Regular Meeting Agenda
Thursday, July 23, 2026
7:00 P.M.
Amended Agenda - Added Item B.1.
The City Council will hold a hybrid meeting in the Council Chambers and virtually via Zoom.
How to observe the Meeting:
1. Cable Channel 26
2. YouTube Live stream
How to provide live Public Comment during the City Council Meeting:
1. Participate in the Council Chambers
2. Join remotely using Zoom. Meeting ID: 874 6820 3347
To request to speak, use the “raise hand” function in Zoom.
3. Join by Phone: Dial 1-669-444-9171. Meeting ID: 874 6820 3347 Press *9 to request to speak and *6 to unmute/mute.
How to submit written Public Comment:
Please submit email comments to the [email protected] by 3:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting, including the corresponding agenda item number.
Comments will be shared with the City Council and made available for public viewing.
A. ROLL CALL
B. PRESENTATIONS
1. Proclamation for the Portuguese Fraternal Society of America Council No. 16 Holy Ghost Festival
2. Proclaiming Disability Pride Month
3. State Route 84 (SR-84) Intermodal Bus Facility Project Presentation July 23, 2026 City Council Regular Meeting Page Number 1 of 5 C. PUBLIC COMMENT
The public is invited to address the City Council on any item not listed on the agenda. Public comments are generally limited to five minutes per speaker.
The Presiding Officer may reduce the time allotted for each speaker as needed. Please note that State law prohibits the Council from taking action on items not listed on the agenda.
D. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered to be routine and may be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless there is a request by a Council Member, a staff member, or a member of the public to remove an item for separate discussion and action.
1. Approval of Audited Demands
2. Approval of City Council July 9, 2026 Regular Meeting
3. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Contractual Services Agreement with Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. to procure SB 1383-compliant compost in an amount not to exceed $134,000 and to amend the 2026-2028 Biennial Budget.
4. Adopt a resolution establishing the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Tax Appropriations Limit
5. Adopt a Resolution approving a budget amendment to the 2026-2031 Capital Improvement Plan and an agreement with Urban Planning Partners, Inc. to provide professional planning services in the not-to-exceed contract amount of $459,776
6. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute Task Order No.34 to the Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Fremont for paratransit services with Ride On Tri-City! in an amount not to exceed $189,642 and amend the Biennial Budget
July 23, 2026 City Council Regular Meeting Page Number 2 of 5 E. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Hearing to consider property owners' objections and adopt a resolution confirming the Superintendent of Streets' Report concerning weed abatement assessments
2. Hearing to consider adoption of a resolution approving amendments to the Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2026-27
3. Hearing to consider a Call for Review of the Planning Commission’s approval of a Conditional Use Permit (U2026-002) for a temporary commercial entertainment, Fear Overload Haunted House, at NewPark Mall located at 2086 Newpark Mall, Suite #1149 (APN 901-111-25) and consider adopting a resolution affirming the Planning Commission's action with changes or, in the alternative, consider adopting a resolution overturning the Planning Commission's action.
F. GENERAL BUSINESS / NON-CONSENT ITEMS
1. 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
2. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Second Amendment to the Park Agreement for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project at 8787 Enterprise Drive (APNs 537-0852-001-08, 537-0852-002-009, & 092-0100-005).
3. Resolution to Amend the Affordable Housing Obligation Satisfaction Agreement for the Willow and Harbor Pointe Projects to Extend the Completion Deadline and Change the Affordability Unit Mix.
July 23, 2026 City Council Regular Meeting Page Number 3 of 5 G. CITY MANAGER UPDATES
H. CITY COUNCIL MATTERS
City Council Members report on attendance at intergovernmental agency meetings, conferences, and seminars since the last meeting. City Council Members may also announce upcoming events and coordinate attendance; report on local events attended since the last meeting; and make brief comments on issues of concern.
1. Appoint Delegate/Alternates to the 2026 League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo
I. CLOSED SESSION
J. ADJOURNMENT
MEETING INFORMATION
July 23, 2026 City Council Regular Meeting Page Number 4 of 5
MEETING INFORMATION
Submit Written Public Comment
Please submit email comments to the [email protected] by 3:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting, including the corresponding agenda item number. Comments will be shared with the City Council and made available for public viewing.
Accessibility
This meeting is wheelchair accessible. For special accommodations, contact the City Clerk’s Office at (510) 578-4266 or [email protected] at least 72 hours in advance.
Council Meeting Materials
Agenda packets are generally posted on the City website by the Friday before the meeting, and at least 72 hours before regular meetings or 24 hours before special meetings. Supplemental materials released later are available for public viewing at City Hall, 37101 Newark Boulevard, during regular business hours. City Council agendas are available at:
newarkca.gov/councilagendas.
Policy on Telephonic/Internet Service Disruption (SB 707) The Council’s policy outlines procedures for handling disruptions to telephonic or internet service during meetings, including recess requirements and steps to restore access.
Certification of Meeting Notice and Agenda Posting
This notice and agenda were posted on the City’s website newarkca.gov/councilagendas and at the City Hall bulletin board located at 37101 Newark Boulevard, Newark, CA, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date, in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.
Mission Statement Vision Statement
It is our mission to serve and
partner with our community to
continually enhance the quality of
life of everyone in Newark.
We are a welcoming city…
…where it is safe to live, to play, and to raise children. …where diverse and energetic people strive to live in harmony. …that cherishes small town values and also enjoys being progressive. …where educational programs are available and first-rate. …where cultural and recreational opportunities are plentiful and spiritually enriching. …with residents filled with civic pride, social concerns, and community involvement. …with tree-lined streets and a diverse system of parks and open spaces. …where economy is strong and vital and provides jobs.
…where government is financially stable, accessible, and responsive. …that provides timely, accurate, and transparent communication. …that is well-planned, well-managed, and well-maintained.
SENIOR STAFF MEMBERS
David J. Benoun
City Manager
Lenka Hovorka
Assistant City Manager
Kristopher J. Kokotaylo
City Attorney
Steven Turner
Community Development Director
Jonathan Arguello
Police Chief
Krysten Lee
Finance Director
Brittney Frye
Human Resources Director
Edwin Miranda
Chief Information Officer/Information Technology Director Howard Young
Public Works Director
Ryan Nishimoto
Alameda County Fire Department Deputy Chief
Neetu Salwan
City Clerk
Colleen Lettire
Communications and Public Engagement Manager
Roya Gonzalez
Recreation and Community Services Interim Director
Strategic Initiatives Manager
July 23, 2026 City Council Regular Meeting Page Number 5 of 5 Item B. 1.
DATE 07/23/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Neetu Salwan, City Clerk
SUBJECT Proclamation for the Portuguese Fraternal Society of America Council No. 16 Holy Ghost Festival
The Portuguese Fraternal Society of America Council No. 16 will celebrate the annual Holy Ghost Festival and their anniversary in the City of Newark on July 23 and 26, 2026. This will be the 103rd celebration of Holy Ghost Festival in Newark.
Representatives from the Portuguese Fraternal Society will be at the City Council meeting to accept a proclamation.
Attachments
Proc1985 Holy Ghost Festival
PROCLAMATION NO. 1985
PORTUGUESE FRATERNAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA COUNCIL NO. 16
103rd ANNIVERSARY
WHEREAS, the Annual Newark Pavilion/Portuguese Fraternal Society of America (P.F.S.A.) Council No. 16 Holy Ghost Festival will be celebrated in Newark on July 23-26, 2026; and
WHEREAS, this event will also be the celebration of the Society’s 103rd Anniversary in the City of Newark; and
WHEREAS, the early members of P.F.S.A. were involved in and contributed greatly to the development of the City of Newark; and
WHEREAS, these early members of P.F.S.A. established the Holy Ghost Festival, thus preserving their Portuguese homeland traditions and sharing those traditions with all Newark residents; and
WHEREAS, the City of Newark wishes to join the Portuguese community of Newark in the celebration of their 103rd Anniversary of the Annual Newark Pavilion/P.F.S.A. Council No. 16 Holy Ghost Festival.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Michael K. Hannon, Mayor of the City of Newark, on behalf of the Newark City Council, do hereby proclaim July 23-26, 2026, as days of celebration of the
PORTUGUESE FRATERNAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA COUNCIL NO. 16
103rd ANNIVERSARY
and ask everyone in the City of Newark to join in celebration of this event and in celebration of the rich cultural history that our Portuguese community shares with all residents of Newark.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set forth my hand and caused the Official Seal of the City of Newark, State of California, to be affixed this Twenty-third Day of July, Two Thousand Twenty-six.
Michael K. Hannon
Mayor
Item B. 2.
DATE 07/23/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Neetu Salwan, City Clerk
SUBJECT Proclaiming Disability Pride Month
Disability Pride Month is celebrated annually during the month of July to commemorate the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that President George H.W.
Bush signed into law on July 26, 1990, to ensure the civil rights of people with disabilities. A proclamation in honor of Disability Pride Month has been prepared and will be presented at the City Council meeting.
Attachments
Proclamation No. 1984
PROCLAMATION NO. 1984
DISABILITY PRIDE MONTH
WHEREAS, DISABILITY PRIDE MONTH is observed every July to commemorate the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), landmark legislation that affirms the rights, dignity, and inclusion of individuals with disabilities; and
WHEREAS, the 2026 DISABILITY PRIDE MONTH theme is “The World Works Better with Us”; and WHEREAS, the core purpose of this theme is to shift the perception of disabilities away from a medical model and embrace them as a natural part of human diversity, advocating for full accessibility in workplaces, schools, and communities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Newark is committed to fostering an inclusive community where people of all abilities are welcomed, respected, and empowered to participate fully in civic, educational, recreational, cultural, and economic life; and
WHEREAS, people with disabilities contribute to the strength and vitality of Newark as neighbors, students, employees, business owners, volunteers, advocates, and leaders, and their perspectives help build a more innovative, compassionate, and resilient community; and WHEREAS, creating an accessible and inclusive Newark is a shared responsibility that benefits everyone by removing barriers and ensuring equal access and opportunity for all; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10,598 declaring the City of Newark a Welcoming City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11,372 reaffirming the City of Newark a Welcoming City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council’s strategic priorities include fostering a safe and healthy community and strengthening community through education and engagement; and WHEREAS, 2026-2028 initiatives to support the Council’s strategic priorities include updating the citywide ADA transition plan, expanding digital inclusion, expanding inclusive programming for all abilities, expanding Ride-On Tri-City! Transportation awareness and access; and a commitment to implementing all initiatives with an inclusive and equitable lens.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Michael K. Hannon, Mayor of the City of Newark, on behalf of the Newark City Council, do hereby proclaim July 23, 2026, as
DISABILITY PRIDE MONTH
in the City of Newark and urge all community members to celebrate the strength, talents, achievements, and contributions of people with disabilities, reaffirming our shared commitment to advancing accessibility, inclusion, equity, belonging and equal opportunity for all.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set forth my hand and caused the Official Seal of the City of Newark, State of California, to be affixed this Twenty-third Day of July, Two Thousand Twenty-six.
MICHAEL K. HANNON
Mayor
Item B. 3.
DATE 07/23/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Neetu Salwan, City Clerk
SUBJECT State Route 84 (SR-84) Intermodal Bus Facility Project Presentation Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) will provide the City Council and the public with an update on the State Route 84 (SR-84) Intermodal Bus Facility Project.
Attachments
Presentation-SR-84 Intermodal Bus Facility Project
1 1
State Route 84 (SR-84)
Intermodal Bus Facility Project
City of Newark: City Council Meeting
July 23, 2026
2 Project Team
Shirley Qian
Principal Planner, CCJPA
Maily Chu
Outreach, HDR
David Loftus
Engineering Lead, HNTB
3 Project Overview
Located between the cities of
Newark and Fremont in
Alameda County, California
New inline bus station facility
on State Route 84
Shared use path connecting
the Ardenwood Park-and-Ride
to bus facility entrance
Widen bridges over Union
Pacific Railroad and Newark
Blvd/Ardenwood Blvd to
accommodate new bus lanes
California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) is the
environmental lead agency
4 Purpose & Need
5 Project Area: Proposed Alternatives
6 Alternative 1 – Highway Median Bus Stop with Center
Platform
7 Alternative 2 – Highway Median Bus Stops with Outboard Platforms
8 Timeline
9 Public Outreach & Engagement
2023 Bus & Shuttle Rider Survey: 192 responses
Community Pop-ups at Ardenwood Park-and-Ride:
February & March 2026
Stakeholder Briefings:
• Stanford Transportation
• City of Fremont
• City of Newark
• Bay Area Council
(Transportation Subcommittee)
10 Keep Informed
Project Website
SR84BusFacility.com
Email
[email protected]
Phone
(510) 286-4444
Follow Capitol Corridor
on Social Media
Item D. 1.
DATE 07/23/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM
SUBJECT Approval of Audited Demands
Attachments
Audited Demands 06.25.26
Audited Demands 07.02.26
Item D. 2.
DATE 07/23/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Neetu Salwan, City Clerk
SUBJECT Approval of City Council July 9, 2026 Regular Meeting Approval of City Council Minutes for the July 9, 2026 Regular Meeting.
Attachments
July 9, 2026 Council Regular Meeting Minutes
Thursday, July 9, 2026, Regular Meeting Draft Minutes Page 1 of 5
CITY OF NEWARK
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
37101 Newark Boulevard, Newark, CA 94560 | (510) 578-4266 | E-mail: [email protected]
DRAFT MINUTES
Thursday, July 9, 2026
7:00 P.M.
A. ROLL CALL
Mayor Hannon called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Vice Mayor Jorgens, Council Members Grindall, Catancio, and Little were present.
Item B.2 was taken out of order and heard before Item B.1.
Item C Public Comments was taken out of order and heard before Item B.4.
B. PRESENTATIONS
2. Recognizing the State of California's 175th and the United States of America's 250th Anniversaries The Mayor and Council Members signed the proclamation.
1. Commending Saheli - Protecting Our Daughters, in Partnership with Guru Nanak Global Foundation and ROARR 4 Change.
Mayor Hannon presented a commendation to Sukhdev Singh, who accepted it on behalf of Baljit Singh, Chancellor and Chairman of Guru Nanak Dev Global University.
3. Introduction of employees
Mayor Hannon announced the promotions of Sergeant Blair Arroyo and Sergeant Frank Herbert.
4. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) Presentation AC Transit representatives including Board Director Anthony C. Silva, and staff: Owen Christofferson (Transportation Planner), and Diann Castleberry (External Affairs Representative) gave the presentation. The presentation is on file with the City Clerk.
No one from the audience requested to speak.
The Mayor requested that the AC Transit presentation be scheduled annually.
C. PUBLIC COMMENT
Thursday, July 9, 2026, Regular Meeting Draft Minutes Page 2 of 5 Twenty-six Mayhews Landing residents commented on the proposed development at 8100 Jarvis Avenue. Speakers expressed support for the City's affordable housing goals but raised concerns regarding the proposed project's density, the percentage of affordable housing units, traffic and parking impacts, limited transit access, pedestrian and emergency access on Kiote Drive, environmental impacts to the adjacent Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, and the need for a comprehensive environmental review. Several speakers requested that any future development be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, preserve natural resources, and include additional community engagement and transparency regarding the proposal.
Mike Marzano from First Presbyterian Church thanked the Newark Police Department, Alameda County Fire Department, and City staff for their compassionate response to a recent medical emergency involving an unhoused individual at the First Presbyterian Church.
Mayor Hannon called a recess at 8:23 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:31 p.m.
D. CONSENT CALENDAR
No one from the audience requested to speak.
Vice Mayor Jorgens moved, Council Member Catancio seconded, to approve Consent Calendar items D.1 to D.5, that the resolutions be numbered consecutively, and that reading of the titles suffice for adoption. The motion passed, 5 AYES.
