ave.

Because of this, a realistic capacity multiplier of 80% was used to calculate unit totals.

While many of the buildings date from earlier than 1970, The Specific Plan found that there are no historic buildings or structures in the planning area. The plan notes that 25 buildings within the planning area have “historic merit”, the City’s Historic Preservation Program allows for modification and demolition of buildings with historic merit. Several existing City regulations would help ensure that development and redevelopment activities do not cause a substantial adverse change. Therefore, the protection of cultural resources is not a significant barrier to redevelopment of these sites.

Analysis of Redevelopment Potential
Many of the Thornton Avenue parcels were also previously identified as “potential opportunity sites” in the Specific Plan. According to the Specific Plan, these sites “include vacant and underutilized sites, which may be more likely locations for redevelopment.” The plan projected that throughout the planning area, 400 net new units could be developed by 2040 which would be in the form of multi-family buildings with five or more units.
18 In order to achieve this goal, the city has implemented land use regulations outlined in the Specific Plan which promote high density development, such as increased densities (up to 100 dwelling units per acre) and height limits (up to 75 feet)) and the ability for 100 percent residential projects. The market has already started to respond to these new regulations with the Lepakshi Homes projects (88 18 Newark Old Town Specific Plan, pg. 21
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-46

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
units, 15 either low income or moderate, on 1.25 acres) and nearby SAHA (57 affordable units on 0.54 acres) as examples which are currently in the development pipeline. In addition, the city will promote the consolidation of small parcels through Program H2.11 which in turn will encourage larger scale multi-family development. The City is also planning significant pedestrian-oriented infrastructure improvements in the Old Town neighborhood which will increase the viability for welcomed high-density, mixed-use, compact development.

As noted in the Specific Plan, the opportunity sites originally selected and identified here were originally selected due to their redevelopment potential. It is important to note that since multiple factors influence redevelopment and some opportunity sites were not explicitly identified in the Housing Element, it is likely that new development will occur on sites which were not specifically identified in the sites inventory.

RedevelopmentIndicators
● Low improvement to land value ratio (0.22 to 0.79) meaning that the appraised value of the land is greater than the appraised value of the built improvements ● Updated land use controls which allow significantly denser development (Old Town Area Plan) ● Aging buildings and obsolete development typologies (single story commercial with frontage parking dating from before 1970, most with little historic merit) ● Adjacent redevelopment occuring (Lepakshi Homes and SAHA) ● Candidate for lot consolidation incentives through Program H2.11 Rezoning
Since the sites were included in a previous Housing Element, per Program H3.6 described above they will be subject to a zoning text amendment that will require by-right approval of any new housing development in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households.

Table C-6: Thornton Ave. Sites Realistic Capacity Analysis APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-47

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
17 Cedar Blvd. and Timber St. Industrial Sites
Zoning: Residential Medium Density
General Plan Designation: Medium Density
Residential
APN: 92A-2125-13, 92A-2125-11-2,
92A-2125-17
Size: 4.96 acres
Max Allowable Density 22-30 units per acre.

These formerly industrial sites are underutilized properties with I/L ratios ranging from 0.38 to 0.58, indicating a propensity to redevelop. They are in an area of rapid change where market dynamics have tended to support residential development in recent years.

Rezoning
Since the sites were included in a previous Housing Element, per Program H3.6 described above they will be subject to a zoning text amendment that will require by-right approval of any new housing development in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households.

RedevelopmentIndicators
● Low improvement to land value ratio (0.38 to 0.58)
meaning that the appraised value of the land is greater than the appraised value of the built improvements
● Aging buildings (single story light
industrial/warehouses dating from 1964 to 1982)
● Significant adjacent medium residential development
occurred in the previous HE Cycle
● Similar redevelopment occuring in Newark (Waymark Homes) Realistic Capacity Analysis
The following summary table provides a step by step analysis of the realistic capacity factors applied to this site, as well the reasoning for applying these adjustment factors to arrive at a realistic yield of net units.

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-48

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table C-7:Cedar Blvd. and Timber St. Industrial Sites Realistic Capacity Analysis #1 Table C-8: Cedar Blvd. and Timber St. Industrial Sites Realistic Capacity Analysis #2 Table C-9: Cedar Blvd. and Timber St. Industrial Sites Realistic Capacity Analysis #3 APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-49

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
18 E-Z 8 Motel
Zoning: Residential High Density
General Plan Designation: High Density
Residential
APN: 92A-2585-32
Size: 2.24 acres
Max Allowable Density 60 units per acre.

This is an underutilized hotel property with an I/L ratio of 0.97.

In the surrounding market area, similar properties have been redeveloped with residential uses, and hotel conversions like the Cedar Community Apartments described above are
increasingly common. The site is also adjacent to the entitled Waymark Homes project which proposes 80 townhomes.

Given the site's high density zoning designation which allows for densities between 25 and 60 dwelling units per acre and 100 foot height maximums, the City supports residential redevelopment here. After accounting for max lot coverage standards and setbacks, a realistic capacity modifier of 65% was applied to the site which would yield a total of 87 units.

After the adjustment, the density of the site will be almost 39 dwelling units per acre, well above the default density of 30 dwelling units per acre for 100% affordable projects. The city strongly supports the development of a 100% affordable
housing development at this site and could pursue a similar strategy as SAHA in Old Town, which was also in an RH zone.

The city will continue to work with the property owner to advocate for residential use.

Rezoning
Since the site was included in a previous Housing Element, per Program H3.6 described above it will be subject to a zoning text amendment that will require by-right approval of any new housing development in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households.

RedevelopmentIndicators
● Low improvement to land value ratio (0.97) meaning that the value of the land is greater than the improvements
● Aging buildings and underutilized surface parking lot (two story motel dating from 1986) ● Significant adjacent medium/high density residential development occurred in the previous HE Cycle
● Similar redevelopment occuring in Newark (SAHA)
Realistic Capacity Analysis
The following summary table provides a step by step analysis of the realistic capacity factors applied to this site, as well the reasoning for applying these adjustment factors to arrive at a realistic yield of net units.

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-50

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table C-10: E-Z 8 Realistic Capacity Analysis
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-51

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
19 Cherry Plaza
Zoning: Commercial Mixed Use
General Plan Designation: Commercial Mixed
Use
APN: 92-50-13
Size: 0.96 acres
Max Allowable Density 100 units per acre (within
Old Town Specific Plan Area)
This underutilized property has an I/L ratio of 0.55 , indicating a propensity to redevelop. The site has an educational use, but recent images show vacancies with a “for lease” sign. The surrounding market area has experienced the residential redevelopment of other such sites in recent years.

The site is located within the Old Town Specific Plan Area which allows the site to have densities between 30 and 100 dwelling units per acre. The height maximum is 48 feet. Unlike other CMU locations outlined in the Element, this site is not required to have ground floor retail because it is not fronting either Newark Ave. or Thornton Boulevard. A realistic
capacity modifier of 80% was still applied, even though this could be considered conservative.

Table C-11: Cherry Plaza Realistic Capacity Analysis
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-52

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
20 Thornton Ave. Sites (outside of Old Town)
Zoning: Residential High Density
General Plan Designation: High Density
Residential
APN: 92A-919-22-2, 92A-919-21-2,
92A-919-20-2, 92A-919-19-2, 92A-919-15-2,
92A-919-14-2, 92A-919-13-2, 92A-919-12-2,
92A-919-11-2
Size: 1.2 acres
Max Allowable Density 60 units per acre.

As with the sites within the Old Town area, these
underutilized sites also show strong potential for
redevelopment with residential uses. I/L ratios range from

0.53 to 0.76. These units do not have a required mixed-use component. The size and shape of these contiguous sites lend themselves to parcel assembly and lot consolidation and includes two contiguous parcels that are under the same ownership.

