Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.93 0.89 0.93 0.91 0.91 0.93 0.85 0.85 0.93 0.96 0.96 Lanes: 1.92 0.08 1.00 1.00 0.53 0.47 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.15 Final Sat.: 3408 145 1689 1769 916 814 1769 1624 1624 1769 1556 265 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.08 0.22 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.25 0.31 0.23 0.11 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 10.0 10.0 34.9 10.0 10.0 10.0 23.5 34.1 34.1 24.9 35.5 35.5 Volume/Cap: 0.74 0.74 0.58 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.70 0.86 0.86 0.30 0.30 Delay/Veh: 48.7 48.7 25.6 38.7 38.6 38.6 27.7 28.0 35.4 48.2 21.2 21.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 48.7 48.7 25.6 38.7 38.6 38.6 27.7 28.0 35.4 48.2 21.2 21.2 LOS by Move: D D C D D D C C D D C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 6 6 8 1 1 1 1 10 15 14 3 3
******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK Pj_PM Tue May 18, 2021 23:10:15 Page 5-2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newark-Dumbarton Rail SAP
2020 Analysis
Existing Plus Project PM Conditions with Mitigation
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK Pj_PM Tue May 18, 2021 23:10:15 Page 6-1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newark-Dumbarton Rail SAP
2020 Analysis
Existing Plus Project PM Conditions with Mitigation
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
FHWA Roundabout Method (Future Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #14 Enterprise Dr / Willow St
******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 13.4 Level Of Service: B
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Yield Sign Yield Sign Yield Sign Yield Sign
Lanes: 1 1 1 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 120 0 130 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 130
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 120 0 130 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 130
Added Vol: 142 127 42 127 168 327 192 17 91 21 8 64
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 142 247 42 257 298 327 192 17 91 21 8 194
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 154 268 46 279 324 355 209 18 99 23 9 211
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 154 268 46 279 324 355 209 18 99 23 9 211
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 154 268 46 279 324 355 209 18 99 23 9 211
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| PCE Module:
AutoPCE: 154 268 46 279 324 355 209 18 99 23 9 211
TruckPCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ComboPCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BicyclePCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AdjVolume: 154 268 46 279 324 355 209 18 99 23 9 211
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Delay Module: >> Time Period: 0.25 hours <<
CircVolume: 507 186 626 632
MaxVolume: 926 1100 862 859
PedVolume: 0 0 0 0
AdjMaxVol: 926 1100 862 859
ApproachVol: 468 959 326 242
ApproachV/C: 0.51 0.87 0.38 0.28
ApproachDel: 7.8 20.4 6.7 5.8
ApproachLOS: A C A A
Queue: 2.9 12.1 1.8 1.2
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK Pj_PM Tue May 18, 2021 23:10:15 Page 7-1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newark-Dumbarton Rail SAP
2020 Analysis
Existing Plus Project PM Conditions with Mitigation
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #17 Mowry Ave. / Cherry St.
******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 85 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.891
Loss Time (sec): 16 Average Delay (sec/veh): 34.4
Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: C
******************************************************************************** Street Name: Cherry St. Mowry Ave.
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected
Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 3 Oct 2006 << 4:45-5:45 pm Base Vol: 41 798 152 387 635 63 76 176 53 68 128 322
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 41 798 152 387 635 63 76 176 53 68 128 322 Added Vol: 0 20 0 147 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 249
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 41 818 152 534 647 63 76 176 53 68 128 571 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 PHF Volume: 46 919 171 600 727 71 85 198 60 76 144 642
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 46 919 171 600 727 71 85 198 60 76 144 642 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 46 919 171 600 727 71 85 198 60 76 144 642 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.93 0.83 0.90 0.93 0.83 0.93 0.98 0.83 0.93 0.86 0.86 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.37 1.63 Final Sat.: 1769 3538 1583 3432 3538 1583 1769 1862 1583 1769 598 2668 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.26 0.11 0.17 0.21 0.04 0.05 0.11 0.04 0.04 0.24 0.24 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 11.4 23.9 23.9 16.1 28.5 28.5 7.0 17.1 28.5 12.0 22.1 38.1 Volume/Cap: 0.19 0.93 0.38 0.93 0.61 0.13 0.59 0.53 0.11 0.31 0.93 0.54 Delay/Veh: 33.1 43.7 25.2 53.2 24.6 19.8 43.7 31.7 19.6 33.5 46.4 17.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 33.1 43.7 25.2 53.2 24.6 19.8 43.7 31.7 19.6 33.5 46.4 17.4 LOS by Move: C D C D C B D C B C D B
HCM2kAvgQ: 1 17 4 12 9 1 3 5 1 2 14 8
******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK Pj_PM Tue May 18, 2021 23:10:15 Page 7-2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newark-Dumbarton Rail SAP
2020 Analysis
Existing Plus Project PM Conditions with Mitigation
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK Cum With Pj_PM Tue May 18, 2021 22:52:05 Page 1-1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newark-Dumbarton Rail SAP
2020 Analysis
Future Year 2035 Base Plus Project PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario Report
Scenario: Cum With Pj_PM
Command: Future _ WITH Project PM
Volume: Cum_PM
Geometry: CU_PM
Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee
Trip Generation: Project PM
Trip Distribution: Default Trip Distribution
Paths: Default Path
Routes: Default Route
Configuration: Default Configuration
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK Cum With Pj_PM Tue May 18, 2021 22:52:07 Page 5-1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newark-Dumbarton Rail SAP
2020 Analysis
Future Year 2035 Base Plus Project PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Gateway Blvd. / Thornton Ave.
******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 65 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.056
Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 38.8
Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: D
******************************************************************************** Street Name: Thornton Ave. Gateway Blvd.
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Protected Split Phase Split Phase
Rights: Ovl Include Include Ovl
Min. Green: 0 10 10 7 10 0 0 0 0 10 0 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lanes: 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 17 May 2007 <<
Base Vol: 0 550 60 420 1070 0 0 0 0 40 0 450
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 550 60 420 1070 0 0 0 0 40 0 450
Added Vol: 0 144 3 0 232 0 0 0 0 5 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 694 63 420 1302 0 0 0 0 45 0 450
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 694 63 420 1302 0 0 0 0 45 0 450
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 694 63 420 1302 0 0 0 0 45 0 450
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 694 63 420 1302 0 0 0 0 45 0 450
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.73 Lanes: 0.00 2.75 0.25 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 Final Sat.: 0 4604 418 3432 1862 0 0 0 0 1769 0 2786
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.16 Crit Moves: **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 10.0 20.0 33.0 43.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 43.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.98 0.49 0.24 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.24 Delay/Veh: 0.0 54.8 18.6 9.0 53.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.2 0.0 4.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 54.8 18.6 9.0 53.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.2 0.0 4.5 LOS by Move: A D B A D A A A A C A A
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 6 4 2 37 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK Cum With Pj_PM Tue May 18, 2021 22:52:07 Page 5-2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newark-Dumbarton Rail SAP
2020 Analysis
Future Year 2035 Base Plus Project PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK Cum With Pj_PM Tue May 18, 2021 22:52:07 Page 6-1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newark-Dumbarton Rail SAP
2020 Analysis
Future Year 2035 Base Plus Project PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 Thornton Ave. / Willow St.
******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 115 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.832
Loss Time (sec): 16 Average Delay (sec/veh): 41.5
Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: D
******************************************************************************** Street Name: Willow St. Thornton Ave.
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected
Rights: Ovl Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 17 May 2007 << 5:00-6:00 pm Base Vol: 120 10 130 20 10 10 50 830 260 20 560 30
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 120 10 130 20 10 10 50 830 260 20 560 30
Added Vol: 147 3 233 0 3 0 0 0 237 381 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 267 13 363 20 13 10 50 830 497 401 560 30
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 267 13 363 20 13 10 50 830 497 401 560 30
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 267 13 363 20 13 10 50 830 497 401 560 30
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 267 13 363 20 13 10 50 830 497 401 560 30
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.93 0.83 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.88 0.88 0.93 0.97 0.97 Lanes: 1.91 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.57 0.43 1.00 1.25 0.75 1.00 0.95 0.05 Final Sat.: 3388 165 1583 1769 984 757 1769 2089 1251 1769 1753 94 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.08 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.40 0.40 0.23 0.32 0.32 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 10.0 10.0 38.7 10.0 10.0 10.0 12.6 50.3 50.3 28.7 66.4 66.4 Volume/Cap: 0.91 0.91 0.68 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.26 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.55 0.55 Delay/Veh: 80.6 80.6 36.4 48.9 49.0 49.0 47.6 38.8 38.8 64.2 15.8 15.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 80.6 80.6 36.4 48.9 49.0 49.0 47.6 38.8 38.8 64.2 15.8 15.8 LOS by Move: F F D D D D D D D E B B
HCM2kAvgQ: 8 8 12 1 1 1 2 25 25 17 13 13
******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK Cum With Pj_PM Tue May 18, 2021 22:52:07 Page 6-2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newark-Dumbarton Rail SAP
2020 Analysis
Future Year 2035 Base Plus Project PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK Cum With Pj_PM Tue May 18, 2021 22:52:07 Page 7-1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newark-Dumbarton Rail SAP
2020 Analysis
Future Year 2035 Base Plus Project PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
FHWA Roundabout Method (Future Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #14 Enterprise Dr / Willow St
******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 11.8 Level Of Service: B
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Yield Sign Yield Sign Yield Sign Yield Sign
Lanes: 1 1 1 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:
Base Vol: 10 130 10 140 140 10 10 10 10 10 10 140
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 10 130 10 140 140 10 10 10 10 10 10 140
Added Vol: 142 127 42 127 168 327 192 17 91 21 8 64
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 152 257 52 267 308 337 202 27 101 31 18 204 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 152 257 52 267 308 337 202 27 101 31 18 204 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 152 257 52 267 308 337 202 27 101 31 18 204 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 152 257 52 267 308 337 202 27 101 31 18 204 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| PCE Module:
AutoPCE: 152 257 52 267 308 337 202 27 101 31 18 204
TruckPCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ComboPCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BicyclePCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AdjVolume: 152 257 52 267 308 337 202 27 101 31 18 204
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Delay Module: >> Time Period: 0.25 hours <<
CircVolume: 496 201 606 611
MaxVolume: 932 1091 873 870
PedVolume: 0 0 0 0
AdjMaxVol: 932 1091 873 870
ApproachVol: 461 912 330 253
ApproachV/C: 0.49 0.84 0.38 0.29
ApproachDel: 7.6 17.4 6.6 5.8
ApproachLOS: A C A A
Queue: 2.8 10.4 1.8 1.2
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK Cum With Pj_PM Tue May 18, 2021 22:52:07 Page 8-1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newark-Dumbarton Rail SAP
2020 Analysis
Future Year 2035 Base Plus Project PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #17 Mowry Ave. / Cherry St.
******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 135 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.339
Loss Time (sec): 16 Average Delay (sec/veh): 98.3
Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F
******************************************************************************** Street Name: Cherry St. Mowry Ave.
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected
Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 3 Oct 2006 << 4:45-5:45 pm Base Vol: 50 850 710 730 920 90 100 220 60 230 170 940
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 50 850 710 730 920 90 100 220 60 230 170 940 Added Vol: 0 20 0 147 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 249
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 50 870 710 877 932 90 100 220 60 230 170 1189 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 50 870 710 877 932 90 100 220 60 230 170 1189 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 50 870 710 877 932 90 100 220 60 230 170 1189 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 50 870 710 877 932 90 100 220 60 230 170 1189 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.93 0.83 0.90 0.93 0.83 0.93 0.98 0.83 0.90 0.85 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.25 1.75 Final Sat.: 1769 3538 1583 3432 3538 1583 1769 1862 1583 3432 405 2831 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.25 0.45 0.26 0.26 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.04 0.07 0.42 0.42 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 11.5 44.7 44.7 25.5 58.6 58.6 7.0 31.2 42.7 17.7 41.8 67.3 Volume/Cap: 0.33 0.74 1.35 1.35 0.61 0.13 1.09 0.51 0.12 0.51 1.35 0.84 Delay/Veh: 59.4 42.7 217.1 224.5 30.0 23.0 184.5 46.3 32.9 55.6 213 33.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 59.4 42.7 217.1 224.5 30.0 23.0 184.5 46.3 32.9 55.6 213 33.5 LOS by Move: E D F F C C F D C E F C
HCM2kAvgQ: 2 18 53 35 16 2 8 8 2 5 51 26
******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK Cum With Pj_PM Tue May 18, 2021 22:52:07 Page 8-2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newark-Dumbarton Rail SAP
2020 Analysis
Future Year 2035 Base Plus Project PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK ATTACHMENT 1
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE TABLES
Willow and Grand Park Project, Newark
Bus Turning Simulation Attachment 3 CONCEPTUAL - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION N.T.S. INCOMING 45' BUSES OUTGOING 45' BUSES 2201 Broadway | Suite 602 | Oakland, CA 94612 | (510) 834-3200 | Fax (510) 253-0059 www.fehrandpeers.com
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 28, 2022
To: Lesley Owning, HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
From: Rob Rees, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Enterprise Drive – Willow Street Mixed-Use Project OK19-0325
This memorandum presents our findings for the Enterprise Drive cross section for the Willow Street Mixed-Use project. The review of Enterprise Drive cross section between Willow and Hickory Streets per request from the City of Newark and the development team is summarized below.
ROUNDABOUT ANALYSIS
Roundabout analysis is a process of evaluating intersection analysis for all movements during both AM and PM peak hour for a roundabout. The analysis for the roundabout at Enterprise Drive and Willow Street was performed using Sidra Intersection software (SIDRA) and the traffic volumes from Dumbarton TOD EIR. The study roundabout is currently operating with an eastbound right turn slip lane. Table 1 summarizes the 2035 buildout cumulative turn movements at the study roundabout from the Dumbarton TOD EIR.
Table 1:
Turning Volumes at Enterprise Drive and Willow Street – 2035 Cumulative Buildout Forecasts
Willow Street Enterprise Drive
Movement NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM 97 245 19 178 211 260 196 14 107 52 27 278
PM 110 218 52 267 255 247 281 27 114 31 18 204
The cumulative traffic forecasts shown in Table 1 illustrate that the heaviest traffic flows are anticipated along the Willow Street corridor. The volumes in Table 1 were used to analyze if the roundabout at Enterprise Drive and Willow Street could operate as a single lane roundabout. SIDRA shows the results in level of service (LOS) and volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio. The intersection will Lesley Owning
February 28, 2022
operate with LOS B in the AM and LOS C in the PM. LOS B in the AM means the operation will experience minor delays with less then 15 seconds per vehicle. LOS C in the PM means the operation will experience moderate delays with less than 25 seconds per vehicle. The v/c ratio is 0.64 in the AM and 0.75 in the PM, which are under 0.85. Values under 0.85 typically represent conditions where the traffic network is serving the travel demand well. The SIDRA calculation worksheets are provided in Attachment A to this memorandum. The single lane roundabout operates well through Year 2035 and controls capacity to and from Enterprise Drive. As such, Enterprise Drive approaching the roundabout should be one lane in each direction to provide efficient vehicular movements approaching and departing the single lane roundabout.
RECOMMENDATIONS
This assessment results in the following recommendations:
• The roundabout at Enterprise Drive and Willow Street can be constructed as a single lane roundabout that will serve the travel demand well for 2035 buildout scenario with LOS B in the AM and LOS C in the PM.
• The Enterprise Drive cross section can be one lane in each direction consistent with the single lane roundabout. The recommended cross section is below.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Intersection Worksheets
SITE LAYOUT
Site: 1 [AM - Willow St & Enterprise Dr (Site Folder: General)] Site Category: One Lane Roundabout
Roundabout
Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data. They are not design drawings.
SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.0 | Copyright © 2000-2020 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: FEHR AND PEERS | Licence: PLUS / Enterprise | Created: Thursday, October 1, 2020 9:57:50 AM Project: \\Fpok03.fpainc.local\data\Projects\2019\OK19-0325.00_Willow_Street_Mixed_Use\Analysis\Task 4 - Hickory Alignment & Transit Simulations \SIDRA\Willow and Enterprise Roundabout.sip9
ATTACHMENT A
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 1 [AM - Willow St & Enterprise Dr (Site Folder: General)] Site Category: One Lane Roundabout
Roundabout
Vehicle Movement Performance
INPUT
VOLUMES
DEMAND
FLOWS
95% BACK OF
QUEUE
Mov
ID
Turn Deg.
Satn
Aver.
Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.
Que
Effective
Stop
Rate
Aver.
No.
Cycles
Aver.
Speed
[ Total HV ] [ Total HV ] [ Veh. Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph
South: Willow St
3 L2 97 3.0 105 3.0 0.456 9.9 LOS A 2.9 73.2 0.66 0.67 0.78 27.0 8 T1 245 3.0 266 3.0 0.456 9.9 LOS A 2.9 73.2 0.66 0.67 0.78 24.0 18 R2 19 3.0 21 3.0 0.456 9.9 LOS A 2.9 73.2 0.66 0.67 0.78 24.4 Approach 361 3.0 392 3.0 0.456 9.9 LOS A 2.9 73.2 0.66 0.67 0.78 24.9 East: Enterprise Dr
1 L2 52 3.0 57 3.0 0.536 13.2 LOS B 3.9 98.6 0.75 0.89 1.14 23.7 6 T1 27 3.0 29 3.0 0.536 13.2 LOS B 3.9 98.6 0.75 0.89 1.14 25.8 16 R2 278 3.0 302 3.0 0.536 13.2 LOS B 3.9 98.6 0.75 0.89 1.14 21.9 Approach 357 3.0 388 3.0 0.536 13.2 LOS B 3.9 98.6 0.75 0.89 1.14 22.5 North: Willow St
7 L2 178 3.0 193 3.0 0.644 12.3 LOS B 6.7 170.6 0.65 0.53 0.75 23.4 4 T1 211 3.0 229 3.0 0.644 12.3 LOS B 6.7 170.6 0.65 0.53 0.75 22.2 14 R2 260 3.0 283 3.0 0.644 12.3 LOS B 6.7 170.6 0.65 0.53 0.75 23.8 Approach 649 3.0 705 3.0 0.644 12.3 LOS B 6.7 170.6 0.65 0.53 0.75 23.3 West: Enterprise Dr
5 L2 196 3.0 213 3.0 0.426 9.8 LOS A 2.4 62.6 0.66 0.69 0.78 21.0 2 T1 14 3.0 15 3.0 0.426 9.8 LOS A 2.4 62.6 0.66 0.69 0.78 26.6 12 R2 107 3.0 116 3.0 0.426 9.8 LOS A 2.4 62.6 0.66 0.69 0.78 24.9 Approach 317 3.0 345 3.0 0.426 9.8 LOS A 2.4 62.6 0.66 0.69 0.78 22.5 All Vehicles 1684 3.0 1830 3.0 0.644 11.5 LOS B 6.7 170.6 0.68 0.67 0.84 23.2 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement.
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.
Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Geometric Delay is not included).
Queue Model: HCM Queue Formula.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: Traditional M1.
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.0 | Copyright © 2000-2020 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: FEHR AND PEERS | Licence: PLUS / Enterprise | Processed: Thursday, October 1, 2020 9:57:43 AM Project: \\Fpok03.fpainc.local\data\Projects\2019\OK19-0325.00_Willow_Street_Mixed_Use\Analysis\Task 4 - Hickory Alignment & Transit Simulations \SIDRA\Willow and Enterprise Roundabout.sip9
ATTACHMENT A
SITE LAYOUT
Site: 1 [PM - Willow St & Enterprise Dr (Site Folder: General)] Site Category: One Lane Roundabout
Roundabout
Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data. They are not design drawings.
SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.0 | Copyright © 2000-2020 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: FEHR AND PEERS | Licence: PLUS / Enterprise | Created: Thursday, October 1, 2020 9:57:53 AM Project: \\Fpok03.fpainc.local\data\Projects\2019\OK19-0325.00_Willow_Street_Mixed_Use\Analysis\Task 4 - Hickory Alignment & Transit Simulations \SIDRA\Willow and Enterprise Roundabout.sip9
ATTACHMENT A
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 1 [PM - Willow St & Enterprise Dr (Site Folder: General)] Site Category: One Lane Roundabout
Roundabout
Vehicle Movement Performance
INPUT
VOLUMES
DEMAND
FLOWS
95% BACK OF
QUEUE
Mov
ID
Turn Deg.
Satn
Aver.
Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.
Que
Effective
Stop
Rate
Aver.
No.
Cycles
Aver.
Speed
[ Total HV ] [ Total HV ] [ Veh. Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph
South: Willow St
3 L2 110 3.0 120 3.0 0.595 15.5 LOS C 4.7 120.5 0.79 0.97 1.32 23.9 8 T1 218 3.0 237 3.0 0.595 15.5 LOS C 4.7 120.5 0.79 0.97 1.32 20.7 18 R2 52 3.0 57 3.0 0.595 15.5 LOS C 4.7 120.5 0.79 0.97 1.32 21.5 Approach 380 3.0 413 3.0 0.595 15.5 LOS C 4.7 120.5 0.79 0.97 1.32 21.8 East: Enterprise Dr
1 L2 31 3.0 34 3.0 0.412 11.2 LOS B 2.2 56.3 0.71 0.77 0.90 25.1 6 T1 18 3.0 20 3.0 0.412 11.2 LOS B 2.2 56.3 0.71 0.77 0.90 27.0 16 R2 204 3.0 222 3.0 0.412 11.2 LOS B 2.2 56.3 0.71 0.77 0.90 23.1 Approach 253 3.0 275 3.0 0.412 11.2 LOS B 2.2 56.3 0.71 0.77 0.90 23.7 North: Willow St
7 L2 267 3.0 290 3.0 0.749 15.9 LOS C 13.9 355.8 0.76 0.72 1.08 21.4 4 T1 255 3.0 277 3.0 0.749 15.9 LOS C 13.9 355.8 0.76 0.72 1.08 20.2 14 R2 247 3.0 268 3.0 0.749 15.9 LOS C 13.9 355.8 0.76 0.72 1.08 22.0 Approach 769 3.0 836 3.0 0.749 15.9 LOS C 13.9 355.8 0.76 0.72 1.08 21.2 West: Enterprise Dr
5 L2 281 3.0 305 3.0 0.644 17.0 LOS C 5.8 148.9 0.82 1.04 1.46 18.5 2 T1 27 3.0 29 3.0 0.644 17.0 LOS C 5.8 148.9 0.82 1.04 1.46 23.2 12 R2 114 3.0 124 3.0 0.644 17.0 LOS C 5.8 148.9 0.82 1.04 1.46 21.6 Approach 422 3.0 459 3.0 0.644 17.0 LOS C 5.8 148.9 0.82 1.04 1.46 19.6 All Vehicles 1824 3.0 1983 3.0 0.749 15.4 LOS C 13.9 355.8 0.77 0.85 1.19 21.2 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement.