1. Approval of Audited Demands
2. Approval of June 25, 2026, City Council Minutes
3. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute On-Call Professional Planning Services Agreements with Community Planning Collaborative, Good City Company, and Urban Planning Partners, Each in an Amount Not to Exceed $500,000, Subject to Available Appropriations and Approved Task Orders
Resolution No. 11873
4. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Annual CDBG Agreement with Alameda County for FY 2026-2027 and approving a budget appropriation Resolution No. 11874
5. Adopt a resolution authorizing a change order in the amount of $40,505.77 with a 20% contingency to the agreement with Adams Pool Solutions to increase the not to exceed amount by $48,607 for a total project allocation of $310,163.25 to complete the lazy river pool replaster at the Silliman Aquatics Center
Resolution No. 11875
E. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Thursday, July 9, 2026, Regular Meeting Draft Minutes Page 3 of 5
1. Public Hearing for Landscaping and Lighting Districts Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 and adopt a resolution confirming diagrams and assessments and the levying and collection of assessments for Landscaping and Lighting Districts Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 for Fiscal Year 2026-27
Resolution No. 11876
City Manager Benoun provided introductory remarks and project background.
Senior Project Analyst Anthony Hernandez of Francisco & Associates presented the report.
Mayor Hannon opened the public hearing.
No one from the audience requested to speak.
Mayor Hannon closed the public hearing.
Council Member Little moved, and Council Member Grindall seconded, to adopt the resolution confirming diagrams and assessments and the levying and collection of assessments for Landscaping and Lighting Districts Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 for Fiscal Year 2026-27. The motion passed, 5 AYES.
2. Public Hearing and adopt resolution approving the Final Engineer’s Report, confirming formation of Landscaping and Lighting District No. 21, and authorizing the levy and collection of assessments for Fiscal Year 2026-27
Resolution No. 11877
City Manager Benoun provided introductory remarks and project background.
Senior Project Analyst Anthony Hernandez of Francisco & Associates presented the report. Mayor Hannon opened the public hearing.
No one from the audience requested to speak.
Mayor Hannon closed the public hearing.
City Clerk Salwan opened the ballot and announced the vote in favor of the formation of Landscaping and Lighting District No. 21.
Vice Mayor Jorgens moved, and Council Member Catancio seconded, to adopt the resolution confirming formation of Landscaping and Lighting District No. 21, and authorizing the levy and collection of assessments for Fiscal Year 2026-27. The motion passed, 5 AYES.
F. OTHER BUSINESS
1. Provide direction regarding proposed ballot measure to modernize and streamline the City’s existing Business License Tax
City Manager Benoun gave the presentation. The presentation is on file with the City Clerk.
Public Comments
Thursday, July 9, 2026, Regular Meeting Draft Minutes Page 4 of 5 Arteaga’s Food Center Owner Lupe Lopez urged reconsideration of the proposed Business License Tax increase for grocery stores and small businesses and requested alternative solutions.
Bay East Association of Realtors representative David Stark requested continued business community outreach, transparency, and additional information regarding the proposed Business License Tax changes.
Council Members asked clarifying questions and held discussion regarding the project.
Council directed staff to explore a lower tax rate for the General/Retail business category while maintaining City revenue neutrality and to evaluate a separate lower tax category for grocery businesses. These options will be presented along with option two presented tonight that included a higher manufacturing rate and a lower property rental rate than option one.
G. CITY MANAGER UPDATES
City Manager Benoun announced:
1. Groovin’ at the Grove, Friday, 5:00 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. at Shirley Sisk Grove.
2. The Candidate Nomination Period for the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election opens July 13, 2026. To pull nomination papers, please contact City Clerk Neetu Salwan at 510-578- 4266 or [email protected].
3. Mariachi Festival, Sunday, July 19, 1:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. at Shirley Sisk Grove.
4. Take the City’s Survey Shape Newark’s Parks and Open Spaces at www.newarkca.gov/openspaceelement by August 7.
Public review is open for the proposed Cherry Street Housing Development (Harvest at Newark) and closes July 13 at 5:00 p.m.
H. CITY COUNCIL MATTERS
Council Member Catancio reported on the successful July 4 celebration, attended the pancake breakfast, encouraged residents to shop Newark, and shared that she recently celebrated her 25th wedding anniversary.
Council Member Little announced the Newark Recreation, Sport and Wellness Fair on August 29, highlighting opportunities for residents to connect with local programs promoting physical, mental, and social wellness. She also shared reflections from her visit to Pearl Harbor and honored the sacrifices of service members.
Council Member Grindall thanked Council Member Little for her remarks and wished everyone a wonderful Fourth of July, emphasizing the importance of remembering the significance of the holiday.
Vice Mayor Jorgens shared historical reflections on Newark’s history, highlighting the area’s connection to the Ohlone people in 1776 and its role as part of Rancho Potrero de los Cerritos during the 1850 California statehood period. He recognized the contributions of those who shaped the community over time.
Mayor Hannon announced the Vice Mayor’s historical walking tour scheduled for Saturday at 11:00 a.m., beginning at the corner of Rich Avenue and Sycamore Street, and encouraged residents to Thursday, July 9, 2026, Regular Meeting Draft Minutes Page 5 of 5 participate. He also emphasized the importance of honoring those who sacrificed for today’s freedoms.
I. CLOSED SESSION
1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Worker’s Compensation Claim Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.95 Claimant: Adeceli Kovach
City of Newark Claim No. NEW-1376
No one from the public requested to speak.
Mayor Hannon recessed to Closed Session at 10:04 p.m.
At 10:11 p.m., the City Council convened in Closed Session.
At 10:23 p.m., the City Council reconvened in Open Session.
J. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hannon adjourned the meeting at 10:23 p.m.
____________________
Neetu Salwan, City Clerk
Item D. 3.
DATE 07/23/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Amelia Timbers, Environmental Services Manager
SUBJECT Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Contractual Services Agreement with Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. to procure SB 1383-compliant compost in an amount not to exceed $134,000 and to amend the 2026-2028 Biennial Budget.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The City of Newark is subject to SB 1383, California's Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy law (SB 1383), which includes annual compost procurement requirements. The City seeks to meet the procurement requirements through the procurement and funding authorized in this resolution.
Staff recommends that the City Council (1) authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract to procure finished SB 1383-compliant compost from Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. (BFI herein); and (2) amend the 2026–2028 Biennial Budget to increase the biennial appropriation by $30,000 from available fund balance in the Measure D Fund (Fund 215) to Environmental Services expenditure account 215.60.063.631.6221 for fiscal years 2026-27 and 2027-28.
BACKGROUND
SB 1383 established aggressive targets to achieve a 75 percent reduction in the statewide disposal of organic waste by 2025. The purpose of this bill was to prevent organic waste from entering landfills, where it generates methane as it decomposes. Methane is a greenhouse gas with 28 times the warming power of CO2 over a 100-year period. SB 1383 requires local jurisdictions to implement the following actions:
1. Provide organic waste collection services to all organic waste generators.
2. Procure recycled content paper and recovered organic waste products (including compost and mulch) at levels prescribed by the State.
3. Perform education and outreach.
4. Establish required enforcement protocols that include a schedule of fines for non-compliance.
5. Implement an edible food for human consumption recovery program that recovers edible food that would otherwise be discarded.
The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 533 on November 18, 2021. Ordinance No. 533 added Chapter 8.40, the Organics Reduction and Recycling Ordinance (ORRO), to the Newark Municipal Code. The ORRO sets forth a variety of requirements that facilitate the City of Newark's compliance with SB 1383. This includes Newark Municipal Code Section 8.40.120, which defines the characteristics of compost or mulch that Newark can procure to meet its annual SB 1383 Recovered Organic Waste Product Procurement Targets. CalRecycle's Jurisdiction Procurement Targets are calculated using a formula based on January 1, 2021 population estimates, and the City can expect this number to be updated periodically. Newark's current Jurisdiction Procurement Target is 1,319 tons of SB 1383-compliant compost or mulch procured annually.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The City of Newark's ORRO requires that the City must purchase compost or mulch from:
A compostable material handling operation or facility as defined in Section 17852(a)(12) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations ...; or
1. A transfer/processing facility or transfer/processing operation as defined in Sections 17402(a)(30) and (31) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, respectively, that is permitted or authorized under this division; or
2. 3.A solid waste landfill
BFI's facilities meet these requirements, and are where Newark's collected organic material is processed into compost. The local disposal and procurement of the compostable material minimizes transport-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from hauling the material elsewhere.
BFI is owned by Republic Services, which also owns Allied Waste ("Allied") Newark's solid waste franchisee.
Newark's 2023 Franchise Agreement with Allied grants Allied the right to collect and transport organic waste in the City of Newark. As a result, BFI is uniquely qualified to provide locally produced SB 1383-compliant organic material to the City of Newark for compliance purposes. Further, the Allied Franchise Agreement allocates 400 no-cost tons of compost to the City annually. In this way, the services contracted here build upon existing services Allied provides to the City. The not to exceed amount of the proposed contract is $134,000.
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost proposal provided by BFI, for compost beyond the 400 free tons negotiated as part of the City's Allied Waste Franchise Agreement, is $15 per ton in Calendar Year ("CY") 2026; $16 per ton in CY 2027; and $17 per ton in CY 2028. If the City has the compost hauled by BFI and delivered to its corporation yard, the City is charged a base transportation rate and variable fuel cost. As of July 1, 2026, the transportation cost for one truck carrying 10 to 15 tons of compost from the BFI facility at Newby Island to Newark's corporation yard is a $415 base hauling rate plus a 12% fuel surcharge, for a total of $464.80. Assuming a 15-ton truck is used, the delivered cost of SB 1383-compliant compost from BFI is $45.99 per ton in 2026. Accounting for the 400 free tons noted above, the total cost of buying and transporting the amount of SB 1383-compliant compost the City requires is below, assuming a 4% annual escalation in transportation costs.
Year Per Ton
Cost Beyond 400
Annual Total Cost for
Remaining Required
919 Tons
Delivered Cost per Ton
(Transportation Escalated
4% Annually)
Annual Total Cost
2026 $15 $13,785 $45.99 $42,261.75
2027 $16 $14,704 $48.23 $44,319.82
2028 $17 $15,623 $50.52 $46,423.45
BFI also offers a broker service under which BFI distributes the City’s procured compost to regional farms and similar organizations and prepares the required compliance documentation.
Staff anticipates using a combination of BFI’s distribution service and direct delivery of a portion of the compost for City landscaping and operational needs. Although the estimated annual cost of delivering all 919 tons is approximately $44,320 in 2027 and $46,423 in 2028, staff does not anticipate taking delivery of the full quantity and estimates that annual expenditures will not exceed $30,000.
A budget amendment is required to appropriate $30,000 in each of FY 2026-27 and FY 2027-28, for a total biennial appropriation of $60,000, from available fund balance in the Measure D Fund (Fund 215) to the Environmental Services general contractual services expenditure account 215.60.063.631.6221.
STRATEGIC PRIORITY AREA
Foster a Safe and Healthy Community
REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by - Amelia Timbers, Environmental Services Manager Reviewed by - Howard Young, Public Works Director
Reviewed by - Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Reviewed by - Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Approved by - David J. Benoun, City Manager
Attachments
Resolution Compost Resolution
Compost Procurement Contract
Contract Attachment A
Attachment B Pricing
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWARK APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH BROWNINGFERRIS INDUSTRIES OF CALIFORNIA, INC. FOR COMPOST PROCUREMENT IN FISCAL YEARS 2027 AND 2028 AND
APPROVING A BUDGET AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Newark is subject to California’s Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy law (SB 1383), which sets forth annual municipal targets for SB 1383- compliant compost procurement; and
WHEREAS, the City is required by CalRecycle to procure 1,319 tons of SB 1383- compliant compost annually to meet its annual municipal target, and that this number may change over time based on CalRecycle's municipal target calculation methodology and future updates; and
WHEREAS, Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. (BFI) is a subsidiary of Republic Services, owns and operates compost facilities that generate SB 1383-compliant compost; and
WHEREAS, BFI has offered SB 1383-compliant compost to the City at the cost of $15 per ton in calendar year (CY) 2026; $16 per ton in CY 2027; and $17 per ton in CY 2028, plus a variable transportation cost if the City utilizes the compost in its own operations. The transportation cost is waived if BFI acts as a broker to arrange for distribution of the compost to eligible recipients; and
WHEREAS, an appropriation of $30,000 per year for FY 2027 and FY 2028 will provide the City with the flexibility to either utilize BFI as a broker, or to transport and utilize a portion of the compost for internal operations.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newark hereby approves and authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. for compost procurement in an amount not to exceed $134,000, in a form approved by the City Attorney, and to take all actions necessary to carry out this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council approves a budget amendment to appropriate $30,000 from the fund balance of the Measure D Fund (Fund 215) for the fiscal years 2026-27 and 2027-28, as detailed below:
FR: 215.3000 $30,000
TO: 215.60.063.631.6221 $30,000
Consulting Services Agreement between City of Newark and Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF NEWARK
AND
BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
FOR
COMPOST PROCUREMENET
This Agreement for Compost Procurement (“Agreement”) is made by and between the City of Newark, a municipal corporation, (“City”) and Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. (“BFI”), a California corporation, with offices located at 1601 Dixon Landing Rd. Milpitas, CA 95035, (“Contractor”), (together referred to as the “Parties”) as of ____________, 2026 (the “Effective Date”).
Section 1. Services. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Contractor shall provide to City the services described in the Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein, at the time and place and in the manner specified therein. In the event of a conflict in or inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and Exhibit A, the Agreement shall prevail.
1.1 Term of Services. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and shall end on the third anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement, unless thereafter extended by mutual written agreement of the Parties, and Contractor shall complete the work described in Exhibit A on or before that date, unless the term of the Agreement is otherwise terminated or extended, as provided for in Section 8. The time provided to Contractor to complete the services required by this Agreement shall not affect the City’s right to terminate the Agreement, as referenced in Section 8.
Funding for services beyond the current fiscal year will be included in future City budgets but is subject to City Council approval of annual appropriations.
1.2 Standard of Performance. Contractor shall perform all services required pursuant to this Agreement according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the field in which Contractor is engaged and in the geographical area in which Contractor practices its profession.
1.3 Assignment of Personnel. Contractor shall assign only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that City, in its sole discretion, at any time during the term of this Agreement, desires the reassignment of any such persons, Contractor shall, immediately upon receiving notice from City of such desire of City, reassign such person or persons.
1.4 Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence. Contractor shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary to timely finish the Scope of Work, to meet the standard of performance provided in Section 1.1 and 1.2 above and to satisfy Contractor’s obligations hereunder.
Section 2. COMPENSATION. City hereby agrees to pay Contractor in accordance with the terms set forth in Exhibit A (“Compost Procurement Scope of Services”). In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and Contractor’s proposal, attached as Exhibit A, regarding the amount of compensation, the Proposal shall prevail. City shall pay Contractor for services rendered pursuant to Consulting Services Agreement between City of Newark and Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc.
this Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth herein. The payments specified below shall be the only payments from City to Contractor for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement.
Contractor shall submit all invoices to City in the manner specified herein. Except as specifically authorized by City in writing, Contractor shall not bill City for duplicate services performed by more than one person.
Contractor and City acknowledge and agree that compensation paid by City to Contractor under this Agreement is based upon Contractor’s prices for providing the services required hereunder, including salaries and benefits of employees and subcontractors of Contractor. Consequently, the parties further agree that compensation hereunder is intended to include the costs of contributions to any pensions and/or annuities to which Contractor and its employees, agents, and subcontractors may be eligible.
City therefore has no responsibility for such contributions beyond compensation required under this Agreement.