RedevelopmentIndicators
● Low improvement to land value ratio (0.53 to 0.76)
meaning that the value of the land is greater than the
improvements
● Aging buildings and obsolete development style
(single story homes, the majority converted to commercial purposes and were built before 1970)
● Significant adjacent medium residential development occurred in the previous HE Cycle and currently (SAHA)
● Two vacant lots under same ownership and candidate for lot consolidation incentives through Program H2.11
Realistic Capacity Analysis
The following summary table provides a step by step analysis of the realistic capacity factors applied to this site, as well the reasoning for applying these adjustment factors to arrive at a realistic yield of net units.

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-53

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
21 Sycamore St. Vacant Lot
Zoning: Residential High Density
General Plan Designation: High Density
Residential
APN: 92-255-11
Size: 1.81 acres
Max Allowable Density: 60 units per acre.

This site consists of an underutilized vacant residential lot in an area with robust services and supportive infrastructure.

Zoned for high-density residential uses with a minimum
density of 25 dwelling units to the acre and a maximum
density of 60 dwelling units to the acre, this site is suitable for accommodating lower-income units. Existing development
standards would allow the development of this site at
maximum densities, consistent with comparable affordable housing developments currently in Newark’s development
pipeline.

Rezoning
This site will also also be subject to Program H3.6 since it is being carried over from a previous 5th Cycle Housing
Element.

Table C-12: Sycamore St. Vacant Lot Realistic Capacity Analysis APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-54

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
22 Cedar Blvd. Public Storage Sites
Zoning: Residential Medium Density
General Plan Designation: Medium Density
Residential
APN: 92A-2375-32
Size: 2.9 acres
Max Allowable Density 22-30 units per acre.

This public storage site has an I/L ratio of 0.78, indicating a propensity to redevelop with another use, and residential uses are generally the highest and best use in the surrounding neighborhood market area.

Rezoning
Since the site was included in a previous Housing Element, per Program H3.6 described above it will also be subject to a zoning text amendment that will require by-right approval of any new housing development in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households.

RedevelopmentIndicators
● Low improvement to land value ratio (0.78) meaning
that the value of the land is greater than the
improvements
● Aging structure and single story use (building from
1985)
● Significant medium density residential development
occurred adjacent in the previous HE Cycle
● Similar redevelopment occuring (Waymark Homes)
Realistic Capacity Analysis
The following summary table provides a step by step analysis of the realistic capacity factors applied to this site, as well the reasoning for applying these adjustment factors to arrive at a realistic yield of net units.

Table C-13: Cedar Blvd. Public Storage Realistic Capacity Analysis APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-55

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-56
23 Filbert Villas - 37243 & 37257 Filbert St. - expired entitlement Zoning: Residential Medium Density
General Plan Designation: Medium
Density Residential
APN: 92-131-1-9, 92-131-2-4,
92-131-3
Size: 0.96 acres
Max Allowable Density 30 units per acre.

Realistic capacity based on approved
entitlements or developer proposal
According to application materials dated 3/23/17, SRAJ
Development Inc, proposed Filbert Villas, a 16 unit market rate residential condominium project. The project consists of 16 new three-story four-bedroom townhouses. The density of the project is approximately 16 DU/A and the units will be market-rate. While the entitlement on this project expired, the city expects to see a project with similar densities.

A recent interview with the property owner indicates
continued interest in the project. Barriers include high interest rates, higher construction costs, and lower sale prices, but the property owner plans to take steps to move forward with the project.

Link to project plans.

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
24 Filbert Ave. Sites
Zoning: Residential Medium Density
General Plan Designation: Medium Density
Residential
APN: 92-54-5, 92-54-6, 92-54-4
Size: 0.7 acres
Max Allowable Density 22-30 units per acre.

These sites would support relatively lower-density residential development and the sites inventory does not assume that affordable housing would be feasible on these sites.

RedevelopmentIndicators
● Two parcels have low improvement to land value ratio
(0.09 and 0.03) meaning that the value of the land is
greater than the improvements
● Aging structures and single story use (two building
predate 1970)
● Similar redevelopment potential across the street
(Filbert St. Villas)
● Candidate for lot consolidation incentives through
H2.11
Realistic Capacity Analysis
The following summary table provides a step by step analysis of the realistic capacity factors applied to this site, as well the reasoning for applying these adjustment factors to arrive at a realistic yield of net units.

Table C-14: Filbert Ave. Sites Realistic Capacity Analysis APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-57

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-58
25 Mayhews Place - 36589 Newark Boulevard - expired entitlement Zoning: Residential Medium Density
General Plan Designation: Commercial
Mixed Use
APN: 92A-623-43
Size: 0.53 acres
Max Allowable Density 30 units per acre.

Realistic capacity based on approved
entitlements or developer proposal
According to project plans, David Langon Construction, Inc. is proposing 6 attached two-story, market-rate, single-family units on a site area of approximately 0.53 acres. The density of the proposal is 12 DU/A. Below is a rendering of the exterior facade. While the entitlement on this project expired, the city expects to see a project with similar densities.

Link to project plans.

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-59
26 Locust St. & Railroad - 37093 Locust St. - expired entitlement Zoning: Residential Low Density
General Plan Designation: Low-Medium
Density Residential
APN: 92-125-10
Size: 0.43 acres
Max Allowable Density 8.7 units per acre.

Realistic capacity based on approved
entitlements or developer proposal
According to application materials dated June 21, 2018, Cherry Properties is proposing 6 new market-rate apartments at 37093 Locust Street. The project title is The Railroad Apartments. While the entitlement on this project expired, the city expects to see a project with similar densities.

Link to project plans.

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-60
27 Fahmy Homes - 37503 & 37511 Cherry Street - expired entitlement Zoning: Residential Medium Density
General Plan Designation: Medium Density
Residential
APN: 92-75-5-2, 92-75-4-2
Size: 0.38 acres
Max Allowable Density 30 units per acre.

Realistic capacity based on approved entitlements or
developer proposal
According to application materials dated November 9th,
2020, Sawart S. Fahmy had proposed a four-lot residential project on two adjacent parcels. The proposed subdivision called for 4 single-family market-rate units. While the entitlement on this project expired, the city expects to see a project with similar densities.

In 2023, a new owner gained site control and has indicated strong interest in combining these sites to create a larger site for development. The owner submitted a preliminary
application for a seven-unit rowhouse project. The city has completed its preliminary review and is now awaiting a formal application from the property owner.

Link to project plans.

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
19 Source: HCD Housing Element Implementation and APR Dashboard APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-61
28 Neighborhood Infill Sites
Zoning: Residential Low Density
General Plan Designation: Low-Medium
Residential, Medium Density Residential
APN: 92-135-23, 92-127-13, 92-136-15,
92-24-10, 92-127-20, 92-125-2-2
Size: 1.52 acres
Max Allowable Density 11-15 units per acre.

These are mixed neighborhood infill sites supporting lower density residential development. Five of the six sites are vacant while the non vacant site has subdivision potential.

These sites would support relatively lower-density residential development and the sites inventory does not assume that affordable housing would be feasible on these sites.

These sites are expected to redevelop individually, and the sites will be listed separately by parcel number on the electronic submission form.

RedevelopmentIndicators
● Either vacant or underutilized (subdivision potential) ● Two vacant lots are adjacent candidate for lot
consolidation incentives through Program H2.11
● Strong demand for market rate residential in
established neighborhoods (Over 750 single family
detached units completed between 2018 and 2022
19 )

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING

APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT
The public comment period for the first Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element began on February 24th, 2023. As required by AB 215, the first Draft Housing Element was available for a 30-day public review period, before incorporating public comments and sending the revised first draft to HCD. Based on community feedback and to ensure that the Newark community had enough time to review and comment, the City kept the first public review draft of the Housing Element available for public comment through the 90-day State HCD review period (February 24th - March 27th, 2023). The City posted an updated draft for public review from August 7th - August 17th, 2023).