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.
Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Geometric Delay is not included).
Queue Model: HCM Queue Formula.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: Traditional M1.
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.0 | Copyright © 2000-2020 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: FEHR AND PEERS | Licence: PLUS / Enterprise | Processed: Thursday, October 1, 2020 9:57:44 AM Project: \\Fpok03.fpainc.local\data\Projects\2019\OK19-0325.00_Willow_Street_Mixed_Use\Analysis\Task 4 - Hickory Alignment & Transit Simulations \SIDRA\Willow and Enterprise Roundabout.sip9
ATTACHMENT A
2201 Broadway | Suite 602 | Oakland, CA 94612 | (510) 834-3200 | Fax (510) 253-0059 www.fehrandpeers.com
DRAFT MEMORANDUM
Date: May 26, 2022
To: Lesley Owning, HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
From: Rob Rees, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Trip Generation and Intersection Operations Analysis for Willow Street at G Street
OK19-0325
This memorandum presents the findings of the trip generation and intersection operations analysis prepared for the G Street intersection with Willow Street after buildout of the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project (formerly the Willow Street Mixed-Use Project) in Newark, CA.
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Proposed construction of the Project includes a new street, G Street, that would intersect with Willow Street and serve 64 market-rate townhomes, 91 affordable housing units, 3,600 square feet of retail space, and a bus transit station with 72 commuter parking spaces. The trip generation generated by these uses would use G Street to access Willow Street.
Trip generation is the process of estimating vehicles that would likely access the Project. Trip generation for the SP EIR was estimated using methods, formulas, and rates presented by Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition. To remain consistent with the SP EIR, Project trip generation was also estimated using the Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition. Consistent with FMC Parcel C Project analysis, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition was used to estimate trip generation for land uses that were not evaluated in the SP EIR, except for the bus transit center, which used the Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition because data was not available from earlier editions.
The proposed Project would be located less than a half-mile from the future Dumbarton Rail Transit Station, and it would construct the bus transit station element of the Rail Station. Considering the proximity of the Project to the future Dumbarton Rail Transit Station, some Project trips are likely to shift to transit. However, the future of the Dumbarton Rail line is uncertain due to funding Lesley Owning
May 26, 2022
constraints. Therefore, as a reasonable worst-case scenario, no transit reductions were assumed in the trip generation estimates, which is consistent with the trip generation in the SP EIR.
Table 1 on the next page summarizes the trip generation for the Project elements that would use G Street. Since the Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition does not differentiate between affordable housing and market-rate townhouses, this analysis combines them for 155 total residential units.
Using the SP EIR internalization assumptions, the Project elements that use G Street is estimated to generate about 852 daily, 72 AM peak hour, and 83 PM peak hour external vehicle trips.
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS AND SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
Intersection operations were evaluated at the G Street intersection with Willow Street to assess intersection operations.
Vehicle trip generation for the uses that would use G Street is summarized in Table 1. Vehicle trips were distributed to the road network using the trip distribution percentages from the SP EIR, and the distributed trips were assigned to the study intersection based on paths of travel. The assigned trips were then added to the “Existing with SP Buildout” and “Cumulative (Year 2035) with SP Buildout” traffic forecasts based on the current planned SP buildout as evaluated in the November 19, 2021, memorandum titled, Trip Generation and Intersection Operations Analysis – FMC Willow and Grand Park Project.
Attachment 1 provides the intersection analysis worksheets and the peak hour signal warrant worksheets. With buildout of the current specific plan the G Street intersection with Willow Street would operate as follows.
Intersection Level of Service – G Street at Willow Street (Side Street Stop Control Operations)
Study Scenario
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Signal
Warrant Met
(Yes / No)?
Level of
Service Delay Level of Service Delay
Existing Plus Project D 25.0 F 54.1 No
Cumulative 2035 Plus Project D 31.9 E 47.2 No
Notes: Intersection LOS and Delay represents the operations for the side-street stop control movements on G Street turning onto Willow Street because this traffic must stop before proceeding. Willow Street traffic does not stop and so its LOS would be “A”.
Source: ITE Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition; Fehr & Peers, 2022.
Lesley Owning
May 26, 2022
Level of Service E and F conditions occur during the PM peak hours when the traffic loads on Willow Street are greatest, and so it is more difficult to turn onto Willow Street from G Street.
The G Street intersection with Willow Street was reviewed for the Peak Hour Traffic Signal Warrants (worksheets in Attachment 1). The peak hour warrant is not met because G Street traffic volumes are substantially lower than the minimum threshold for signalization. However, it is likely that the peak hour warrant for signalization will be met once the rail station traffic is added to the G Street corridor. The analysis in this memorandum assumes a bus transit station but not a rail station. Only the peak hour warrant was considered for this memorandum. Prior to signalization in the future after the project is constructed the full complement of signal warrants should be considered to determine if a traffic signal should be installed.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Intersection Analysis Worksheets and Peak Hour Signal Warrant Worksheets Lesley Owning
May 26, 2022
Table 1
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project Trip Generation for Uses Served by G Street Land Use Units1 ITE
Code Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
New Uses (Served by G Street)
Retail2 3.6 KSF 820 155 2 2 4 7 6 13
Townhomes/Apartments
(including 91 Affordable
Units)3
155 DU 230 680 8 37 45 36 18 54
Bus Transit Station5 72 PS 90 202 21 9 30 9 22 31
Total Project Trips using G Street 1,037 31 48 79 52 46 98 Reductions
Retail Internalization (-80%)6 -124 -2 -1 -3 -6 -4 -10
Townhomes/Apart Internalization (-9%)6 -61 -1 -3 -4 -3 -2 -5 Total Internalization (-80% retail, -9%
residential)6 -185 -3 -4 -7 -9 -6 -15
Net External Project Trips Using G Street 852 28 44 72 43 40 83
1. KSF = 1,000 square feet, DU = dwelling units
2. Based on the Dumbarton Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (RBF, May 2011):
Daily: T = 42.94 * (X);
AM Peak Hour: T = 1 * (X) (61% in, 39% out);
PM Peak Hour: T = 3.37 * (X) (49% in, 51% out)
3. Based on the Dumbarton Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (RBF, May 2011):
Daily: T = 4.39 * (X);
AM Peak Hour: T = 0.29 * (X) (17% in, 83% out);
PM Peak Hour: T = 0.35 * (X) (67% in, 33% out)
4. ITE Trip Generation (8th Edition) land use category 412 (County Park):
Daily: T = 2.28 * (X);
AM Peak Hour: T = 0.01 * (X) (80% in, 20% out);
PM Peak Hour: T = 0.06 * (X) 41% in, 59% out)
5. ITE Trip Generation (10th Edition) land use category 090 (Park and Ride Lot with Bus or Light Rail) Daily: T = 2.81 * (X);
AM Peak Hour: T = 0.42 * (X) (69% in, 31% out);
PM Peak Hour: T = 0.43 * (X) (28% in, 72% out)
6. As in the SP EIR, 9% of the residential trips and 80% of the commercial trips would be internal to the Specific Plan Area.
Sources: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition; ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition; Fehr & Peers, 2021.
HCM 6th TWSC FMC Willow & Grand Park
1: Willow Street & G Street AM Existing Plus Project
Synchro 11 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 14 10 729 465 18
Future Vol, veh/h 30 14 10 729 465 18
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 100 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 33 15 11 792 505 20
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1329 515 525 0 - 0
Stage 1 515 -----
Stage 2 814 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 171 560 1042 - - -
Stage 1 600 -----
Stage 2 436 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 169 560 1042 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 169 -----
Stage 1 593 -----
Stage 2 436 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 25 0.1 0
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1042 - 169 560 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 - 0.193 0.027 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 - 31.3 11.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - D B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.7 0.1 - -
HCM 6th TWSC FMC Willow & Grand Park
1: Willow Street & G Street PM Existing Plus Project
Synchro 11 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 28 12 14 674 946 29
Future Vol, veh/h 28 12 14 674 946 29
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 100 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 30 13 15 733 1028 32
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1807 1044 1060 0 - 0
Stage 1 1044 -----
Stage 2 763 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 87 278 657 - - -
Stage 1 339 -----
Stage 2 460 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 85 278 657 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 85 -----
Stage 1 331 -----
Stage 2 460 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 54.1 0.2 0
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 657 - 85 278 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.023 - 0.358 0.047 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.6 - 69.3 18.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - F C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 1.4 0.1 - -
HCM 6th TWSC FMC Willow & Grand Park
1: Willow Street & G Street AM 2035 Plus Project
Synchro 11 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 14 10 823 536 18
Future Vol, veh/h 30 14 10 823 536 18
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 100 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 33 15 11 895 583 20
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1510 593 603 0 - 0
Stage 1 593 -----
Stage 2 917 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 133 506 975 - - -
Stage 1 552 -----
Stage 2 390 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 132 506 975 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 132 -----
Stage 1 546 -----
Stage 2 390 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 31.9 0.1 0
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 975 - 132 506 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 - 0.247 0.03 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.7 - 41 12.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - E B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.9 0.1 - -
HCM 6th TWSC FMC Willow & Grand Park
1: Willow Street & G Street PM 2035 Plus Project
Synchro 11 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 28 12 14 649 900 29
Future Vol, veh/h 28 12 14 649 900 29
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 100 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 30 13 15 705 978 32
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1729 994 1010 0 - 0
Stage 1 994 -----
Stage 2 735 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 97 297 686 - - -
Stage 1 358 -----
Stage 2 474 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 95 297 686 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 95 -----
Stage 1 350 -----
Stage 2 474 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 47.2 0.2 0
HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 686 - 95 297 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.022 - 0.32 0.044 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.4 - 59.8 17.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - F C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 1.2 0.1 - -
Project FMC Willow & Grand Park
Major Street Willow Street Scenario Existing Plus Project Minor Street G Street Peak Hour AM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction
NB SB EB WB
Left 10 0 30 0 X North/South
Through 729 465 0 0 East/West
Right 0 18 14 0
Total 739 483 44 0
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met Willow Street G Street * Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.
Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.
Number of Approach Lanes 1 1
NO
Traffic Volume (VPH) * 1,222 44
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Warrant 3B, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.
Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2014 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Project FMC Willow & Grand Park
Major Street Willow Street Scenario Existing Plus Project Minor Street G Street Peak Hour AM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction
NB SB EB WB
Left 10 0 30 0 X North/South
Through 729 465 0 0 East/West
Right 0 18 14 0
Total 739 483 44 0
Intersection Geometry
1 3
54 Approach with Worst Case Delay EB
44 Warrant 3A, Peak Hour
Number of Approach Lanes for Minor Street
Total Approaches
Worst Case Delay for Minor Street
Stopped Delay (seconds per vehicle)
Total Vehicles on Approach
Peak Hour Delay on
Minor Approach
(vehicle-hours)
Peak Hour Volume
on Minor Approach
(vph)
Peak Hour Entering
Volume Serviced
(vph)
Existing Plus Project 0.7 44 1,266
Warrant Met NO
Limiting Value 4 100 650
Condition Satisfied? Not Met Not Met Met
Project FMC Willow & Grand Park
Major Street Willow Street Scenario Existing Plus Project Minor Street G Street Peak Hour PM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction
NB SB EB WB
Left 14 0 28 0 X North/South
Through 674 946 0 0 East/West
Right 0 29 12 0
Total 688 975 40 0
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met Willow Street G Street * Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.
Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.
Number of Approach Lanes 1 1
NO
Traffic Volume (VPH) * 1,663 40
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Warrant 3B, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.
Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2014 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Project FMC Willow & Grand Park
Major Street Willow Street Scenario Existing Plus Project Minor Street G Street Peak Hour PM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction
NB SB EB WB
Left 14 0 28 0 X North/South
Through 674 946 0 0 East/West
Right 0 29 12 0
Total 688 975 40 0
Intersection Geometry
1 3
0 Approach with Worst Case Delay 0
#N/A
Warrant 3A, Peak Hour
Number of Approach Lanes for Minor Street
Total Approaches
Worst Case Delay for Minor Street
Stopped Delay (seconds per vehicle)
Total Vehicles on Approach
Peak Hour Delay on
Minor Approach
(vehicle-hours)
Peak Hour Volume
on Minor Approach
(vph)
Peak Hour Entering
Volume Serviced
(vph)
Existing Plus Project #N/A 40 1,703
Warrant Met NO
Limiting Value 4 100 650
Condition Satisfied? #N/A Not Met Met
Project FMC Willow & Grand Park
Major Street Willow Street Scenario 2035 Plus Project
Minor Street G Street Peak Hour AM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction
NB SB EB WB
Left 10 0 30 0 X North/South
Through 823 536 0 0 East/West
Right 0 18 14 0
Total 833 554 44 0
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met Willow Street G Street * Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.
Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.
Number of Approach Lanes 1 1
NO
Traffic Volume (VPH) * 1,387 44
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Warrant 3B, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.
Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2014 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Project FMC Willow & Grand Park
Major Street Willow Street Scenario 2035 Plus Project
Minor Street G Street Peak Hour AM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction
NB SB EB WB
Left 10 0 30 0 X North/South
Through 823 536 0 0 East/West
Right 0 18 14 0
Total 833 554 44 0
Intersection Geometry
1 3
47 Approach with Worst Case Delay EB
44 Warrant 3A, Peak Hour
Number of Approach Lanes for Minor Street
Total Approaches
Worst Case Delay for Minor Street
Stopped Delay (seconds per vehicle)
Total Vehicles on Approach
Peak Hour Delay on
Minor Approach
(vehicle-hours)
Peak Hour Volume
on Minor Approach
(vph)
Peak Hour Entering
Volume Serviced
(vph)
2035 Plus Project 0.6 44 1,431
Warrant Met NO
Limiting Value 4 100 650
Condition Satisfied? Not Met Not Met Met
Project FMC Willow & Grand Park
Major Street Willow Street Scenario 2035 Plus Project
Minor Street G Street Peak Hour PM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction
NB SB EB WB
Left 14 0 28 0 X North/South
Through 649 900 0 0 East/West
Right 0 29 12 0
Total 663 929 40 0
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met Willow Street G Street * Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.
Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.
Number of Approach Lanes 1 1
NO
Traffic Volume (VPH) * 1,592 40
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Warrant 3B, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.
Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2014 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Project FMC Willow & Grand Park
Major Street Willow Street Scenario 2035 Plus Project
Minor Street G Street Peak Hour PM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction
NB SB EB WB
Left 14 0 28 0 X North/South
Through 649 900 0 0 East/West
Right 0 29 12 0
Total 663 929 40 0
Intersection Geometry
1 3
25 Approach with Worst Case Delay EB
40 Warrant 3A, Peak Hour
Number of Approach Lanes for Minor Street
Total Approaches
Worst Case Delay for Minor Street
Stopped Delay (seconds per vehicle)
Total Vehicles on Approach
Peak Hour Delay on
Minor Approach
(vehicle-hours)
Peak Hour Volume
on Minor Approach
(vph)
Peak Hour Entering
Volume Serviced
(vph)
2035 Plus Project 0.3 40 1,632
Warrant Met NO
Limiting Value 4 100 650
Condition Satisfied? Not Met Not Met Met
RESOLUTION NO. 10, 184
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWARK
ESTABLISHING AFFORDABLE UNITS NEEDED TO FULLY MITIGATE
THE IMPACT OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE NEED FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING; AND HOUSING IMPACT FEES FOR
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2010, the City Council of the City of Newark adopted the Housing Element of the General Plan in compliance with State law, which includes the goal of encouraging the provision of a range of housing opportunities to meet the City' s share of the regional housing need and, to implement that goal, includes Program 8 to review the City's affordable housing ordinance and consider amendments to respond to market conditions; and WHEREAS, to implement the affordable housing goals and programs of the City's Housing Element, including Program 8 in the City's 2007 -2014 Housing Element, the City Council has considered and introduced on this same date an ordinance to repeal the City' s existing affordable housing ordinance ( Chapter 17. 18 of the Newark Municipal Code) and add a new Chapter 17. 18 ( the " Affordable Housing Ordinance ") which, among other things: 1) authorizes the imposition of housing impact fees on residential developments to mitigate the impact of such developments on the need for affordable housing in the City; and 2) continues to authorize the imposition of housing impact fees for nonresidential developments to mitigate the impact of such projects on the need for affordable housing in the City; and WHEREAS, land prices are a key factor preventing development of new affordable housing. New housing construction in the City which does not include affordable units aggravates the existing shortage of affordable housing by absorbing the supply of available residential land. This reduces the supply of land for affordable housing and increases the price of remaining residential land. At the same time, new market -rate housing contributes to the demand for goods and services, increasing local employment at very low, low, and moderate - income wage levels, which will increase the demand for and exacerbate the shortage of housing available to persons at those income levels; and
WHEREAS, to further implement the affordable housing goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the City' s 2010 Housing Element and to ensure that the housing impact fees adopted by this resolution do not exceed the actual affordable housing impacts attributable to the development projects on which the fees are imposed, the City Council has considered the Residential Nexus Analysis, Newark, California" dated March 2014 and prepared by Keyser - Marston Associates, Inc. ( the " Nexus Study "), which study demonstrates that, to fully mitigate the burdens created by new market -rate units in residential projects on the need for very low, low, and moderate - income housing, a housing impact fee of $23. 80 to $ 35. 60 per square foot of new market rate development would be needed, or from 12 percent to 21 percent of units in each residential development would need to be affordable to very low, low, and moderate - income households; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to repeal the Inclusionary Housing In -Lieu Fee and to adopt housing impact fees for residential developments as authorized by Section
17. 18. 030( B) of the Affordable Housing Ordinance, which housing impact fees do not exceed the justified fees needed to mitigate the actual affordable housing impacts attributable to the developments on which the fees are imposed, and which fees are lower than the amount found by the Nexus Study to be needed to fully mitigate the burdens created by new market -rate units in residential projects on the need for affordable housing to ensure that residential projects remain economically feasible; and
WHEREAS, the City Council also desires to adopt the percentage of affordable units needed to fully mitigate the impact of residential developments on the need for affordable housing, as authorized by Section 17. 18. 060(A) of the Affordable Housing Ordinance; and WHEREAS, in compliance with the Affordable Housing Ordinance, all housing impact fees collected shall be deposited into the City' s affordable housing fund to be used solely to increase and preserve the supply of housing affordable to households of very low, low, and moderate incomes ( including necessary administrative costs); and WHEREAS, at least ten days prior to the date this resolution is being heard, data was made available to the public indicating the amount of cost, or estimated cost, required to provide the service for which the fee or service charge is levied and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the service, including general fund revenues in accordance with Government Code Section 66019; and
WHEREAS, at least fourteen days prior to the date this resolution is being heard, notice was provided to those persons or organizations who had requested notice of these fees, in accordance with Government Code Section 66019; and
WHEREAS, notice of the hearing on the proposed fees was published twice in the manner set forth in section 6062a as required by Government Code Section 66018; and WHEREAS, a duly and properly noticed public hearing was conducted by the City Council on April 10, 2014.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newark, California, as follows:
1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated by this reference.
2. Repeal of Inclusionary Housing In -Lieu Fees. The City Council hereby repeals and removes the Inclusionary Housing In -Lieu Fee established by Resolution No. 8802 and amended by Resolution No. 9398.
3. Adoption of Residential Housing Impact Fees. The City Council hereby adopts housing impact fees for residential development as shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.
Resolution No. 10, 184
4. Annual Adjustment to Housing Impact Fees. The City Council may review housing impact fees from time to time. For any annual period during which the City Council does not review the housing impact fee, fee amounts shall be adjusted once by the community development director based on the percentage increase in the Engineering News - Record Construction Cost Index for San Francisco, California.
5. Percentage of Affordable Units Needed to Fully Mitigate Impacts of Residential Development. The City Council hereby determines that the following percentages of affordable units will fully mitigate the impacts of residential development on the need for affordable housing:
Required Affordable
Units*
Single
Family
Large Lot
Single
Family
Small Lot
Townhome Condo Apartment
Very Low Income 11% 10% 8% 9% 6%
Low Income 5% 5% 4% 4 % 3%
Moderate Income 5% 4% 4% 4% 3%
TOTAL 21% 19% 16% 17% 12%
Definitions of project types and affordability categories are contained in the Nexus Study.
Notwithstanding the above, for a specific residential development, the City Council may determine that an alternative distribution of affordable units will fully mitigate the impacts of that development on the need for affordable housing, based on community needs and the characteristics of the development.
6. California Environmental Ouality Act. The City Council hereby finds that adoption of this resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the fees may have a significant effect on the environment, in that this resolution contains no provisions modifying the physical design, development, or construction of residences or nonresidential structures ( CEQA Guidelines Section 15061( b)( 3)).
7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall go into full force and effect on June 9, 2014, [ 60 days after adoption] but only if Ordinance No. 473 to add the new Affordable Housing Ordinance is effective prior to that date.
Resolution No. 10, 184 3
I HEREBY CERTIFY the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newark held on April 10, 2014, by Council Member Freitas, who moved its adoption and passage, which motion was carried after being duly seconded, and passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Freitas, Marshall, Vice Mayor Apodaca and Mayor Nagy
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Collazo
SECONDED: Council Member Marshall
Y v.
s i i
Resolution No. 10, 184 4
APPROVED:
s /ALAN L.
Mayor
EXHIBIT A
Enterprise Fund Account Description Fee
Cost Center No. in dollars)
A. DEVELOPMENT, Continued
401 -0000 3860 4. Housing
ILF
a. Residential Housing Impact Fee* ( revised
annually)
First 1, 000 sq. ft, floor 20 /square foot
area/ unit **
All sq. ft. over 1, 000 sq. floor 8 /square foot
area/ unit
Established by Resolution No. 10, 184. Floor area
for a residential development equals the sum of the
horizontal floor areas of a building measured from
the exterior face of exterior walls or from the center
line of a wall separating two buildings, excluding
garages, carports, and common areas.
No housing impact fee is charged for the first 200
sq. ft. of floor area for additions to existing
dwellings.
b. Non - Residential Housing Impact Fee * ** ( revised
annually)
1) Commercial 3. 51 /square foot
2) Industrial 0.65 /square foot
Established by Resolution No. 8802. Floor area
for a commercial development equals the sum of
the horizontal floor areas of a building measured
from the exterior face of exterior walls or from the
center line of a wall separating two buildings.
Where no walls exist, the floor area is the area
covered by the roof excluding two feet on each side
Resolution No. 10, 184
of the structure. Outside areas used for sales or
display ( such as nurseries, building materials, auto
sales, etc.) may be considered part of floor area
when the community development director
determines that the use of the outside area
significantly contributes to the employee density of
the building.
NOTE: This resolution does not modify the non - residential housing impact fee nor the method of calculating the non - residential housing impact fee. The method for calculating the fee is identical to that previously contained in Section 17. 18. 020( G).