2.1 Invoices. Contractor shall submit invoices, not more often than once a month during the term of this Agreement, based on the cost for services performed and reimbursable costs incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices shall contain the following information, unless waived by the Contract Administrator:
Serial identifications of progress bills; i.e., Progress Bill No. 1 for the first invoice, etc.;
Project name & number if applicable;
The beginning and ending dates of the billing period; The Contractor’s signature;
2.2 Monthly Payment. City shall make monthly payments, based on invoices received, for services satisfactorily performed, and for authorized reimbursable costs incurred. City shall have 30 days from the receipt of an invoice that complies with all of the requirements above to pay Contractor.
2.4 Total Payment. City shall pay for the services to be rendered by Contractor pursuant to this Agreement. City shall not pay any additional sum for any expense or cost whatsoever incurred by Contractor in rendering services pursuant to this Agreement. City shall make no payment for any extra, further, or additional service pursuant to this Agreement.
In no event shall Contractor submit any invoice for an amount in excess of the maximum amount of compensation provided above either for a task or for the entire Agreement, unless the Agreement is modified prior to the submission of such an invoice by a properly executed change order or amendment.
2.7 Payment of Taxes. Contractor is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes.
Consulting Services Agreement between City of Newark and Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc.
2.8 Payment upon Termination. In the event that the City or Contractor terminates this Agreement pursuant to Section 8, the City shall compensate the Contractor for all outstanding costs and reimbursable expenses incurred for work satisfactorily completed as of the date of written notice of termination. Contractor shall maintain adequate logs and timesheets to verify costs incurred to that date.
2.9 Authorization to Perform Services. The Contractor is not authorized to perform any services or incur any costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement until receipt of authorization from the Contract Administrator.
Section 3. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. Except as set forth herein, Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, provide all facilities and equipment that may be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement. City shall make available to Contractor only the facilities and equipment listed in this section, and only under the terms and conditions set forth herein.
City shall furnish physical facilities such as desks, filing cabinets, and conference space, as may be reasonably necessary for Contractor’s use while consulting with City employees and reviewing records and the information in possession of the City. The location, quantity, and time of furnishing those facilities shall be in the sole discretion of City. In no event shall City be obligated to furnish any facility that may involve incurring any direct expense, including but not limited to computer, longdistance telephone or other communication charges, vehicles, and reproduction facilities.
Section 4. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Before beginning any work under this Agreement, Contractor, at its own cost and expense, unless otherwise specified below, shall procure the types and amounts of insurance listed below against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor and its agents, representatives, employees, and subcontractors. Consistent with the following provisions, Contractor shall provide proof satisfactory to City of such insurance that meets the requirements of this section and under forms of insurance satisfactory in all respects, and that such insurance is in effect prior to beginning work to the City. Contractor shall maintain the insurance policies required by this section throughout the term of this Agreement. The cost of such insurance shall be included in the Contractor's bid. Contractor shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until Contractor has obtained all insurance required herein for the subcontractor(s) and provided evidence that such insurance is in effect to City. Verification of the required insurance shall be submitted and made part of this Agreement prior to execution.
4.1 Required Coverage.
A. General Requirements. Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain in effect at all times during the Term of this Agreement not less than the following coverage and limits of insurance:
B. Coverages and Requirements. During the Term of this Agreement, Contractor shall at all times maintain, at its expense, the following coverages and requirements. The commercial general liability insurance shall include broad form property damage insurance.
Consulting Services Agreement between City of Newark and Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc.
1. Minimum Coverages. Insurance coverage shall be with limits not less than the following:
Commercial General Liability – $10,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage.
Automobile Liability – $10,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage (include coverage for hired and non-owned vehicles).
Workers’ Compensation – Statutory Limits/Employers’ Liability - $1,000,000/accident for bodily injury or disease.
2. Additional Insured. City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers shall be named as additional insured on all but the workers’ compensation coverages. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of a blanket-form endorsement to the Contractor’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 and CG 20 37 for completed operations).
3. Said policies shall remain in force through the life of this Agreement and shall be payable on an occurrence basis. For all “claims made” coverage, in the event that the Contractor changes insurance carriers Contractor shall purchase “tail” coverage or otherwise provide for continuous coverage covering the Term of this Agreement and not less than three (3) years thereafter.
4. The Contractor shall declare all aggregate limits on the coverage before commencing performance of this Agreement, and City’s Risk Manager reserves the right to require higher aggregate limits to ensure that the coverage limits required for this Agreement as set forth above are available throughout the performance of this Agreement.
5. The deductibles or self-insured retentions are for the account of Contractor and shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor.
6. Each insurance policy, except Workers’ Compensation/Employer’s Liability shall be endorsed via blanket-form endorsement to provide that coverage shall not be canceled, non-renewed or materially changed except after thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice has been sent to City Contract Manager ten (10) Business Days for delinquent insurance premium payments).
7. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A-VII, unless otherwise approved by City Risk Manager.
8. The policies shall cover all activities of Contractor, its officers, employees, agents and volunteers arising out of or in connection with this Agreement.
9. For any claims relating to this Agreement, the Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be primary, including as respects City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance maintained by City shall apply in excess of, and not contribute to, coverage provided by Contractor’s liability insurance policy.
10. To the extent legally enforceable, the Contractor shall waive all rights of subrogation against City, its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers.
C. Endorsements. Prior to the Effective Date pursuant to this Agreement, Contractor shall furnish City Contract Manager with ACORD form certificate(s) of insurance supplemented with all applicable blanket-form endorsements required herein reflecting coverage required by this Agreement.
The certificate(s) or endorsements are to be signed by a Person authorized by that Insurer to bind evidence coverage on its behalf. All certificate(s) are to be received by, and are subject to the approval of, City Risk Manager before work commences.
D. Renewals. During the Term of this Agreement, Contractor shall furnish City Contract Manager with certificate(s) and applicable blanket-form endorsements reflecting renewals, or changes in insurance companies reflecting the maintenance of the required coverage throughout the entire Term Consulting Services Agreement between City of Newark and Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc.
of this Agreement. The certificate(s) are to be signed by a Person authorized by that insurer to evidence coverage on its behalf.
E. Workers' Compensation. Contractor shall provide workers’ compensation coverage as required by State law, and prior to the Effective Date pursuant to this Agreement, Contractor shall file the following statement with City.
“I am aware of the provisions of Paragraph 3700 of the Labor Code that require every employer
to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing any services required by this Agreement.
The Person executing this Certificate on behalf of Contractor affirmatively represents that she/he has the requisite legal authority to do so on behalf of Contractor, and both the Person executing this Agreement on behalf of Contractor and Contractor understand that City is relying on this representation in entering into this Agreement.” Section 5. INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRACTOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES.
Contractor shall indemnify, defend with counsel acceptable to City, and hold harmless City and its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, claims, expenses, and costs (including without limitation, attorney’s fees and costs and fees of litigation) (collectively, “Liability”) of every nature arising out of or in connection with Contractor’s performance of the Services or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this Agreement, except such Liability caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City.
The Contractor’s obligation to defend and indemnify shall not be excused because of the Contractor’s inability to evaluate Liability or because the Contractor evaluates Liability and determines that the Contractor is not liable to the claimant. The Contractor must respond within 30 days, to the tender of any claim for defense and indemnity by the City, unless this time has been extended by the City. If the Contractor fails to accept or reject a tender of defense and indemnity within 30 days, in addition to any other remedy authorized by law, so much of the money due the Contractor under and by virtue of this Agreement as shall reasonably be considered necessary by the City, may be retained by the City until disposition has been made of the claim or suit for damages, or until the Contractor accepts or rejects the tender of defense, whichever occurs first.
With respect to third party claims against the Contractor, the Contractor waives any and all rights of any type to express or implied indemnity against the Indemnitees.
In the event that Contractor or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Contractor providing services under this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of City, Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of Contractor or its employees, agents, or Consulting Services Agreement between City of Newark and Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc.
subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of City.
Section 6. STATUS OF CONTRACTOR.
6.1 Independent Contractor. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of City. City shall have the right to control Contractor only insofar as the results of Contractor's services rendered pursuant to this Agreement and assignment of personnel pursuant to Subparagraph 1.3; however, otherwise City shall not have the right to control the means by which Contractor accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other City, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, Contractor and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing services under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any and all claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits.
6.2 Contractor Not an Agent. Except as City may specify in writing, Contractor shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent.
Contractor shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever.
Section 7. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.
7.1 Governing Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement.
7.2 Compliance with Applicable Laws. Contractor and any subcontractors shall comply with all laws applicable to the performance of the work hereunder.
7.3 Other Governmental Regulations. To the extent that this Agreement may be funded by fiscal assistance from another governmental entity, Contractor and any subcontractors shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations to which City is bound by the terms of such fiscal assistance program.
7.4 Licenses and Permits. Contractor represents and warrants to City that Contractor and its employees, agents, and any subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications, and approvals of whatsoever nature that are legally required to practice their respective professions. Contractor represents and warrants to City that Contractor and its employees, agents, any subcontractors shall, at their sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals that are legally required to practice their respective professions. In addition to the foregoing, Contractor and any subcontractors shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement valid Business Licenses from City.
7.5 Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity. Contractor shall not discriminate, on the basis of a person’s race, religion, color, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap or disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender, or Consulting Services Agreement between City of Newark and Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc.
gender identity, against any employee, applicant for employment, subcontractor, bidder for a subcontract, or participant in, recipient of, or applicant for any services or programs provided by Contractor under this Agreement. Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, policies, rules, and requirements related to equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in employment, contracting, and the provision of any services that are the subject of this Agreement, including but not limited to the satisfaction of any positive obligations required of Contractor thereby.
Contractor shall include the provisions of this Subsection in any subcontract approved by the Contract Administrator or this Agreement.
Section 8. TERMINATION AND MODIFICATION.
8.1 Termination. City may cancel this Agreement at any time and without cause upon written notification to Contractor. Contractor may cancel this Agreement upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to City and shall include in such notice the reasons for cancellation.
In the event of termination, Contractor shall be entitled to compensation for services performed to the effective date of termination; City, however, may condition payment of such compensation upon Contractor delivering to City any or all work product, including, but not limited to documents, photographs, computer software, video and audio tapes, and other materials provided to Contractor or prepared by or for Contractor or the City in connection with this Agreement.
8.2 Extension. City may, in its sole and exclusive discretion, extend the end date of this Agreement beyond that provided for in Subsection 1.1. Any such extension shall require a written amendment to this Agreement, as provided for herein. Contractor understands and agrees that, if City grants such an extension, City shall have no obligation to provide Contractor with compensation beyond the maximum amount provided for in this Agreement. Similarly, unless authorized by the Contract Administrator, City shall have no obligation to reimburse Contractor for any otherwise reimbursable expenses incurred during the extension period.
8.3 Amendments. The Parties may amend this Agreement only by a writing signed by all the Parties.
8.4 Assignment and Subcontracting. City and Contractor recognize and agree that this Agreement contemplates personal performance by Contractor and is based upon a determination of Contractor’s unique personal competence, experience, and specialized personal knowledge.
Moreover, a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement was and is the professional reputation and competence of Contractor. Contractor may not assign this Agreement or any interest therein without the prior written approval of the Contract Administrator. Contractor shall not subcontract any portion of the performance contemplated and provided for herein, other than to the subcontractors noted in the proposal, without prior written approval of the Contract Administrator.
8.5 Survival. All obligations arising prior to the termination of this Agreement and all provisions of this Agreement allocating liability between City and Contractor shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
Consulting Services Agreement between City of Newark and Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc.
8.6 Options upon Breach by Contractor. If Contractor materially breaches any of the terms of this Agreement, City’s remedies shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
8.6.1 Immediately terminate the Agreement;;
8.6.2 Retain a different Contractor to complete the work described in Exhibit A not finished by Contractor; or
8.6.3 No remedy mentioned in this Agreement is intended to be exclusive of any other right, power, or remedy, permitted by law. Neither the failure nor the delay on the part of the City to exercise any such rights and remedies shall operate as a waiver thereof, nor shall any single or partial exercise by the City of any such right or remedy preclude any other or further exercise of any such right or remedy.
Section 9. KEEPING AND STATUS OF RECORDS.
9.1 Records Created as Part of Contractor’s Performance. All reports, data, maps, models, charts, studies, surveys, photographs, memoranda, plans, studies, specifications, records, files, or any other documents or materials, in electronic or any other form, that Contractor prepares or obtains pursuant to this Agreement and that relate to the matters covered hereunder shall be the property of the City. Contractor hereby agrees to deliver those documents to the City upon termination of the Agreement and City may use, reuse or otherwise dispose of the documents without Contractor’s permission. It is understood and agreed that the documents and other materials, including but not limited to those described above, prepared pursuant to this Agreement are prepared specifically for the City and are not necessarily suitable for any future or other use. City and Contractor agree that, until final approval by City, all data, plans, specifications, reports and other documents are confidential and will not be released to third parties without prior written consent of both parties.
9.2 Contractor’s Books and Records. Contractor shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services or expenditures and disbursements charged to the City under this Agreement for a minimum of 3 years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to the Contractor to this Agreement. All such records should be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible.
9.3 Inspection and Audit of Records. Any records or documents that Section 9.2 of this Agreement requires Contractor to maintain shall be made available for inspection, audit, and/or copying at any time during regular business hours, upon oral or written request of the City. Under California Government Code Section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds expended under this Agreement exceeds $10,000.00, the Agreement shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of City or as part of any audit of the City, for a period of 3 years after final payment under the Agreement.
Section 10 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
Consulting Services Agreement between City of Newark and Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc.
10.1 Attorneys’ Fees. If a party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled. The court may set such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose.
10.2 Venue. In the event that either party brings any action against the other under this Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Alameda or in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
10.3 Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement is invalid, void, or unenforceable, the provisions of this Agreement not so adjudged shall remain in full force and effect. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement.
10.4 No Implied Waiver of Breach. The waiver of any breach of a specific provision of this Agreement does not constitute a waiver of any other breach of that term or any other term of this Agreement.
10.5 Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the parties.
10.6 Use of Recycled Products. Contractor shall prepare and submit all reports, written studies and other printed material on recycled paper to the extent it is available at equal or less cost than virgin paper.
10.7 Conflict of Interest. Contractor may serve other clients, but none whose activities within the corporate limits of City or whose business, regardless of location, would place Contractor in a “conflict of interest,” as that term is defined in the Political Reform Act, codified at California Government Code Section 81000 et seq.
Contractor shall not employ any City official in the work performed pursuant to this Agreement. No officer or employee of City shall have any financial interest in this Agreement that would violate California Government Code Sections 1090 et seq. Contractor hereby warrants that it is not now, nor has it been in the previous 12 months, an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City. If Contractor was an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City in the previous twelve months, Contractor warrants that it did not participate in any manner in the forming of this Agreement.
Contractor understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of Government Code § 1090 et seq., the entire Agreement is void and Contractor will not be entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant to this Agreement, including reimbursement of expenses, and Contractor will be required to reimburse the City for any sums paid to the Contractor. Contractor understands that, in addition to the foregoing, it may be subject to criminal prosecution for a violation of Government Code § 1090 and, if applicable, will be disqualified from holding public office in the State of California.
10.8 Solicitation. Contractor agrees not to solicit business at any meeting, focus group, or interview related to this Agreement, either orally or through any written materials.
Consulting Services Agreement between City of Newark and Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc.
10.9 Contract Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by the City Manager, or his designee, identified as _____Amelia Timbers_____ ("Contract Administrator"). All correspondence, meeting documentation, invoices and project deliverables shall be directed to or through the Contract Administrator.