Thank you to all those who submitted public comments and attended public meetings. Based on community feedback and direction from Councilmembers, staff have prepared a response to comments to illustrate how the revised draft reflects public input received during the 142-day comment period. A total of 11 comments, comment letters, and emails were received during the comment period. No comments were received on the updated draft during or after the 10-day public review period in August 2023. Staff received an additional 5 comments during subsequent Housing Element public review periods.

1. Carla Rodrigez

2. Taran Singh

3. Pamela Roush

4. Andrea Heckman

5. Matt Francois on behalf of Integral Communities

6. Carol Drake

7. Namit Saksena

8. Sarah Klaustermeier, Brookfield Properties

9. Victor Flores, East Bay Resilience Manager, Greenbelt Alliance, David Lewis, Executive Director Save The Bay , Maxwell Davis and the 2500 members of East Bay for Everyone

10. Neelam Noorani

11. Aundi Mevoli, BayKeepers

12. David Song

13. Rishika Rawat

14. Alyssa Lopez
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-62

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING

15. Pat Callaway

16. Krisie Knutson
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-63

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table D-1: Housing Element Draft Public Comments Received and City Response Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response

1. Carina
Rodriguez
After reviewing the Draft document, my biggest
concerns are:
1) Newark's continuing to infringe on the marshes
and wetlands around our city. This is a large
environmental issue and I saw very little mention of
this in the housing plans. However, the city continues
to approve housing developments on these natural
lands. This will especially be an issue as climate
change continues to wreak havoc on us - I do not want
the city to be put in a situation where we have to use
tax dollars to help those who ignorantly purchased
homes on these wetlands and marshes. Especially
when the lands should have never been built on in the
first place.
2) I do not want the city of Newark to become a haven
for low income housing. While we should open our
city to new residents - low income housing invites low
income individuals who will not be contributing a
significant amount in taxes. Some are indeed hard
workers and have been beaten down by the systemic
failures of our city, county, state, and country, but
some have no interest in doing anything to help
themselves and will just suck up the free resources
paid for by taxpayers. Yes, we do need low income
housing to assist some in our community. However,
we should not accept a large percentage of this low
income housing and rather have it spread out
throughout the county of Alameda and the Bay Area.
3) Lastly, there are many apartments, townhouses,

1. The City of Newark is guided by the
Area 3 and 4 Specific Plan, adopted by the City
Council in 2009. This specific plan provides
land uses, development regulations,
engineering and site improvements, landscape
guidelines, and natural resource conservation
standards. In 2014, the City entered into a
Development Agreement with Newark
Partners LLC, which guides development
within certain areas of Area 3 and 4 and
establishes performance expectations and
requirements for the developers and the City.

Development within the specific plan area has
been limited to Area 3 and the residential
subdivision known as “Sanctuary Village”. In
2019, the City Council approved a residential
subdivision via a Planned Unit Development
permit consisting of 469 homes along with a
determination that the environmental effects
of the project were sufficiently analyzed and
were under the scope of the previously
adopted 2015 Recirculated Environmental
Impact Report. Subsequent to Council’s 2019
actions, the environmental determination was
challenged in court. As of 2023, no unresolved
legal matters are associated with the project.

In 2021, the project sponsor indicated to the
city that the project would be reduced in size
from 469 units to approximately 430 units. The
project sponsor is working with the city
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-64

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
and duplexes that are completely run down and look
absolutely awful. These can be found on Newark Blvd
across the street from Newark Community park and
Cherry towards Thornton. This housing looks abysmal
and it's sickening that landlords are allowed to rent
these apartments at top dollar while they are clearly
falling apart and have made no investment in keeping
them up to a basic, human level. Before we begin to
build more housing, we need to look at this housing
and bring them up to a livable standard for those
currently living in the city. Let's fix our home city first before we begin building more housing that may
eventually look as awful as this housing on Newark
Blvd. and Cherry.
regarding site development activities. As
Sanctuary West is a fully entitled project with
legal matters resolved, the City has identified
the project as contributing to the RHNA goal
for above-moderate housing for the 6th Cycle.

2. Newark is subject to RHNA, the process
that resulted in the assignment of 1,871 units
of housing for the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

Each Bay Area jurisdiction received their own
RHNA allocation. Compared to other Bay Area
cities, Newark's RHNA increase from the 5th
Cycle (1,048 units) to the 6th Cycle was
relatively small at approximately 75%. This is
not a requirement to build 1,874 units, but
Newark must demonstrate that the city has the
correct land use policy, programs, and
requirements to accommodate the units over
the next eight years. Since 2015, Newark has
built thousands of market-rate units, but
relatively few affordable units. The City
Council recognizes the need for housing that is
affordable and available for all members of the
community.

3. The City recognizes that some
residential buildings in our community have
been neglected by their property owners.

Although some investment to refurbish units
has occurred, more can be done. The Draft
Housing Element includes goals, policies, and
programs that address this need, starting with
the Goal and Policy H-1: Preserve + Improve
Existing Housing- “Leverage local funds to
supplement county, state and federal funding
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-65

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
to support the maintenance, rehabilitation and
preservation of existing rental and ownership
housing. “

2. Taran Singh Area 3 and Area 4 plan of building 469 homes an environmental disaster. The City of Newark cannot
solve the housing problem by 500 odd homes on our
wetlands. I urge the city to revert the development
plan for Area 3 and Area 4 and let them be a safe
abode for our flora and fauna. Overall, I think the City needs to get denser in areas close to the 880
corridors and provide connectivity to BART/Transit.

See Response 1, above.

3. PAMELA
ROUSH
Please do not build in Newark Area 4. That is a flood
zone and it will only get worse. Please, please
reconsider building in Area 4. Thank you.

See Response 1, above.

4. Andrea
Heckman
I'm very concerned about development in the Area 4
shoreline because of it's importance to the ecosystem
and protecting our existing development from future
flooding. It seems imprudent to build on an area which
is expected to need massive alteration and protection
from future sea level rise. Makes no sense to develop
housing where future disaster is predictable.

See Response 1, above.

5. Matt Francois We are submitting these comments on behalf of our client, Integral Communities, the proponent of the
Mowry Village project. We write to request certain
technical corrections and clarifications to the draft
Housing Element. For instance, the reference to 398
built single family units in Area 3, Sub Area B (on page 104) should instead refer to 386 units. Additionally,
the reference to the Mowry Village project (on page
105) refers to the site as being within Area 3 when it
is located within Area 4; please also correct the
Thank you for your comments and corrections.

The references to Area 3/4 and the unit count
have been corrected in the October 3 draft.

The language about retiring the Specific Plan
has been adapted to reflect that the City “may
take action to retire the plan in a manner
consistent with applicable laws and
conforming to previously adopted agreements
and approved entitlements.”
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-66

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
location of the Mowry Village project in the last
paragraph of this section. Finally, also in the last
paragraph of this section, please clarify the intent
about retiring the Area 3 & 4 Specific Plan after action on the Mowry Village project as it is anticipated that
the Specific Plan would continue to be relied on to
make consistency determinations for the Mowry
Village and other projects.

6. Carol Drake Newark Area 4 is not a good choice for development.

Wetlands sequester carbon, store floodwater, and
filter nutrients and sediment from water.

Already included in the expansion boundaries of the
Don Edwards SF Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Area 4
provides an unparalleled opportunity to restore
wetlands and other wildlife habitat, while creating a
buffer against sea level rise.

Newark should focus on infill development instead.

It could utilize existing neighborhoods and major
development opportunities such as revitalizing
NewPark Mall, which could provide 1,519 housing
units, and smaller projects already planned in and
around Old Town Newark. Building in these
developed areas would help place housing near job
centers, reducing vehicle miles traveled and road
congestion.

See Response 1, above.