Resolution No. 10, 184
Item B. 3.
DATE 07/23/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM
SUBJECT Adopt a Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Newark Calling An Election To Be Held On November 3, 2026, For Voter Consideration Of A Ballot Measure Seeking Voter Authorization To Repeal And Replace Chapter 5.04 Of The Newark Municipal Code To Amend The Current Business License Ordinance; Establishing Policies And Procedures In Connection With Such An Election; Requesting The Board Of Supervisors Of The County Of Alameda To Consolidate The Election With The General Election To Be Held On November 3, 2026; Requesting Certain Services Of The Registrar Of Voters Of Alameda County With Respect To The Consolidated General Municipal Election; And Providing For Submittal Of Ballot Arguments And Rebuttals And Authorizing The Filing Of An Impartial Analysis
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
Within the past few months, the Newark City Council has received four separate presentations regarding the City’s Business License Tax (“BLT”). The first presentation occurred on April 9, 2026, in which the City’s tax consultant, HdL Companies (“HdL”), provided an overview of the City’s BLT, which was codified in 1970 and has not undergone a comprehensive structural modernization in more than five decades. The Council also reviewed potential options to modernize and simplify the BLT structure and accepted staff’s recommendation to further evaluate a variable model based on reporting of gross receipts.
At the City Council meeting held on May 28, 2026, the City Council received a presentation from Godbe Research, an independent public opinion research firm, regarding the results of a revenue measure feasibility survey. The survey results indicated favorable voter support for a potential ballot measure simplifying and modernizing the BLT.
Subsequently, at the City Council meeting held on June 25, 2026, the City Council received a presentation from City staff that reviewed three options to modernize and streamline the BLT. The Council also heard feedback from the Newark business streamline the BLT. The Council also heard feedback from the Newark business community, which was a result of City staff’s business community outreach efforts. At that meeting, the Council requested that staff develop a model that would decrease the amount of revenue that the City would receive from property rental businesses. The Council also requested a model that would increase the amount of revenue that would be received from manufacturing businesses.
At the most recent City Council meeting held on July 9, 2026, the City Council reviewed two models – the same one that was presented at the June 25, 2026, City Council meeting and an updated model that decreased the amount of revenue that the City would receive from property rental businesses and a model that increased the amount of revenue that would be received from manufacturing businesses. The City Council expressed a preference for the latter. After receiving comments from a business owner regarding the impact that the Council preferred model would have on grocery businesses, the City Council requested that staff develop a model that would lower the tax rate for general retail businesses and that would be close to revenue neutral for the City for the general retail category. Council also asked staff to consider adding a potential new category specifically for grocery businesses that would be subject to a lower rate.
After staff analysis of the complications and potential administrative burden of having a standalone grocery business category which is further articulated in this report, staff recommends that the City Council consider either the preferred option presented on July 9 or a close to revenue neutral option for the general retail category.
In light of that, this report compares two options: 1) the model that was presented at the City Council meeting held on June 25, 2026, and was amended on July 9 to decrease the BLT rate for property rental businesses and increase the BLT rate for manufacturing businesses (hereinafter referred to as the “July 9 Model”); and 2) the July 9 Model that includes a BLT rate decrease for the general retail category that will result in the BLT revenue being close to revenue neutral relative to revenue received from the existing BLT (hereinafter referred to as the “Reduced Retail Alternative Model”).
As further explained in this report, staff has evaluated adding a grocery business category with a lower rate and determined that such an approach is not advisable due to several factors.
After the Council determines the appropriate model, staff recommends that the City Council consider adopting a resolution calling an election and submitting to the voters at the November 3, 2026, election a ballot measure for the consideration of an ordinance that would modernize and simplify the current Business License Tax, currently codified in Chapter 5.04 of the Newark Municipal Code, (the “BLT”).
Additionally, staff recommends that the City Council, consistent with past practice, designate the Mayor to submit arguments in favor of, and rebuttal in response to any arguments against, the proposed ballot measure.
BACKGROUND
The City Council received presentations on the following dates regarding the need to modernize and streamline the City’s BLT: April 9, 2026; May 28, 2026; June 25, 2026; and July 9, 2026.
The staff reports and related presentations are attached to the staff report for ease of reference as follows:
Attachment 1 – Staff report for City Council meeting held on April 9, 2026 Attachment 2 – Presentation for City Council meeting held on April 9, 2026 Attachment 3 – Staff report for City Council meeting held on May 28, 2026 (no presentation on file)
Attachment 4 – Staff report for City Council meeting held on June 25, 2026 Attachment 5 – Presentation for City Council meeting held on June 25, 2026 Attachment 6 – Staff report for City Council meeting held on July 9, 2026 Attachment 7 – Presentation for City Council Meeting held on July 9, 2026 Attachment 8 - Presentation for July 23 City Council Meeting Staff has prepared a proposed resolution for placement of a ballot measure to modernize and simplify the BLT (the “BLT Ballot Measure”). The proposed resolution and related documents will be administratively modified to reflect the rates and direction provided by Council following Council action. Any proposed general tax requires a 2/3 vote of the City Council (or 4 out of 5 Council Members) to vote in favor of placement.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Existing Business License Tax Structure
The City Council codified the current BLT structure in 1970. While tax rate modifications occurred a few times until 1996, the BLT has not undergone a comprehensive structural modernization in more than five decades. During that time, Newark's economy has evolved significantly, including growth in logistics and distribution, manufacturing, professional services, technology, and regional-serving commercial businesses. However, the City's BLT structure remains largely based on classifications, methodologies, and assumptions developed under a much different economic environment.
Today, approximately 3,100 licensed businesses operate within Newark and collectively report more than $5 billion in annual gross receipts. Despite this substantial growth in economic activity, BLT revenue has remained relatively flat for at least the past decade, averaging approximately $1.4 million annually during that time.
Meanwhile, inflation and municipal service and infrastructure costs have increased and continue to rise.
HdL's analysis identified several limitations associated with the existing BLT structure:
Tax liability is calculated using multiple methodologies depending on business type, including gross receipts, payroll, vehicle counts, project valuation, and flat-fee schedules.
The existing BLT structure includes more than 30 classifications and subcategories, creating administrative complexity for both businesses and the City.
Many classifications no longer align with modern business models and economic activity.
Tax contributions do not consistently reflect business size, economic output, or demand placed on City infrastructure and services.
The analysis also found that businesses generating the majority of reported gross receipts contribute a disproportionately smaller share of total BLT revenue. As a result, businesses with similar levels of economic activity may pay substantially different amounts based on classification rather than business activity.
To illustrate the point, the top 100 businesses generate 75% of gross receipts but reflect only 47% of the BLT that is assessed.
This misalignment indicates that the existing structure does not consistently scale with business activity and economic output.
Proposed Business License Tax Modernization and Simplification Ordinance The proposed BLT ordinance is intended to modernize and simplify Newark's BLT structure while improving equity, transparency, administrative efficiency, and long-term fiscal sustainability. The proposal does not create a new tax, rather, it updates the City's existing BLT framework to better reflect Newark's current economy and business environment.
The proposed ordinance would:
Consolidate more than 30 business classifications and subcategories into a limited number of standardized categories.
Simplify tax administration and improve transparency.
Establish a gross receipts-based structure that scales more proportionately with business activity.
Increase the minimum gross receipts threshold from $25,000 to $100,000 and reduce the minimum business license tax from approximately $39 to $25 - resulting in tax savings for businesses that are in the early growth stage or have fewer gross receipts. (Businesses that report gross receipts of $100,000 or less account for one-half of the 3,100 business licenses that the City has issued.) Improve consistency across business sectors.
Better align tax liability with economic activity occurring within Newark.
Maintain regional competitiveness while modernizing a tax structure that has not undergone comprehensive structural modernization in more than five decades.
Estimated Business Impacts
The proposed ordinance is expected to affect businesses differently depending on business type, annual gross receipts, and industry classification. At the onset, it is important to note that half of Newark businesses would have pay less in BLT under the new ordinance.
The proposal is designed to improve tax equity while minimizing impacts on small businesses. The proposed ordinance increases the minimum gross receipts threshold from $25,000 to $100,000 for payment of the tax based on gross receipts and reduces the flat fee minimum business license tax from $39 to $25. As a result, half of small businesses, including small home-based businesses and small start-up businesses, would experience either a reduction or little change in business license tax liability.
As business activity increases and gross receipts increase, tax liability would generally increase as well. This reflects the underlying policy objective of better aligning tax contributions with economic activity occurring within Newark.
Examples of estimated impacts include:
A small business generating $25,000 in annual gross receipts would see its annual business license tax decrease from approximately $39 to $25.
Additionally, increasing the minimum gross receipts threshold from $25,000 to $100,000 would allow businesses generating between $25,000 and $100,000 annually to remain subject to the minimum $25 business license tax, providing tax relief for small and growing businesses.
A small professional services business generating $100,000 or less annually would see its business license tax decrease from approximately $130 to $25.
Many retail businesses and restaurants would experience little change or modest decreases under the proposed structure, although certain high-gross-receipt businesses may experience increases.
Contractors would generally experience modest changes, although larger contractors with substantial gross receipts would experience greater increases commensurate with their increased economic activity.
Professional service, service, and distribution/logistics businesses with substantial gross receipts would generally experience larger increases because the proposed structure more closely aligns tax liability with business activity and revenue generation.
Analysis of the proposed rate structure indicates that additional revenue generated by the ordinance would be concentrated among businesses with substantial gross receipts and higher levels of economic activity. This reflects one of the primary objectives of the modernization effort: improving equity and better aligning business license tax responsibility with business scale, economic activity, and use of and demand on municipal services and infrastructure. Overall, the proposed ordinance would shift a greater share of business license tax responsibility toward businesses generating substantial economic activity, while reducing or minimizing impacts on many small businesses.
Comparison of the July 9 Model and the Reduced Retail Alternative Model The City Council considered the July 9 Model at its most recent meeting. The July 9 Model decreases the property rental category rate from the previously proposed rate of
0.225% to 0.075% and increases the manufacturing category rate from the previously proposed rate of 0.045% to 0.075%. The Council consensus was that the July 9 Model was desirable over the previously considered model. A summary of the rates under July 9 Model are below:
General/Retail – 0.043%;
Professional – 0.250%;
Contractors – 0.200%
Service – 0.200%;
Rental – 0.075%;
Industrial - Manufacturing/Wholesaling – 0.075%; and
Industrial – Distribution/Logistics (Warehousing) – 0.300% In response to concerns about costs to grocery stores as a result of the proposed BLT, the Council requested that staff develop a model that would modify the July 9 Model to either lower the general retail category or establish a new category for grocery stores.
Staff and HdL analyzed the possibility of establishing a separate grocery business category and concluded that utilizing such a model could result in administrative burdens (which would run counter to the goal of simplifying the existing BLT) and eliminate equity within each category by creating a unique subcategory.
In addition, HdL was unable to identify any other agency with a modern BLT that established a separate category for grocery businesses. Staff have also identified concerns with attempting to define establishments that would fit in the grocery business category. For example, many businesses sell some type of produce or food products.
Some businesses commit a meaningful amount of floor space to the sale of food products despite not generating meaningful revenue or business activity from the sale of food products. Businesses that generate significant gross receipts may attempt to be placed in this category resulting in the need for significant overview and potential administrative disputes related to the proper business category for these establishments.
Additionally, it is possible that the City could attempt to establish subcategories from the other categories for specific business types. However, this would defeat the purpose and goal of establishing a simplified BLT model that creates equity within each category.
In consideration of that and in following Council’s direction, staff has prepared the Reduced Retail Alternative Model that includes a reduced General/Retail rate. A summary of the Reduced Retail Alternative Model is below:
General/Retail – 0.030% (reduced from 0.043%);
Professional – 0.250%;
Contractors – 0.200%;
Service – 0.200%;
Rental – 0.075%;
Industrial – Manufacturing/Wholesaling – 0.075%;
Industrial – Distribution/Logistics (Warehousing) – 0.300% Under the Reduced Retail Alternative Model, the General/Retail rate would be reduced from 0.043% to 0.030%. Staff calculated this as a “revenue neutral” option as the revenue collectively generated from this category of businesses under the current BLT will be approximately the same as under the proposed BLT. Thus, under the July 9 Model, the General/Retail category would have a BLT rate of 0.043% and those businesses would collectively remit to the City $571,000 annually in BLT revenue, which reflects $175,000 in revenue above the current revenue received.
Under the Reduced Retail Alternative Model, the General/Retail category would have a BLT rate of 0.030% and those businesses would collectively remit to the City $396,000 annually in BLT, which is approximately the same as the revenue received under the current BLT. It is important to note that although the revenue remitted to the City from the General/Retail category would be approximately equal under the existing or proposed BLT for the Reduced Retail Alternative Model, the amount paid may not be equal for each business due to the change to a gross receipts BLT model. The result is that businesses that pay a higher level of gross receipts will pay more while those with less gross receipts will pay less.
The attached presentation (Attachment 8) shows the revenue that would be generated under the two models in the tables. At the last two City Council meetings, staff presented a slide containing illustrative examples of previous models across eleven hypothetical businesses. The attached presentation contains the same business examples for both the July 9 Model and the Reduced Retail Alternative Model.
At the past two City Council meetings, staff presented a slide listing the existing BLT obligation and various options for those eleven hypothetical businesses and compared them against peer jurisdictions, including the cities of Union City, Fremont, Hayward, and San Leandro, as well as Hayward’s proposed ordinance that will be considered by Hayward voters later this year. The attached presentation has been updated to include both the July 9 Model and the Reduced Retail Alternative Model for comparison purposes.
Community Survey
Earlier this year, the City Council directed staff to facilitate public opinion research to solicit community input as part of the possibility of modernizing and streamlining the City’s existing BLT.
Staff retained the services of Godbe Research, an independent public outreach firm, to prepare and conduct the community survey. Godbe Research completed its work and presented the survey results to the City Council on May 28, 2026. The results of the survey showed residents prioritize public safety and public works services. If enacted, this measure would provide long-term financial stability for the City of Newark as it would allow Newark to spend this revenue stream on these critical services.
The results of the survey further indicate community support to modernize and simplify the City’s BLT. The results also indicate that a majority of those polled have a favorable opinion of the job the City of Newark is doing in providing services and in managing taxpayer dollars.
Summary of Election Actions
To place an ordinance to modernize and simplify the BLT on the November 3, 2026, General Election, staff has prepared a resolution that accompanies this staff report and generally does the following:
Calls for an election and places the BLT Ballot Measure on the November ballot for voter consideration
Requests the services of the Alameda County Registrar of Voters to place the BLT Ballot Measure on the November ballot
Provides the procedure for submitting ballot arguments and rebuttals Directs the City Attorney to prepare and submit an impartial analysis showing the effect of the measure on existing law
Business License Tax
The BLT Ballot Measure would allow Newark voters to repeal and replace in its entirety Newark Municipal Code Chapter 5.04.
The significant updates to the BLT in the BLT Ballot Measure would consist of:
Establishing a minimum annual tax of $25 for the first $100,000 of gross receipts (subject to annual CPI adjustments) for all business license categories; Shifting business categories to a gross receipts tax structure; Simplifying and consolidating business license categories; Advancing with a differential rate model across these categories, with specific tax rates set to the following:
General/Retail – either 0.043% under the July 9 Model or 0.030% (under the Reduced Retail Alternative Model (*See explanation below); Professional – 0.250%;
Contractors – 0.200%;
Service – 0.200%;
Rental – 0.075%;
Industrial - Manufacturing/Wholesaling – 0.075%;
Industrial – Distribution/Logistics (Warehousing) – 0.300%; and Providing an implementation date effective January 1, 2027.
The business types that fall into each category are included in the BLT Ballot Measure.
In addition to the revisions identified above, the BLT Ballot Measure contains procedural updates to modernize the City’s processes and procedures that have become outdated since the BLT was last structurally updated over 50 years ago. * The attached resolution leaves the BLT rate for “General/Retail” blank, pending the outcome of Council’s deliberations of the appropriate rate (i.e., either 0.043% or
0.030%). If the Council reaches consensus on the “General/Retail” rate, then any motion to approve the resolution should provide clear direction to staff to editorially insert the correct rate upon adoption.*
Ballot Question
The State Elections Code requires the ballot measure to be printed in the ballot pamphlet in the form of a “yes or no” ballot question of no more than 75 words. The following is the ballot question included in the proposed resolution:
“Newark Essential Services Protection Measure. To protect city services such as repairing potholes/streets; keeping neighborhoods safe/clean, and maintaining 9-1-1 emergency response/fire protection/neighborhood police patrols/parks/recreation programs, shall the measure be adopted updating Newark’s 56-year-old business license ordinance, lowering many small businesses' taxes, with rates up to 0.3% of gross receipts (as described in the ordinance), raising $6,800,000 annually until ended by voters, with spending disclosure/ independent audits?” The amount to be raised annually by the BLT of $6,800,000 is based on the July 9 Model. Should the Council direct staff to place a measure on the ballot with the Reduced Retail Alternative Model, the amount raised annually will be revised to $6,600,000 which would reflect the decrease in revenue as a result of lowering the General/Retail rate.
Ballot Arguments & Rebuttal Arguments
The State Elections Code allows the City Council to determine its interest in authorizing an argument in favor of the ballot measure. Arguments of no more than 300 words each for and against the ballot measure can then be included in the voter information guide. The arguments must be submitted to the City Clerk, as the Elections Official, by 2:00 p.m. on August 6, 2026.
The State Elections Code also allows the author of an argument for or against a ballot measure to submit a rebuttal. Any rebuttals of no more than 250 words must be submitted to the City Clerk no later than ten days after arguments are due. The rebuttals must be submitted to the City Clerk by 2:00 p.m. on August 17, 2026. If there is no argument put forward in opposition to the ballot measure, then there will be no rebuttal.
State law provides the orderly process by which the City Clerk selects the arguments for and against a ballot measure. Importantly, the City Council or members of the City Council authorized by the City Council are given priority if they submit an argument related to a ballot measure with varying levels of priority given to other individuals, groups and organizations.
The City Council has options regarding the preparation of ballot arguments and rebuttals, including authorizing the Mayor to prepare, submit and sign the argument on behalf of the entire Council approving arguments and rebuttals at a meeting in compliance with the Brown Act. In 2024 and in previous elections, the City Council authorized the Mayor to prepare and submit the argument and rebuttal. Staff recommends the City Council repeat this process for the ballot measure and authorize recommends the City Council repeat this process for the ballot measure and authorize the Mayor to prepare and submit the argument along with community members as signatories.
In summary, the proposed resolution establishes the following election timeline:
July 23, 2026: City Council adopts the proposed resolution calling an election and placing the BLT Ballot Measure for voter consideration.
1. August 6, 2026: Direct arguments for or against the BLT Ballot Measure due by 2:00 p.m. (Elections Code Sections 9282, 9286.) City Attorney Impartial Analysis due by 2:00 p.m. (Elections Code Section 9280.)
2. August 17, 2026: Rebuttal arguments due by 2:00 p.m. (Elections Code Section 9285.)
3. 4. November 3, 2026: Election.
FISCAL IMPACT
Placement of a BLT simplification and modernization measure on the November 3, 2026, election ballot will result in one-time election administration costs, which are expected to be funded through existing appropriations. The exact cost will depend on Alameda County election services, ballot content, and associated voter information requirements.
If approved by Newark voters, the BLT Ballot Measure would generate approximately $5.4 million under the July 9 Model or approximately $5.2 million under the Reduced Retail Alternative Model in additional annual General Fund revenue above the City's current BLT revenue of approximately $1.5 million per year. Revenue projections are based on business activity and gross receipts data analyzed by HdL, the City's consultant, and will vary based on the final rate structure adopted by the City Council and approved by the voters.
STRATEGIC PRIORITY AREA
Boost Financial Resilience and Excellence in Service Delivery REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Gloria Del Rosario, Deputy Finance Director
Steven Turner, Community Development Director
Angela Tsui, Deputy Economic Development Director
Kristopher Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Colleen Lettire, Communications and Public Engagement Manager David J. Benoun, City Manager
Attachments
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Staff report for City Council meeting held on April 9, 2026 Attachment 2 – Presentation for City Council meeting held on April 9, 2026 Attachment 3 – Staff report for City Council meeting held on May 28, 2026 (no presentation on file)
Attachment 4 – Staff report for City Council meeting held on June 25, 2026 Attachment 5 – Presentation for City Council meeting held on June 25, 2026 Attachment 6 – Staff report for City Council meeting held on July 9, 2026 Attachment 7 – Presentation for City Council Meeting held on July 9, 2026 Attachment 8 - Presentation for July 23 City Council Meeting Attachment 9 - BLT Ordinance Resolution Draft
Attachment 10 - BLT Ordinance Draft
Attachment 11 - Exhibit A BLT Ordinance - Clean
Item F. 2.
DATE 04/09/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM David Benoun, City Manager
SUBJECT Receive report regarding business license tax analysis and provide direction regarding potential next steps related to evaluating potential ballot measure
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The City of Newark’s Business License Tax (“BLT”) ordinance has not undergone a comprehensive structural modernization since 1970. Over the past five decades, Newark’s economy, similar to the economy throughout the greater bay area, has expanded and diversified, including growth in logistics, contractor activity, professional services, and regional-serving businesses. Many of these changes are related to the transformation in the nature of economic activity throughout the region and nationally over the past 55 years. However, the City’s existing BLT continues to rely on outdated classifications and capped fee schedules that do not scale proportionately with business activity. As a result, the BLT is structured in a manner that is inequitable and disproportionate in terms of impact to small and large businesses and equitable tax burden on business activity.
At the City Council meeting, the City Council will receive a presentation from the City's tax consultant, HdL Companies (“HdL”), that will analyze the City’s existing BLT relative to the current economic conditions and more modern business license taxes that have been approved by voters in other jurisdictions. Following that presentation, staff recommends that the Council consider directing staff to take certain next steps that would assist in evaluating whether the City Council should place a measure on the ballot this fall that would simplify and modernize the existing BLT. These next steps include conducting a community survey and voter feasibility analysis, among others.
BACKGROUND
Newark’s Current BLT and Analysis by HdL
The City of Newark’s Business License Tax ordinance was adopted in 1970, and amended in 1979, 1983, and 1990 to adjust the tax rate. However, it has not been structurally modernized post-Proposition 218. Voter approval is now required to adjust the tax rate. During this period, Newark’s economy has evolved substantially, including increased logistics and distribution activity, growth in professional services, and expansion of regional-serving commercial businesses.
A review of the City’s business registry shows approximately 3,103 licensed businesses reporting an estimated $5.12 billion in taxable gross receipts. Despite this level of economic activity, the City currently generates only approximately $1.47 million annually in business license tax revenue. Analysis conducted as part of the Business License Tax Study by HdL indicates that economic activity is highly concentrated. To illustrate the point, the largest 100 businesses account for approximately 75 percent of total reported gross receipts but contribute only approximately 47 percent of total business license tax revenue under the existing BLT.