10.10 Notices. Any notice, demand, request, consent or approval that either party is required to give the other pursuant to this Agreement, shall be in writing and may be given by either (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by reputable overnight delivery service (e.g. Federal Express) which provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, (iii) certified United States mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or (iv) by email transmission. Notice shall be effective upon personal delivery or delivery to the addresses specified below, as reflected on the receipt of delivery or return receipt, as applicable.
Any written notice to Contractor shall be sent to:
Ryan Brown, Compost Solutions Representative
9999 S. Austin Rd. Manteca, CA 95336
[email protected]
209-616-4942
All other written notices to City shall be sent to:
Amelia Timbers Kristopher J. Kokotaylo,
Environmental Services Manager City Attorney
City of Newark City of Newark
37101 Newark Blvd. with a copy to 37101 Newark Blvd.
Newark, CA 94560 Newark, CA 94560
10.12 Integration. This Agreement, including the scope of work attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A represents the entire and integrated agreement between City and Contractor and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral.
Exhibit A Scope of Services
Exhibit B Cost Proposal
10.13 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement.
SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE
Consulting Services Agreement between City of Newark and Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc.
The Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.
CITY OF NEWARK BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES
____________________________ ______________________________
DAVID BENOUN, CITY MANAGER ENRIQUE PEREZ, GENERAL MANAGER ATTEST:
_________________________________, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
KRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO
CITY ATTORNEY
5638310.1
Version 3.2.21
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Newark and _________
1 EXHIBIT A
COMPOST PROCUREMENT SCOPE OF SERVICES
This Exhibit A describes the Scope of Services to be performed by BFI as Contractor to the City of Newark.
1. Purpose of Agreement. This is a contract for procurement of finished compost and the documentation of a written credit to be provided to City of Newark for the use or giveaway of finished compost by BFI for the benefit of the City of Newark to meet their organic materials respective procurement targets for compliance with Senate Bill 1383 and its implementing regulations (“SB 1383”).
BFI shall provide City of Newark with the written credit for the procured compost for the benefit of City of Newark. The compost procurement amounts for City of Newark are as follows:
City of Newark 2026 Up to 1,900 Tons
City of Newark 2027 Up to 1,900 Tons
City of Newark 2028 Up to 1,900 Tons
The brokerage services to be provided by BFI are more fully described in the Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A.-1
2. Designated Compost Processing Facilities. BFI may procure the finished compost from any of the following facilities:
Newby Island
1601 Dixon Landing Road
Milpitas, CA 95035
West County Resource Recovery
101 Pittsburg Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95407
Forward Landfill
9999 S. Austin Road
Manteca, CA 95336
2 3. Disposition and Reporting Documentation. For all finished compost City of Newark purchases, BFI shall provide City of Newark with 1) the credit identified on section 1, and 2) a written record of the transportation and disposition of the compost material for the benefit of City of Newark to facilitate documentation to be provided to City of Newark for SB 1383 recovered organic waste product procurement compliance in accordance with the SB 1383 Regulations at 14 CCR Division 7, Chapter 12, Article 12 – Procurement of Recovered Organic Waste Products (14 CCR 18993.1 et seq.). BFI shall maintain quarterly and annual written reports, including weight tickets, conversion ratios and methods, bills of lading and/or shipping manifests sufficient to demonstrate the amount of compost generated and that the compost generated was used or given away solely for the benefit of City of Newark. BFI shall provide such records to City of Newark on a quarterly basis by the 15th of the month following the end of a quarter, and the final quarterly report and an annual summary record by January 15 of each year following the reporting year.
A. Recordkeeping. BFI shall maintain and provide City of Newark with all pertinent records documenting the use or giveaway of the finished compost procured that complies with the requirements of 14 CCR 18993.2, including, without limitation, the following:
i. General description of how the compost product was used, and if applicable, where the product was applied;
ii. Shipping manifests, weight tags, conversion ratios, invoices; iii. All invoices or similar records evidencing all procurement.
B. Records Retention. BFI shall keep and maintain a complete copy of all records regarding its provision of services to City of Newark for the benefit of City of Newark. Records shall be maintained on a calendar year basis, i.e. for each calendar year in which BFI generates and provides credits for compost procured for City of Newark under this Agreement.
C. Inspection. City of Newark may inspect the above mentioned records during business hours, upon 30 days written notice to BFI
4. Payment. Pursuant to Section 4.8.4 C2 of the Amended and Restated Franchise Agreement between The City of Newark and Allied Waste Services of North America LLC for Collection of Solid Waste and Collection and Processing of Source Separated Recyclable Materials, Organic Materials, and C&D, dated June 1, 2023, BFI shall provide up to 400 tons of finished compost to City of Newark annually at no charge.
For finished compost over 400 tons annually, City of Newark agrees to pay BFI at the per ton rate per the rate table below, per ton for each ton of finished compost used and/or 3 given away by BFI, documented as set forth in section 2 above, to receive the written credit to be issued by BFI. The rate per ton is for a credit for finished compost used or given away by BFI.
4 COMPOST BROKERAGE SCOPE OF SERVICES
Exhibit A-1
1. Scope of Work. BFI will provide broker services to assist City of Newark in meeting its procurement requirements under SB 1383 regulations. BFI will identify eligible recipients to receive finished compost material that is produced at one of the Designated Compost Processing Facilities, as identified in Section 2 of the Compost Procurement Agreement.
Eligible recipients include, but are not limited to, agricultural producers, landscaping contractors and/or supply yards (“Eligible Recipients”).
For every one ton of compost credit that is purchased by the City of Newark, one ton of compost will be given away by BFI to Eligible Recipients on behalf of City of Newark. City of Newark will be given sole credit for the designated amount of compost brokered between BFI and Eligible Recipients on a per ton basis. Names and locations of the Eligible Recipients receiving the compost will be documented and reported as stated in Section 2 Disposition and Reporting Documentation. BFI can provide a signed waiver from the Eligible Recipients if requested ahead of time by the city.
The compost that will be provided to Eligible Recipients will come from any one of our three compost facilities in Northern California as referenced in section 2 “Designated Compost Processing Facilities”. All the Designated Compost Processing Facilities maintain a Full Solid Waste Facility Permit. The compost is produced from commingled organics (food and green waste materials) that have been diverted from landfills in California. All compost brokered to Eligible Recipients will be required to remain in the state of California and may not be resold.
The compost that the Designated Compost Processing Facilities produce and will be subsequently donated on behalf of City of Newark, will comply with the requirements in 14 CCR Section 18993.1. The compost is considered a fine grade and is Seal of Testing Assurance (STA) Certified with the United States Composting Council (USCC). It is also Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) Listed, and Certified Organic with the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA).
If City of Newark would like to obtain additional compost for its use beyond the 400 tons that is provided in the franchise agreement, the City of Newark will need to notify BFI within the first 15 days of each new quarter. If additional compost beyond the 400 tons is requested by the City of Newark for its physical use and not brokered to an Eligible Recipient, as described above, the City of Newark will be responsible for additional costs associated with transportation and delivery of the material. If City of Newark does not request additional tons for its physical use beyond the 400-ton annual commitment, all remaining tons will be brokered to an Eligible Recipient, as described above.
Designated BFI Contact:
Ryan Brown – Compost Solutions Representative
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (209) 616-4942
EXHIBIT B
COST PROPOSAL FOR COMPOST & TRANSPORTATION
1. Compost Pricing.
The following prices include all costs of procuring finished compost FOB the point of origin, but do not include the costs of transportation and delivery of compost to the City’s designated delivery point.
Year (CY) Price for tons exceeding 400
(per ton)
2026 $15.00
2027 $16.00
2028 $17.00
2. Transportation.
We are unable to provide a definite rate for transportation due to fluctuations in fuel prices. If the City would like a price quotation for transportation BFI will provide a rate at the time of the City’s request for a delivery of compost.
As an example, the July 1, 2026 transportation cost to deliver one load (10 to 15 tons) of compost from the Newby Island compost facility to the City of Newark corporation yard located at 37440 Filbert Street, Newark, CA 94560 would have a base rate of $415.00 and a fuel surcharge of 12% totaling $464.80. Please note both the base rate transportation cost and fuel surcharge are variable and are subject to change at any time.
Item D. 4.
DATE 07/23/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Michelle Villanueva, Senior Accountant
SUBJECT Adopt a resolution establishing the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Tax Appropriations Limit
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution establishing the City’s Fiscal Year 2026-27 Appropriations Limit of $594,789,025 and selecting the following annual adjustment factors:
California per-capita personal-income growth of 4.95% as the cost-of-living factor; and The Alameda County population factor of 0.999, reflecting an approximately 0.10% decrease in population.
In November 1979, California voters approved Proposition 4, commonly known as the Gann Initiative, which added Article XIII B to the California Constitution. Article XIII B limits the amount of tax proceeds that state and local governments may appropriate each year. Proposition 111, approved in 1990, subsequently revised the calculation methodology and the adjustment factors available to local agencies.
Government Code section 7910 requires the governing body of each local jurisdiction to establish its annual appropriations limit by resolution. Supporting documentation used to determine the limit must be available to the public at least 15 days before the meeting at which the resolution is considered. The annual limit is based on the jurisdiction’s prior-year limit, adjusted by Council-selected cost-of-living and population factors.
BACKGROUND
Proposition 111 permits the City Council to select the annual cost-of-living and population factors used to calculate the City’s appropriations limit. For the cost-of-living factor, the City may select either the annual change in California per-capita personal income or the change in the City’s local assessment roll attributable to nonresidential new construction. For the population factor, the City may select either the annual population change for the City or the County.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
On June 12, 2025, City Council adopted Resolution No. 11749 establishing the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Tax Appropriations Limit of $567,302,915. The City's Tax Appropriations Limit was calculated using the percentage change in California per capita income as the price factor adjustment since the local assessment roll data necessary to calculate the percentage change in the nonresidential assessed valuation is generally not available from the County Assessor's Office until well into the fiscal year. In the absence of final information on this important factor, it is recommended that the known California per capita personal income of 4.95 percent be adopted for Fiscal Year 2026-27. For the population adjustment factor, it is recommended that the County's percent change in population of 0.999 percent be adopted for Fiscal Year 2026-27 since the higher percentage change in population is most advantageous to the City.
In accordance with Proposition 111 guidelines, and based on the above information, the proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 Tax Appropriations Limit is $594,789,025. The 2026-27 biennial budget appropriations subject to the limit are estimated to be well below the proposed Tax Appropriations Limit.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this administrative action. Establishing the annual appropriations limit does not modify existing revenue sources or expenditure levels. Rather, it ensures the City’s continued compliance with the constitutional requirements set forth in Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
STRATEGIC PRIORITY AREA
Boost Financial Resilience and Excellence in Service Delivery REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by - Michelle Villanueva, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by - Gloria delRosario, Deputy Finance Director Reviewed by - Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Reviewed by - Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Approved by - David J. Benoun, City Manager
Attachments
Tax Appropriation Resolution
Resolution No. 11749 Tax Appropriation Limit for FY 2025-26 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWARK ESTABLISHING THE TAX APPROPRIATIONS
LIMIT AND UPDATING THE ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT
FACTORS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIIIB of the Constitution of the State of California, the City Council of the City of Newark has established a "Tax Appropriations Limit" for Fiscal Year 2027; and
WHEREAS, the provisions of Article XIIIB became effective January 1, 1981 requiring the governing body of each local jurisdiction in California to establish a Tax Appropriations Limit (also referred to as the GANN Limit) each fiscal year by resolution; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 111 allows local jurisdictions to choose among measures of inflation and population growth to compute the adjustment factor. The measures for inflation (price factors) include growth in California per capita income or growth in the City's gross assessed valuation due to new non-residential construction; while measures for population growth include population growth within the county or city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newark, in accordance with Proposition 111 guidelines, and based on the known adjustment factors of 4.95 percent change in California per capita income and a 0.999 percent change in the population growth for the City of Newark, hereby establishes the amount of $ 594,789,025 as the Tax Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2027.
Resolution No. 10,952 2
Item D. 5.
DATE 07/23/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Carmelisa Lopez, Senior Planner
SUBJECT Adopt a Resolution approving a budget amendment to the 2026-2031 Capital Improvement Plan and an agreement with Urban Planning Partners, Inc. to provide professional planning services in the not-to-exceed contract amount of $459,776 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution:
Approving a budget amendment to the 2026-2031 Capital Improvement Plan to reallocate $139,776 from the NewPark Place Specific Plan Enhancement project (CIP001400) to the Four Corners Area Plan project (CIP001398); and
1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Urban Planning Partners, Inc. to provide professional planning services in an amount not to exceed $459,776.
2. BACKGROUND
In 2023, the City Council adopted the 2023–2031 Housing Element (Housing Element), which was subsequently certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Housing Element includes Program H2.3, which requires preparation of a Specific Plan for the Four Corners area near the intersection of Newark Boulevard and Jarvis Avenue to facilitate market-rate and affordable housing, promote neighborhood revitalization through mixed-use development and walkability, and support transit-oriented development.
The Four Corners area is also located within one-half mile of the planned Ardenwood Capitol Corridor station, part of the South Bay Connect Project, which will relocate Capitol Corridor passenger rail service to the existing Union Pacific Railroad Coast Subdivision between Oakland and Newark, as well as the planned California State Route 84 (SR-84) Intermodal Bus Facility. As a future transit-oriented development area, the Specific Plan must also comply with the applicable Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy requirements.
The Specific Plan will establish a comprehensive framework for future development within the planning area. It will create a long-term vision, evaluate existing conditions, engage the community and stakeholders, develop land use alternatives, prepare development standards and design guidelines, identify infrastructure improvements, and establish implementation strategies. The Specific Plan will ensure consistency with the City's General Plan, Housing Element, applicable Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy requirements, and state housing laws.
To assist with this effort, staff sought a professional planning firm with demonstrated experience preparing specific plans and related documentation in the San Francisco Bay Area, as well as expertise in land use planning, urban design, community engagement, transit-oriented development, and implementation of Housing Element programs.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
On February 18, 2026, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking professional planning services for the preparation of the Four Corners Specific Plan.
The RFP was posted and advertised on the City's website. Eight consulting firms submitted proposals by the March 18, 2026 deadline.
After the proposal submittal deadline, a four-person staff committee reviewed and scored each proposal using the evaluation criteria identified in the RFP. Based on the combined scoring results, the committee identified the three highest-ranked firms for interviews: Good City Company (GCC), Urban Field Studio (UFS), and Urban Planning Partners, Inc. (UPP). Following the interviews, the committee re-evaluated the shortlisted firms, considering both the written proposals and interview performance, to determine the final rankings and recommend the firm that best met the City's objectives.
Proposals and interviews were evaluated using the following criteria:
Project understanding and Housing Element and TOC Policy compliance strategy Team qualifications and availability
Community engagement and equity approach
Schedule and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) plan Cost proposal and value
The cost proposals submitted by the three shortlisted firms were $395,018 for GCC (including optional tasks but excluding contingency), $535,255 for UFS (excluding contingency), and $459,776 for UPP (including a 15 percent contingency). Optional tasks were included in the cost comparison because these tasks would support the successful completion and implementation of the Specific Plan. For comparison purposes, adding a 15 percent contingency to the GCC and UFS cost proposals would result in adjusted costs of approximately $454,271 and $615,543, respectively.
Following the evaluation process, UPP was determined to be the most qualified firm.
UPP demonstrated a thorough understanding of the City's objectives, presented a comprehensive and practical work program, and assembled an experienced, comprehensive and practical work program, and assembled an experienced, multidisciplinary, locally based team, including Kristen Hall City Design (urban design), Land Econ Group (economics), CBG (civil engineering), and Fehr & Peers (transportation). The team brings extensive Bay Area experience preparing specific plans, implementing Housing Element programs, facilitating community engagement, and planning transit-oriented development.