7. Namit
March
21st
2023
I was very happy to see that you mentioned working
with Newark Unified School District in the draft
Housing Element, Policy H2.4. Other cities in the Bay
Area have helped their school districts address the
missing housing for teaching staff and I think Newark
should also partner with NUSD to do something
Hello Namit, Thank you for your comments.

We have updated policy H2.4, with more
information from state law to support the
redevelopment of land owned by Newark
Unified School District. We agree, and the
data shows how large of a burnden
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-67

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
similar. I loved the creative idea you had shared
during our chat at the after party of Mayor Hannon's
swearing in ceremony late last year. Comment 2:

After housing, the next big expense for low income
residents tends to be transportation.

While our Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan was
approved in Feb 2017, we haven't made massive
strides in making the overall vision in that plan come
true.

Bike lanes will not only improve accessibility to local employers: restaurants, gas stations, retail stores,
Home Depot, Amazon etc. but also upcoming city
centers such as NewPark Place and might even spark
Old Town into life. The other thing is, bike lanes will benefit residents of all income levels.

I saw that the number 1 response to Q.9 of the Public
Engagement and Input Survey with 33% respondents
was public infrastructure including bicycle lanes.

Therefore it would be great if the Housing Element
had a specific call out to pedestrian and bicycle
infrastructure vs. the single specific mention on Pg.
128.

We also heard the desire for more pedestrian
friendly streets and bike lanes in the city for
more transportation options. The Public
Works department has plans to start
implementing portions of the bicycle master
plan, and we are happy to see that the majority
of sites are along bus routes as well. The
community development department looks
forward to working with the public works
department to coordinate these two critical
efforts.

8. Sarah
Klaustermeier
March
24th
2023
I reviewed the draft Housing Element and had one
comment specific to Phase A. The breakdown of
income levels in Table C-1 is different than what is
Thank you for your comments. The 6th Cycle
unit yield and affordability distribution has
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-68

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
approved in our Affordable Housing Agreement.
[see screenshots below]
been updated in the appropriate tables to
reflect the City Council’s Resolution 10,184.

9. Victor Flores,
East Bay
Resilience
Manager,
Greenbelt
Alliance
David Lewis,
Executive
Director
Save The Bay
Maxwell Davis
and the 2500
members of
East
Bay for
Everyone
March
27th
2023
The undersigned organizations and individuals are
excited to participate in Newark’s Housing Element
process. We write to offer feedback on Newark’s
Draft Housing element for the sixth cycle.

As your housing element notes, the majority of
Newark residents are in housing that is either
unaffordable or does not meet their needs. In
particular, the Latine community experiences high
levels of overcrowding and above average spending
on housing. The City must ensure that all, regardless
of race or income, can enjoy safe, stable, and
accessible homes located either near jobs or transit
(bus as well as BART) and on sites that are clean and
suitable for development.

We are glad to see many great policies and sites that
promote infill and active transportation. We also
appreciate Newark going above the buffer
recommendations for realistic zoning capacity.

Among the sites we’re excited about is the Newpark
project which will build medium density units on
parking lots. This project is a perfect example of infill with access to AC Transit lines to BART.

We also want to commend the city for Policy H6.7:

Hello Victor, David, and Maxwell,
We appreciate your thoughtful comments on
the Housing Element draft. In response to
community discussion through engagement we
have worked to make significant edits to many
programs to better support the uptake of
housing that is affordable to all segments of the
population, and in proximity to public
transportation and active transportation
infrastructure investments. In response to
climate and sea level rise, the Newark Safety
Element is in process and will further address
many of those questions and comments.

Program H3.5 Parking standards has been
strengthened, removing and reducing parking
requirements for multiple housing types. We
welcome your continued advocacy in this area.

Numerous programs to increase housing
access, opportunity and affordability have been
added or strengthened. Program H2.1, SB9,
H2.2, for ADU production, and H2.3 is looking
at how a community guided plan for the 4
corners area can generate more housing close
to parks, schools and a potential rail station.

Program H2.6 looks to utilize state law to
develop affordable housing for staff and
employees, and H2.8 for Missing Middle
Housing has been updated, and a new program,
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-69

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
Residential Development in the FloodPlain. We
continue our opposition to the Sanctuary West
project. We are glad that the city recognizes that such developments are not in the interest of Newark
residents nor the prudent fiduciary responsibility of
the council and staff. In an era where our communities
are facing the consequences of climate change and
sea level rise, each community should be actively
assessing how it will ensure future developments and
infrastructure will be resilient to flood risk without
adversely impacting existing residents and the
environment. Building in Area 4 baylands would both
greatly increase flood risk across the city, and also
squander the opportunity to utilize these lands as a
valuable flood buffer to protect the community from
flooding and sea level rise, while also providing
improved natural wildlife habitat and increased
outdoor access opportunities for residents.

Additionally, since there is broad community
opposition from both environmental and pro-housing
organizations in the area, building here has a high
chance of community pushback which could delay the
project to outside the planning period.

We strongly recommend updating your Climate
Action Plan which is now 13 years old in order to
implement mitigation measures for water level rise
(both sea level rise and groundwater rise) and to
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. We also
recommend adding a policy to restore wetlands in
order to maximize carbon sequestration and
protection from sea level rise.

H2.10 will increase the zoning districts where
single resident occupancy housing is permitted
in Newark.

APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-70

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
Program H3.5: Parking standards study can be
strengthened to commit to reducing parking
minimums. A study from UC Berkeley’s Terner Center
found, “the presence of structured parking added
nearly $36,000 per unit.” The Draft Housing Element
notes that Newark has higher parking
minimums than neighboring jurisdictions. Parking,
especially covered parking, significantly increases the cost of housing developments and uses space for cars
rather than for people. In order to combat climate
change we know that we must reduce our reliance on
cars and fossil fuels. By prioritizing land for people
rather than cars we can address the housing crisis and
GHG reduction goals. Due to this higher level of
parking and its cost, we strongly urge you to commit
to reducing the amount of required parking to no
more than 0.5 spaces per residential unit, and zero in
transit-adjacent areas.

Program H2.1: Encourage new middle-density
housing with SB 9 and SB 10. While this is a laudable
direction for the city to go to encourage housing
abundance throughout the city, it could be
strengthened with a few more objective outcomes for
the program. (1) The SB 9 ordinance should not
reduce the buildable envelope below what an
underlying single-family zone allows. (2) Missing
middle zoning should allow at least 4 units on at least 80% of single-family lots—not merely legal as density,
but practical in terms of development standards. See
the Portland Residential Infill Program for a possible
direction where buildable envelope is increased the
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-71

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
more units are planned on the lot. (3) No areas should
be exempted from missing middle except based on
floodplain, fire risk, or other major public health /
ecological risks. (4) Required parking should continue
to be no more than 0.5 spaces /unit, or zero near any
bus line, as the major space requirements of off-street parking reliably kills missing middle.

As we’ve mentioned, we oppose site number 2:

Sanctuary West because of its location on baylands
that are expected to see a nearly two feet rise of
water levels in less than 50 years. We continue to
urge you to remove this from your site list.

To support our vision for Newark, Greenbelt Alliance
and other partnering organizations have crafted a
go-to guide for accelerating equitable adaptation to
the climate crisis; The Resilience Playbook. The
Playbook brings together curated strategies,
recommendations, and tools to support local decision
makers and community leaders wherever they are in
their journey.

We look forward to continuing to engage with
Newark and the community on how this vital work
can move forward in the new year.

10. Neelam
Noorani
March
26th
2023
Steven Turner,
Dear Mayor Hannon, Vice Mayor Collazo and
Newark City Councilmembers,
Thank you for putting together a robust Housing
Element draft. This is a once in a decade moment
for Newark to make pivotal progress on climate
change and fair housing by developing a
See Response 1, above.

APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-72

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
comprehensive housing strategy that builds
housing in existing neighborhoods,while
ensuring the long-term climate resilience of the
city by protecting protecting valuable open
space along the shoreline as wildlife habitat
while providing community resilience as a flood
buffer from sea level rise.

I am writing to you today to implore you to
remove Newark Area 4 (“Sanctuary West”) from
your housing site inventory. This is not a good
place to build housing and should not be how
Newark meets a significant portion of its housing
requirement. Newark Area 4 is almost entirely
within a flood zone, and the site is anticipated to
be almost completely inundated with just 1
meter of sea level rise. Additionally, new studies
show that development of Area 4 could cause
flooding for other shoreline communities in the
Bay Area. Developing this site will increase flood
risk to current and future residents and cause
catastrophic financial issues to the city in the
future.

As evidenced by recent rains, Newark is already
experiencing flooding and if Area 4 is developed,
flooding will only increase. Newark has the
capacity within the existing urban areas to meet
its RHNA goals without putting future and
current residents at risk.

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
flooding and provide wildlife habitat, they also
clean our Bay waters, and have been
demonstrated to be one of the most powerful
tools in nature for fighting climate change, by
sequestering carbon even more efficiently than
our forests. We desperately need to protect and
restore all the San Francisco Bay wetlands we
can, and Newark has an incredible opportunity
to support this regional goal.

We strongly urge Newark to become a
climate-forward city by focusing on infill growth
in existing neighborhoods - rather than putting
housing in an undeveloped shoreline flood zone
that should be permanently protected as a
wildlife habitat and as a valuable buffer to
protect
the community from flooding and sea level rise.

11. Aundi Mevoli,
BayKeepers
March
27th
2023
I write on behalf of San Francisco Baykeeper
(“Baykeeper”) in opposition to the City of Newark’s
inclusion of the Sanctuary West Project (also
commonly known as “Area 4”) in its Draft Housing
Element. Baykeeper submits these comments on
behalf of approximately 5,000 members and
supporters who live and recreate in and around the
San Francisco Bay Area. Together, our mission is to
defend San Francisco Bay from the biggest threats
and hold polluters and government agencies
accountable to create healthy communities and help
wildlife thrive. Our team of scientists and lawyers
investigate pollution via aerial and water
See Response 1, above.

APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-74

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
patrols, strengthen regulations through science and
policy advocacy, and enforce environmental laws on
behalf of the public.

It is discouraging to see the city continuing to
recommend and approve housing at Area 4. Instead of
allowing this area to be used as a natural barrier to
mitigate sea level rise (SLR) and groundwater
inundation as climate impacts increase, moving
forward with development will expose more than a
thousand new residents to SLR and put hundreds of
millions of dollars of property at risk. With only about ten percent of the original wetlands remaining around
San Francisco Bay, keeping these natural bufferlands
is essential to having a resilient community and
allowing shorelines to adapt in the midst of climate
change.

In addition, importing fill and paving over Area 4
would destroy restorable diked Baylands and harm
wildlife habitats for over a dozen special-status
species. This includes the endangered Salt Marsh
Harvest Mouse, endemic to only San Francisco Bay’s
marshes which are increasingly threatened with the
prospect of development. Furthermore, fragmenting
and degrading the existing wetlands in Area 4 will also threaten pup rookeries for harbor seals.

The scientific community has recommended Area 4 as
a high priority for protection and restoration of
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-75

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
wetlands and upland habitat in order to support San
Francisco Bay wildlife species and help them adjust to
rising sea levels. Congress has already authorized
lands such as Area 4 to be added to the Don Edwards
SF Bay National Wildlife Refuge. We urge you to
follow the guidance of the region’s scientific
community and prioritize protecting and restoring
this land rather than development in Area 4 as
planned in your current Draft Housing Element.

During the January 2023 King Tides, drone footage
revealed just how much surface water already
occupies the site. These images give a glimpse of what
this site will look like under one foot of SLR. Seeing as this site is projected to have two feet of SLR by 2050, it is obvious why this is not a good site to build
housing or degrade more wetland habitat.

Lastly, sustainable development comes at the
intersection of economic, social and environmental
capitols. Area 4 development only looks at the
economic benefit to build. However, if natural capitol
was also part of the equation, one would see how
many benefits this land offers: greenhouse gas
sequestration, nature based multi-benefit adaptation
solutions to SLR, open space for community members
to enjoy, and biodiversity to ensure a healthy Bay.

Staff, we implore you to remove the Sanctuary West
Project from suitable housing in the 6th cycle of
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-76

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
Newark’s Housing Element. Follow the advice of the
experts and protect these wetlands to, in turn, protect your community against climate change impacts.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this
Draft Housing Element. Please reach out to Aundi
Mevoli at [email protected] with any questions.

12. David Song October
13, 2023
I received a letter from city of Newark, regarding a
piece of land that I own. 37079 Ash street, APN:
92-127-31. The letter stated that my property has
been identified as a site that could be developed with
residential units, and well suited for development. I
have previously tried to discuss the development of
this site with the planning department multipe times,
with no success.

With this new initiative from the city, what kind of
incentive does the city provide to owners to develop
this site? Higher density? Lower permit fees? Faster
approval? Less red tape?
After reading through the Housing Element report, I
still could not figure out how does that report relate
to my property and its potential for development.

It would be nice for the city planner to sit down with
me and explain what kind of incentives the city
provides to the development of my site.

The city appreciates the commenter's interest
in developing the site identified in the
comment. City staff will contact the
commenter to initiate the discussion. The
development of the parcel could benefit
through the implementation of the following
programs:
-PROGRAM H2.8: Zoning for Missing Middle
Housing Types.
-PROGRAM H2.11: Catalyze the development
of small sites through a lot consolidation
incentive program
-PROGRAM H2.12: Ensure maximum
residential densities are achievable
-PROGRAM H3.1: Streamline Ministerial
Approval Permit Procedures
-PROGRAM H3.2: Develop objective design
standards for single family and multi family
developments and infill housing.

APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-77

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
I am more than happy to work with the city to develop
this site and provide more housing opportunities to
medium and low income families.

Best
David

13. Rishika Rawat October
25, 2023
I was wondering where I could find a pdf of the
Newark Safety Element.

Staff followed up with a PDF of the Newark
Safety Element

14. Alyssa Lopez October
25, 2023
Hi, I was wondering if there is any action being taken
to invest in some programs such as a first-time buyers
programs for Newark Residents, or a low-income
based programs. If so, I’d like to get more information or be interested in investing some input
Thank you!
The 2023-2031 Housing Element, Section 3
(Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
(AFFH)), contains a detailed analysis of the
factors contributing to housing equity,
segregation, access to housing opportunities,
and the need for housing throughout the
Newark community. Table 3-16 provides a
summary of contributing factors and actions
regarding housing issues in Newark. For
example, the AFFH study identified the lack of
available rental housing for lower-income
households as a contributing factor for
households experiencing or are at-risk of
homelessness. The Housing Element contains
programs that, when implemented, would
begin to address the identified factors,
including:
-PROGRAM H4.1: Develop
Anti-Displacement Programs for the
Old-Town Newark Specific Plan Area.
-PROGRAM H4.3: Develop a Just Cause
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-78

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response
Eviction Ordinance
-PROGRAM H4.8: Connect Residents with
Foreclosure assistance.
-PROGRAM H5.1: First-Time Homebuyer
Assistance
-PROGRAM H5.2: Affordable Housing
Development Programs
-PROGRAM H5.3: Public Lands for dedicated
affordable housing.
-PROGRAM H5.4: Affordable Housing
Overlay Zone

15. Pat Callaway
There has been opposition to Area 4 development
and I am confused by your responses. Has Area 4
been scrapped or not?
The Sanctuary West Project was approved by
the Newark City Council in November 2019. A
Development Agreement that sets the terms,
conditions, and requirements for the
developer and the city was previously
approved in 2015. The Development
Agreement is still in place, and the developer
intends to proceed with residential
development at some point in the future.