Regional comparisons further indicate that Newark generates less business license tax revenue per resident and per business than peer jurisdictions that have modernized their business license tax structures. For example, Union City voters recently approved a BLT that established a variable gross receipts-based framework that more closely aligns tax contributions with business activity and economic scale and have increased their annual BLT revenue by approximately $3.5 million per year.
To evaluate potential modernization strategies, the City retained HdL to analyze the City’s current BLT and develop alternative tax models. The study evaluated several options. Staff recommend that the City Council consider a variable gross receipts model to significantly improve the alignment between business activity and tax contribution and substantially increase the City’s long-term revenue capacity. This report and HdL’s presentation will focus on this model.
Analysis of Newark’s BLT
Over the past six fiscal years, business license tax revenue has averaged approximately $1.41 million annually, indicating that the existing structure does not scale proportionately with business growth or economic output.
Registry analysis conducted as part of the tax study indicates:
• Approximately 3,103 licensed businesses operate in Newark. • Businesses report approximately $5.12 billion in taxable gross receipts. • As noted above, the largest 100 businesses generate roughly 75 percent of reported gross receipts but contribute only about 47 percent of total business license tax revenue.
These findings indicate that the current tax structure does not proportionately reflect business size or economic footprint. As a result, smaller and mid-sized businesses may bear a larger share of the tax burden relative to their economic activity. Additionally, some business types that do not generate meaningful revenue for the City through sales tax or through other revenue sources receive favorable tax treatment under the current BLT. Examples include warehousing and logistics uses, administrative and support offices (taxed on payroll), professional services, and certain property-related activities such as rental and real estate businesses.
Regional comparisons also indicate that Newark generates significantly lower business license tax revenue per capita and per business than comparable cities that have modernized their tax structures. These comparisons highlight the structural limitations of the City’s current BLT and the potential benefits of modernization.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Current BLT Structure
Newark’s current BLT requires businesses conducting operations within the City to obtain an annual business license and pay the applicable tax. The BLT applies to businesses operating in Newark, including those maintaining or representing a Newark business location.
Under the current BLT, the tax is calculated using different methods depending on the type of business activity. These include gross receipts for most commercial businesses; gross payroll for administrative offices or certain service operations; employee-based fees for certain professions (such as real estate agents); vehicle counts for delivery or transportation businesses; flat-fee categories for certain temporary or specialized business activities; and project value for contractors through quarterly or annual registration.
These methods correspond to multiple fee schedules and business classifications within the Municipal Code. Many of these classifications were adopted over time and reflect legacy business categories, resulting in a structure that can be complex to administer and that does not consistently scale with business size or overall economic activity. The original BLT was adopted prior to voter-approved Constitutional initiatives such as Proposition 218. Currently, the City is precluded from amending the BLT without voter approval because any revision would impact tax rates.
The HdL Study identified the following concerns:
• Tax contributions do not proportionately reflect business size or economic footprint. • Newark’s revenue per capita and per business lags comparable jurisdictions. • The ordinance contains legacy classifications that complicate administration and reflect varying types of taxes and categories.
• The structure does not align with modern business models or industrial throughput.
Proposed Simplification & Modernization Option
To address these issues, the HdL Study evaluated three potential approaches to modernization. This report will focus on the variable gross receipts model.
The proposed variable gross receipts would amend the BLT to, among other things: 1) Simplify the categories by reducing the total number of business types and activity from over 30 categories and subcategories to an estimated five standardized categories plus one exempt category; 2) Under most circumstances establish an across the board gross receipts tax that will scale and increase depending on the amount of business activity generated – resulting in larger businesses paying equitable costs relative to activity generated – resulting in larger businesses paying equitable costs relative to business activity occurring within the City; 3) Lower the flat rate business tax amount for small businesses resulting in a tax decrease for small businesses within the jurisdiction; 4) Ensure that certain types of uses (for example, warehouse uses and certain professional services) which do not generate sales tax revenue pay a higher percentage of gross receipts in business license tax; and 5) Generate approximately $4.6 million to $6.7 million in additional BLT revenue, depending on the rate structure selected, compared to the City’s current annual revenue of approximately $1.5 million, inclusive of penalties and registration fees.
The variable gross receipts model represents a significant improvement over the existing structure and provides a scalable framework that adjusts as economic activity grows.
The Union City City Council placed a BLT modernization measure on the ballot to establish a variable gross receipts model in November 2024 (Measure QQ). Voters overwhelmingly approved Measure QQ with 81.62% voter approval. Union City anticipated that Measure QQ would generate approximately $3.5 million in additional revenue. Union City staff confirmed that actual revenues to date are consistent with the initial projections and expectations.
Policy Considerations
As part of the BLT review, staff and HdL evaluated impacts and other equity considerations from a policy standpoint in assessing a gross receipts–based tax framework. Certain types of business activity, for example logistics operations, warehousing, and construction-related enterprises, can place greater demand on the need for City services and occupy a significant amount of real estate within the City.
Despite this, many of these business types pay little or even no sales tax. Meanwhile, retail uses do not generally have the same impacts, but consumers pay a state and local sales tax when making purchases at these locations which provides revenue to the City’s general fund.
Recognizing these conditions as a policy consideration provides context for evaluating how different business activities may place varying demands on City services and the impact on their occupation of limited real estate in the City. For example, the proposed BLT could establish a higher gross receipt tax rate for logistics, warehousing and distribution uses than for retail uses to ensure that businesses are sharing equitably in their burden on the need for City services relative to the amount of real estate that they occupy.
Similarly, professional services may generate significant gross receipts and business activity but result in minimal or no sales tax revenue. Despite this, professional services can occupy locations within the City that are desirable for retail uses. The primary difference is that professional services will generally provide little for the City by way of revenue, while retail uses will provide sales tax revenue.
A variable gross receipts-based framework, particularly one that includes multiple categories, allows the City to recognize differences in industrial throughput, contractor activity, and professional services while maintaining administrative clarity.
Additionally, while the variable gross receipts model will likely result in larger businesses paying a proportionate amount for their economic activity, the proposed BLT can establish a minimum tax rate that will result in many small businesses paying lower taxes than they are currently paying under the existing BLT. As businesses scale up, they will pay more in BLT. This will reverse the current inequity under the existing BLT that results in large businesses paying proportionately less than medium and small businesses.
Next Steps
Staff is seeking direction from the City Council to proceed with potential simplification and modernization of the BLT, which could include the following next steps:
1. Business community outreach and stakeholder engagement
2. Refinement of revenue modeling and category definitions
3. Preparation of ordinance language
4. Public education and outreach
5. Community survey and voter feasibility analysis
BLT changes would ultimately require Newark voter approval. Placement of a proposed ballot measure for a general tax requires a supermajority (4/5) vote of the City Council. Should the City Council wish to move forward, staff would recommend proceeding with the evaluation to determine the feasibility of a potential measure for November 2026.
FISCAL IMPACT
Should Newark voters vote to simplify and modernize the city's BLT as discussed above, then it is anticipated that the City would receive an increase of approximately $4.6 million to $6.7 million in general fund revenue.
These funds could be used for any legitimate governmental purpose, including, but not limited to:
Strengthen reserves and sustain long-term fiscal resilience Stabilize the General Fund to address any potential structural imbalance Mitigate risk associated with the December 31, 2029, Utility Users Tax ("UUT") sunset
Support capital improvement projects
Address deferred infrastructure needs, including street and right-of-way maintenance.
STRATEGIC PRIORITY AREA
Boost Financial Resilience and Excellence in Service Delivery REVIEW AND APPROVAL
REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by - Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Krysten Lee, Finance Director
David J. Benoun, City Manager
Reviewed and Approved by - David J. Benoun, City Manager Attachments
Presentation Tax Study
CITY OF NEWARK
BUSINESS LICENSE TAX
Tax Study Report
Presented By
The Challenge
Why consider changing at all?
• Improving equity and proportionality.
• Acting on the opportunity to prepare for the future.
• Strengthen reserves and sustain long-term fiscal resilience. • Provide funding that can be used for any purpose including support of city initiatives, such as capital improvement projects and infrastructure needs.
Current System Limitations
• Flat revenue trend
• System complexity
• Inconsistent tax methods
Revenue Not Keeping Pace
6-Year Revenue Trend Based on the License Period
$1,456,532
$1,339,963
$1,408,732 $1,399,466 $1,450,623 $1,435,496
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
FY2019-20 FY2020-21 FY2021-22 FY2022-23 FY2023-24 FY2024-25 The revenues appearing in this graph were provided by the City of Newark System Complexity
License Rates, Counts, and Tax Basis
Rate Types Count of Business Primary Tax Basis
Retail/Wholesale/General Businesses 1,542 Gross Receipt Contractor 658 Gross Receipt
Contractor Quarterly 228 Gross Receipt
Professional 136 Gross Receipt
Non-Residential Property 118 Gross Receipt
Multiple Rate Types 113 Varied rates based on classification Non-Profit 78 Exempt
Manufacturing 49 Gross Receipt
Admin/Support Office 43 Gross Payroll Tax
Delivery 43 Vehicle-based Flat fee (Optional GR Election) All Other (7) 95 Varied Rates based on Classification
Total 3,103
Not a New Tax
Total Share of Tax Revenue Generated by Rate Type
Gross Receipts
53%
Contractor
18%
Manufacturing
9%
Admin/Suport Office
8%
Professional
4%
Non-Residential Property
4%
Warehousing
1%
Contractor Quarterly
1% All other (9)
2%
Reworking the business license tax presents a
chance for Newark to modernize its tax
structure and ensure that it is aligned with
today’s economy and tomorrow’s fiscal needs.
An Overview
How Does a Gross Receipts Tax Work?
A business makes money by selling goods or services. This revenue is known as the gross receipts of the business. This is different than sales tax, because gross receipts include ALL business revenue, rather than just sales made in a specific jurisdiction.
The city applies the rate or formula to the gross receipts to calculate the tax due.
The business pays the tax based on its total business revenue.
Currently, the top 100
businesses generate 75% of
gross receipts…
Misalignment Between Business Activity and Contribution Top 100
75.35%
All Other
Businesses
24.65%
Top 100 - Percent of
Reported Gross Receipts
…but only 47% of tax assessed.
This highlights that the current
structure does not fully reflect
differences in business scale.
Misalignment Between Business Activity and Contribution Top 100
46.92%
All Other
Businesses
53.08%
Top 100 - Percent of
Total Tax Revenue Assessed
What Does the Misalignment Show?
If Business License Tax worked as a flat percentage of revenue, the percentage of gross receipts would be proportional to the tax assessed. A misalignment indicates that this is not happening.
Why?
Lower rates for certain industries
Caps
Thresholds
Exclusions
Large businesses dominate gross receipts, but structural features of the tax system reduce their effective tax rate—shifting more of the burden onto others.
The Proposal
The City is proposing to modernize how it funds essential services by implementing a modest business-based tax tied to economic activity.
Updating the structure would allow the City to better align tax contributions with economic activity while maintaining a clear and predictable system for businesses.
About half of the City’s businesses are already taxed based on gross receipts, meaning the proposed models adjust the structure rather than introducing a new tax base.
The Proposal
• Increase existing Business License Tax rate by 40%
Model 1
• Change existing Business License Tax structure to one flat rate for all businesses ($25 flat rate up to $25,000 of gross receipts, then $1.25 per thousand dollars of gross receipts above $25,000) Model 2
• Enact a variable rate for businesses based on business types (base rate plus variable rate for income above $25,000)
• Simplifies existing categories and replaces them with five base categories and one exempt categories (Exempt, Contractor, General/Retail, Professional, Property Rental, and Services) • Model provides two options (Options 1 & 2) with options for rate schedules Model 3
The Models the Study Considered
• Increase existing Business License Tax rate by 40%
Model 1
• Change existing Business License Tax structure to one flat rate for all businesses ($25 flat rate up to $25,000 of gross receipts, then $1.25 per thousand dollars of gross receipts above $25,000) Model 2
• Enact a variable rate for businesses based on business types (base rate plus variable rate for income above $25,000)
• Simplifies existing categories and replaces them with five base categories and one exempt categories (Exempt, Contractor, General/Retail, Professional, Property Rental, and Services) • Model provides two options (Options 1 & 2) with options for rate schedules Model 3
The Models the Study Considered
Model 3 Variable Gross Receipts Rate
Model’s Revenue Impact
Business Type
Number of
Businesses
Est. Taxable Gross
Receipts
(in millions) FY2025 Charges
Option 1: Variable
Gross Receipts
Est. Revenue
Option 2: Variable
Gross Receipts
Est. Revenue
Contractor 917 $389 $272,000 $765,000 $765,000
General/Retail 631 $1,341 $396,000 $1,342,000 $586,000
Industrial 188 $1,547 $219,000 $1,547,000 $699,000
Professional 394 $689 $206,000 $2,053,000 $1,712,000
Property Rental 192 $224 $97,000 $663,000 $498,000
Service 703 $926 $278,000 $1,839,000 $1,839,000
Exempt 78 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total 3,103 $5,116 $1,468,000 $8,209,000 $6,099,000
Increased Business Tax
Revenue $6,741,000 $4,631,000
Tax Model Comparisons
Annual Revenue, Revenue Increase, And Median Tax Assessed FY2025
Charges
Option 1: Variable
Gross Receipt Rate
Option 2: Variable
Gross Receipt Rate
Projected
Revenue $1,468,000 $8,209,000 $6,099,000
Business Tax
Revenue Increase $6,741,000 $4,631,000
FY2025
Charges
Option 1: Variable
Gross Receipt Rate
Option 2: Variable
Gross Receipt Rate
Median Tax
Amount $96 $145 $118
Model 3 Variable Gross Receipts Rate
Model Structure
Categories* Flat Rate
Option 1:
Rates Per Thousand
Option 2:
Rates Per Thousand
Contractor
$25 Flat Rate
Up to $25,000 Gross Receipts
$2.00 $2.00
General/Retail $1.00 $0.43
Industrial $1.00 $0.45
Professional $3.00 $2.50
Property Rental $3.00 $2.25
Services $2.00 $2.00
Exempt $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
*Categories are roughly defined in Appendix A
Impact
Sample Business Profiles
Small Business
• More predictable tax
structure is simple and
transparent
• Low flat rate for
businesses with gross
receipts less than $25,000
promotes equity for
microenterprises
Midsize Business
• Growing businesses can better
predict their costs as they scale
• For businesses with multiple
California locations, gross
receipts taxes are a familiar
structure and promote
consistency
Large Business
• A gross receipts tax allows large
businesses to contribute in proportion
to their economic footprint, helping
fund the infrastructure, services, and
community investments that support a
stable workforce, efficient operations,
and a thriving local customer base in
the city where they operate
d under CC BY-NC-ND
Tax Model Comparisons
Business Scenarios – Estimated Revenue
Business Scenarios
Gross
Receipts
Employees/
Units
Newark
(Current)
Option 1:
Variable Gross
Receipts
Option 2:
Variable Gross
Receipts Union City
Microenterprise
(retail) $25,000 1 Emp. $39 $25 $25 $132
Restaurant $625,000 15 Emp. $431 $625 $283 $269
Family Dentistry $1,250,000 10 Emp. $1,625 $3,700 $3,088 $3,125 Apartment Complex $2,500,000 15 Emp.
120 Units $1,186 $7,450 $5,594 $5,625
Grocery Store $15,000,000 40 Emp. $3,061 $15,000 $6,464 $6,450 Large Scale
Distribution /
Logistics
$40,000,000 125 Emp. $3,811 $40,000 $18,014 $18,000
Total $10,153 $66,800 $33,468 $33,601
A Reimagined Business License Tax Moves Toward a Fairer Share The proposed models change the rate structure so that businesses with larger gross receipts contribute a greater share of total business license tax revenue, while small businesses contribute a smaller share. This shifts the distribution of tax responsibility within the business community and aligns contributions more closely with the scale of business activity, while maintaining the City’s overall revenue objectives.
A Reimagined Business License Tax Moves Toward a Fairer Share Additionally, some business types that do not generate meaningful revenue for the City through sales tax or through other revenue sources receive favorable tax treatment under the current BLT. Examples include:
• warehousing and logistics uses,
• administrative and support offices (taxed on payroll), • professional services, and
• certain property-related activities, such as rental and real estate businesses.
The new structure would address this imbalance by moving business to the grossreceipts basis.
What are Newark’s
Peers Doing?
Business License Tax Statute Last Update
Revenue Per Capita
Revenue Per Capita
Potential Revenue for Newark
under Variable GR
Revenue Per Business
Revenue Per Business
What’s
Next?
Procedurally—What happens next?
April
• Present
options to
Council
May
• Polling &
Community
Outreach
June
• Council
selects
final model
• Ordinance
language
finalized
July
• Adopt
Resolution
and Ballot
Measure
August
• Submit to
County
Registrar
of Voteres
Questions?
Item F. 1.
DATE 05/28/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM David Benoun, City Manager
SUBJECT Presentation by Godbe Research regarding results of the November 2026 Revenue Measure Feasibility Survey related to potential Business License Tax simplification and modernization SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
At the Newark City Council meeting held on April 9, 2026, the Newark City Council received a report from HdL Companies (hereinafter “HdL”), the city’s tax consultant.
The report from HdL provided an overview of the City’s Business License Tax (hereinafter “BLT”), which was enacted in 1970 and has not undergone a comprehensive update in more than five decades, and provided various options for modernizing and simplifying the BLT. At the conclusion of the presentation, the Council directed staff to continue evaluating potential modernization and simplification of the BLT structure, including community outreach, stakeholder engagement, revenue modeling refinement, and voter feasibility analysis related to a potential November 2026 ballot measure.
Consistent with that direction, the City retained Godbe Research, an independent public opinion research firm, to conduct a revenue measure feasibility survey evaluating voter priorities, perceptions regarding City services and infrastructure needs, and potential support for a locally controlled BLT simplification and modernization measure.
Godbe Research conducted voter data collection from April 27 through May 4, 2026, utilizing a combination of online, text-to-web, cellular telephone, and landline methodologies.
At the City Council meeting, Bryan Godbe of Godbe Research will present an overview of the survey findings, including voter priorities, fiscal concerns, and preliminary voter support levels associated with a potential BLT simplification and modernization measure for the November 3, 2026, election.
Meanwhile, city staff will continue with community stakeholder and business outreach efforts, which staff intends on presenting to the Council at the regular City Council meeting scheduled for June 26.
BACKGROUND
On April 9, 2026, HdL presented a report to the City Council regarding Newark’s existing BLT structure and potential simplification and modernization options. The report summarized findings from the City’s BLT analysis and included potential next steps, including stakeholder outreach, ordinance development, public education, and voter feasibility analysis related to a potential November 2026 ballot measure.
Newark’s existing BLT ordinance was originally adopted in 1970 and has not undergone comprehensive structural modernization in more than five decades. During that period, Newark’s economy has evolved significantly, including increased logistics and distribution activity, growth in professional services, and expansion of regional-serving commercial businesses.
Analysis conducted by HdL identified approximately 3,103 licensed businesses reporting an estimated $5.12 billion in taxable gross receipts, while the City currently generates approximately $1.47 million annually in BLT revenue. The analysis further indicated that the largest businesses account for a substantial share of reported gross receipts but contribute a comparatively smaller share of total BLT revenue under the City’s existing structure.
Regional comparisons also indicate that Newark generates lower BLT revenue per resident and per business than several comparable jurisdictions that have modernized their BLT structures.
To further evaluate community priorities and voter perspectives regarding potential BLT simplification and modernization, the City retained Godbe Research to conduct an independent revenue measure feasibility survey.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Godbe Research conducted the November 2026 Revenue Measure Feasibility Survey between April 27 and May 4, 2026. The survey evaluated voter priorities, perceptions regarding City services and infrastructure needs, and potential support levels associated with a prospective locally controlled BLT simplification and modernization measure.
Survey outreach included online interviews, text-to-web outreach, cellular telephone interviews, and landline telephone interviews.
The survey evaluated voter perspectives regarding maintaining essential City services, infrastructure and street maintenance needs, public safety and emergency response services, parks and recreational facility maintenance, business tax modernization concepts, and potential revenue measure frameworks.
At the City Council meeting, Godbe Research will present detailed survey findings, including voter priorities and concerns, overall support and opposition levels, demographic and geographic trends, messaging and ballot language testing, fiscal issue sensitivity analysis, and strategic considerations related to a potential November 2026 ballot measure.
In general, the survey found that voters place a high priority on maintaining core City services and infrastructure, including repairing potholes, streets, and sidewalks; maintaining neighborhood police patrols and fire protection; preserving 9-1-1 emergency medical response capabilities; and maintaining clean and accessible parks and recreational facilities.
The survey additionally evaluated voter response to a proposed update of Newark’s existing BLT ordinance that could simplify and modernize outdated business classifications, establish updated gross receipts-based tax structures, reduce taxes for many small businesses depending on classification and revenue thresholds, increase long-term General Fund revenue capacity, and require public disclosure and independent financial audits.
City staff is currently engaging our business community with outreach efforts. Staff intends on presenting a summary of their efforts and stakeholder responses at the regular City Council meeting scheduled for June 26th.
FISCAL IMPACT
The voter feasibility survey and related consulting services were funded within the adopted budget for professional services associated with the City’s Business License Tax analysis and outreach efforts.
This item does not authorize placement of a ballot measure or adoption of a tax ordinance. Should the City Council ultimately place a BLT modernization measure on the November 2026 ballot and voters approve the measure, preliminary estimates indicate the measure could generate approximately $5.4 million annually in additional General Fund revenue, depending on the final rate structure adopted by the City Council and approved by voters.
STRATEGIC PRIORITY AREA
Boost Financial Resilience and Excellence in Service Delivery REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by:
Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
David J. Benoun, City Manager
STAFF REPORT
Item ____
DATE June 25, 2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM David Benoun, City Manager
SUBJECT
Provide direction regarding potential placement of proposed ballot measure approving ordinance updating business license tax and receive an overview of business/stakeholder engagement and feedback regarding proposed ballot measure
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The City Council previously considered information regarding a potential ballot measure to update, modernize and simply the City’s business license tax. Specifically, the City Council received a report from HdL Companies ("HdL"), the City's tax consultant, regarding Newark's Business License Tax ("BLT") on April 9, 2026. Notably, the BLT was enacted in 1970 and has not undergone a comprehensive structural modernization in more than five decades. HdL presented several potential options for modernizing and simplifying the City's existing BLT structure and provided preliminary revenue projections associated with each alternative.