UPP's team demonstrated a strong understanding of the relationship between urban design, economic feasibility, and development opportunities, which will be critical to establishing a realistic vision and implementation strategy for the Four Corners area.
The team demonstrated experience coordinating with regional agencies, including MTC, and evaluating projects under TOC Policy requirements. During the interview, UPP also exhibited a collaborative approach and strong communication skills that will support coordination with City staff, stakeholders, property owners, and the community throughout the planning process.
UPP’s proposed scope of work would include the following major tasks:
Project initiation/management
Baseline conditions, data, and mapping including existing conditions analysis, market analysis, and development feasibility and opportunity sites analysis Community and stakeholder engagement, including stakeholder interviews, advisory committee meetings, and other engagement strategies Development of the vision, policy framework, and draft and final Specific Plan including land use, infrastructure, mobility, affordable housing, and fiscal analysis Public hearing support including staff reports and presentation materials Based on the qualifications of the project team, demonstrated experience with similar planning efforts, project approach, interview performance, and cost proposal, staff determined that UPP provides the best overall value to the City and recommends entering into an agreement to develop the Four Corners Specific Plan.
Budget Allocation
On June 25, 2026, the City Council approved the City’s 2026-2031 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), which includes the Four Corners Area Plan project (CIP001398) with a budget of $320,000. This project is ready to proceed with consultant selection and contract execution as discussed in this report. To fully fund the agreement with UPP, staff recommends reallocating $139,776 from the NewPark Place Specific Plan Enhancement project (CIP001400) in the CIP, which has a budget of $300,000. Both projects are funded through the Community Development Maintenance Fee Fund (Account No. 625.50.054.540.6220).
The funds proposed for reallocation are available because implementation of the NewPark Place Specific Plan Enhancement project is not anticipated to begin until at least 2027. Given the timing of the two projects, the proposed reallocation will allow available CIP funds to support an active planning effort while maintaining funding for the future implementation of the NewPark Place Specific Plan Enhancement project. At this time, the scope and consultant budget for the NewPark Place Specific Plan Enhancement project have not yet been determined. If additional funding is needed once the project scope is established, staff will return to the City Council with a future request for additional budget appropriation.
Following the proposed budget amendment, the Four Corners Area Plan project would have an available budget of $459,776, and the NewPark Place Specific Plan Enhancement project would have a remaining budget of $160,224.
FISCAL IMPACT
The total contract amount is not-to-exceed $459,776 and will be funded through the Community Development Maintenance Fee Fund (Account No. 625.50.054.540.6220).
There is no direct impact to the General Fund. The funding source is designated for General Plan–related work, and sufficient funds are available to support this expenditure.
The budget reallocation of $139,776 from the NewPark Place Specific Plan Enhancement project (CIP001400) to the Four Corners Area Plan project (CIP001398) would not increase the overall adopted CIP budget and would not require additional funding. Both projects are funded through the Community Development Maintenance Fee Fund; therefore, the recommended action reallocates existing appropriations within the same fund to align available resources with current project priorities.
STRATEGIC PRIORITY AREA
Further Economic Vitality and Housing for All
REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by - Carmelisa Lopez, Senior Planner
Reviewed by - Steven Turner, Community Development Director Reviewed by - Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Reviewed by - Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Approved by - David J. Benoun, City Manager
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Draft Resolution
Attachment 2 - Draft Consulting Services Agreement
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWARK APPROVING A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE
2026-2031 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN TO
REALLOCATE $139,776 FROM THE NEWPARK PLACE
SPECIFIC PLAN ENHANCEMENT PROJECT (CIP001400) TO
THE FOUR CORNERS AREA PLAN PROJECT (CIP001398)
AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
CONTRACTUAL SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH URBAN
PLANNING PARTNERS, INC. TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL
PLANNING SERVICES
WHEREAS, on July 23, 2026 the City of Newark awarded a Contractual Services Agreement (the “Agreement”) to Urban Planning Partners (the “Consultant”) to provide professional planning services; and
WHEREAS, in 2023, the City Council adopted the 2023–2031 Housing Element (“Housing Element”), which was subsequently certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”); and
WHEREAS, Housing Element Program H2.3 requires preparation of the Four Corners Specific Plan to facilitate market-rate and affordable housing, promote neighborhood revitalization through mixed-use development and walkability, and support transit-oriented development in the Four Corners area near the intersection of Newark Boulevard and Jarvis Avenue; and
WHEREAS, Urban Planning Partners, Inc. will provide professional planning services to prepare the Four Corners Specific Plan pursuant to Housing Element Program H2.3. The Specific Plan will establish a comprehensive framework for future development within the Four Corners area by facilitating housing development, promoting mixed-use development and walkability, supporting transit-oriented development, incorporating community input, and establishing land use, development, and implementation strategies consistent with the City’s General Plan, Housing Element, applicable state laws, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Transit-Oriented Communities (“TOC”) Policy requirements.
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the 2026–2031 Capital Improvement Plan (“CIP”) on June 25, 2026, which includes the Four Corners Area Plan project (CIP001398) with an allocated budget of $320,000; and
WHEREAS, additional funding is necessary to fully fund the contractual services agreement with Urban Planning Partners, Inc., and the City desires to reallocate $139,776 from the NewPark Place Specific Plan Enhancement project (CIP001400) to the Four Corners Area Plan project (CIP001398); and
WHEREAS, the funds proposed for reallocation are available because implementation of the NewPark Place Specific Plan Enhancement project is not anticipated to begin until at least 2027, and the proposed reallocation will allow available CIP resources to support current project priorities while maintaining funding for the future implementation of the NewPark Place Specific Plan Enhancement project; and
WHEREAS, following the proposed budget amendment, the Four Corners Area Plan project will have an available budget of $459,776, and the NewPark Place Specific Plan Enhancement project will have a remaining budget of $160,224; and WHEREAS, the Agreement shall be in the amount not to exceed $459,776 to provide the scope of services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newark hereby approves a budget amendment to the 2026–2031 Capital Improvement Plan reallocating $139,776 from the NewPark Place Specific Plan Enhancement project (CIP001400) to the Four Corners Area Plan project (CIP001398).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that by the City Council that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Contractual Services Agreement with Urban Planning Partners, Inc. in a form approved by the City Attorney, in the amount not to exceed $459,776.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to take all other actions consistent with this Resolution, including any necessary revisions to the scope of work for the Agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney.
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Newark and Urban Planning Partners, Inc. Page 1 of 14
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF NEWARK
AND
URBAN PLANNING PARTNERS, INC.
FOR PROFESSIONAL PLANNING SERVICES
This Agreement for consulting services (“Agreement”) is made by and between the City of Newark, a municipal corporation, (“City”) and Urban Planning Partners, Inc., a California Corporation, with offices located at 388 17th Street, Suite 230, Oakland, California 94612, (“Consultant”), (together referred to as the “Parties”) as of ____________, 2026 (the “Effective Date”).
Section 1. Services. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Consultant shall provide to City the services described in the Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein, at the time and place and in the manner specified therein. In the event of a conflict in or inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and Exhibit A, the Agreement shall prevail.
1.1 Term of Services. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and shall end on _______________, and Consultant shall complete the work described in Exhibit A on or before that date, unless the term of the Agreement is otherwise terminated or extended, as provided for in Section 8. The time provided to Consultant to complete the services required by this Agreement shall not affect the City’s right to terminate the Agreement, as referenced in Section 8. This is a longrange planning project, and the duration shall overlap multiple fiscal years, but shall not extend beyond _______. Funding for services beyond the current fiscal year will be included in future City budgets but is subject to City Council approval of annual appropriations.
Funding for services beyond the current fiscal year will be included in future City budgets but is subject to City Council approval of annual appropriations.]
1.2 Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all services required pursuant to this Agreement according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which Consultant is engaged and in the geographical area in which Consultant practices its profession.
1.3 Assignment of Personnel. Consultant shall assign only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that City, in its sole discretion, at any time during the term of this Agreement, desires the reassignment of any such persons, Consultant shall, immediately upon receiving notice from City of such desire of City, reassign such person or persons.
1.4 Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence. Consultant shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary to timely finish the Scope of Work, to meet the standard of performance provided in Section 1.1 and 1.2 above and to satisfy Consultant’s obligations hereunder.
Section 2. COMPENSATION. City hereby agrees to pay Consultant a sum not to exceed Four Hundred Fifty-Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy-Six Dollars, ($459,776) notwithstanding any contrary indications that may be contained in Consultant’s proposal for services to be performed and reimbursable costs incurred under this Agreement. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Newark and Urban Planning Partners, Inc. Page 2 of 14 and Consultant’s proposal, attached as Exhibit A, regarding the amount of compensation, the Agreement shall prevail. City shall pay Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth herein. The payments specified below shall be the only payments from City to Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall submit all invoices to City in the manner specified herein. Except as specifically authorized by City in writing, Consultant shall not bill City for duplicate services performed by more than one person.
Consultant and City acknowledge and agree that compensation paid by City to Consultant under this Agreement is based upon Consultant’s estimated costs of providing the services required hereunder, including salaries and benefits of employees and subcontractors of Consultant. Consequently, the parties further agree that compensation hereunder is intended to include the costs of contributions to any pensions and/or annuities to which Consultant and its employees, agents, and subcontractors may be eligible. City therefore has no responsibility for such contributions beyond compensation required under this Agreement.
2.1 Invoices. Consultant shall submit invoices, not more often than once a month during the term of this Agreement, based on the cost for services performed and reimbursable costs incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices shall contain the following information, unless waived by the Contract Administrator:
• Serial identifications of progress bills; i.e., Progress Bill No. 1 for the first invoice, etc.; • Project name & number if applicable;
• Purchase Order number to expedite payment;
• The beginning and ending dates of the billing period; • A task summary containing the original contract amount, the amount of prior billings, the total due this period, the balance available under the Agreement, and the percentage of completion;
• At City’s option, for each work item in each task, a copy of the applicable time entries or time sheets shall be submitted showing the name of the person doing the work, the hours spent by each person, a brief description of the work, and each reimbursable expense;
• The total number of hours of work performed under the Agreement by Consultant and each employee, agent, and subcontractor of Consultant performing services hereunder; • The Consultant’s signature;
• Consultant shall give separate notice to the City when the total number of hours worked by Consultant and any individual employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant reaches or exceeds 800 hours within a 12-month period.
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Newark and Urban Planning Partners, Inc. Page 3 of 14
2.2 Monthly Payment. City shall make monthly payments, based on invoices received, for services satisfactorily performed, and for authorized reimbursable costs incurred. City shall have 30 days from the receipt of an invoice that complies with all of the requirements above to pay Consultant.
2.3 Final Payment. City shall pay the last 10% of the total sum due pursuant to this Agreement within 60 days after completion of the services and submittal to City of a final invoice, if all services required have been satisfactorily performed.
2.4 Total Payment. City shall pay for the services to be rendered by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. City shall not pay any additional sum for any expense or cost whatsoever incurred by Consultant in rendering services pursuant to this Agreement. City shall make no payment for any extra, further, or additional service pursuant to this Agreement.
In no event shall Consultant submit any invoice for an amount in excess of the maximum amount of compensation provided above either for a task or for the entire Agreement, unless the Agreement is modified prior to the submission of such an invoice by a properly executed change order or amendment.
2.5 Hourly Rate/Fees. Unless the services provided are for a lump sum or flat fee, fees for work performed by Consultant on an hourly basis shall not exceed the amounts shown on the compensation cost proposal attached hereto as Exhibit B. In the event of a conflict in or inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and Exhibit B, the Agreement shall prevail.
2.6 Reimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable expenses are specified in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein. Reimbursable expenses not listed in Exhibit B are not chargeable to City. Reimbursable expenses shall not include a mark-up and are billed as a direct costs. In no event shall expenses be advanced by the City to the Consultant. Reimbursable expenses are included in the total amount of compensation provided under this Agreement that shall not be exceeded.
2.7 Payment of Taxes. Consultant is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes.
2.8 Payment upon Termination. In the event that the City or Consultant terminates this Agreement pursuant to Section 8, the City shall compensate the Consultant for all outstanding costs and reimbursable expenses incurred for work satisfactorily completed as of the date of written notice of termination. Consultant shall maintain adequate logs and timesheets to verify costs incurred to that date.
2.9 Authorization to Perform Services. The Consultant is not authorized to perform any services or incur any costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement until receipt of authorization from the Contract Administrator.
2.10. Business License. The Consultant is not authorized to perform services or incur costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement until Consultant applies for and has been issued a business license from the City pursuant to Title 5 of the Newark Municipal Code.
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Newark and Urban Planning Partners, Inc. Page 4 of 14 Section 3. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. Except as set forth herein, Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, provide all facilities and equipment that may be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement. City shall make available to Consultant only the facilities and equipment listed in this section, and only under the terms and conditions set forth herein.
City shall furnish physical facilities such as desks, filing cabinets, and conference space, as may be reasonably necessary for Consultant’s use while consulting with City employees and reviewing records and the information in possession of the City. The location, quantity, and time of furnishing those facilities shall be in the sole discretion of City. In no event shall City be obligated to furnish any facility that may involve incurring any direct expense, including but not limited to computer, longdistance telephone or other communication charges, vehicles, and reproduction facilities.
Section 4. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Before beginning any work under this Agreement, Consultant, at its own cost and expense, unless otherwise specified below, shall procure the types and amounts of insurance listed below against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant and its agents, representatives, employees, and subcontractors. Consistent with the following provisions, Consultant shall provide proof satisfactory to City of such insurance that meets the requirements of this section and under forms of insurance satisfactory in all respects, and that such insurance is in effect prior to beginning work to the City. Consultant shall maintain the insurance policies required by this section throughout the term of this Agreement. The cost of such insurance shall be included in the Consultant's bid. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until Consultant has obtained all insurance required herein for the subcontractor(s) and provided evidence that such insurance is in effect to City. Verification of the required insurance shall be submitted and made part of this Agreement prior to execution.
4.1 Required Coverage. Consultant shall maintain all required insurance listed herein for the duration of this Agreement.
COVERAGE TYPE OF INSURANCE MINIMUM LIMITS
A Commercial General
Liability
Premises Liability; Products
and Completed Operations;
Contractual Liability; Personal
Injury and Advertising Liability
$2,000,000 per occurrence;
Bodily Injury and Property
Damage
$4,000,000 in the aggregate;
Commercial general coverage
shall be at least as broad as
Insurance Services Office
Commercial General Liability
occurrence form CG 0001
(most recent edition) covering
comprehensive General
Liability on an “occurrence”
basis
B Commercial or Business
Automobile Liability
$1,000,000 per occurrence;
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Newark and Urban Planning Partners, Inc. Page 5 of 14 All owned vehicles, hired or
leased vehicles, non-owned,
borrowed and permissive uses.
Personal Automobile Liability
is acceptable for individual
contractors with no
transportation or hauling
related activities
Any Auto; Bodily Injury and
Property Damage. Automobile
coverage shall be at least as
broad as Insurance Services
Office Automobile Liability
form CA 0001 (most recent
edition), Code 1 (any auto). No
endorsement shall be attached
limiting the coverage.
C Workers’ Compensation
(WC) and Employers
Liability (EL)
Required for all contractors
with employees
WC: Statutory Limits
EL: $100,000 per accident for
bodily injury or disease.