Sanctuary West is not identified as a site
needed to achieve the city’s Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) goal of 1,874 units
within the 2023-2031 period. However, per
the Development Agreement, the developer
may still proceed with the project. Newark
contains many sites that are zoned for
residential uses and could be developed as
housing but have not been identified in the
2023-2031 Housing Element’s sites inventory.

Should Sanctuary West or any other site
zoned for residential use be developed with
housing units, the city would count these units
as progress toward meeting our RHNA goal.

APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-79

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Letter
Number
Name/
Organization
Date Comment City Response

16. Krisie Knutson Those house are ugly , can’t you make some pretty houses
Noted.

APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-80

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING

COMMENT LETTERS
Comment 1 Carina
Rodriguez
After reviewing the Draft document, my biggest concerns are:
1) Newark's continuing to infringe on the marshes and wetlands around our city.

This is a large environmental issue and I saw very little mention of this in the housing plans. However, the city continues to approve housing developments on these natural lands. This will especially be an issue as climate change continues to wreak havoc on us - I do not want the city to be put in a situation where we have to use tax dollars to help those who ignorantly purchased homes on these wetlands and marshes. Especially when the lands should have never been built on in the first place.
2) I do not want the city of Newark to become a haven for low income housing.

While we should open our city to new residents - low income housing invites low income individuals who will not be contributing a significant amount in taxes. Some are indeed hard workers and have been beaten down by the systemic failures of our city, county, state, and country, but some have no interest in doing anything to help themselves and will just suck up the free resources paid for by taxpayers. Yes, we do need low income housing to assist some in our community. However, we should not accept a large percentage of this low income housing and rather have it spread out throughout the county of Alameda and the Bay Area.
3) Lastly, there are many apartments, townhouses, and duplexes that are completely run down and look absolutely awful. These can be found on Newark Blvd across the street from Newark Community park and Cherry towards Thornton. This housing looks abysmal and it's sickening that landlords are allowed to rent these apartments at top dollar while they are clearly falling apart and have made no investment in keeping them up to a basic, human level.

Before we begin to build more housing, we need to look at this housing and bring them up to a livable standard for those currently living in the city. Let's fix our home city first before we begin building more housing that may eventually look as awful as this housing on Newark Blvd. and Cherry. 2 Taran Singh Area 3 and Area 4 plan of building 469 homes an environmental disaster. The City of Newark cannot solve the housing problem by 500 odd homes on our wetlands. I urge the city to revert the development plan for Area 3 and Area 4 and let them be a safe abode for our flora and fauna. Overall, I think the City needs to get denser in areas close to the 880 corridors and provide connectivity to BART/Transit.
3 PAMELA
ROUSH
Please do not build in Newark Area 4. That is a flood zone and it will only get worse. Please, please reconsider building in Area 4. Thank you. 4 Andrea
Heckman
I'm very concerned about development in the Area 4 shoreline because of it's importance to the ecosystem and protecting our existing development from future flooding. It seems imprudent to build on an area which is expected to need massive alteration and protection from future sea level rise. Makes no sense to develop housing where future disaster is predictable.

APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-81

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
5 Matt Francois We are submitting these comments on behalf of our client, Integral Communities, the proponent of the Mowry Village project. We write to request certain technical corrections and clarifications to the draft Housing Element. For instance, the reference to 398 built single family units in Area 3, Sub Area B (on page 104) should instead refer to 386 units. Additionally, the reference to the Mowry Village project (on page 105) refers to the site as being within Area 3 when it is located within Area 4; please also correct the location of the Mowry Village project in the last paragraph of this section. Finally, also in the last paragraph of this section, please clarify the intent about retiring the Area 3 & 4 Specific Plan after action on the Mowry Village project as it is anticipated that the Specific Plan would continue to be relied on to make consistency determinations for the Mowry Village and other projects. 6 Carol Drake Newark Area 4 is not a good choice for development.

Wetlands sequester carbon, store floodwater, and filter nutrients and sediment from water.

Already included in the expansion boundaries of the Don Edwards SF Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Area 4 provides an unparalleled opportunity to restore wetlands and other wildlife habitat, while creating a buffer against sea level rise.

Newark should focus on infill development instead.

It could utilize existing neighborhoods and major development opportunities such as revitalizing NewPark Mall, which could provide 1,519 housing units, and smaller projects already planned in and around Old Town Newark. Building in these developed areas would help place housing near job centers, reducing vehicle miles traveled and road congestion.

Comment 7:

From: Nabe Newark <nabenewark@...>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 5:23 PM
To: Steven Turner
Cc: Art Interiano; Carmelisa Lopez; Joseph Balatbat; David Benoun; Lenka Hovorka Subject: Re: City of Newark Virtual Community Meeting - Draft Housing Element March 22 at 7:00 PM
Hi Mr. Turner, thank you for including me in the distribution.

I am unsure if I will be able to join the meeting tomorrow, therefore please find 2 comments from me a fter reading this fantastic work by the city staff:

I was very happy to see that you mentioned working with Newark Unified School District in the draft H ousing Element, Policy H2.4
I want to share some recent news articles which should help support this idea within Newark.

Affordable teacher housing development in Los Gatos 'move‐in ready' (mercurynews.com) APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-82

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Report: Silicon Valley housing crisis linked to declining school enrollment (sanjosespotlight.com) News – Support Teacher Housing
Affordable teacher housing to be built in Palo Alto – The Talon (lahstalon.org) Other cities in the Bay Area have helped their school districts address the missing housing for teaching st aff and I think Newark should also partner with NUSD to do something similar. I loved the creative idea y ou had shared during our chat at the after party of Mayor Hannon's swearing in ceremony late last year.

After housing, the next big expense for low income residents tends to be transportation.

While our Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan was approved in Feb 2017, we haven't made massive strid es in making the overall vision in that plan come true.

Bike lanes will not only improve accessibility to local employers: restaurants, gas stations, retail stores, Home Depot, Amazon etc. but also upcoming city centers such as NewPark Place and might even spar k Old Town into life. The other thing is, bike lanes will benefit residents of all income levels.

I saw that the number 1 response to Q.9 of the Public Engagement and Input Survey with 33% respon dents was public infrastructure including bicycle lanes.

Therefore it would be great if the Housing Element had a specific call out to pedestrian and bicycle infra structure vs. the single specific mention on Pg. 128.

I think exploring ways to align the relevant parts of the Housing Element more closely with the Bicycle E lement will help us capture this once in a decade opportunity to shape the future of housing in Newark by the handle bars!
Regards,
Namit
P.S. From the Needs Analysis of the Bicycle Master Plan, Pg.29:
"Newark has a great deal of potential for growing its bicycle network and safely and comfortably attra cting new bicycle trips with its temperate climate, flat terrain, growing on‐street facilities, system of lo w volume streets ideal for casual cyclists, and access to trails and recreation areas.

However, bicycling today can be difficult in Newark despite the growing interest and number of bicyclists . Heavy traffic, high traffic stress bikeways, and a lack of continuous bicycle facilities on Newark’s major arterials, particularly on north & south routes, remain significant challenges for attracting new riders." On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 4:49 PM Steven Turner <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear City Council, Planning Commission, and Community Development Advisory Committee‐ Community Development staff and our consultants are hosting a virtual community meeting about the 2023‐2031 Draft Housing Element on Wednesday, March 22, 2023, from 7:00‐8:30 PM. You are certainl y welcome to attend and participate.

We ask participants to register for the meeting with this link: Meeting registration. After registering, y ou will receive a confirmation email about joining the meeting.

APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-83

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Comment 8:

From: Klaustermeier, Sarah
<[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 7:46 PM
To: Steven Turner
Cc: Klaustermeier, Sarah
Subject: RE: Newark's Draft Housing Element - NewPark Place Specific Plan Residential Units Steven,
I reviewed the draft Housing Element and had one comment specific to Phase A. The breakdown of income levels in Table C-1 is different than what is approved in our Affordable Housing Agreement.

Please see screenshots below:

Affordable Housing Agreement:

APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-84

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Sarah Klaustermeier
Sr. Director, Development| Commercial
Development
From: Steven Turner <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2023 1:21 PM
To: Klaustermeier, Sarah <Sarah.Klaustermeier@...>
Subject: Newark's Draft Housing Element ‐ NewPark Place Specific Plan Residential Units CAUTION: EXTERNAL MAIL! Do not click links, open attachments or reply, unless you recognize the sender’s email address and know the content is safe! If unsure use the Report Phishing Button located in the ribbon.

Hi Sarah‐ I want to let you know that the city has prepared our Draft 2023‐2031 Housing Element for p ublic review. We have a dedicated website where the documents can be reviewed, including an executi ve summary and the complete draft document: www.newarkhousingupdate.org The Draft Housing Element identifies sites through the city that has the appropriate land use and zoning that would allow residential development over the next eight years. This includes sites within our specifi c plan areas, including the sites that allow residential as permitted uses in the NewPark Place Specific Pl an. The entitled Phase A site is identified as a pipeline project site and the other sites anticipated for ho using that surrounds the mall are also identified. Here is a map that illustrates these housing sites (the p APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-85

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
arcel lines likely don’t reflect the approved vesting tentative map, but we can update this map). The nu mber of units identified for this area totals 1,519 units, consistent with the specific plan.

Development of 1,519 units is not specifically required during the 2023‐2031 period, but the appropri ate land use and requirements are in place to accommodate that development if requested.

Newark was able to identify enough sites at the right densities throughout the city to exceed our Regio nal Housing Needs Allocation. We have also projected the number of units that could be developed at various income levels for the sites. See Table C‐1 for more information.

The initial public review period runs through March 27. We will then send it to the State of Californ ia Housing and Community Development Department for their review, comments, and edits in earl y April. We expect to revise the housing element in June/July to incorporate all the necessary edits before public hearings are scheduled with the Planning Commission and City Council later in the su mmer.

Paul Peninger and his team are the city’s primary consultants who prepare the draft. Paul and I w ould be happy to discuss the housing element with you and answer questions.

APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-86

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Thanks, Sarah,
‐‐Steven
Comment 9
March 27, 2023
RE: Housing Element Policy Recommendations for Climate Resilience & Fair Housing Dear Mayor Hannon, City Council, and Planning Staff, The undersigned organizations and individuals are excited to participate in Newark’s Housing Element process. We write to offer feedback on Newark’s Draft Housing element for the sixth cycle.

This update is an opportunity for Newark to make sure that high resource and racially segregated neighborhoods take on their fair share of the City’s housing needs, particularly for lower income residents who are disproportionately people of color. As your housing element notes, the majority of Newark residents are in housing that is either unaffordable or does not meet their needs. In particular, the Latine community experiences high levels of overcrowding and above average spending on housing. The City must ensure that all, regardless of race or income, can enjoy safe, stable, and accessible homes located either near jobs or transit (bus as well as BART) and on sites that are clean and suitable for development.

We are glad to see many great policies and sites that promote infill and active transportation.

We also appreciate Newark going above the buffer recommendations for realistic zoning capacity. Among the sites we’re excited about is the Newpark project which will build medium density units on parking lots. This project is a perfect example of infill with access to AC Transit lines to BART.

We also want to commend the city for Policy H6.7: Residential Development in the FloodPlain.

We continue our opposition to the Sanctuary West project. We are glad that the city recognizes that such developments are not in the interest of Newark residents nor the prudent fiduciary responsibility of the council and staff. In an era where our communities are facing the consequences of climate change and sea level rise, each community should be actively assessing how it will ensure future developments and infrastructure will be resilient to flood risk without adversely impacting existing residents and the environment. Building in Area 4 baylands APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-87

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
would both greatly increase flood risk across the city, and also squander the opportunity to utilize these lands as a valuable flood buffer to protect the community from flooding and sea level rise, while also providing improved natural wildlife habitat and increased outdoor access opportunities for residents. Additionally, since there is broad community opposition from both environmental and pro-housing organizations in the area, building here has a high chance of community pushback which could delay the project to outside the planning period.

We strongly recommend updating your Climate Action Plan which is now 13 years old in order to implement mitigation measures for water level rise (both sea level rise and groundwater rise) and to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. We also recommend adding a policy to restore wetlands in order to maximize carbon sequestration and protection from sea level rise.

Program H3.5: Parking standards study can be strengthened to commit to reducing parking minimums. A study from UC Berkeley’s Terner Center found, “the presence of structured parking added nearly $36,000 per unit.” The Draft Housing Element notes that Newark has higher parking1 minimums than neighboring jurisdictions. Parking, especially covered parking, significantly increases the cost of housing developments and uses space for cars rather than for people. In order to combat climate change we know that we must reduce our reliance on cars and fossil fuels. By prioritizing land for people rather than cars we can address the housing crisis and GHG reduction goals. Due to this higher level of parking and its cost, we strongly urge you to commit to reducing the amount of required parking to no more than 0.5 spaces per residential unit, and zero in transit-adjacent areas.

Program H2.1: Encourage new middle-density housing with SB 9 and SB 10. While this is a laudable direction for the city to go to encourage housing abundance throughout the city, it could be strengthened with a few more objective outcomes for the program. (1) The SB 9 ordinance should not reduce the buildable envelope below what an underlying single-family zone allows. (2) Missing middle zoning should allow at least 4 units on at least 80% of single-family lots—not merely legal as density, but practical in terms of development standards.

See the Portland Residential Infill Program for a possible direction where buildable envelope is increased the more units are planned on the lot. (3) No areas should be exempted from missing middle except based on floodplain, fire risk, or other major public health / ecological risks. (4) Required parking should continue to be no more than 0.5 spaces /unit, or zero near any bus line, as the major space requirements of off-street parking reliably kills missing middle.

As we’ve mentioned, we oppose site number 2: Sanctuary West because of its location on baylands that are expected to see a nearly two feet rise of water levels in less than 50 years. We continue to urge you to remove this from your site list.

To support our vision for Newark, Greenbelt Alliance and other partnering organizations have crafted a go-to guide for accelerating equitable adaptation to the climate crisis; The Resilience Playbook. The Playbook brings together curated strategies, recommendations, and tools to support local decision makers and community leaders wherever they are in their journey.

We look forward to continuing to engage with Newark and the community on how this vital work can move forward in the new year.

Sincerely,
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-88

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Victor Flores, East Bay Resilience Manager,
Greenbelt Alliance
David Lewis, Executive Director
Save The Bay
Maxwell Davis and the 2500 members of East
Bay for Everyone
1 https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/ab-1401-residential-parking-requirements/ Comment 10
The City of Newark received the following comment as a form letter from 72 individuals. A full list ofthe individuals follows the letter.

To: Steven Turner
Subject: Remove Sanctuary West from the Newark Housing Element Steven Turner,
Dear Mayor Hannon, Vice Mayor Collazo and Newark City Councilmembers, Thank you for putting together a robust Housing Element draft. This is a once in a decade moment for Newark to make pivotal progress on climate change and fair housing by developing a comprehensive housing strategy that builds housing in existing neighborhoods, while ensuring the long-term climate resilience of the city by protecting protecting valuable open space along the shoreline as wildlife habitat while providing community resilience as a flood buffer from sea level rise.