Subsequently, the City Council received a presentation from Godbe Research, an independent public opinion research firm, regarding the results of a revenue measure feasibility survey on May 28, 2026. The survey evaluated voter priorities, perceptions regarding City services and infrastructure needs, and potential support for a locally controlled measure to modernize and simplify Newark's existing BLT structure. The survey results indicated favorable voter support for a potential measure. The City Council discussed the survey results and tax structure options. Since that time, City staff have continued to evaluate potential modernization and simplification of the BLT, worked with HdL to refine a recommended tax structure, and conducted outreach with Newark businesses and stakeholders.
The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with: (1) an overview of the recommended BLT modernization and simplification ordinance and related options and impacts; and (2) a summary of stakeholder and business community outreach efforts.
City Council Report – Page 2
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the presentation and provide direction to staff to prepare the necessary ordinance and resolutions required to place a BLT modernization and simplification measure on the November 3, 2026 ballot for voter consideration.
BACKGROUND
April 9 City Council Meeting – HdL Presentation
On April 9, 2026, the City Council received a report from HdL regarding Newark's existing BLT structure and potential modernization options. HdL's analysis concluded that Newark's current BLT ordinance, originally adopted in 1970, relies upon outdated classifications and fee structures that do not proportionately scale with business activity and economic growth. The analysis identified approximately 3,100 licensed businesses reporting more than $5 billion in taxable gross receipts while generating approximately $1.5 million annually in BLT revenue.
The analysis further revealed that Newark generates lower BLT revenue per capita and per business than several comparable jurisdictions that have modernized their business license tax structures.
HdL’s analysis revealed the following regarding the current BLT:
• Tax contributions do not proportionately reflect business size or economic footprint. • Newark’s revenue per capita and per business lags comparable jurisdictions. • The current BLT contains legacy classifications that complicate administration and • reflect varying types of taxes and categories.
• The structure does not align with modern business models or varying levels of business activity.
HdL evaluated several modernization alternatives and identified a variable gross receipts model as a potential framework for further consideration.
The proposed variable gross receipts would amend the BLT to, among other things:
1) Simplify the categories by reducing the total number of business types and activity from over 30 categories and subcategories to an estimated five standardized categories plus one exempt category; 2) Under most circumstances establish an across the board gross receipts tax that will scale and increase depending on the amount of business activity generated – resulting in larger businesses paying equitable costs relative to activity generated – resulting in larger businesses paying equitable costs relative to business activity occurring within the City; 3) Lower the flat rate business tax amount to $25 for the first $100,000 in gross receipts resulting in a tax decrease for small businesses within the jurisdiction;
4) Ensure that certain types of uses (for example, warehouse uses and certain professional services) which do not generate sales tax revenue pay a higher percentage of gross receipts in business license tax; and
5) Generate approximately $4.1 million to $6.7 million in additional annual BLT revenue, depending on the rate structure selected, compared to the City’s current annual revenue of approximately $1.5 million, inclusive of penalties and registration fees.
At the conclusion of the April 9 presentation, the City Council directed staff to continue evaluating modernization and simplification of the BLT, including business community outreach, stakeholder City Council Report – Page 3
engagement, revenue modeling refinement, ordinance development, public education, and voter feasibility analysis.
May 28 City Council Meeting – Godbe Research Presentation The City retained Godbe Research, an independent public opinion research firm, to conduct a revenue measure feasibility survey. Godbe Research conducted voter outreach between April 27 and May 4, 2026, utilizing a combination of online, text-to-web, cellular telephone, and landline methodologies.
On May 28, 2026, Godbe Research presented the results of the feasibility survey to the City Council. The survey found strong voter support for maintaining core City services and infrastructure and indicated favorable voter response to a potential BLT modernization and simplification measure. Following the presentation, staff continued refinement of a recommended BLT ordinance and expanded outreach efforts with Newark's business community and other stakeholders.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Existing Business License Tax Structure
The City of Newark's Business License Tax ("BLT") was originally adopted in 1970 and has not undergone a comprehensive structural modernization in more than five decades. During that time, Newark's economy has evolved significantly, including growth in logistics and distribution, manufacturing, professional services, technology, and regional-serving commercial businesses. However, the City's BLT structure remains largely based on classifications, methodologies, and assumptions developed under a much different economic environment.
Today, approximately 3,100 licensed businesses operate within Newark and collectively report more than $5 billion in annual gross receipts. Despite this substantial level of economic activity, the City's BLT generates approximately $1.5 million annually. Analysis conducted by HdL Companies found that BLT revenues have remained relatively flat over time and have not kept pace with growth in business activity, inflation, municipal service costs, or infrastructure needs.
HdL's analysis identified several limitations associated with the existing BLT structure:
• Tax liability is calculated using multiple methodologies depending on business type, including gross receipts, payroll, vehicle counts, project valuation, and flat-fee schedules. • The ordinance contains more than 30 classifications and subcategories, creating administrative complexity for both businesses and the City.
• Many classifications no longer align with modern business models and economic activity. • Tax contributions do not consistently reflect business size, economic output, or demand placed on City infrastructure and services.
• Newark generates less business license tax revenue per capita and per business than many neighboring and comparable jurisdictions that have modernized their business tax structures.
The analysis also found that businesses generating the majority of reported gross receipts contribute a disproportionately smaller share of total BLT revenue. As a result, businesses with similar levels of economic activity may pay substantially different amounts based on classification rather than business activity.
City Council Report – Page 4
This misalignment indicates that the existing structure does not consistently scale with business activity and economic output.
Proposed Business License Tax Modernization and Simplification Ordinance The proposed ordinance is intended to modernize and simplify Newark's business license tax structure while improving equity, transparency, administrative efficiency, and long-term fiscal sustainability.
The proposal does not create a new tax. Rather, it updates the City's existing business license tax framework to better reflect Newark's current economy and business environment.
The proposed ordinance would:
• Consolidate more than 30 business classifications and subcategories into a limited number of standardized categories.
• Simplify tax administration and improve transparency. • Establish a gross receipts-based structure that scales more proportionately with business activity. • Increase the minimum gross receipts threshold from $25,000 to $100,000 and reduce the minimum business license tax from approximately $39 to $25.
• Improve consistency across business sectors.
• Better align tax liability with economic activity occurring within Newark. • Maintain regional competitiveness while modernizing a tax structure that has remained largely unchanged for more than 55 years.
Estimated Business Impacts
The proposed ordinance is expected to affect businesses differently depending on business type, annual gross receipts, and industry classification.
The proposal is designed to improve tax equity while minimizing impacts on small businesses. The proposed ordinance increases the minimum gross receipts threshold from $25,000 to $100,000 and reduces the minimum business license tax from approximately $39 to $25. As a result, many small businesses, home-based businesses, and start-up businesses would experience either a reduction or little change in business license tax liability.
As business activity increase and gross receipts increase, tax liability would generally increase as well. This reflects the underlying policy objective of better aligning tax contributions with economic activity occurring within Newark.
Examples of estimated impacts include:
• A small business generating $25,000 in annual gross receipts would see its annual business license tax decrease from approximately $39 to $25.
• Additionally, increasing the minimum gross receipts threshold from $25,000 to $100,000 would allow businesses generating between $25,000 and $100,000 annually to remain subject to the minimum $25 business license tax, providing meaningful tax relief for small and growing businesses. • A small professional services business generating approximately $100,000 annually would see its business license tax decrease from approximately $130 to $25.
City Council Report – Page 5
• Many retail businesses and restaurants would experience little change or modest decreases under the proposed structure, although certain high-gross-receipt businesses may experience increases. • Contractors would generally experience modest changes, although larger contractors with substantial gross receipts would experience greater increases.
• Manufacturing businesses would generally experience moderate increases. For example, a manufacturing business generating approximately $15 million annually would see its business license tax increase from approximately $5,311 to approximately $6,730. • Professional service, service, and distribution/logistics businesses with substantial gross receipts would generally experience larger increases because the proposed structure more closely aligns tax liability with business activity and revenue generation.
Analysis of the proposed rate structure indicates that a significant portion of the additional revenue generated by the ordinance would be derived from a relatively small number of businesses with substantial gross receipts. This reflects one of the primary objectives of the modernization effort: improving equity by ensuring businesses generating greater levels of economic activity contribute a more proportionate share toward municipal services and infrastructure.
Overall, the proposed ordinance shifts a greater share of business license tax responsibility toward businesses generating substantial economic activity while reducing or minimizing impacts on many small businesses and entrepreneurs. Detailed examples illustrating estimated impacts across various business types and revenue levels are included in Attachment (working on PPT examples).
Comparison to Neighboring and Peer Jurisdictions
Many Bay Area jurisdictions have updated their business license tax structures in recent years to simplify administration and better align tax liability with business activity. Several neighboring and peer cities, including Fremont, Union City, Pleasanton, San Mateo, and East Palo Alto, utilize gross receipts-based business license tax systems.
Comparative analysis indicates Newark currently generates approximately $30 in business license tax revenue per capita. By comparison, Fremont generates approximately $53 per capita, Union City approximately $73 per capita, Pleasanton approximately $78 per capita, and San Mateo approximately $87 per capita.
The recommended ordinance would modernize Newark's business license tax structure and move the City toward a framework that is more consistent with approaches utilized by neighboring and peer jurisdictions while continuing to support a competitive business environment.
Alternatives Evaluated
Staff, in collaboration with HdL Companies, evaluated multiple business license tax modernization alternatives, including revenue-neutral, moderate-revenue, and higher-revenue options. Alternatives were assessed based on equity, administrative simplicity, competitiveness, small business impacts, and long-term fiscal sustainability.
City Council Report – Page 6
Revenue-neutral alternatives were not recommended because, while they would simplify administration, they would largely preserve the existing distribution of tax liability and would not meaningfully improve alignment between business activity and tax contributions.
Higher-revenue alternatives were also evaluated but were not recommended because they would impose substantially larger increases on certain business sectors and businesses with substantial gross receipts. Staff concluded that those alternatives placed greater emphasis on revenue generation than on balancing equity, competitiveness, small business impacts, and economic development objectives.
The recommended ordinance was selected because it best balances fairness, simplicity, competitiveness, and fiscal sustainability. The proposal modernizes an outdated tax structure, improves alignment between tax liability and economic activity, reduces taxes for many small businesses, and generates meaningful additional revenue without imposing the highest potential tax burden evaluated.
Based on the analysis conducted by staff and HdL, the recommended ordinance provides the most balanced approach to modernizing Newark's business license tax structure while improving equity and maintaining a competitive business environment.
Business License Community and Stakeholder Outreach Update City staff is proactively engaging with Newark businesses to discuss the proposed updates to the business license tax structure. The outreach efforts include hosting in-person public convenings that are designed to be as accessible as possible to business owners and operators. The meetings are being held at a variety of times and locations, with the opportunity for company representatives to request one-on-one meetings.
Outreach invitations and information was distributed via email, phone calls, as well as posted on the City’s website with links to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) flyers (in English and translated versions in Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese). Informational articles were also published in the Economic Development Division’s Business Buzz monthly newsletter.
Additionally, City staff canvased shopping centers and other commercial areas throughout the city to distribute the FAQ flyers directly to businesses.
All businesses are encouraged to provide feedback or reach out with questions regarding the proposed updates by contacting [email protected].
Staff will present the business engagement summary and the received comments at the June 25, 2026, City Council meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT
Placement of a Business License Tax modernization measure on the November 3, 2026 ballot will result in onetime election administration costs, which are expected to be funded through existing appropriations. The exact cost will depend on Alameda County election services, ballot content, and associated voter information requirements.
City Council Report – Page 7
If approved by Newark voters, the proposed Business License Tax ordinance is projected to generate approximately $4.1 million to $6.7 million in additional annual General Fund revenue above the City's current Business License Tax revenue of approximately $1.5 million per year. Revenue projections are based on business activity and gross receipts data analyzed by the HdL, the City's consultant and will vary based on the final rate structure adopted by the City Council and approved by the voters. The proposal is estimated to increase total annual Business License Tax revenues to approximately $5.6 million to $8.2 million.
STRATEGIC PRIORITY AREAS
Boost Financial Resilience and Excellence in Service Delivery
REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by:
• Krysten Lee, Finance Director
• Gloria Del Rosario, Deputy Finance Director
• Steven Turner, Community Development Director
• Angela Tsui, Deputy Economic Development Director
• Kristopher Kokotaylo, City Attorney
• Colleen Lettire, Communications and Public Engagement Manager Reviewed by – Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Approved by – David J. Benoun, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
June 25, 2026
Business License
Modernization
Presentation Agenda
• Background
• Current Business License Tax Structure
• Proposed Revenue Structure Options
• Estimated Business Impacts
• Comparison to Neighboring and Peer
Jurisdictions
• Business and Community Stakeholder Outreach
Update
• Next Steps
2 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the
presentation, provide feedback, and direct staff to
prepare the necessary resolution and related
documents for placement of a Business License Tax
modernization and simplification measure on the
November 3, 2026, ballot.
3 Council Direction to Date
4 Following prior Council direction, staff refined the business license structure, continued ordinance development, and expanded business/stakeholder outreach.
April 9 May 28 June 25 July 23 Nov. 3
HdL presented
existing structure
and modernization
options.
Godbe Research
presented voter
feasibility survey
results.
Staff presents
recommended
approach,
business impacts,
and outreach
update.
Proposed formal
ballot-placement
action, if directed
by Council.
Potential voter
consideration at
election.
Current Structure and Limitations
5 1970
Original adoption;
limited structural
updates
3,100+
Approximate
licensed businesses
operating in Newark
$5B+
Annual gross
receipts reported by
Newark businesses
$1.5M
Approximate
annual revenue
currently
generated
30+
Legacy
classifications and
subcategories
Key Limitations:
• Annual revenue has remained relatively flat
• Multiple calculation methods create administrative complexity • Legacy classifications do not consistently align with modern business models or economic activity
• The current structure does not consistently align with business scale or activity Current Structure: Flat Revenue Trend
6 Current Structure – System Complexity
Rate Types Count of Business Primary Tax Basis
Retail/Wholesale/General Businesses 1,542 Gross Receipt Contractor 658 Gross Receipt
Contractor Quarterly 228 Gross Receipt
Professional 136 Gross Receipt
Non-Residential Property 118 Gross Receipt
Multiple Rate Types 113 Varied rates based on classification Non-Profit 78 Exempt
Manufacturing 49 Gross Receipt
Admin/Support Office 43 Gross Payroll Tax
Delivery 43 Vehicle-based Flat fee (Optional GR Election) All Other (7) 95 Varied Rates based on Classification
Total 3,103
7 Why Modernize the Existing Ordinance
• Improve equity and proportionality
• Modernize and simplify the current business license tax structure
• Act on the opportunity to prepare for the future
• Provide funding that can be used to support capital
improvement projects and infrastructure needs
• Strengthen reserves and sustain long-term fiscal resilience 8 Proposed Revenue Structure Options
• Three structure options considered:
• Option 1 – High-revenue
• Option 2 – Recommended ordinance
• Option 3 – Revenue-neutral
9 Alternative Evaluated: Higher-Revenue Option
Not staff-recommended: Estimated Increase Revenue = $7.5 million. 10 Alternative Evaluated: Revenue-Neutral Option
Not staff-recommended: Estimated Increase Revenue = $29,000 11 Proposed Business License Tax Structure
Staff-recommended: Estimated Increase Revenue = $5.3 million Base Rate
$25
Flat annual rate for
businesses with
$100,000 or less in
annual gross
receipts
12 Changes Under the Proposed Revenue Structure
• Consolidates business classifications into seven categories • Shifts all business classifications to a gross receipts structure
• Applies rates based on business category and economic activity
• Increases the small business flat rate threshold from $25,000 to $100,000
• Provides a $25 annual base rate for businesses
with $100,000 or less in gross receipts
13 Small Business Impact Under Option 2
14 Small-Business Threshold
1,523
businesses report gross receipts of
$100,000 or less
(approximately half of licensed businesses)
Current Structure
$90K
collective annual business license amount
for this group
Recommended Option 2
$39K
collective annual amount with the $100,000
threshold and $25 base rate
Collective Annual Amount for Businesses at or Below $100,000 in Gross Receipts Current $90K
Option 2 $39K
Option 2 maintains a $100,000 small-business threshold and reduces the collective amount paid by approximately half of Newark businesses.
Figures reflect businesses reporting gross receipts of $100,000 or less; actual impacts vary by classification and gross receipts.
Comparison of Revenue Structure Options
15 Contractor
10%
Distribution/Logistics
17%
General/Retail
8%
Manufacturing
8%
Professional
24%
Property Rental
7%
Service
26%
Exempt
0%
Contractor
18%
Distribution/Logistics
6%
General/Retail
27%
Manufacturing
9%
Professional
14%
Property Rental
7%
Service
19%
Exempt
0%
% OF TOTAL REVENUE UNDER OPTION 2
Revenue Share by Business Category
16 % OF TOTAL REVENUE UNDER CURRENT STRUCTURE
How the Recommended Structure Adjusts Revenue Share
Revenue Share by Business Category
17 Percentages reflect each category’s share of estimated annual business license revenue; actual impacts vary by classification and gross receipts.
Illustrative Examples Across Business Types
The recommended structure aligns tax responsibility with business scale and activity while protecting small businesses.
18 Comparison to Neighboring and Peer Jurisdictions - Hypothetical 19 Fiscal Impact and Use of Revenue
• Current revenue: approximately $1.5 million annually
• Additional revenue would support General Fund services and infrastructure
• Potential uses include streets, pothole repair, parks, public safety, emergency response, and reserves
• Long-term fiscal resilience
20 Scheduled Convenings
• Wednesday, June 17 from 8:30am-10:00am
• Wednesday, June 17 from 3:00pm-4:30pm
• Monday, June 22 from 6:00pm-7:00pm (OTBA)
• Tuesday, June 23 from 2:30pm-4:00pm
• Friday, June 26 from 9:00am-10:30am
Other Engagement Efforts
• Article in the Business Buzz June edition
• Direct distribution of information to businesses
• Dedicated webpage and email address
Business and Community Stakeholder Outreach Update
21 • Request feedback and direction from the City Council on the proposed ordinance
• Solicit direction on whether to prepare the necessary documents and ordinances to place this time for
voter consideration
Next Steps
22 Item F. 1.
DATE 07/09/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Colleen Lettire, Communications and Public Engagement Manager SUBJECT Provide direction regarding proposed ballot measure to modernize and streamline the City’s existing Business License Tax SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
Within the past few months, the Newark City Council received three presentations regarding the City’s Business License Tax (“BLT”). The first presentation occurred on April 9, 2026, in which the City’s tax consultant, HdL Companies (“HdL”), provided an overview of the City’s BLT, which was enacted in 1970 and has not undergone a comprehensive structural modernization in more than five decades. Council also reviewed potential options to modernize and simplify the BLT structure and accepted staff’s recommendation to further evaluate a variable model based on reporting of gross receipts.
At the City Council meeting held on May 28, 2026, the City Council received a presentation from Godbe Research, an independent public opinion research firm, regarding the results of a revenue measure feasibility survey. The survey results indicated favorable voter support for a potential ballot measure simplifying and modernizing the BLT.
At the most recent City Council meeting held on June 25, 2026, the Newark City Council received a presentation from City staff that reviewed three options to modernize and streamline the BLT, along with an update of feedback received from the Newark business community in response to City staff’s business community outreach efforts.
During the City Council meeting held on June 25, 2026, in response to concerns about some landlords potentially increasing rents to tenants as a result of the proposed BLT, the Council requested that staff consider decreasing the amount of revenue that the City would receive from businesses that fall under the “property rental” category.
Council also directed staff to consider a model that would increase the amount of revenue that would be received from businesses that fall under the “manufacturing” category.
The purpose of this staff report is to compare the model that was recommended by staff at the previous meeting to a model that reflects an increase in revenue from the “manufacturing” category and a decrease in revenue from the “property rental” category.
Once staff receive direction from the Council on the preferred model, staff will then prepare the necessary resolutions and documents to place a ballot measure for voter consideration this fall that would modernize and streamline the BLT. Those actions would be considered at a future City Council meeting.
BACKGROUND
The City Council received presentations on the following dates regarding the need to modernize and streamline the City’s BLT: April 9, 2026; May 28, 2026; and June 25, 2026.
The staff reports and related presentations are attached to the staff report for ease of reference as follows:
Attachment 1 – Staff report for City Council meeting held on April 9, 2026 Attachment 2 – Presentation for City Council meeting held on April 9, 2026 Attachment 3 – Staff report for City Council meeting held on May 28, 2026 (no presentation on file)
Attachment 4 – Staff report for City Council meeting held on June 25, 2026 Attachment 5 – Presentation for City Council meeting held on June 25, 2026 Attachment 6 – Presentation for July 9 City Council Meeting Attachment 7- Letter from California Apartment Association – Opposition to Proposed Business License Tax Ballot Measure
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Existing Business License Tax Structure
The City Council originally adopted the current BLT in 1970. While some tax rates were modified in 1990 and 1996, the BLT has not undergone a comprehensive structural modernization in more than five decades. During that time, Newark's economy has evolved significantly, including growth in logistics and distribution, manufacturing, professional services, technology, and regional-serving commercial businesses. However, the City's BLT structure remains largely based on classifications, methodologies, and assumptions developed under a much different economic environment.
Today, approximately 3,100 licensed businesses operate within Newark and collectively report more than $5 billion in annual gross receipts. Despite this substantial level of economic activity, economic activity that is significantly greater than what existed in 1970 when the current BLT was first enacted, the City receives only approximately $1.5 million annually. Analysis conducted by HdL found that BLT revenues have remained relatively flat over time despite the significant growth in business activity, inflation, municipal service costs, and infrastructure needs.
HdL's analysis identified several limitations associated with the existing BLT structure:
Tax liability is calculated using multiple methodologies depending on business type, including gross receipts, payroll, vehicle counts, project valuation, and flat-fee schedules.
The ordinance contains more than 30 classifications and subcategories, creating administrative complexity for both businesses and the City.
Many classifications no longer align with modern business models and economic activity.
Tax contributions do not consistently reflect business size, economic output, or demand placed on City infrastructure and services.
The analysis also found that businesses generating the majority of reported gross receipts contribute a disproportionately smaller share of total BLT revenue. As a result, businesses with similar levels of economic activity may pay substantially different amounts based on classification rather than business activity.
To illustrate the point, the top 100 businesses generate 75% of gross receipts but reflect only 47% of the BLT that is assessed.
This misalignment indicates that the existing structure does not consistently scale with business activity and economic output.
Proposed Business License Tax Modernization and Simplification Ordinance The proposed ordinance is intended to modernize and simplify Newark's BLT structure while improving equity, transparency, administrative efficiency, and long-term fiscal sustainability. The proposal does not create a new tax. Rather, it updates the City's existing BLT framework to better reflect Newark's current economy and business environment.
The proposed ordinance would:
Consolidate more than 30 business classifications and subcategories into a limited number of standardized categories.
Simplify tax administration and improve transparency.