Consultant may rely on a selfinsurance program to meet those requirements, but only if
the program of self-insurance
complies fully with the
provisions of the California
Labor Code. The insurer shall
waive all rights of subrogation
against the City and its officers,
officials, employees, and
volunteers for loss arising from
work performed under this
Agreement
D Professional Liability/Errors
& Omissions
Includes endorsements of
contractual liability
$2,000,000 per occurrence
$4,000,000 policy aggregate;
Any deductible or self-insured
retention shall not exceed
$150,000 per claim
4.2 Additional requirements. Each of the following shall be included in the insurance coverage or added as a certified endorsement to the policy:
a. All required insurance shall be maintained during the entire term of the Agreement with the following exception: Insurance policies and coverage(s) written on a claims-made basis shall be maintained during the entire term of the Agreement and until three (3) years following termination and acceptance of all work provided under the Agreement, with the retroactive date of said insurance (as may be applicable) concurrent with the commencement of activities pursuant to this Agreement b. All insurance required above with the exception of Professional Liability, Personal Automobile Liability, Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability, shall be endorsed to name as additional insured: City of Newark, its City Council, and all City officers, agents, employees, volunteers and representatives.
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Newark and Urban Planning Partners, Inc. Page 6 of 14 c. For any claims related to this Agreement or the work hereunder, the Consultant’s insurance covered shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. d. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled by either party, except after 30 days’ prior written notice has been provided to the City.
e. Certificates of Insurance: Before commencing operations under this Agreement, Consultant shall provide Certificate(s) of Insurance and applicable insurance endorsements, in form and satisfactory to City, evidencing that all required insurance coverage is in effect. The City reserves the rights to require the Consultant to provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies.
f. Subcontractors: Consultant shall include all subcontractors as an insured (covered party) under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor.
All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein. g. Claims-made limitations. The following provisions shall apply if the professional liability coverage is written on a claims-made form:
i. The retroactive date of the policy must be shown and must be before the date of the Agreement.
ii. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five years after completion of the Agreement or the work, so long as commercially available at reasonable rates.
iii. If coverage is canceled or not renewed and it is not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date that precedes the date of this Agreement, Consultant must purchase an extended period coverage for a minimum of three (3) years after completion of work under this Agreement.
iv. A copy of the claim reporting requirements must be submitted to the City for review prior to the commencement of any work under this Agreement.
4.3 All Policies Requirements.
a. Acceptability of insurers. All insurance required by this section is to be placed with insurers with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VII. Insurance shall be maintained through an insurer with a minimum A.M. Best Rating of A- or better, with deductible amounts acceptable to the City. Acceptance of Consultant’s insurance by City shall not relieve or decrease the liability of Consultant hereunder. Any deductible or self-insured retention amount or other similar obligation under the policies shall be the sole responsibility of the Consultant.
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Newark and Urban Planning Partners, Inc. Page 7 of 14 b. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Consultant shall disclose to and obtain the written approval of City for the self-insured retentions and deductibles before beginning any of the services or work called for by any term of this Agreement. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, employees, and volunteers; or the Consultant shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
c. Wasting Policies. No policy required by this Section 4 shall include a “wasting” policy limit (i.e. limit that is eroded by the cost of defense). d. Waiver of Subrogation. Consultant hereby agrees to waive subrogation which any insurer or contractor may require from vendor by virtue of the payment of any loss.
Consultant agrees to obtain any endorsements that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation. The Workers’ Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the entity for all work performed by the consultant, its employees, agents, and subcontractors.
4.4 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies City may have if Consultant fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, City may, at its sole option exercise any of the following remedies, which are alternatives to other remedies City may have and are not the exclusive remedy for Consultant’s breach:
• Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under the Agreement;
• Order Consultant to stop work under this Agreement or withhold any payment that becomes due to Consultant hereunder, or both stop work and withhold any payment, until Consultant demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof; and/or • Terminate this Agreement.
Section 5. INDEMNIFICATION AND CONSULTANT’S RESPONSIBILITIES.
Consultant shall indemnify, defend with counsel acceptable to City, and hold harmless City and its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, claims, expenses, and costs (including without limitation, attorney’s fees and costs and fees of litigation) (collectively, “Liability”) of every nature arising out of or in connection with Consultant’s performance of the Services or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this Agreement, except such Liability caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City.
The Consultant’s obligation to defend and indemnify shall not be excused because of the Consultant’s inability to evaluate Liability or because the Consultant evaluates Liability and determines that the Consultant is not liable to the claimant. The Consultant must respond within 30 days, to the tender of any claim for defense and indemnity by the City, unless this time has been extended by the City. If the Consultant fails to accept or reject a tender of defense and indemnity within 30 days, in addition to any other remedy authorized by law, so much of the money due the Consultant under and by virtue of this Agreement as shall reasonably be considered necessary by the City, may be retained by the City Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Newark and Urban Planning Partners, Inc. Page 8 of 14 until disposition has been made of the claim or suit for damages, or until the Consultant accepts or rejects the tender of defense, whichever occurs first.
With respect to third party claims against the Consultant, the Consultant waives any and all rights of any type to express or implied indemnity against the Indemnitees.
Notwithstanding the forgoing, to the extent this Agreement is a “construction contract” as defined by California Civil Code Section 2782, as may be amended from time to time, such duties of consultant to indemnify shall not apply when to do so would be prohibited by California Civil Code Section 2782.
In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing services under this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of City, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of Consultant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of City.
Section 6. STATUS OF CONSULTANT.
6.1 Independent Contractor. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of City. City shall have the right to control Consultant only insofar as the results of Consultant's services rendered pursuant to this Agreement and assignment of personnel pursuant to Subparagraph 1.3; however, otherwise City shall not have the right to control the means by which Consultant accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other City, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing services under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any and all claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits.
6.2 Consultant Not an Agent. Except as City may specify in writing, Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent.
Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever.
Section 7. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.
7.1 Governing Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement.
7.2 Compliance with Applicable Laws. Consultant and any subcontractors shall comply with all laws applicable to the performance of the work hereunder.
7.3 Other Governmental Regulations. To the extent that this Agreement may be funded by fiscal assistance from another governmental entity, Consultant and any subcontractors shall comply Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Newark and Urban Planning Partners, Inc. Page 9 of 14 with all applicable rules and regulations to which City is bound by the terms of such fiscal assistance program.
7.4 Licenses and Permits. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant and its employees, agents, and any subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications, and approvals of whatsoever nature that are legally required to practice their respective professions. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant and its employees, agents, any subcontractors shall, at their sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals that are legally required to practice their respective professions. In addition to the foregoing, Consultant and any subcontractors shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement valid Business Licenses from City.
7.5 Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity. Consultant shall not discriminate, on the basis of a person’s race, religion, color, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap or disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity, against any employee, applicant for employment, subcontractor, bidder for a subcontract, or participant in, recipient of, or applicant for any services or programs provided by Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, policies, rules, and requirements related to equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in employment, contracting, and the provision of any services that are the subject of this Agreement, including but not limited to the satisfaction of any positive obligations required of Consultant thereby.
Consultant shall include the provisions of this Subsection in any subcontract approved by the Contract Administrator or this Agreement.
Section 8. TERMINATION AND MODIFICATION.
8.1 Termination. City may cancel this Agreement at any time and without cause upon written notification to Consultant. Consultant may cancel this Agreement upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to City and shall include in such notice the reasons for cancellation.
In the event of termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for services performed to the effective date of termination; City, however, may condition payment of such compensation upon Consultant delivering to City any or all work product, including, but not limited to documents, photographs, computer software, video and audio tapes, and other materials provided to Consultant or prepared by or for Consultant or the City in connection with this Agreement.
8.2 Extension. City may, in its sole and exclusive discretion, extend the end date of this Agreement beyond that provided for in Subsection 1.1. Any such extension shall require a written amendment to this Agreement, as provided for herein. Consultant understands and agrees that, if City grants such an extension, City shall have no obligation to provide Consultant with compensation beyond the maximum amount provided for in this Agreement. Similarly, unless authorized by the Contract Administrator, City shall have no obligation to reimburse Consultant for any otherwise reimbursable expenses incurred during the extension period.
8.3 Amendments. The Parties may amend this Agreement only by a writing signed by all the Parties.
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Newark and Urban Planning Partners, Inc. Page 10 of 14
8.4 Assignment and Subcontracting. City and Consultant recognize and agree that this Agreement contemplates personal performance by Consultant and is based upon a determination of Consultant’s unique personal competence, experience, and specialized personal knowledge.
Moreover, a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement was and is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. Consultant may not assign this Agreement or any interest therein without the prior written approval of the Contract Administrator. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the performance contemplated and provided for herein, other than to the subcontractors noted in the proposal, without prior written approval of the Contract Administrator.
8.5 Survival. All obligations arising prior to the termination of this Agreement and all provisions of this Agreement allocating liability between City and Consultant shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
8.6 Options upon Breach by Consultant. If Consultant materially breaches any of the terms of this Agreement, City’s remedies shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
8.6.1 Immediately terminate the Agreement;
8.6.2 Retain the plans, specifications, drawings, reports, design documents, and any other work product prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement;
8.6.3 Retain a different consultant to complete the work described in Exhibit A not finished by Consultant; or
8.6.4 Charge Consultant the difference between the cost to complete the work described in Exhibit A that is unfinished at the time of breach and the amount that City would have paid Consultant pursuant to Section 2 if Consultant had completed the work.
8.6.5 No remedy mentioned in this Agreement is intended to be exclusive of any other right, power, or remedy, permitted by law. Neither the failure nor the delay on the part of the City to exercise any such rights and remedies shall operate as a waiver thereof, nor shall any single or partial exercise by the City of any such right or remedy preclude any other or further exercise of any such right or remedy.
Section 9. KEEPING AND STATUS OF RECORDS.
9.1 Records Created as Part of Consultant’s Performance. All reports, data, maps, models, charts, studies, surveys, photographs, memoranda, plans, studies, specifications, records, files, or any other documents or materials, in electronic or any other form, that Consultant prepares or obtains pursuant to this Agreement and that relate to the matters covered hereunder shall be the property of the City. Consultant hereby agrees to deliver those documents to the City upon termination of the Agreement and City may use, reuse or otherwise dispose of the documents without Consultant’s permission. It is understood and agreed that the documents and other materials, including but not limited to those described above, prepared pursuant to this Agreement are prepared specifically for the Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Newark and Urban Planning Partners, Inc. Page 11 of 14 City and are not necessarily suitable for any future or other use. City and Consultant agree that, until final approval by City, all data, plans, specifications, reports and other documents are confidential and will not be released to third parties without prior written consent of both parties.
9.2 Consultant’s Books and Records. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services or expenditures and disbursements charged to the City under this Agreement for a minimum of 3 years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to the Consultant to this Agreement. All such records should be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible.
9.3 Inspection and Audit of Records. Any records or documents that Section 9.2 of this Agreement requires Consultant to maintain shall be made available for inspection, audit, and/or copying at any time during regular business hours, upon oral or written request of the City. Under California Government Code Section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds expended under this Agreement exceeds $10,000.00, the Agreement shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of City or as part of any audit of the City, for a period of 3 years after final payment under the Agreement.
Section 10 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
10.1 Attorneys’ Fees. If a party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled. The court may set such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose.
10.2 Venue. In the event that either party brings any action against the other under this Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Alameda or in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
10.3 Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement is invalid, void, or unenforceable, the provisions of this Agreement not so adjudged shall remain in full force and effect. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement.
10.4 No Implied Waiver of Breach. The waiver of any breach of a specific provision of this Agreement does not constitute a waiver of any other breach of that term or any other term of this Agreement.
10.5 Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the parties.
10.6 Use of Recycled Products. Consultant shall prepare and submit all reports, written studies and other printed material on recycled paper to the extent it is available at equal or less cost than virgin paper.
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Newark and Urban Planning Partners, Inc. Page 12 of 14
10.7 Conflict of Interest. Consultant may serve other clients, but none whose activities within the corporate limits of City or whose business, regardless of location, would place Consultant in a “conflict of interest,” as that term is defined in the Political Reform Act, codified at California Government Code Section 81000 et seq.
Consultant shall not employ any City official in the work performed pursuant to this Agreement. No officer or employee of City shall have any financial interest in this Agreement that would violate California Government Code Sections 1090 et seq. Consultant hereby warrants that it is not now, nor has it been in the previous 12 months, an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City. If Consultant was an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City in the previous twelve months, Consultant warrants that it did not participate in any manner in the forming of this Agreement.
Consultant understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of Government Code § 1090 et seq., the entire Agreement is void and Consultant will not be entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant to this Agreement, including reimbursement of expenses, and Consultant will be required to reimburse the City for any sums paid to the Consultant. Consultant understands that, in addition to the foregoing, it may be subject to criminal prosecution for a violation of Government Code § 1090 and, if applicable, will be disqualified from holding public office in the State of California.
10.8 Solicitation. Consultant agrees not to solicit business at any meeting, focus group, or interview related to this Agreement, either orally or through any written materials.
10.9 Contract Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by the City Manager, or his designee, identified as Steven Turner ("Contract Administrator"). All correspondence, meeting documentation, invoices and project deliverables shall be directed to or through the Contract Administrator.
10.10 Notices. Any notice, demand, request, consent or approval that either party is required to give the other pursuant to this Agreement, shall be in writing and may be given by either (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by reputable overnight delivery service (e.g. Federal Express) which provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, (iii) certified United States mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or (iv) by email transmission. Notice shall be effective upon personal delivery or delivery to the addresses specified below, as reflected on the receipt of delivery or return receipt, as applicable.
Any written notice to Consultant shall be sent to:
Urban Planning Partners, Inc.
388 17th Street, Suite 230
Oakland, California 94612
All other written notices to City shall be sent to:
Steven Turner Kristopher J. Kokotaylo,
Community Development Director City Attorney
City of Newark City of Newark
37101 Newark Blvd. with a copy to 37101 Newark Blvd.
Newark, CA 94560 Newark, CA 94560
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Newark and Urban Planning Partners, Inc. Page 13 of 14
10.11 Professional Seal. Where applicable in the determination of the contract administrator, the first page of a technical report, first page of design specifications, and each page of construction drawings shall be stamped/sealed and signed by the licensed professional responsible for the report/design preparation. The stamp/seal shall be in a block entitled "Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with report/design responsibility," as in the following example. _________________________________________
Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with
report/design responsibility.
10.12 Integration. This Agreement, including the scope of work attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, Urban Planning Partners, Inc.’s project proposal, represent the entire and integrated agreement between City and Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral.
Exhibit A Scope of Services and Compensation Schedule
10.13 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement.
SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Newark and Urban Planning Partners, Inc. Page 14 of 14 The Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.
CITY OF NEWARK URBAN PLANNING PARTNERS, INC.
____________________________ ______________________________ ________, CITY MANAGER
Title: _________________________
ATTEST:
___________________________
______, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
KRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO
CITY ATTORNEY
5638310.1
Version 3.2.21
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES AND COMPENSATION SCHEDULE
.
P ROPOSAL FOR S ERVICES J ULY 6 , 202 6
C ITY OF N EWARK F OUR C ORNERS S PECIFIC P LAN
P R O J EC T U NDERS TA ND I NG & AP P R OA C H
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
The planning area for the Specific Plan is the Four Corners area Four Corners area at the intersection of Newark Boulevard and Jarvis Avenue and beyond—an area that serves as an important convenienceshopping corridor for the community with several anchor grocery and other retail tenants as well as a culturally diverse mix of smaller retail, restaurant and service uses. Although there is relatively high demand for commercial space along this corridor as evidence by very little vacant space in smaller store fronts; there are some larger vacant or very underutilized areas that present redevelopment opportunities.
The Housing Element Program H2.3 requires the Specific Plan to facilitate market-rate and affordable housing and promote neighborhood revitalization in the Four Corners area via increased mixed-use development and walkability. The 1990 Four Corners Specific Plan was developed to guide commercial use and mixed-use development that reflects outdated economic conditions and planning practices. As a result, the City decided to initiate a new plan.