I am writing to you today to implore you to remove Newark Area 4 (“Sanctuary West”) from your housing site inventory. This is not a good place to build housing and should not be how Newark meets a significant portion of its housing requirement. Newark Area 4 is almost entirely within a flood zone, and the site is anticipated to be almost completely inundated with just 1 meter of sea level rise. Additionally, new studies show that development of Area 4 could cause flooding for other shoreline communities in the Bay Area.

Developing this site will increase flood risk to current and future residents and cause catastrophic financial issues to the city in the future.

As evidenced by recent rains, Newark is already experiencing flooding and if Area 4 is developed, flooding will only increase. Newark has the capacity within the existing urban areas to meet its RHNA goals without putting future and current residents at risk.

Further, the wetlands and wetland restoration potential of Newark Area 4 should be embraced for the numerous important benefits they provide. Wetlands not only protect the city from flooding and provide wildlife habitat, they also clean our Bay waters, and have been demonstrated to be one of the most powerful tools in nature for fighting climate change, by sequestering carbon even more efficiently than our forests. We desperately need to protect and restore all the San Francisco Bay wetlands we can, and Newark has an incredible opportunity to support this regional goal.

APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-89

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
We strongly urge Newark to become a climate-forward city by focusing on infill growth in existing neighborhoods - rather than putting housing in an undeveloped shoreline flood zone that should be permanently protected as a wildlife habitat and as a valuable buffer to protect the community from flooding and sea level rise.

Thank you,
[Name]
List of Individuals who sent the comment form letter:
● Neelam Noorani ● Andrea Resendiz ● Cassandra Jauregui ● Jonathan Coreas-Diaz ● Victoria Ornelas ● Christopher Sulots ● Jean Mccauley ● Nael Mohammad ● Jaycee Moriguchi
● Marissa Hernandez ● Oscar Pena ● Kurt Harvey
● Ashi Kodi Kodi ● Lauren Farias ● Christina Johnson
● Susana Real ● Kaitlyn Fregoso ● Timothy Lee
● Marilyn Painter ● Belle Farias ● Nazim Haffaf
● Jesus Jimenez ● Kamilah Arteaga ● Arianna G.
● Agustina Maradona ● Eden Kidd ● Michael Brazil
● Dakota Sierras ● Jaime Arredondo ● Allysia Irwin
● Alyssa Lopez ● Anthony Medina ● Janice MacKenzie
● K. Encarnacion ● Vaidehi Sharma ● Amanda C.
● Analeez Iniguez ● Lyndie Chiou ● Shawn Bean
● Lauren Arreguin ● Wendy Chou ● Amanda Cordoba
● Tia Triplett ● Justin Burks ● Teresa Pinto
● Kassandra Vega ● Vanessa Nunez ● Marina Montes
● David Strand ● David Alexander ● George Flint
● Monika Strand ● Malalai Mayar ● Katherine Roberts
● Timmy Thach ● Diane Petersen ● Thalia Lubin
● Katelyn Costa ● Maia Rodriguez ● AJ Cho
● Jasmine Sandhu ● Raul Maldonado ● A.F. Shayne
● John Oda ● Remi Tan ● Joan Starr
● Ben Keller ● Kermit Cuff ● Maxwell Davis
● Cyril Bouteille ● Sarah Bell ● Shaina
Chemparathypatagonia
Comment 11
March 27, 2023
Transmitted Via Electronic Mail via the City Clerk
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-90

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Steven Turner, Community Development Director
37101 Newark Blvd.

Newark, CA 94560
Email: [email protected]
RE: Public comments by San Francisco Baykeeper on Newark’s Draft Housing Element.

Dear Mr. Turner,
I write on behalf of San Francisco Baykeeper (“Baykeeper”) in opposition to the City of Newark’s inclusion of the Sanctuary West Project (also commonly known as “Area 4”) in its Draft Housing Element. Baykeeper submits these comments on behalf of approximately 5,000 members and supporters who live and recreate in and around the San Francisco Bay Area. Together, our mission is to defend San Francisco Bay from the biggest threats and hold polluters and government agencies accountable to create healthy communities and help wildlife thrive. Our team of scientists and lawyers investigate pollution via aerial and water patrols, strengthen regulations through science and policy advocacy, and enforce environmental laws on behalf of the public.

It is discouraging to see the city continuing to recommend and approve housing at Area 4.

Instead of allowing this area to be used as a natural barrier to mitigate sea level rise (SLR) and groundwater inundation as climate impacts increase, moving forward with development will expose more than a thousand new residents to SLR and put hundreds of millions of dollars of property at risk. With only about ten percent of the original wetlands remaining around San Francisco Bay, keeping these natural bufferlands is essential to having a resilient community and allowing shorelines to adapt in the midst of climate change.

In addition, importing fill and paving over Area 4 would destroy restorable diked Baylands and harm wildlife habitats for over a dozen special-status species. This includes the endangered Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, endemic to only San Francisco Bay’s marshes which are increasingly threatened with the prospect of development. Furthermore, fragmenting and degrading the existing wetlands in Area 4 will also threaten pup rookeries for harbor seals.

The scientific community has recommended Area 4 as a high priority for protection and restoration of wetlands and upland habitat in order to support San Francisco Bay wildlife species and help them adjust to rising sea levels. Congress has already authorized lands such as Area 4 to be added to the Don Edwards SF Bay National Wildlife Refuge. We urge you to follow the guidance of the region’s scientific community and prioritize protecting and restoring this land rather than development in Area 4 as planned in your current Draft Housing Element.

During the January 2023 King Tides, drone footage revealed just how much surface water already occupies the site. These images give a glimpse of what this site will look like under one foot of SLR. Seeing as this site is projected to have two feet of SLR by 2050, it is obvious why this APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-91

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
is not a good site to build housing or degrade more wetland habitat.

Jan. 22, 2023, King Tides at Area 4 Photo credit: Carin High Lastly, sustainable development comes at the intersection of economic, social and environmental capitols. Area 4 development only looks at the economic benefit to build.

However, if natural capitol was also part of the equation, one would see how many benefits this land offers: greenhouse gas sequestration, nature based multi-benefit adaptation solutions to SLR, open space for community members to enjoy, and biodiversity to ensure a healthy Bay.

Staff, we implore you to remove the Sanctuary West Project from suitable housing in the 6th cycle of Newark’s Housing Element. Follow the advice of the experts and protect these wetlands to, in turn, protect your community against climate change impacts.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Draft Housing Element. Please reach out to Aundi Mevoli at aundi@... with any questions.

Sincerely,
Aundi Mevoli
Field Investigator and Policy Advocate San Francisco Baykeeper APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-92

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING HCD REVIEW PERIODS
Comment 12 David Song I received a letter from city of Newark, regarding a piece of land that I own. 37079 Ash street, APN: 92-127-31. The letter stated that my property has been identified as a site that could be developed with residential units, and well suited for development. I have previously tried to discuss the development of this site with the planning department multipe times, with no success.

With this new initiative from the city, what kind of incentive does the city provide to owners to develop this site? Higher density? Lower permit fees? Faster approval? Less red tape?
After reading through the Housing Element report, I still could not figure out how does that report relate to my property and its potential for development.

It would be nice for the city planner to sit down with me and explain what kind of incentives the city provides to the development of my site.

I am more than happy to work with the city to develop this site and provide more housing opportunities to medium and low income families.

Best
David
Comment 13 Rishika Rawat
I was wondering where I could find a pdf of the Newark Safety Element.

Comment 14 Alyssa Lopez Hi, I was wondering if there is any action being taken to invest in some programs such as a first-time buyers programs for Newark Residents, or a low-income based programs. If so, I’d like to get more information or be interested in investing some input
Thank you!
Comment 15 Pat Callaway There has been opposition to Area 4 development and I am confused by your responses. Has Area 4 been scrapped or not?
Comment 16 Krisie Knutson
Those house are ugly , can’t you make some pretty houses APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-93

Newark City CouncilApril 9, 2026

Newark City Council
April 9, 2026