Establish a gross receipts-based structure that scales more proportionately with business activity.
Increase the minimum gross receipts threshold from $25,000 to $100,000 and reduce the minimum business license tax from approximately $39 to $25 - resulting in tax savings for businesses that are in the early growth stage or have fewer gross receipts.
Improve consistency across business sectors.
Better align tax liability with economic activity occurring within Newark.
Maintain regional competitiveness while modernizing a tax structure that has remained largely unchanged for more than 55 years.
Estimated Business Impacts
The proposed ordinance is expected to affect businesses differently depending on business type, annual gross receipts, and industry classification. At the onset, it is important to note that half of Newark businesses would have lower BLT obligations under the new ordinance.
The proposal is designed to improve tax equity while minimizing impacts on small businesses. The proposed ordinance increases the minimum gross receipts threshold from $25,000 to $100,000 and reduces the minimum business license tax from approximately $39 to $25. As a result, half of small businesses, including small home-based businesses and small start-up businesses, would experience either a reduction or little change in business license tax liability.
As business activity increases and gross receipts increase, tax liability would generally increase as well. This reflects the underlying policy objective of better aligning tax contributions with economic activity occurring within Newark.
Examples of estimated impacts include:
A small business generating $25,000 in annual gross receipts would see its annual business license tax decrease from approximately $39 to $25.
Additionally, increasing the minimum gross receipts threshold from $25,000 to $100,000 would allow businesses generating between $25,000 and $100,000 annually to remain subject to the minimum $25 business license tax, providing tax relief for small and growing businesses.
A small professional services business generating $100,000 or less annually would see its business license tax decrease from approximately $130 to $25.
Many retail businesses and restaurants would experience little change or modest decreases under the proposed structure, although certain high-gross-receipt businesses may experience increases.
Contractors would generally experience modest changes, although larger contractors with substantial gross receipts would experience greater increases, which commensurate with their increased economic activity.
Professional service, service, and distribution/logistics businesses with substantial gross receipts would generally experience larger increases because the proposed structure more closely aligns tax liability with business activity and revenue generation.
Analysis of the proposed rate structure indicates that additional revenue generated by the ordinance would be concentrated among businesses with substantial gross receipts and higher levels of economic activity. This reflects one of the primary objectives of the modernization effort: improving equity and better aligning business license tax responsibility with business scale, economic activity, and use of municipal services and infrastructure.
Overall, the proposed ordinance would shift a greater share of business license tax responsibility toward businesses generating substantial economic activity, while reducing or minimizing impacts on many small businesses.
Comparison of Recommended Ordinance v. Optional Ordinance Requested by Council
During the City Council meeting held on June 25, 2026, in response to concerns about some landlords potentially increasing rents to tenants as a result of the proposed BLT, the Council requested that staff consider decreasing the amount of revenue that the City would receive from businesses that fall under the “property rental” category.
Council also directed staff to consider a model that would increase the amount of revenue that would be received from businesses that fall under the “manufacturing” category.
Staff and HdL have refined the recommended ordinance to achieve that objective pursuant to Council’s direction.
For ease of reference, the staff report and attached presentation (Attachment 6) refer to the model that was recommended by staff to the City Council at the meeting held on June 25 as “Option 1” and the refined model that accomplishes the objectives discussed at the June 25 City Council meeting as “Option 2”.
Under Option 1, manufacturing businesses would be taxed at the rate of 0.045% and collectively remit to the City $521,000 annually in BLT revenue, which reflects $385,000 above the current amount.
Under Option 2, manufacturing businesses would be taxed at the rate of 0.075% and collectively remit to the City $867,000 annually in BLT revenue, which reflects $731,000 above the current amount.
Regarding property rental businesses, under Option 1, they would be taxed at the rate of 0.225% and collectively remit to the City $471,000 in annual BLT revenue, which reflects $374,000 above the current amount. This includes both residential and commercial businesses.
Under Option 2, they would be taxed at the rate of 0.075% and collectively remit to the City $160,000 in annual BLT revenue, which reflects $63,000 above the current amount. This also includes both residential and commercial businesses.
The attached presentation (Attachment 6) shows the revenue that would be generated under both models in the tables on slides 3 and 4.
At the June 25 City Council meeting, staff presented a slide containing illustrative examples of Option 1 across eleven hypothetical businesses. Slide 5 of the attached presentation contains business examples for both Options 1 and 2. Under Option 1, a manufacturing business generating $15 million in gross receipts per year would see its annual BLT increase from $5,311 to $6,730 and, under Option 2, it would increase to annual BLT increase from $5,311 to $6,730 and, under Option 2, it would increase to $11,200 (Slide 5).
Meanwhile, an apartment complex generating $2.5 million in gross receipts would see its existing annual BLT of $1,186 increase to $5,425, while under Option 2, its annual obligation would be $1,825 (Slide 5).
At the June 25 City Council meeting, staff presented a slide listing the existing BLT obligation and Option 1 for those eleven hypothetical businesses and compared them against peer jurisdictions, including the cities of Union City, Fremont, Hayward, and San Leandro, as well as Hayward’s proposed ordinance that will be considered by Hayward voters later this year. Slide 6 has been updated to include Option 2 for comparison purposes.
Update to Business Outreach Efforts After City Council Meeting Held on June 25 City staff held a business and community stakeholder outreach meeting on Friday, June 26 – the day after the previous City Council meeting. Two people attended, both of whom were representatives from the Bay East Association of Realtors. They indicated the following: (1) they had concerns that both realtors and brokers would pay BLT on gross receipts stemming from real estate transactions occurring in Newark; (2) they advocated for an ordinance that exempts residential landlords who own 5 or less units (the existing BLT ordinance expressly exempts residential landlords who own 4 or less units); and (3) they requested a nexus study be performed. Each item is discussed below in turn.
Regarding item 1, the representatives stated that brokers would have to include gross receipts of commissions paid to them from the sale and purchase of homes in Newark, despite the fact that realtors would have already included that revenue as part of their gross receipts when remitting their BLT payment to the City. Staff has concerns about carving out such an exemption for brokers as there are many examples where this type of business activity occurs. For example, manufacturers, distributors, and retail companies are all independently subject to BLT obligations to the City. Additionally, both contractors and subcontractors remit BLT payment to the City based off gross receipts. Attempting to apply exemptions on different steps of an inherently integrated economy would complicate the BLT further which would defeat the goals of simplifying and modernizing the BLT. Further, staff is unaware of any business license tax that maintains an exemption for brokers, therefore we are following common practice.
As for exempting landlords who own 5 or less residential units, staff does not recommend taking this approach. Both Option 1 and Option 2 already limit BLT obligations to $25 for businesses that report $100,000 or less in gross receipts. In other words, both BLT models account for small businesses receiving less revenue and thus lowering their BLT obligation. Because the high minimum threshold of $100,000 is already structured to account for small businesses in a simplified manner, consistent with the goal of modernizing the BLT, carving out an express exemption for one particular type of business would be duplicative of a general provision that the Council directed staff to include for the benefit of all the other small businesses in Council directed staff to include for the benefit of all the other small businesses in Newark that meet that threshold. Similar to the first issue above, none of the peer jurisdictions that have modernized their BLT have such a provision to staff’s knowledge.
Regarding the request that a nexus study be performed, staff notes that the Council is considering streamlining and modernizing the BLT, which is not a fee. Typically, nexus studies are performed so that municipalities can calculate appropriate fees to charge the public because state law requires that for any fee charged by a city there must be a nexus between the amount charged and the cost of the service provided by the city.
This includes, for example, facility user fees and development application fees. As a further example, in the development impact fee context, the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Sections 66000-66025) requires cities to perform studies to calculate the cost of impact on services that are required by residents who occupy new residential units. That is not the case here, as the Council is not considering a fee.
Furthermore, staff are unaware of any cities that have performed such an analysis when considering streamlining and modernizing their BLT ordinance.
Separately, staff received a letter on June 25 from the California Apartment Association opposing the recommended BLT model, expressing concerns that the update could adversely impact the rental housing market by making rental housing more expensive to operate and harder to maintain. A copy of the letter is attached to this staff report and is labeled as Attachment 7.
In the letter, they refer to the illustrative example that was cited in the staff report in which a rental property business that generates $2,500,000 in gross receipts would pay $5,425 under the new ordinance instead of the current rate of $1,186.
At the City Council meeting, the Council expressed concerns of the increase on residential property landlords and asked staff to refine the model by decreasing BLT revenue from landlords. Under Option 2, a rental property business that generates $2,500,000 in gross receipts would pay $1,825, which reflects an increase of $639 yet $3,600 lower than under Option 1.
Additionally, all regional housing providers – such as Abode Services, Eden Housing, USA Properties and Satellite Affordable Housing Associates (“SAHA”) – are non-profit corporations and thus are currently exempt from paying any business license tax.
Under both Option 1 and Option 2, the regional housing providers would also be exempt from paying the BLT.
Next Steps
At the City Council meeting staff will solicit direction from the Council on the preferred model. Staff will then prepare the resolutions and documents needed for the City Council to consider placement of a ballot measure at a future City Council meeting, likely at the City Council meeting scheduled for July 23. Placement of a general tax requires a 4/5 vote of the City Council while any general tax must be approved by requires a 4/5 vote of the City Council while any general tax must be approved by 50%+1 of the voters.
FISCAL IMPACT
Placement of a BLT simplification and modernization measure on the November 3, 2026, election ballot will result in one-time election administration costs, which are expected to be funded through existing appropriations. The exact cost will depend on Alameda County election services, ballot content, and associated voter information requirements.
If approved by Newark voters, both options are projected to generate approximately $5.4 million in additional annual General Fund revenue above the City's current BLT revenue of approximately $1.5 million per year. Revenue projections are based on business activity and gross receipts data analyzed by HdL, the City's consultant, and will vary based on the final rate structure adopted by the City Council and approved by the voters. The proposal is estimated to increase total annual BLT revenue to approximately $6.9 million.
STRATEGIC PRIORITY AREA
Boost Financial Resilience and Excellence in Service Delivery REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by -
Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Gloria Del Rosario, Deputy Finance Director
Angela Tsui, Deputy Economic Development Director
Kristopher Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Colleen Lettire, Communications and Public Engagement Manager David J. Benoun, City Manager
Reviewed by - Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Reviewed by - Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Approved by - David J. Benoun, City Manager
Attachments
Attachment 1: Staff report for City Council meeting held on April 9, 2026 Attachment 2: Presentation for City Council meeting held on April 9, 2026 Attachment 3: Staff report for City Council meeting held on May 28, 2026 (no presentation on file)
Attachment 4: Staff report for City Council meeting held on June 25, 2026 Attachment 5: Presentation for City Council meeting held on June 25, 2026 Attachment 6 Presentation for July 9 City Council Meeting Attachment 7- Letter from California Apartment Association – Opposition to Proposed Business License Tax Ballot Measure
July 9, 2026
Business License
Modernization
Council Direction to Date
4 Following prior Council direction, staff developed an alternative ordinance.
April 9 May 28 June 25 July 23 Nov. 3
HdL presented
existing structure
and modernization
options.
Godbe Research
presented voter
feasibility survey
results.
Staff presents
recommended
approach, business
impacts, and
outreach update.
Propose formal
ballot-placement
action, if directed
by Council.
Potential voter
consideration at
election.
Provide Council
with updates
based on
feedback
received at June
25 meeting.
July 9
Options 1 and 2 Comparative Rates
4 Options 1 and 2 Comparative Revenue
4 Options 1 and 2 Comparative Business Examples
4 Options 1 and 2 Peer Jurisdiction Comparisons
4 • Based on Council direction, staff will prepare the
resolutions and documents needed for the City
Council to consider placement of a ballot measure at
a future City Council meeting, likely at the City
Council meeting scheduled for July 23.
• Placement of a general tax requires a 4/5 vote of the City Council while any general tax must be approved
by 50%+1 of the voters.
Next Steps
22 July 23, 2026
Ballot Placement for
Business License
Modernization
• Discussion on BLT model
• Placement of Business License Tax Measure on the
November 3, 2026 Ballot (includes ballot question
and ballot arguments/rebuttal arguments)
Agenda:
2 Council Direction to Date
3 April 9 May 28 June 25 July 23 Nov. 3
HdL presented
existing structure
and modernization
options.
Godbe Research
presented voter
feasibility survey
results.
Staff presents
recommended
approach, business
impacts, and
outreach update.
Ballot-placement
action.
Potential voter
consideration at
election.
Provide Council
with updates
based on
feedback
received at June
25 meeting.
July 9
Business Category Base Rate July 9th
Model
Reduced
Retail
Alternative
Model
Contractor 0.200% 0.200%
Distribution/Logistics 0.300% 0.300%
General/Retail 0.043% 0.030%
Manufacturing 0.075% 0.075%
Professional 0.250% 0.250%
Property Rental 0.075% 0.075%
Service 0.200% 0.200%
Exempt $0.00 0.000% 0.000%
$25
(up to
$100,000
Receipts)
Rates for July 9 Model and Reduced Retail
Alternative Model
4 Business Category Business
Count
Gross Receipts
(in millions)
Current
Revenue
July 9th
Model
Reduced
Retail
Alternative
Model
Contractor 917 $ 389 $ 272,000 $ 706,000 $ 706,000
Distribution/Logistics 119 $ 387 $ 83,000 $1,132,000 $ 1,132,000 General/Retail 631 $ 1,341 $ 396,000 $ 571,000 $ 399,145 Manufacturing 69 $ 1,160 $ 136,000 $ 867,000 $ 867,000
Professional 394 $ 689 $ 206,000 $1,665,000 $ 1,665,000 Property Rental 192 $ 224 $ 97,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000
Service 703 $ 926 $ 278,000 $1,785,000 $ 1,785,000
Exempt 78 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Grand Total 3103 $ 5,116 $1,468,000 $6,886,000 $ 6,714,145 Increase Revenue $ - $5,418,000 $ 5,246,145
Comparative Revenue for July 9 Model and
Reduced Retail Alternative Model
5 Illustrative Business Example Business Category Gross Receipts
Current July 9th
Model
Reduced
Retail
Alternative
Model
Outside Sub-Contractor Contractor $ 12,000 $ 96 $ 25 $ 25 Home-Based Retail General/Retail $ 25,000 $ 39 $ 25 $ 25 Small Professional Firm (e.g. Law Firm
or Tax Preparation)
Professional $ 100,000 $ 130 $ 25 $ 25
Shoe Store General/Retail $ 200,000 $ 137 $ 68 $ 55
Salon Service $ 450,000 $ 300 $ 725 $ 725
Professional Firm (e.g. Law Firm or Tax
Preparation)
Professional $ 500,000 $ 650 $ 1,025 $ 1,025
Restaurant General/Retail $ 625,000 $ 431 $ 251 $ 183
Apartment Complex Property Rental $ 2,500,000 $ 1,186 $ 1,825 $ 1,825 Product Manufacturing Business Manufacturing $ 15,000,000 $ 5,311 $ 11,200 $ 11,200 Large Service Business Service $ 30,000,000 $ 5,311 $ 59,825 $ 59,825 Large Scale Distribution / Logistics Distribution/Logistics $ 40,000,000 $ 2,800 $ 119,725 $ 119,725 Comparative Business Examples for July 9 Model
and Reduced Retail Alternative Model
6 Illustrative Business Examples Business Category Existing July 9th
Model
Reduced
Retail
Alternative
Model
Fremont San
Leandro
Union
City Hayward Hayward (Proposed)
Outside Sub-Contractor Contractor $ 96 $ 25 $ 25 $ 121 $ 277 $ 150 $ 54 $ 60 Home-Based Retail General/Retail $ 39 $ 25 $ 25 $ 38 $ 224 $ 132 $ 27 $ 60 Small Professional Firm (e.g. Law
Firm or Tax Preparation)
Professional $ 130 $ 25 $ 25 $ 160 $ 303 $ 264 $ 100 $ 150 Shoe Store General/Retail $ 137 $ 68 $ 55 $ 80 $ 435 $ 132 $ 87 $ 60 Salon Service $ 300 $ 725 $ 725 $ 480 $ 699 $ 850 $ 80 $ 225 Professional Firm (e.g. Law Firm
or Tax Preparation)
Professional $ 650 $ 1,025 $ 1,025 $ 680 $ 831 $ 1,188 $ 632 $ 750 Restaurant General/Retail $ 431 $ 251 $ 183 $ 186 $ 962 $ 258 $ 167 $ 188 Apartment Complex Property Rental $ 1,186 $ 1,825 $ 1,825 $ 3,280 $ 2,067 $ 5,569 $ 674 $ 7,500 Product Manufacturing Business Manufacturing $ 5,311 $ 11,200 $ 11,200 $ 1,575 $ 3,597 $ 6,739 $ 133 $ 11,500 Large Service Business Service $ 5,311 $ 59,825 $ 59,825 $30,030 $12,315 $59,950 $ 8,099 $ 33,750 Large Scale Distribution /
Logistics
Distribution/Logistics $ 2,800 $ 119,725 $ 119,725 $ 117 $12,501 $39,975 $ 136 $ 28,000 Peer Jurisdiction Comparisons for July 9 Model
and Reduced Retail Alternative Model
7 • Solicit City Council direction on
preferred BLT model
Council Discussion on Preferred BLT Model
8 • To place an ordinance to modernize and simplify the BLT on the November 3, 2026, General Election, staff has prepared a resolution that does the following:
• Calls for an election and places the BLT Ballot Measure on the November ballot for voter consideration
• Requests the services of the Alameda County Registrar of Voters related to placing the BLT Ballot Measure on the November ballot and the election • Provides the procedure for submitting ballot arguments and rebuttals • Directs the City Attorney to prepare and submit an impartial analysis showing the effect of the measure on existing law
Summary of Election Actions
9 • The State Elections Code requires the ballot measure to be printed in the ballot pamphlet in the form of a “yes” or “no” ballot question of no more than 75 words. The following is the ballot question included in the proposed resolution:
• “Newark Essential Services Protection Measure. To protect city services such as repairing potholes/streets; keeping neighborhoods safe/clean, and maintaining 9-1-1 emergency response/fire protection/neighborhood police patrols/parks/recreation programs, shall the measure be adopted updating Newark’s 56-year-old business license ordinance, lowering many small businesses' taxes, with rates up to 0.3% of gross receipts (as described in the ordinance), raising $6,800,000 annually until ended by voters, with spending disclosure/ independent audits?”
Ballot Question:
10 • Arguments of no more than 300 words each for and against the ballot measure must be submitted to the City Clerk by 2:00 p.m. on August 6, 2026.
• Rebuttals, of no more than 250 words, must be submitted to the City Clerk no later than 2:00 p.m. on August 17, 2026.
• Council could designate the Mayor to submit the argument/rebuttal.
Ballot Arguments and Rebuttal Arguments:
11 • Staff recommends that the Council approve the
resolution placing the BLT Ballot Measure on the
November 3, 2026, General Election.
• Questions?
Staff Recommendation
12
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-26
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWARK
CALLING AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 2026, FOR
VOTER CONSIDERATION OF A BALLOT MEASURE SEEKING VOTER
AUTHORIZATION TO REPEAL AND REPLACE CHAPTER 5.04 OF THE
NEWARK MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND THE CURRENT BUSINESS
LICENSE ORDINANCE; ESTABLISHING POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH AN ELECTION;
REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
ALAMEDA TO CONSOLIDATE THE ELECTION WITH THE GENERAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 2026; REQUESTING
CERTAIN SERVICES OF THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS OF ALAMEDA
COUNTY WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSOLIDATED GENERAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION; AND PROVIDING FOR SUBMITTAL OF
BALLOT ARGUMENTS AND REBUTTALS AND AUTHORIZING THE
FILING OF AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS
WHEREAS, in 1970, the City Council of the City of Newark approved the imposition of a business license tax, codified as Chapter 5.04 of the Newark Municipal Code (the “Business License Tax”), which provided for the imposition and collection of a general tax on the privilege of transacting and carrying on business in the of City of Newark (the “City”); and WHEREAS, the City is facing a budget deficit that could directly impact essential services that local residents rely upon; and
WHEREAS, to protect essential services, including repairing potholes and repairing city streets and sidewalks, reducing blight and keeping neighborhoods safe and clean, maintaining rapid 9-1-1 emergency medical response and fire protection, and maintaining neighborhood police patrols, park, and recreation programs,, the City is seeking to enhance locally controlled funding that cannot be taken away by the State; and
WHEREAS, the City requires all businesses operating in Newark to obtain a business license and pay an associated annual tax to help support the roads, infrastructure, and services used by local businesses; and
WHEREAS, the City’s current Business License Tax structure has not been updated in over fifty (50) years, and the local economy, industries, and workforce have changed significantly in that time; and
WHEREAS, to ensure that large businesses contribute to the services, roads and infrastructure in the City and to protect small businesses from increased costs, the City is proposing to modernize and simplify the current Business License Tax; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes to the Business License Tax are designed to attract, retain, and encourage business growth and job creation in Newark, simplify oversight and compliance, and generate approximately $5.4 million in annual funding for local services and infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the proposed changes to the Business License Tax would not impact Newark residents who do not own or operate a business in Newark; and WHEREAS, locally controlled funding from the Business License Tax could be used to protect essential services, including repairing potholes and repairing city streets and sidewalks, reducing blight and keeping neighborhoods safe and clean, maintaining rapid 9-1-1 emergency medical response and fire protection, and maintaining neighborhood police patrols, park, and recreation programs,; and
WHEREAS, the proposed measure includes fiscal accountability protections to ensure funds are spent properly, including required public disclosure of all spending and mandatory annual audits; and
WHEREAS, all funds from the measure must stay in Newark for local services and infrastructure and no funds may be taken away by the State; and WHEREAS, under the provisions of the laws relating to general law cities in the State of California, an election shall be held on November 3, 2026, for the submission to the voters of a question relating to an amendment to the business license tax; and WHEREAS, it is desirable that the election be consolidated with the statewide election to be held on the same date, and that within the City, the precincts, polling places, and election officers of the two elections be the same; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11852 by which, among other things, the City called and ordered a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, for the purpose of electing one (1) Mayor and two (2) at-large Council Members and by which the City requested the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda (the “Board of Supervisors”) to consolidate that General Municipal Election with the General Election on November 3, 2026, and by which the City requested the Board of Supervisors to issue instructions to the Registrar of Voters of the County of Alameda (the “Registrar of Voters”) to provide specified services to the City including any and all steps necessary for the holding of the consolidated election; and by which the City Council authorized reimbursing Alameda County based on Alameda County's established consolidation rate; and WHEREAS, Article XIIIC, section 2(b) of the California Constitution requires that any general tax for unrestricted general revenue purposes, such as a business license tax, must be submitted to and approved by a majority vote of the voters voting on the issue of imposing any general tax; and
WHEREAS, this proposed measure will only become effective if approved by a simple majority of the City’s voters voting on the question at the November 3, 2026 election; and WHEREAS, based on all of the information presented at the July 23, 2026, meeting of the City Council, both written and oral, including the staff report, minutes, and other relevant materials, the City Council finds that review under CEQA is not required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newark that:
Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and hereby incorporated by reference.