The Four Corners area is within a 1/2-mile of the planned South Bay Connect Ardenwood Capitol Corridor station and SR 84 Intermodal Bus Facility. A new pedestrian overcrossing connection is also planned to improve the pedestrian and bicycle connection with the new facilities and require the area to be planned in a way that is TOC compliant.
APPROACH
UPP is committed to leading an effective specific plan process. Highlights of our approach include:
Feasibility‑first standards: calibrate height, FAR, parking, and ground‑floor use to current pro‑forma realities while enabling future up‑zoning as market improves.
J ULY 6 , 202 6 P ROPOSAL FOR S ERVICES
C ITY OF N EWARK F OUR C ORNERS S PECIFIC P LAN
TOC alignment: apply latest MTC TOC requirements for densities, parking, and station access; produce a clear compliance packet.
Right‑sized culturally competent engagement: meeting the community and stakeholders where they are and helping them understand where they can have meaningful input with a series of informal stakeholder meetings, three additional touchpoints + short survey; multilingual materials; show “what we heard/changed.
Range of Land Use Alternative and test fits: consider TOC compliant and possibly a SB 79 compliant alternative along with community driven alternatives. Streamlining: identify AB 2011 / SB 35 and other legislative pathways, objective standards, and implementation tools to shorten permitting.
The Four Corners Specific Plan will balance multiple priorities, including facilitating housing and commercial development, promoting neighborhood revitalization through increased mixed-use development and walkability, and facilitating transit station development.
S COPE OF WOR K
This chapter outlines the scope of work detailed in the RFP for the Four Corners Specific Plan and CEQA compliance strategy. We have not repeated all the task descriptions included in the RFP. We have provided text to highlight specifics of our approach.
PROJECT INITIATION / MANAGEMENT
Task 1.a. Kick-Off Meeting, Site Tour, and Work Plan
Task 1.b. Project Management
Biweekly Check-Ins. UPP will facilitate 30-minute biweekly check-ins throughout the project. Risk/Issues Log. UPP will maintain a log of tasks and deliverables that are at risk of being delayed compared to the original project schedule. In addition, UPP will maintain a log of key questions or issues that arise throughout the project.
Monthly Progress Memos.
QA/QC: Our QA/QC protocols include a Principal Reviewer Checklist that must be completed by the Principal Reviewer and Project Manager prior to distributing to client. We also closely review our subconsultants’ work for readability and to ensure accuracy and responsiveness.
Deliverables: meeting agendas, work plan, schedule, progress memos
BASELINE CONDITIONS, DATA, AND MAPPING
All team members will participate in this assessment to provide a program-level assessment of the area’s existing and planned physical and infrastructure conditions including utilities and relevant planning policy and legislation at the local, regional and state level. As part of this effort, we will gather data and prepare baseline mapping of conditions and focus on items that could be constraints and opportunities for future development and improvements. Note we have combined the Development Feasibility and TOC & Housing Analysis into one task.
P ROPOSAL FOR S ERVICES J ULY 6 , 202 6
C ITY OF N EWARK F OUR C ORNERS S PECIFIC P LAN
Task 2.A – Inventory and Review
Task 2.B – Existing Conditions Analysis
Task 2.C – Infrastructure and Utilities Assessment
Task 2.D – Surveying & Base Mapping
Task 2.E – Market Analysis. LEG will prepare a market analysis to inform the feasibility of mixed-use and multi-unit residential development. The analysis will not only assess current market conditions for residential, commercial, and mixed-use development, identify realistic development types and intensities, and help calibrate land use assumptions, densities, and development standards within the Specific Plan. It will also forecast forward for the next 20 years. The analysis will include findings specific to the commercial component and identify realistic use types, space sizes, and provide examples of similar mixed-use projects that have demonstrated success in comparable areas.
Task 2.F – Development Feasibility, Opportunity Sites, and TOC Readiness. Our team will work together to screen and select the three sites with input from City staff and the consultant team. The analysis will be informed by concept illustrations and development program parameters and cost estimates based upon similar project experience developed by our team. The analysis will assess how proposed land uses, densities, development standards, and TOC requirements affect development feasibility and inform plan policies and standards.
LEG has a pro forma financial model specifically created for this type of analysis that we have used for over 20 years and can perform this task with much sensitivity testing in a cost-effective manner. We will also consider various parking and engineering-related items such as grading, drainage, traffic circulation, pedestrian and bicycle circulation, accessibility compliance, parking, fire and trash access, surface improvements relationships and other potential issues.
As part of this task our team will also the area’s readiness for transit-oriented, mixed-use and multi-unit housing development, including, but not limited to consistency with MTC TOC Policy requirements, opportunities to facilitate maximum residential densities, and applicability of state laws such as AB 2011.
Task 2.G – Mapping & Technical Appendix
Deliverables: Topical PPTs summarizing our key findings for each subtask and review them with City staff to determine if there are any red or yellow flags or concerns; Community Assets/Opportunities and Constraints Summary that combines the findings and back-up data along with maps, graphics etc.
COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
UPP will prepare a Community Engagement Plan in close collaboration with the City to address the engagement priorities from the RFP. A key element of this plan will be clear outcome statements around what is successful community and stakeholder engagement for this project. The plan will be in a table/matrix format and will define target audiences (including underrepresented neighborhoods and priority populations), objectives, methods, roles, schedule, and how the input will inform policies, programs and actions. A key element of our plan will be the best way to meet people where they are and ensure how they participate in meaningful engagement. This is particularly important with all the housing and streamlining legislation. We will also work with the City’s social media staff to determine how those platforms can best support engagement efforts.. Potential elements of the Engagement Plan include the following; we will work with staff to refine which are appropriate to include:
J ULY 6 , 202 6 P ROPOSAL FOR S ERVICES
C ITY OF N EWARK F OUR C ORNERS S PECIFIC P LAN
Stakeholder interviews and/or small group meetings – We find these as some of the most helpful and informative engagement activities to have early in the planning process. Cost proposal assumes two small group meetings. The number of these will be determined in consultation with city staff with adjustments made to the budget.
Technical Advisory Group Meetings (TAG) – Establishing a TAG with representatives from City department and key agencies can expedite input related to requests for information and product review. Cost proposal assumes three TAC meetings.
Other Options – Youth engagement at middle or high school; intercept surveys; tabling (e.g., farmers market, Run4Fun). Cost proposal includes up to two two-hour events.
Optional Task: Public Workshop/Open House and Additional Small Group Meetings Deliverables. Engagement Plan; Outreach Materials; Addendum to the Community Assets/Opportunities and Constraints Summary with outreach findings.
VISION, POLICY FRAMEWORK, AND DRAFT SPECIFIC PLAN
The Specific Plan will include policy and project recommendations, a clear vision, policies, and implementation actions and strategies to facilitate more housing and mixed-use development.
Task 4.A – Draft Vision, Goals & Policies. Prepare and present a working draft of the Plan’s vision, outcomes/goals, and policies (including a draft Affordable Housing Overlay Zone in compliance with Housing Element Program H5.4) to review with City staff during a half-day workshop.
Task 4.B – Draft Land Use, Infrastructure, and Mobility Concepts. Prepare and present a working draft of alternative concepts that comply with TOC policies and the City’s Housing Element that are informed by our work in Tasks 1-3 with City staff during a half-day workshop.
Task 4.C – Administrative Draft Specific Plan (up to 2 revisions). Overall development of the Plan and coordination of these efforts will be led by UPP. Here is a preliminary roadmap for the Four Corners Specific Plan:
Chapters 1+2: Introduction, Vision and Principles - overall vision, planning principles and planning process, setting the context for Specific Plan.
Chapter 3: Regulatory Framework - based on Tasks 1, 2, and 3 sets out the multiple physical, market and policy frameworks that currently guide development of the streets, open spaces and buildings within the Specific Plan Area.
Chapters 4-6: Development Framework, Policies and Standards - for (4) Land Use and Affordable Housing, (5) Urban Design including Development and Design Standards, and (6) Mobility (including Station Access) and Circulation.
Chapter 7: Implementation and Plan Administration - outline the necessary steps to fulfil the vision of the Plan including policies to improve development certainty and reduce costs. Implementation will cover economics, infrastructure improvements, capital investments, affordable housing, and metrics and monitoring approaches. Plan Administration will cover how the Plan is adopted including associated amendments to other plans and ordinances to ensure smooth implementation and facilitate a Specific Plan that can be responsive to the market. Appendices – including fiscal analysis, required policy and zoning amendments, TOC Compliance documents, and information for reference used to generate the Specific Plan.
Task 4.D – Affordable Housing Requirements & Overlay Zone. UPP will lead the preparation of an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone consistent with the Housing Element requirements and modeled after other plans that are readily available such as Foster City (prepared by UPP) and Oakland.
P ROPOSAL FOR S ERVICES J ULY 6 , 202 6
C ITY OF N EWARK F OUR C ORNERS S PECIFIC P LAN
Task 4.E – Fiscal Analysis. LEG will produce a fiscal analysis of potential City General Fund expenses and revenue from the preferred Land Use & Development Framework and Conceptual Land & Infrastructure Plan. We have a custom fiscal model designed for California municipalities and can perform this task in a cost-efficient manner. The analysis will compare the 10- and 20-year future with plan adoption against a trendline future without this specific plan. We will identify potential funding sources and mechanisms and potential one-time and ongoing City revenues resulting from Specific Plan implementation.
Task 4.F – Final Specific Plan - an adoption-ready Specific Plan, including all required text, maps, figures, and an implementation plan.
Deliverables. Presentation decks for Task 4.A and 4.B; Admin Draft Specific Plan (#1 and #2); Draft Specific Plan; General Fund Fiscal Analysis Memorandum; Affordable Housing Requirements & Overlay Zone; Appendices; Final Specific Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SUPPORT (OPTIONAL TASK)
UPP will work with the City to identify what level of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review is warranted for the Specific Plan and do an initial assessment of approaches that will support a streamlined CEQA document that relies on an existing EIR or an Exemption. With current legislation, there are several options to consider. We will document our findings in memorandum or matrix that compares the Specific Plan project with the necessary findings and/or relevant impacts and mitigation measures to make an initial determination regarding what CEQA approach is recommended for the Specific Plan. Until we complete an initial assessment, it is not possible to know what technical analyses may be necessary to inform the approach. As a result, we will prepare an initial memo that details what analysis may be needed, a draft scope, and estimated fee.
Optional Task: CEQA VMT Analysis.
Deliverables: Environmental Review Strategy memorandum.
HEARINGS, ADOPTION & FINAL MATERIALS
Deliverables. Staff Reports, Presentation Materials, and Graphics for up to three public hearings, including two Planning Commission meetings and one City Council meeting. 4 . E STIMATED F EE & P ROPOSED S CHEDULE
Our estimated fee for completion of the scope of work set forth in this proposal is $459,776 (which includes a 15% contingency) as shown in Table 1 on the following page. We have also included optional tasks for the City’s consideration. A more detailed breakdown of the estimated fee by firm and individual is provided in Appendix B.
We will undertake the work on a time-and-materials basis, with an estimated not-to-exceed amount without prior authorization.
J ULY 6 , 202 6 P ROPOSAL FOR S ERVICES
C ITY OF N EWARK F OUR C ORNERS S PECIFIC P LAN
9 The UPP team is committed to completing the Plan according to the City’s schedule. With project kickoff in August 2026 and completion in June 2027 as shown in Figure 2.