Section 2. The City Council hereby calls an election at which it shall submit to the qualified voters of the City of Newark, a measure that, if approved, would repeal the existing general business license tax and adopt a general business license tax, as authorized by California Government Code Section 37101 and California Business and Professions Code Sections 16000, et seq. This measure shall be designated by letter by the Alameda County Registrar of Voters.
Pursuant to Elections Code Sections 10400, et seq., the election for this measure shall be consolidated with the established election to be conducted on November 3, 2026.
Section 3. The City Council does hereby submit for adoption by the qualified voters of the City of Newark at the General Municipal Election of November 3, 2026, the following question:
“Newark Essential Services Protection Measure. To protect city services such as repairing potholes/streets; keeping neighborhoods safe/clean, and maintaining 9-1-1 emergency response/fire protection/neighborhood police patrols/parks/recreation programs, shall the measure be adopted updating Newark’s 56-year-old business license ordinance, lowering many small businesses' taxes, with rates up to 0.3% of gross receipts (as described in the ordinance), raising $6,800,000 annually until ended by voters, with spending disclosure/ independent audits?”
YES
NO
Section 4. The full text of the proposed measure to be submitted to the voters is attached as Exhibit A (the “Measure”) hereto. If a simple majority of the qualified voters voting on the Measure vote in favor therefor, the Measure shall be deemed adopted and shall be in full force and effect ten (10) days after the date the vote is declared by the City Council of the City of Newark.
The City Council hereby approves the Measure, attached as Exhibit A, the form thereof, and its submission to the voters of Newark at the November 3, 2026 election. The Measure specifies that the rate of the tax shall vary by business type, as set forth in Exhibit A. The tax shall be in effect until ended by voters of the City of Newark. The tax shall be collected by the City from businesses at the time of initial issuance or renewal of a business license.
Section 5. The Board of Supervisors of Alameda County is hereby requested to permit the Alameda County Registrar of Voters to provide such services as may be necessary to properly and lawfully hold and conduct an election in the City on November 3, 2026, pursuant to this Resolution, including but not restricted to the providing and printing of ballots and polling place cards, election supplies, voting booths, flags, registration lists and any other materials and services required to lawfully conduct the election. The City recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County by reason of this election, and the City agrees to reimburse the County based on the County's established rates. This request is made pursuant to California Elections Code Sections 10002 and 10403.
Section 6. The City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to work with the Office of the Registrar of Voters as needed in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election. The ballots to be used in the election shall be in form and content as required by law. The Office of the Registrar of Voters is authorized to canvass the returns of the general municipal election. In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections. The City Clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County and the Registrar of Voters of Alameda County.
Section 7. Unless otherwise specified in this Resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided in Resolution No. 11852, and as provided by law for holding municipal elections.
Section 8. (a) In accordance with Elections Code Sections 9282 and 9283, arguments submitted for or against the Measure shall not exceed 300 words in length and shall be printed upon the same sheet of paper and mailed to each voter with the sample ballot for the election and may be signed by not more than five (5) persons.
(b) In accordance with Elections Code Section 9282, the following headings, as appropriate, shall precede the arguments' wording, but shall not be counted in the 300 word maximum: "Argument Against Measure " or "Argument In Favor Of Measure " (the blank spaces being filled only with the letter or number, if any, designating the Measure).
(c) In accordance with Elections Code Section 9283, printed arguments submitted to voters in accordance with Section 9282 of the Elections Code shall be filed with the City Clerk, accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it or, if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers. Arguments are due in the office of the City Clerk prior to 2:00 p.m. on August 6, 2026.
(d) The City Council hereby authorizes ______ to prepare and file a ballot argument in favor of the ballot measure set forth in this Resolution, which may be signed by members of the City Council, representatives of bona fide associations of citizens, and individual voters eligible to vote on the Measure. Members of the City Council who sign the ballot argument may use their titles. In accordance with Elections Code Section 9287, any council members authorized by the City Council to do so may sign the argument in favor of the Measure.
Section 9. (a) Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9285, when the City Clerk has selected the arguments for and against the Measure that will be printed and distributed to the voters, the City Clerk shall send copies of the argument in favor of the Measure to the authors of the argument against, and copies of the argument against to the authors of the argument in favor. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument that it seeks to rebut. (b) Rebuttal arguments shall not exceed 250 words and may be signed by not more than five (5) persons. The persons that sign the rebuttal arguments may be different persons than the persons that signed the direct arguments.
(c) The last day for submittal of rebuttal arguments for or against the Measure shall be by 2:00 p.m. on August 17, 2026.
(d) The City Council hereby authorizes ________ to prepare and file a rebuttal argument in favor of the ballot measure set forth in this Resolution, which may be signed by members of the City Council, representatives of bona fide associations of citizens, and individual voters eligible to vote on the Measure, who may be different from the persons who signed the argument in favor of the measure. Members of the City Council who sign the rebuttal argument may use their titles. In accordance with Elections Code Section 9287, any council members authorized by the City Council to do so may sign the rebuttal argument for the Measure.
Section 10. In accordance with Elections Code Section 9280, the City Attorney is directed to file with the City Clerk, by 2:00 p.m. on August 6, 2026, an impartial analysis of the Measure, not to exceed 500 words, showing the effect of the Measure on the existing law and the operation of the Measure.
Section 11. (a) The City Clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County and the Alameda County Registrar of Voters. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to place the Measure on the ballot and to cause a synopsis of the Measure attached as Exhibit A to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with California Elections Code Section 12111 and California Government Code Section 6061. A copy of the Measure shall be made available to any voter upon request. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give further additional notice of the Measure in the time, form, and manner required by law. (b) In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, and except as provided for in Elections Code Sections 10403 and 10418, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.
Section 12. The jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Newark have not changed since the last general municipal election.
Section 13. The City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk (“City Officers”) are authorized to make all approvals, expend funds, enter into any agreements, and take any and all actions necessary or appropriate to carry out and implement the terms of this Resolution and to administer the City’s obligations, responsibilities and duties to be performed herein.
Section 14. The approval of this resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq., “CEQA,” and 14 Cal. Code Reg. §§ 15000 et seq., “CEQA Guidelines”), based on the general rule set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. This resolution places a measure on the ballot that, if approved, modifies the City’s business license tax; thus, it can be said with certainty that there is no possibility that the Measure will have a significant effect on the environment. Additionally, the tax that is the subject of this resolution is a general tax that can be used for any legitimate governmental purpose; it is not a commitment to any particular action. As such, under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), the tax is not a project within the meaning of CEQA because it creates a government funding mechanism that does not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. If revenue from the tax were used for a purpose that would have such effect, the City would undertake the required CEQA review for that particular project at the earliest feasible time prior to approval of the project, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15004 and 15352. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15060, CEQA analysis is not required.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Newark at a regular meeting held on this 23rd day of July 2026 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
MICHAEL HANNON
Mayor
ATTESTED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
NEETU SALWAN
City Clerk
KRISTOPHER KOKOTAYLO
City Attorney
Attachments:
1. Exhibit A - Proposed Business License Tax Amendment Measure Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. XXXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWARK REPEALING AND
REPLACING CHAPTER 5.04, BUSINESS LICENSES, OF THE NEWARK
MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, in 1970, the City Council of the City of Newark approved the imposition of a business license tax, codified as Chapter 5.04 of the Newark Municipal Code (the “Business License Tax”), which provided for the imposition and collection of a general tax on the privilege of transacting and carrying on business in the City; and WHEREAS, the City is facing a budget deficit that could directly impact essential services that local residents rely upon; and
WHEREAS, to protect essential services, including repairing potholes and repairing city streets and sidewalks, reducing blight and keeping neighborhoods safe and clean, maintaining rapid 9-1-1 emergency medical response and fire protection, and maintaining neighborhood police patrols, park, and recreation programs, the City is seeking to enhance locally controlled funding that cannot be taken away by the State; and
WHEREAS, the City requires all businesses operating in Newark to obtain a business license and pay an associated annual tax to help support the roads, infrastructure, and services used by local businesses; and
WHEREAS, the City’s current Business License Tax structure has not been updated in over 50 years and the local economy, industries, and workforce have changed significantly in that time; and
WHEREAS, to ensure that large businesses contribute to the services, roads and infrastructure in the City and to protect small businesses from increased costs, the City is proposing to modernize and simplify the current Business License Tax; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes to the Business License Tax are designed to attract, retain, and encourage business growth and job creation in Newark, simplify oversight and compliance, and generate approximately $6.8 million in annual funding for local services and infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the proposed changes to the Business License Tax would not impact Newark residents who do not own or operate a business in Newark; and WHEREAS, locally controlled funding from the Business License Tax could be used to protect essential services, including repairing potholes and repairing city streets and sidewalks, reducing blight and keeping neighborhoods safe and clean, maintaining rapid 9-1-1 emergency medical response and fire protection, and maintaining neighborhood police patrols, park, and recreation programs,; and
WHEREAS, the proposed measure includes fiscal accountability protections to ensure funds are spent properly, including required public disclosure of all spending and mandatory annual audits; and
WHEREAS, all funds from the measure must stay in Newark for local services and infrastructure and no funds may be taken away by the State.
NOW, THEREFORE, the People of the City of Newark do ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals.
The above recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2. Municipal Code Amendment.
The City of Newark Municipal Code Chapter 5.04 is repealed in its entirety and replaced with the text in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Amended Business License Tax”), beginning January 1, 2027, the date upon which the Amended Business License Tax shall first be implemented.
SECTION 3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
The approval of this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq., “CEQA,” and 14 Cal. Code Reg. §§ 15000 et seq., “CEQA Guidelines”). This ordinance imposes a general tax that can be used for any legitimate governmental purpose; it is not a commitment to any particular action. As such, under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), the ordinance is not a project within the meaning of CEQA because it creates a government funding mechanism that does not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. If revenue from the tax were used for a purpose that would have such effect, the City would undertake the required CEQA review for that particular project at the earliest feasible time prior to the approval of the project consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15004 and 15352. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15060, CEQA analysis is not required.
SECTION 4. Severability.
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The People of the City of Newark hereby declare that they would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
SECTION 5. Amendment or Repeal.
The Amended Business License Tax may be repealed or amended by the City Council without a vote of the People. However, as required by Article XIII C of the California Constitution, voter approval is required for any amendment of any provision that would increase the rate of any tax levied pursuant to this Ordinance or change the methodology for calculating the tax that would result in a tax increase for any person subject to the tax. The People of the City of Newark affirm that the following actions shall not constitute an increase of the rate of a tax:
A. The restoration of the rate of the tax to a rate that is no higher than that set by this Ordinance if the City Council has acted to reduce the rate of the tax; B. An action that interprets or clarifies the methodology of the tax or any definition applicable to the tax so long as interpretation or clarification (even if contrary to some prior interpretation or clarification) is not inconsistent with the language of this Ordinance; C. The establishment of a class of person that is exempt or excepted from the tax or the discontinuation of any such exemption or exception other than the discontinuation of an exemption or exception specifically set forth in this Ordinance; and, D. The collection of the tax imposed by this Ordinance, even if the City had for some period of time failed to collect the tax.
SECTION 6. Codification.
Upon adoption of this Ordinance pursuant to the voter approval referenced above, the City Clerk, in consultation with the City Attorney, is hereby authorized and directed to codify this Ordinance in the Newark Municipal Code.
SECTION 7. Publication and Effective Date.
Within fifteen (15) days from and after adoption, this Ordinance shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in Alameda County and circulated in the City of Newark, in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933. If this Ordinance is approved by a majority of the voters voting on the issue at the November 3, 2026, election, pursuant to Elections Code Section 9217, this Ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days after the Council declares the results of the election.
Chapter 5.04 BUSINESS LICENSE
5.04.010 Definitions.
The following words and phrases, whenever used in this chapter, shall have the meanings defined in this section unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
"Business" means and includes full-time or part-time professional services and retail, wholesale, manufacturing, or other occupations, trades, or callings of any kind, whether or not carried on for profit or livelihood.
"Business tax" means the business activity tax.
"City" means the City of Newark, a municipal corporation of the State of California in its present incorporated form or in any later reorganized, consolidated, enlarged or reinforced form. "Code" means the Newark Municipal Code, as amended from time to time. "Collector" means the Finance Director of the City or other City officer or employee charged with administration of this chapter.
"County" means the County of Alameda.
"Constitution" means the United States Constitution or the California Constitution, as the case may be. "Fixed place of business" means premises in the City where a business is conducted from day to day and regularly kept open for the purposes of such business, also referred to as "regular place of business." "Gross receipts" means the total amount of the sale price of all sales, and/or the total amount charged or received for the performance of any act or service or employment, of whatever nature it may be, for which a charge is made or credit allowed, whether or not such act, service or employment is done as a part of or in connection with the sale of materials, goods, wares or merchandise, and when such act, service or employment occurs as a result of any activity within the City. Included in "gross receipts" shall be all receipts, cash, credits and property of any kind or nature, except as excluded in this subsection, without any deduction therefrom on account of the cost of the property sold, the cost of the materials used, labor or service costs, interest paid or payable, or losses or other expenses whatsoever as shown by either the Federal or State income tax return required to be filed by such person. Where the gross receipts are less than the cost of maintaining the operations of the licensee, then the licensee shall be deemed to produce gross receipts in an amount at least equal to the cost of maintaining such operations. Such cost of operations includes, but is not limited to, rent, depreciation, salaries, wages, fixed charges, and other expenses. For the purpose of calculating the business tax as specified in Section 5.04.300, gross receipts shall be stated in dollars of the United States.
Excluded from "gross receipts" shall be:
(a) Cash discounts allowed and taken on sales;
(b) Credit allowed on property accepted as part of the purchase price and which property may later be sold;
(c) Any tax required by law to be included in or added to the purchase price and collected from the consumer or purchaser;
(d) Such part of the sale price of property returned by purchasers upon rescission of the contract of sale as is refunded either in cash or by credit;
(e) Amounts collected for others where the Business is acting as an agent or trustee to the extent that such amounts are paid to those whom collected;
(f) As to a real estate agent or broker, the sales price of real estate sold for the account of others, except that portion which represents commission or other income to the agent or broker; (g) As to a gasoline dealer, a portion of his receipts from the sale of motor vehicle fuels equal to the motor vehicle fuel tax imposed by and previously paid under the provisions of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the state; and
(h) As to a retail gasoline dealer, the special motor fuel license tax imposed by Section 4041 of Title 26 of the United States Code, if paid by the dealer or collected by him from the consumer or purchaser. "Hearing officer" means an impartial person designated by the City Manager. "Manufacturing" means making materials, raw or partly finished, into wares suitable for use by persons other than the manufacturer, including, but not limited to, fabrication, processing, packing, bottling, assembling, canning, compounding, and forging.
"Not-for-profit entities" means any organization that qualifies under Section 501, subsection (c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code or equivalent federal statute. "Person" means any individual, firm, company, partnership, limited liability partnership, joint venture, association, proprietorship, social club, fraternal organization, joint stock company, domestic or foreign corporation, limited liability corporation, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, trustee, trustee in bankruptcy, administrator, executor, assignee, syndicate, or any other group or combination acting as a unit, whether mutual, cooperative, fraternal, nonprofit or otherwise, excepting: the United States of America, the State of California, and any political subdivision of either thereof upon which the City is without power to impose the tax herein provided. "State" means the State of California.
"Sworn statement" means an affidavit sworn to before a person authorized to take oaths or a declaration or certification made under penalty of perjury.
"Tax certificate" means the business tax certificate and any other identifying decal or marker as may be required by the collector for purposes of this chapter. "Tax certificate holder" means the person to whom a tax certificate has been issued. "Transient business" means every business not conducted at a "fixed place of business" or at a regular place of business, whether the person conducting such transient business is or is not a resident of the City. "Wholesale business" means every business conducted solely for the purpose of selling goods, wares, or merchandise in wholesale lots for resale.
5.04.020 Revenue measure.
This chapter is enacted for the sole purpose of raising revenue for municipal purposes and is not intended for regulation. The issuance of any tax certificate shall not be construed as authorizing any business to operate without first complying with all other applicable laws and regulations.
5.04.030 Effect on other laws.
A. Persons required to pay a business tax for transacting and carrying on any business under this chapter shall not be relieved from the payment of any similar tax for the privilege of doing such business required by any other law of the City, the County or the State and shall remain subject to the regulatory provisions of those other laws.
B. Any person required to pay a business tax for transacting and carrying on any business under this chapter shall not be relieved from the payment of such business tax, notwithstanding that such business is not in compliance with zoning, health, safety, or other regulatory provisions of the Code or other State or federal law. Compliance with the provisions of this chapter shall not constitute evidence that such business is in compliance with any other such regulations or provisions of law.
5.04.040 Required business tax payment.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to transact and carry on any business, trade, profession, calling, or occupation in the City without first having paid the business tax, as prescribed in this chapter or without complying with any and all applicable requirements of this chapter.
B. This section shall not be construed to require any person to pay a business tax or to comply with any other requirement of this chapter prior to doing business within the City if such requirements conflict with applicable statutes of the United States or of the State.
5.04.050 Evidence of doing business.
When any person, by the use of signs, circulars, cards, telephone books, or newspapers, shall advertise, hold out, or represent that the person is in business in the City, or when any person holds an active license or permit issued by a governmental agency indicating that the person is in business in the City, or when any person makes a sale, takes an order, renders a commercial service, or performs any other similar act within the City, and such person fails to deny by a sworn statement given to the Collector that the person is not conducting a business in the City after being requested to do so by the Collector, then such facts shall be considered prima facie evidence that the person is conducting a business in the City.
5.04.060 Constitutional apportionment.
A. None of the business taxes provided for by this chapter shall be so applied as to occasion an undue burden upon interstate commerce or be violative of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution.
B. In any case where a business tax is believed by a person transacting or carrying on any business in the City to place an undue burden upon interstate commerce or be violative of such constitutional clauses, such person may apply to the Collector for an adjustment of the tax. Such application may be made before or at the time the tax is required to be paid or within six (6) months after the payment of the prescribed business tax. The applicant, by sworn statement and supporting testimony, shall show the applicant's method of business, the gross volume or estimated gross volume of such business, and such other information as the Collector may deem necessary in order to determine the extent, if any, of such undue burden or violation. The Collector shall then conduct an investigation and, after having first obtained the written approval of the City Attorney, shall fix as the business tax for the applicant an amount that is reasonable and nondiscriminatory or, if the business tax has already been paid, shall order a refund of the amount over and above the business tax so fixed. Such investigation, fixing of the business tax, and order of refund shall be accomplished within a reasonable time upon receiving the requisite information by the City. In fixing the business tax, the Collector shall have the power to fix the business tax on any basis which will assure that the business tax assessed shall be uniform with that assessed on businesses of like nature, so long as the amount assessed does not exceed the business tax prescribed by this chapter. If it is determined that no business tax is due, the applicant exempt from the business tax shall obtain, and the Collector shall issue, a tax certificate indicating such exemption from the tax.
5.04.070 Exemptions.
A. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed or construed as applying to any person transacting, engaging in, and carrying on any business exempt by virtue of the Constitution or applicable statutes of the United States or of the State from payment of taxes prescribed herein.
B. Exemptions requiring tax-exempt tax certificates. The following persons shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter, except that any such person shall be required to obtain a tax-exempt tax certificate:
1. Not-for-profit entities, as defined in this Code;
2. Banks, including national banking associations as provided by subsection 1(a) of Section 16 of Article XIII of the State Constitution;
3. Insurance companies and associations as provided by Section 14 of Article XIII of the State Constitution provided however that insurance brokers shall not be excluded under this section;
4. The business of agriculture except for the retail activities conducted in connection therewith; and
5. The conducting of any entertainment, concert, exhibition or lecture on scientific, historical, literary, benevolent or moral subjects within the City whenever the receipts of any such entertainment, concert, exhibition or lecture are to be appropriated to any church or school or to any benevolent purpose within the City.
C. Exemptions not requiring tax-exempt tax certificates. The following persons shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter, and shall not be required to obtain a tax-exempt tax certificate:
1. Any delivery by a firm lacking a fixed place of business in the City, which delivery is occasional and incidental to a business carried on outside the City provided, however, that four (4) or more deliveries within any twelve (12) month period shall be considered proof that any further delivery is not occasional and incidental to such business;
2. Any public utility or other organization which is wholly owned and operated by a political subdivision of the State and any public district organized under the laws of the State; and
3. Any vehicle which is subject to the Motor Carriers of Property Permit Fee Act (California Revenue and Taxation Code section 7231 et. al); provided, however, this exemption shall only apply to the transportation business.
D. Claims for exemption. Any person desiring to claim an exemption from the payment of a business tax and to have a free tax-exempt tax certificate issued shall make an application therefor upon a form prescribed by the City and shall furnish such information and make such affidavits as may be required, on an annual basis.
Upon the determination being made that the applicant is entitled to an exemption from the payment of the business tax for any reason set forth in this chapter, the City, upon the applicant complying with the provisions of this chapter or any other law of the City which may require a permit for the doing of the particular act proposed to be done, shall issue a free tax-exempt tax certificate to such person, which certificate shall show upon its face that the business is exempt from the business tax.
E. Revocation of exemptions. The City may revoke any tax-exempt tax certificate granted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter upon information that the business is not entitled to the exemption as provided therein. In such revocation, the procedure to be followed and the right of appeal shall be as provided in this chapter for the determination of a disputed tax.
F. Sworn statements. The City may require the filing of a sworn statement from any person claiming to be excluded by the provisions of the section, which statement shall set forth all the facts upon which the exclusion is claimed.
5.04.080 Posting and keeping tax certificates—Record keeping.
A. Any person carrying on business at a fixed place of business in the City shall keep the tax certificate posted in a conspicuous place on the premises where such business is carried on.
B. Every tax certificate holder not having a fixed place of business in the City shall keep the tax certificate upon his or her person, or if required by the Collector affixed in plain view upon any cart, vehicle, van, or other movable structure or device, at all times while transacting or carrying on the business for which it is issued.
C. All persons subject to the provisions of this chapter shall keep complete records of business transactions, including sales, receipts, purchases, and other expenditures, and shall retain all such records for examination by the Collector. Such records shall be maintained for a period of at least three (3) years. No person required
to keep records under this section shall refuse to allow authorized representatives of the Collector to examine said records at reasonable times and places.
5.04.090 Information confidentiality.
No statement shall be conclusive as to the matters set forth in any application filed under the provisions of this chapter and neither the filing thereof, the assessment or payment of any tax, nor the issuance of any tax certificate shall preclude the City from collecting by appropriate action such sum as is actually due and payable.
Such statement, and each of the several items therein contained, shall be subject to audit and verification by the Collector, who is hereby authorized to examine, audit, and inspect such books and records of any tax certificate holder or applicant for a tax certificate as may be necessary for the judgment of the Collector to verify or ascertain the amount of business tax due.
A. It is unlawful for the Collector or any person having an administrative duty under the provisions of this chapter to make known in any manner whatever the business affairs, operations, or information obtained by an investigation of records and equipment of any person required to have a tax certificate, or pay a business tax, or any other person visited or examined in the discharge of official duty, or the amount or source of income, profits, losses, expenditures, or any particular thereof, set forth in any statement or application, or copy of either, or any book containing any abstract particulars thereof to be seen or examined by any person. Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent:
1. The disclosure to, or the examination of records and equipment by, another City official, employee, or agent for collection of taxes for the sole purpose of administering or enforcing any provisions of this chapter, or collecting taxes imposed hereunder;
2. The disclosure of information to, or the examination of records by Federal or State officials, or the tax officials of another city or county, or city and county, if a reciprocal arrangement exists, or to a grand jury or court of law, upon subpoena;
3. The disclosure of information and results of the examination of records of particular taxpayers, or relating to particular payers, to a court of law in a proceeding brought to determine the existence or amount of any business tax liability of the particular taxpayers to the City;
4. The disclosure after the filing of a written request to that effect, to the taxpayer himself, or to his successors, receivers, trustees, executors, administrators, assignees, and guarantors, if directly interested, of information as to the items included to the measure of any paid tax, any unpaid tax or amounts of tax required to be collected, interest and penalties; further provided, however, that the City Attorney approves each such disclosure and that the Collector may refuse to make any disclosure referred to in this paragraph when in his opinion the public interest would suffer thereby;
5. The disclosure of the names and addresses of persons to whom business tax receipts have been issued, and the general type or nature of their business;
6. The disclosure by way of public meeting or otherwise of such information as may be necessary to the City Council in order to permit it to be fully advised as the facts when a taxpayer files a claim for refund of business taxes or submits an offer of compromise with regard to a claim asserted against him by the City for business taxes, or when acting upon any other matter;
7. The disclosure of general statistics regarding taxes collected or business done in the City.
5.04.100 Failure to file statements or corrected statements.
A. If any person fails to file any required statement within the time prescribed, or if, after demand therefor made by the Collector, such person fails to file a corrected statement, or if any person subject to the tax imposed by this chapter fails to submit the information required by the Collector necessary to determine the business tax due and payable, or if the Collector is not satisfied with the information supplied and the
statement filed, the Collector may determine the amount of the business tax due from such person by means of such information as he may be able to obtain.
B. If such a determination is made, the Collector shall give notice of the amount so assessed by serving such notice electronically, personally, or by depositing it in the United States Post Office, postage prepaid, addressed to the person so assessed at their last known address.
C. Assessments so established shall be paid within fifteen (15) days after the mailing of such notice, subject to the provisions of section 5.04.180 of this chapter.
5.04.110 Amount of business tax debt to city.
The amount of any business tax imposed by this chapter shall be deemed a debt to the City, and any person carrying on any trade, calling, profession or occupation mentioned in this chapter without having a tax certificate from the City shall be liable to an action in the name of the City in any court of competent jurisdiction for the amount of the business tax by this chapter imposed on such trade, calling, profession, or occupation.
5.04.120 Effect of convictions.
The conviction and punishment of any person for transacting any trade, calling, profession, or occupation without a tax shall not excuse or exempt such person from the payment of any business tax due or unpaid at the time of such conviction, and nothing in this chapter shall prevent a criminal prosecution for any violation of the provisions of this chapter.
5.04.130 Duty of City to issue business tax certificates.
A. It shall be the duty of the City to prepare and issue a tax certificate pursuant to the provisions of this chapter for every person liable to pay a business tax and to state in each tax certificate the period of time covered thereby; the name of the person or business to whom issued; the business classification to which the tax certificate is issued; the trade, calling, profession, or occupation to which the license certificate is issued and the location or place of business where such trade, calling, profession, or occupation is to be carried.
B. No tax certificate granted or issued under any provision of this chapter shall be in any manner transferred or assigned, nor shall such tax certificate authorize any person, other than is therein mentioned or named, to not pay a business tax.
C. The City may make a charge in an amount specified in the City’s fee schedule for each duplicate tax certificate issued to replace any tax certificate issued under the provisions of this chapter that has been lost or destroyed. In no case shall any mistake made by the City in stating the amount of a business tax prevent or prejudice the collection by the City of what shall be due from any person carrying on a trade, calling, profession, or occupation subject to business tax under this chapter.
5.04.140 Business taxes payable in specified manner
All business taxes shall be paid in advance in lawful money of the United States to the City of Newark, in a manner prescribed by the Collector.
5.04.150 Separate business tax certificate required.
A separate tax certificate shall be obtained for each branch establishment or location. Warehouses and distributing establishments used in connection with and incidental to a business taxed under the provisions of this chapter shall not be deemed to be separate places of business or branch establishments.
5.04.160 Business tax certificate period.
No tax certificate shall be issued for a period of more than twelve (12) months from the initial date of issuance or renewal.
5.04.170 Business taxes—Payment, delinquencies, and penalties.
A. All business taxes shall be due on the first day of business license issuance and annually thereafter and will be considered delinquent at 30 days after business taxes are due.
B. For failure to pay a business tax when due, the Collector shall add a penalty of twenty (20%) percent of such business tax on the first day of delinquency and shall add a further penalty of twenty (20%) percent of such business tax on the first day of every subsequent calendar month following such first day of delinquency provided the amount of such penalties to be added shall in no event exceed fifty (50%) percent of the business tax due. The penalties provided in this subsection shall be assessed from the date when such deficiency was required to be paid pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
5.04.180 Application—Initial.
A. Upon a person making an application for the first business tax certificate for a newly established or acquired business, such person shall furnish to the Collector a statement, upon a form provided by the Collector; setting forth the following information:
1. The exact nature or kind of business;
2. The place where such business is to be carried on, and if the same is not to be carried on at any permanent place of business, the places of residence of the owners of same;
3. In all cases where the amount of tax to be paid is measured by gross receipts, the application shall set forth such information as may be therein required and as may be necessary to determine the amount of the tax to be paid by the applicant;
4. Any further information which the Collector may require.
B. If the amount of the tax to be paid by the applicant is measured by gross receipts, he or she shall estimate the gross receipts for the period covered. Such estimate, if accepted by the Collector as reasonable, shall be used in determining the amount of tax to be paid by the applicant; provided, however, the amount of the tax so determined shall be tentative only, and such person shall, within 30 days after the expiration of the period covered, furnish the Collector with a statement, upon a form prescribed by the Collector, showing the applicant's actual gross receipts during the period covered, and the tax for such period shall be finally ascertained and paid in the manner provided by this chapter for the ascertaining and paying of such taxes, after deducting from the payment found to be due the amounts initially paid.
C. In all cases, the applicant shall, upon filing his or her application, pay no less than the prescribed minimum tax in advance, without being prorated, to cover the remaining portion of the current reporting period.
D. The Collector shall not issue to any such person another business tax certificate for the same or any other business until such person shall have furnished to them a statement and paid the tax as herein required.
5.04.190 Application—Renewal.
In all cases, the applicant for the renewal of a business tax certificate shall submit to the Collector for their guidance in ascertaining the amount of the tax to be paid by the applicant, a statement, upon a form prescribed by the Collector, setting forth such information concerning the applicant's business during the preceding year as may be required by the Collector to enable them to ascertain the amount of the tax to be paid by said applicant pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
5.04.200 Extensions of filing dates—Interest charges.
The Collector shall have the power, for good cause, to extend the time for filing any required sworn statement for a period not exceeding sixty (60) days and in such case to waive any penalty that would have otherwise accrued.
5.04.210 Refunds.
No refund of an overpayment of a business tax imposed by this chapter shall be allowed in whole or in part unless a claim for a refund is filed with the Collector within a period of one (1) year after the last day that payment was made, and all such claims for refunds shall be filed with the Collector on forms the Collector furnishes in the manner prescribed by the Collector. Upon the filing of such a claim and when the Collector determines, in a reasonable time, that an overpayment has been made, the Collector may refund the amount overpaid.
5.04.220 Determinations of business classifications an administrative function.
The final determination of which business or class of business a tax certificate holder or applicant for a tax certificate is engaged in, or about to engage in, shall be an administrative function of the City.
5.04.230 Applications for changes of business classifications.
A. In any case, where a tax certificate holder or an applicant for a tax certificate believes that their business is not assigned to the proper classification under this chapter because of circumstances peculiar to it, as distinguished from other businesses of the same kind, they may apply to the Collector for reclassification.
Such application shall contain such information as the Collector may deem necessary and require in order to determine whether the applicant's individual business is properly classified. The Collector shall then conduct an investigation following which they shall assign the applicant's individual business to the classification shown to be proper on the basis of such investigation. The proper classification is that classification which, in the opinion of the Collector, most nearly fits the applicant's business. The reclassification shall not be retroactive but shall apply at the time of the next regularly ensuing calculation of the applicant's tax. No business shall be classified more than once a year.
B. The Collector shall notify the applicant of the action taken on the application for reclassification. Such notice shall be given by serving it personally or by depositing it in the United States Post Office postage prepaid, addressed to the applicant at their last known address. Such applicant may, within ten (10) working days after the mailing or serving of such notices, make a written request to the Collector for an appeal hearing on the application's reclassification. If such a request is made within the time prescribed, the Collector shall cause the matter to be set for hearing before the City Council within fifteen (15) days. The Collector shall give the applicant at least ten (10) days' notice of the time and place of the hearing. The City Council shall consider all evidence adduced and shall adopt a resolution reflecting its decision. The decision of the City Council shall be final.
5.04.240 Appeals on decisions of business classifications.
Any applicant or tax certificate holder aggrieved by the business classification decision of the City shall have the right of appeal to a Hearing Officer designated by the City Manager. Such appeal shall be taken by filing with the City Clerk, within fifteen (15) days after the notice of the decision of the City, a written statement setting forth the grounds for the appeal. The City Clerk shall set a time and place for a hearing on such appeal within thirty (30) days after the receipt of the appeal. The decisions and orders of the Hearing Officer shall be final and conclusive.
5.04.250 Rules and regulations.
The City Manager may promulgate such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter, as may be necessary or desirable to aid in the administration or enforcement of the provisions of this chapter.
5.04.260 Referrals to other agencies—Prepayment of taxes.
A. Referrals to other agencies. The Collector may refer to any governmental agency any statement and all other information submitted by persons subject to the provisions of this chapter in connection with the conduct of a Business regulated or supervised or otherwise the concern of any such agency, including agencies
concerned with health regulations, zoning conformance, fire safety, police considerations, or any other safeguard of the public interest.
B. Prepayment of taxes. The Collector may advise any person filing a statement in connection with the payment of a business tax for a new or other business not actually in operation that such person may desire to defer the payment of the business tax until the person has obtained whatever approval may be required in order to transact and carry on the business until such business is actually in operation. If any person does, however, pay the business tax in advance of the commencement of the operation of the business, but does not operate the business because City or other governmental agency did not grant an approval which is required by regulation or law in order for such Business to be transacted and carried on, then the business tax shall be refunded in full, after the person has informed Collector in a timely manner, to the person having paid such tax minus the application fee as set by resolution of the City Council and revised from time to time.
5.04.270 Enforcement.
A. It shall be the duty of the Collector to enforce each and all of the provisions of this chapter, and the various City departments shall render such assistance in the enforcement as may from time to time be required by the Collector, City Manager, or City Council.
B. The Collector, in the exercise of the duties imposed upon the Collector shall examine, or cause to be examined, all places of business in the City to ascertain whether the provisions of this chapter have been complied with.
C. The Collector, and each designee, and any police officer or duly authorized inspector, shall have the power and authority to enter free of charge at any reasonable time any place of business or to question any person, which business or person is, or there is reasonable cause to believe such business or person may be, subject to the provision of this chapter, and demand an exhibition of proof of business tax payment.
5.04.280 Remedies cumulative.
All remedies prescribed in this chapter shall be cumulative, and the use of one or more remedies by the City shall not bar the use of any other remedy for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this chapter.
5.04.290 Violations—Penalties.
Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter or knowingly or intentionally misrepresenting to any officer or employee of the City any material fact in procuring, or attempting to procure, the business tax certificate provided for in this chapter shall be deemed guilty of an infraction.
5.04.300 Determination of tax due based on gross receipts plus annual registration tax.
A. Every person who engages in business within the City shall pay a business tax consisting of a base tax on the first $100,000 in annual gross receipts, plus the applicable category rate applied to gross receipts in excess of $100,000, all as set forth in this section.
B. Every person subject to the business tax shall pay a base tax of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) on the first $100,000 in annual gross receipts, or any portion thereof. Gross receipts in excess of $100,000 shall be subject to the business tax at the category rates set forth in subsection C.
C. Categories of businesses and associated business tax rates:
1. CATEGORY 1: General retail and restaurants ($25 base tax, plus ________ × gross receipts in excess of $100,000):
a. Any establishment or business that conducts retail (the sale of goods to ultimate consumers, usually in small quantities), or restaurant (an establishment where meals, prepared food, and / or beverages are served to customers).
2. CATEGORY 2: Professional services ($25 base tax, plus 0.0025 × gross receipts in excess of $100,000):
a. "Professional services" means any professional services, as that term is ordinarily and commonly used and understood, wherein individuals are engaged in the business of offering to the public professional or semiprofessional services for compensation, and not specifically covered under any other part, chapter or section of this chapter, and shall include those professions generally requiring governmental certification or a professional degree, but not be limited to the serves rendered by a person engaged in the practice or profession of law, medicine, surgery, dentistry, ophthalmologist, optometry, chiropractic, osteopathy, chiropody, dental technician, hairstylist, beautician or cosmetologist, aesthetician, laboratory technician, physical therapist, massage establishments and technicians, mortician, undertaker, psychologist, psychotherapy, radiologist, speech therapist, veterinary, licensed financial planner, licensed investment counselor, land developer, real estate agent, real estate broker, stock / bond or security agent or broker, civil, mechanical, electrical, industrial, or other class of engineer, surveyor, geologist, appraiser, architect, accountant, real estate management, property management, income tax preparers, bookkeepers, income tax consultants, developer, or marriage counselors.
3. CATEGORY 3: Contractors and Services ($25 base tax, plus 0.002 × gross receipts in excess of $100,000):
a. “Contractors” means every person, firm, or corporation conducting, managing, or carrying on the business of a contractor, subcontractor, or builder; or engaging in the construction or repair of any buildings; or engaged in any engineering, construction, operating, or advertising as such, or representing himself as such, and regularly employing help for building construction, sewer construction, plumbing construction or general construction. b. "Services" means any services, as that term is ordinarily and commonly used and understood, wherein individuals are engaged in the business of offering to the public services for compensation, and shall include but not be limited to the services rendered by a person engaged in the practice such as gardeners, personal shoppers/assistants, event planners, pet sitters, tutoring, arts instructor, delivery services, administrative/general office, public utilities, towing, and transportation (public). If a business cannot clearly be classified within a category listed in this chapter or could reasonably be classified in more than one category, the Collector shall classify the business as a “services” business, and the business shall be subject to the business tax rate for Category 3.
4. CATEGORY 4: Rental (Commercial and Residential), self-storage, hotels, motels and short-term rentals ($25 base tax, plus 0.00075 × gross receipts in excess of $100,000):
a. Any business, individual, or entity that leases, rents, or otherwise provides property to another individual or entity for compensation.
5. CATEGORY 5: Manufacturing, wholesaling and importing/exporting of goods ($25 base tax, plus
0.00075 × gross receipts in excess of $100,000):
a. "Manufacturing" includes every person conducting or carrying on a business consisting of manufacturing, packing, or processing any goods, wares, merchandise, or commodities at a fixed place of business within the City or conducting or carrying on a business of cold storage or refrigeration. This type of industrial business involves the production of goods on a large scale, using labor and machines, and then selling these goods in bulk to retailers, other manufacturers, or wholesalers. It encompasses a wide range of sectors, from food production to electronics and automotive manufacturing. Examples include, but are not limited to, food production companies, electronics manufacturers, pharmaceutical manufacturing, and automotive parts wholesalers.
b. "Wholesaling" means every business conducted solely for the purpose of selling goods, wares, or merchandise in wholesale lots for resale.
6. CATEGORY 6: Distribution and logistics ($25 base tax, plus 0.003 × gross receipts in excess of $100,000):
a. "Distribution and logistics” means every business conducted solely for the purpose of maintaining or renting space for the storage of any kind of property or transporting or distributing property. These operations include distribution centers, fulfillment centers, and storage facilities (other than self-storage). It also includes business conducted for the purpose of distributing and transporting goods, including but not limited to:
General Freight Trucking
Packing And Crating
Warehousing And Storage
Motor Vehicle Towing
Truck Transportation
Specialized Freight (except Used Goods) Trucking, Local Inland Water Freight Transportation
Other Support Activities for Road Transportation
Used Household and Office Goods Moving
Freight Transportation Arrangement
General Warehousing and Storage
Item D. 1.
DATE 07/23/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM
SUBJECT Appoint Delegate/Alternates to the 2026 League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo
Every year, the League of California Cities convenes a member-driven General Assembly at the California Cities Annual Conference and Expo. This year's event will be held September 23 - 25, 2026 at the Anaheim Convention Center. On Friday, September 25, there is a General Assembly meeting comprised of voting delegates appointed by each member city.
The appointed voting delegate plays an important role during the General Assembly by representing the City and voting on resolutions that impact the League of California Cities policy and potential bylaw amendments. A copy of the voting delegate process is attached.
Council Member Grindall has advised that he will attend the Conference and requested to serve as the City's voting delegate. A vote is required to appoint Council Member Grindall as the CIty's voting delegate and up to two alternate delegates may be selected.
Funds to attend the annual League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo are included in the City’s operating budget.
Attachments
2026 Voting Delegate Packet
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org DATE: Wednesday, May 13, 2026
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Clerks, and City Managers RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Sept. 23-25, 2026 Anaheim Convention Center
Every year, the League of California Cities convenes a member-driven General Assembly at the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. The General Assembly is an important opportunity where city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy.
Taking place on Friday, Sept. 25, 2026 the General Assembly is comprised of voting delegates appointed by each member city; every city has one voting delegate. Your appointed voting delegate plays an important role during the General Assembly by representing your city and voting on resolutions.
To cast a vote during the General Assembly, your city must designate a voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Voting delegates may either be an elected or appointed official.
Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone.
Following council action, please submit your city’s delegates through the online submission portal by Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2026. When completing the Voting Delegate submission form, you will be asked to attest that council action was taken. You will need to be signed in to your My Cal Cities account when submitting the form.
Submitting your voting delegate form by the deadline will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference and provide pre-conference communications with voting delegates.
Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration opens June 2.
For a city to cast a vote, one voter must be present at the General Assembly and in possession of the voting delegate card and voting tool. Voting delegates and Council Action Advised by September 1, 2026
alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the voting delegate desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit the voting delegate into the voting area during the General Assembly.
Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference.
Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the General Assembly, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official.
Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.
The voting delegate desk, located in the conference registration area of the Anaheim Convention Center, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, Sept. 23, 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. and Thursday, Sept. 24, 7:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m. On Friday, Sept. 25, the voting delegate desk will be open at the General Assembly, starting at 7:30 a.m., but will be closed during roll calls and voting.
The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo.
Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates.
Once again, thank you for submitting your voting delegate and alternates by Tuesday, Sept. 1. If you have questions, please contact Zach Seals at [email protected].
Attachments:
• General Assembly Voting Guidelines
• Information Sheet: Cal Cities Resolutions and the General Assembly 1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org General Assembly Voting Guidelines
1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy.
2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the voting delegate form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee.
3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the voting delegate desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the voting delegate desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the General Assembly.
4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the credentials committee at the voting delegate desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.
5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and voting tool; and be registered with the credentials committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate nor alternate.
6. Voting Area at General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.
7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the credentials committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the General Assembly.
Sixty days before the
Annual Conference
and Expo, Cal Cities
members may submit
policy proposals on
issues of importance
to cities. The resolution must
have the concurrence of at least
five additional member cities or
individual members.
How it works: Cal Cities
Resolutions and the General Assembly
General Assembly
General Resolutions Policy Committees
Developing League of California Cities policy is a dynamic process that engages a wide range of members to ensure Cal Cities represents cities with one voice. These policies directly guide Cal Cities’ advocacy to promote local decision-making, and lobby against statewide policies that erode local control.
The resolutions process and General Assembly is one way that city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. If a resolution is approved at the General Assembly, it becomes official Cal Cities policy. Here’s how resolutions and the General Assembly work.
The petitioned
resolution is an
alternate method
to introduce policy
proposals during
the annual conference. The
petition must be signed by
voting delegates from 10% of
member cities, and submitted to
the Cal Cities President at least
24 hours before the beginning
of the General Assembly.
Petitioned Resolutions
The Cal Cities
President assigns
general resolutions
to policy committees
where members
review, debate, and recommend
positions for each policy proposal.
Recommendations are forwarded
to the Resolutions Committee.
Who’s who
The Resolutions Committee
includes representatives
from each Cal Cities
diversity caucus, regional
division, municipal
department, and policy
committee, as well as
individuals appointed by
the Cal Cities president.
Voting delegates
are appointed by each
member city; every city
has one voting delegate.
The General Assembly is a
meeting of the collective
body of all voting
delegates —one from
every member city.
Seven policy committees
meet throughout the year
to review and recommend
positions to take on bills
and regulatory proposals.
Policy committees include
members from each Cal
Cities diversity caucus,
regional division, and
municipal department,
as well as individuals
appointed by the Cal
Cities president.
During the General Assembly, voting delegates
debate and consider general and petitioned
resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions
Committee. Potential Cal Cities bylaws
amendments are also considered at this meeting.
Cal Cities policy
development is a memberinformed process,
grounded in the voices and
experiences of city officials
throughout the state.
For more information visit www.calcities.org/general-assembly Prior to the Annual Conference and Expo
Resolutions Committee
The Resolutions
Committee considers
all resolutions. General
Resolutions approved1 by
either a policy committee
or the Resolutions Committee are next
considered by the General Assembly.
General resolutions not approved, or
referred for further study by both a
policy committee and the Resolutions
Committee do not go to the General
Assembly. All Petitioned Resolutions
are considered by the General
Assembly, unless disqualified.2
During the Annual Conference and Expo
1 The Resolution Committee can amend a general resolution prior to sending it to the General Assembly. 2 Petitioned Resolutions may be disqualified by the Resolutions Committee according to Cal Cities Bylaws Article VI. Sec. 5(f).