R E F E RENC ES
UPP
Ada Chan, ABAG/MTC
[email protected] | 415.820.7958
Reference for: San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan
MTC TA – Alameda Collaborative
Miroo Desai, AICP, City of Emeryville
[email protected] | 510.596.3785
Reference for: Overall experience with UPP
Matthew VanHua, AICP, City of Santa Cruz
[email protected] | 831.420.5216
Reference for: Citywide Multifamily Zoning and
Design Standards
Mirabel Aguilar, City of Fremont
[email protected]
Reference for: Irvington BART Station Area Plan
Marcus Martinez, Related Companies
[email protected] | 909-816-0647
Reference for: El Cerrito BART TOD Entitlements
KHCD
Lee Butler, City of Santa Cruz
[email protected] | 831.420.5103
Reference for: Citywide Multifamily Objective
Design Standards
John Davidson, City of Santa Clara
[email protected] | 408.615.2478
Reference for: Tasman East Specific Plan
Land Econ Group
Kathy Kleinbaum, City of Belmont
[email protected] | 650.598.4216
Reference for: Shoreway Financial Feasibility and
Fiscal Impact
CBG
Tim Steele, The Sobrato Organization
[email protected] | 408.832.4200
Reference for: Sanctuary (Area 3), Newark CA
Fehr & Peers
Carmela Campbell, City of Union City
[email protected] | 510.675.5316
Reference for: Union City BART Station Specific
Plan & EIR
FIGURE 2. PROPOSED TIMELINE
Table 1. Estimated Fee Summary
$300 $250 $160 $155 $150 $275
TASK 1 PROJECT INITIATION / MANAGEMENT
Hours 12 34 50 0 0 96 0 6 12 21 135
$ 3,600 $ 8,500$ $ 8,000 $ - -$ $ 20,100 $ - $ - $ 1,440 $ 3,280 $ 5,000 $ 29,820 TASK 2 BASELINE CONDITIONS, DATA, AND MAPPING
Hours 8 26 40 48 0 122 36 132 110 65 465
$ 2,400 $ 6,500$ 6,400$ $ 7,440 $ - $ 22,740 $ 9,900 $ 9,900 $ 28,880 $ 27,040 $ 13,730 $ 102,290 TASK 3 COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
3.A 16301 11 2,430 $ 0 $ 0 -$ - 0 -$ 0 - $ $ 2,430
3.B Engagement 10 44 56 20 4 134 26,660 $ 0 $ - 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ $ 26,660 2 Tabling Pop Ups 2 12880 30 6,120 $ 0 $ - 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ $ 6,120 3 TAGs 4 10 16 0 0 30 6,260 $ 0 $ - 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ $ 6,2601 Survey 1 10 24 8 0 43 7,880 $ 0 $ - 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ $ 7,8802 Small Group Meetings 3 12844 31 6,400 $ 0 $ - 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ $ 6,400 Hours 11 50 59 20 5 145 0000145
$ 3,300 $ 12,500 $ $ 9,440 $ 3,100 $ 750 $ 29,090 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 29,090
4.A 4 12 12 0 0 28 6,120 $ 0 $ 0 -$ - 0 - $ 8 1,790 $ $ 6,120
4.B 2 6 6160 30 5,540 $ 36 $ 9,900 0 - $ 0 -$ 0 - $ $ 5,5404.B 12000 3 800 $ 0 $ - 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ $ 8004.B 12000 3 800 $ 0 $ - 0 - $ 20 5,120 $ 0 - $ $ 5,920
4.C 18 84 64 60 21 247 49,090 $ 0 $ 0 -$ - 0 - $ 33 6,990 $ $ 49,090 Policy and Zoning Amendments 2 12 16 24 4 58 10,480 $ 0 $ - 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ $ 10,480TOC Compliance 2 12 24 0 0 38 7,440 $ 0 $ - 0 -$ 0 -$
4.D Draft Specific Plan 2 82408 42 7,640 $ 0 $ - 0 - $ 11 2,825 $ 0 - $ $ 10,465
4.E Affordable Housing Overlay Zone 3 12 24 12 0 51 9,600 $ 0 $ - 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ $ 9,6004.F Fiscal Analysis 22000 4 1,100 $ 0 $ - 76 13,760 $ 0 - $ 0 - $ $ 14,860
4.G 4 81604 32 6,360 $ 0 $ - 0 - $ 12 3,020 $ 0 - $ $ 9,380 Hours 41 160 186 112 37 536 96 76 137 137 982
$ 12,300 $ 40,000$ 29,760$ 17,360$ $ 5,550 $ 104,970 $ 26,400 $ 26,400 $ 13,760 $ 34,855 $ 29,100 $ 209,085 TASK 5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SUPPORT
CEQA Strategy & Support (See Optional Task) 00000 0- $ 0 $ - 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ $ - Hours00000 0 0 000 0
$- $ -$ -$ -$ -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TASK 6 HEARINGS, ADOPTION & FINAL MATERIALS
6.A Public Hearings (staff reports, presentation, etc) 8 40 40 4 4 96 20,020 $ 0 $ - 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 - $ $ 20,020 Hours 8 40 40 4 4 96 0 000 96
$ 2,400 $ 10,000 $ $ 6,400 620$ $ 600 $ 20,020 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20,020
TOTAL LABOR ESTIMATE
Hours 80 310 375 184 46 995 132 214 259 223 1823
$ 24,000 $ 77,500$ 60,000$ 28,520$ $ 6,900 $ 196,920 $ 36,300 $ 36,300 $ 44,080 $ 65,175 $ 47,830 $ 390,305
DIRECT COSTS
$ 2,500 $ 9,500 7,000 $
$ - 2,500 $ -$ $ - $ 7,000 $ 9,500
TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE
TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE $ 36,300$ 199,420 44,080$ 65,175$ 54,830$ $ 399,805
TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE PLUS CONTINGENCY
$ 29,913 $ 5,445 $ 6,612 $ 9,776 $ 8,225 $ 59,971
TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE WITH CONTINGENCY $ 41,745$ 229,333 50,692$ 74,951$ 63,055$ $ 459,776 Optional Tasks
A CEQA VMT Analysis $ 25,000 25,000 $
B CEQA Strategy & Support 4 10 2 24 4 44 $ 8,340 $ 8,340 C 2 Additional Small Group Meetings 3 12 8 4 4 31 $ 6,400 $ 6,400 D 1 Workshop/Open House 4 20 20 4 0 48 $ 10,020 10 $ 2,750 15 3,220 $ 15,990 $ TOTAL OPTIONAL TASKS FEE $ 2,750 24,760 $ - $ -$ $ 28,220 $ 55,730 Lynette Dias
Project Director
Carla Violet
Project
Manager
Claire Mei
Assistant
Project
Manager
Michaela
Gwiazda
Project Planner
Word Processor
TOTAL LABOR ESTIMATE
Direct Costs (printing, mileage)
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS COSTS
15% Contingency Final Specific Plan
Task 4 Subtotal
Task 5 SubtotalTask 6 Subtotal
Draft Land Use ConceptsDraft Infrastructure ConceptsDraft Mobility ConceptsAdministrative Draft Specific Plan Task 2 Subtotal
Develop Community Engagement Plan
Task 3 Subtotal
Vision, Goals & Policies
TASK 4 VISION, POLICY FRAMEWORK, AND DRAFT SPECIFIC PLAN Task 1 Subtotal
Project
Team Total
Fehr & Peers
Hours Total $
Land Econ CBG
Hours Total $ Hours Total $
UPP
Hours Total $
KHCD
Hours Total $
Table B-1. Estimated Fee Detail
$300 $250 $160 $155 $150 $275 $240 $170 $290 $265 $230 $230 $220 $360 $240 $220 $190 $190 TASK 1 PROJECT INITIATION / MANAGEMENT
1.A 4 12600 22 5,160 $ 0 $ - 60 6 $ 1,440 48000 12 3,280 $ 14000 5 1,320 $ $ 11,200
1.B 82244 0 0 74 14,940 $ 0 $ - 00 0- $ 00000 0- $ 26062 16 $ 3,680 $ 18,620 Hours123450 0 0 96 06 0 6 48000 12 3 10062 21 135
$ 3,600 $ $ 8,500 $ 8,000 $ - $ - $ 20,100 $ - $ - $ 1,440 $ - $ 1,440 $ 1,160 $ 2,120 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,280 $ 1,080 $ 2,400 $ - $ 1,140 $ 380 $ 5,000 $ 29,820 TASK 2 BASELINE CONDITIONS, DATA, AND MAPPING
2.A 14880 21 3,820 $ 0 $ - 00 0- $ 24000 6 $ 1,640 00000 0- $ $ 5,460
2.B 2 82040 34 6,420 $ 0 $ - 00 0- $ 24 1200 18 4,400 $ 2 4 10 30 3 49 10,150 $ $ 20,970
2.C 04000 4 1,000 $ 0 $ - 00 0- $ 48 2000 32 7,880 $ 12041 8 1,790 $ $ 10,670
2.D 02800 10 1,780 $ 0 $ - 00 0- $ 24 1288 34 8,000 $ 00000 0- $ $ 9,780
2.E 12000 3 $ 800 0 $ - 60 20 80 17,800 $ 00000 0- $ 00000 0- $ $ 18,600
2.F 4 6 4360 50 8,920 $ 36 $ 9,900 32 20 52 11,080 $ 24000 6 1,640 $ 12041 8 1,790 $ $ 33,330
2.G 00000 0- $ 0 $ - 00 0- $ 24800 14 $ 3,480 00000 0- $ $ 3,480 Hours 8 26 40 48 0 122 36 92 40 132 14 28 52 8 8 110 4 8 10 38 5 65 465 $ 2,400 $ $ 6,500 $ 6,400 $ 7,440 $ - $ 22,740 $ 9,900 $ 9,900 $ 22,080 $ 6,800 $ 28,880 $ 4,060 $ 7,420 $ 11,960 $ 1,840 $ 1,760 $ 27,040 $ 1,440 $ 1,920 $ 2,200 $ 7,220 $ 950 $ 13,730 $ 102,290 TASK 3 COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
3.A 16301 11 2,430 $ 0 $ - 00 0- $ 00000 0- $ 00000 0- $ $ 2,430
3.B Engagement 10445620 4 134 26,660 $ 0 $ - 00 0- $ 00000 0- $ 00000 0- $ $ 26,660 2 pop ups 2 12880 30 6,120 $ 0 $ - 00 0- $ 00000 0- $ 00000 0- $ $ 6,120 3 TAGs 41016 0 0 30 6,260 $ 0 $ - 00 0- $ 00000 0- $ 00000 0- $ $ 6,260 1 survey 11024 8 0 43 7,880 $ 0 $ - 00 0- $ 00000 0- $ 00000 0- $ $ 7,880 2 Small Group Meetings 3 12844 31 6,400 $ 0 $ - 00 0- $ 00000 0- $ 00000 0- $ $ 6,400 Hours11505920 5 145 00 0 0 00000 0 00000 0 145
$ 3,300 $ $ 12,500 $ 9,440 $ 3,100 $ 750 $ 29,090 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 29,090 TASK 4 VISION, POLICY FRAMEWORK, AND DRAFT SPECIFIC PLAN
4.A 4 12 12 0 0 28 6,120 $ 0 $ - 00 0- $ 00000 0- $ 12041 8 $ 1,790 $ 7,910
4.B Draft Land Use Concepts 2 6 6 16 0 30 5,540 $ 36 $ 9,900 00 0- $ 00000 0- $ 00000 0- $ $ 15,440
4.B Draft Infrastructure Concepts 12000 3 $ 800 0 $ - 00 0- $ 00000 0- $ 00000 0- $ $ 800
4.B Draft Mobility Concepts 12000 3 $ 800 0 $ - 00 0- $ 48800 20 $ 5,120 00000 0- $ $ 5,920
4.C 48806 26 5,380 $ 0 $ - 00 0- $ 00000 0- $ 246 165 33 6,990 $ $ 12,370 Intro and Vision 1 81201 22 4,370 $ 0 $ - 00 0- $ 48600 18 $ 4,660 00000 0- $ $ 9,030 Reg Framework 12804 15 2,680 $ 0 $ - 00 0- $ 00000 0- $ 00000 0- $ $ 2,680 LU and Affordable Housing 2 24 8 24 3 61 12,050 $ 0 $ - 00 0- $ 00000 0- $ 00000 0- $ $ 12,050 112 836 1 58 10,310 $ 60 $ 16,500 00 0- $ 46800 18 $ 4,590 12041 8 1,790 $ $ 33,190 16201 10 2,270 $ 0 $ - 00 0- $ 24600 12 $ 3,020 2 4 6165 33 6,990 $ $ 12,280 14201 8 1,770 $ 0 $ - 00 0- $ 00000 0- $ 266 303 47 9,750 $ $ 11,520 14000 5 1,300 $ 0 $ - 00 0- $ 61222 0 0 40 9,980 $ 12041 8 1,790 $ $ 13,070 61616 0 4 42 8,960 $ 0 $ - 00 0- $ 24000 6 $ 1,640 00000 0- $ $ 10,600 2121624 4 58 10,480 $ 0 $ - 00 0- $ 00000 0- $ 00000 0- $ $ 10,48021224 0 0 38 7,440 $ 0 $ - 00 0- $ 00000 0- $ 00000 0- $ $ 7,440
4.D 2 82408 42 7,640 $ 0 $ - 00 0- $ 25400 11 $ 2,825 00000 0- $ $ 10,465
4.E 3122412 0 51 9,600 $ 0 $ - 00 0- $ 00000 0- $ 00000 0- $ $ 9,600
4.F 22000 4 1,100 $ 0 $ - 12 64 76 13,760 $ 00000 0- $ 00000 0- $ $ 14,860
4.G 4 81604 32 6,360 $ 0 $ - 00 0- $ 24600 12 $ 3,020 00000 0- $ $ 9,380 Hours 41 160 186 112 37 536 96 12 64 76 26 51 60 0 0 137 920187416 137 982 $ 12,300 $ $ 40,000 $ 29,760 $ 17,360 $ 5,550 $ 104,970 $ 26,400 $ 26,400 $ 2,880 $ 10,880 $ 13,760 $ 7,540 $ 13,515 $ 13,800 $ - $ - $ 34,855 $ 3,240 $ 4,800 $ 3,960 $ 14,060 $ 3,040 $ 29,100 $ 209,085 TASK 5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SUPPORT
CEQA Strategy & Support (See Optional Task) 0- $ 0 $ - 00 0- $ 00000 0- $ 00000 0- $ $ - Hours00000 0 00 0 0 0000 00 000 0 0 0 0
$- $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - TASK 6 HEARINGS, ADOPTION & FINAL MATERIALS
6.A Public Hearings (staff reports, presentation, etc) 8 40 40 4 4 96 20,020 $ 0 $ - 00 0- $ 00000 0- $ 00000 0- $ $ 20,020 Hours 8 40 40 4 4 96 00 0 0 00000 0 00000 096
$ 2,400 $ $ 10,000 $ 6,400 $ 620 $ 600 $ 20,020 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20,020
TOTAL LABOR ESTIMATE
Hours 80 310 375 184 46 995 132 110 104 214 44 87 112 8 8 259 16 38 28 118 23 223 1823 $ 24,000 $ $ 77,500 $ 60,000 $ 28,520 $ 6,900 $ 196,920 $ 36,300 $ 36,300 $ 26,400 $ 17,680 $ 44,080 $ 12,760 $ 23,055 $ 25,760 $ 1,840 $ 1,760 $ 65,175 $ 5,760 $ 9,120 $ 6,160 $ 22,420 $ 4,370 $ 47,830 $ 390,305
DIRECT COSTS
$ 2,500 $ 9,500 7,000 $ $ 2,500 $ - $ - $ - $ 7,000 $ 9,500
TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE
TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE $ 36,300$ 199,420 44,080$ $ 65,175 $ 54,830 $ 399,805
TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE PLUS CONTINGENCY
$ 5,445 29,913 $ 6,612 $ $ 9,776 $ 59,971 8,225 $
TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE WITH CONTINGENCY $ 41,745$ 229,333 50,692$ $ 74,951 $ 63,055 $ 459,776 Optional Tasks
A CEQA VMT Analysis $ 25,000 25,000 $
B CEQA Strategy & Support 4 10 2 24 4 44 $ 8,340 $ 8,340 C 2 Additional Small Group Meetings 3 12 8 4 4 31 $ 6,400 $ 6,400 D 1 Workshop/Open House 4 20 20 4 0 48 $ 10,020 10 $ 2,750 14082 15 3,220 $ 15,990 $ TOTAL OPTIONAL TASKS FEE $ 2,750 24,760 $ -$ $ - $ 55,730 28,220 $ Infrastructure & Utilities Assessment
Task 2 Subtotal
Task 3 Subtotal
Vision, Goals & PoliciesDevelop Community Engagement PlanSurveying & Base MappingExisting Conditions AnalysisAffordable Housing Overlay ZoneConceptual Land & Infrastructure PlanImplementation Measures & Metrics Project Team Total
Fiscal Analysis
KHDC Land Econ Group
Administrative Draft Specific PlanUrban DesignDraft Specific PlanPolicy and Zoning Amendments Urban Planning Partners
Mobility and Circulation
Party Chief
Ian Barnes
Principal-in-Charge
Grace Chen
Project Manager
TOTAL LABOR ESTIMATE
Task 4 Subtotal
Task 5 Subtotal
Final Specific Plan
Task 6 Subtotal
CBG
Mapping & Technical AppendixStation Access and Mobility Hub PlanningMarket AnalysisKick-Off, Work Plan, and Site TourProject Management Task 1 Subtotal
Inventory & Review
Senior Engineer
Project Engineer
Graphics/Admin
TOC ComplianceFeasibility & Opportunity Sites & TOCDirect Costs (printing, mileage)15% Contingency Fehr & Peers
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS COSTS
UPP Total (hours)
UPP Total ($)
Kristen Hall City Design
Total ($)
Land Econ Group (hours)
Land Econ Group ($)
CBG Total (hours)
CBG Total ($)
Fehr & Peers Total (hours)
Fehr & Peers Total ($)
Lynette Dias
Project Director
Carla Violet
Project Manager
Claire Mei
Assistant Project Manager
Michaela Gwiazda
Project Planner
Word Processor
Kristen Hall
Design Director
Bill Lee
Tanya Chiranakhon
J. DeKnoblough
Principal
Justin Joseph
Project Manager
Project Engineer
Project Surveyor
Item D. 6.
DATE 07/23/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Roya Gonzalez, Strategic Initiatives Manager
SUBJECT Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute Task Order No.34 to the Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Fremont for paratransit services with Ride On Tri-City! in an amount not to exceed $189,642 and amend the Biennial Budget SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The City of Newark wishes to continue its long-standing paratransit program for the 2026–2027 program year, which provides essential door-to-door shared ride transportation for residents aged 70 and older and individuals with disabilities. Staff recommends that the City Council, by resolution, authorize the City Manager to execute Task Order No. 34 to the Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Fremont for Newark paratransit services with Ride On Tri-City!
BACKGROUND
Door-to-door ride transportation services are an essential service offered to Newark residents who are 70 years of age and older or who are unable to access public transit independently due to a medical condition or disabilities. These paratransit services are provided to older adults and disabled Newark residents in order to improve their access to health care, shopping, errands, and social and recreational activities. Services are coordinated through the City of Fremont’s Ride-On Tri-City! program and include wheelchair-accessible transportation and subsidized ride-hailing options. The program is funded through the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC)-administered sales tax revenue and has served Newark residents since 2013.
The size and scope of Fremont’s program provides Newark residents with satisfactory services.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The following table summarizes services to be provided through the City of Fremont under the proposed contract with Nomad Transit, LLC (for wheelchair accessible vehicle services), Lyft, Inc. (for Ride-Hailing Services), and GoGo Technologies, Inc. (for Ride-Hailing Services):
In addition to paratransit and direct ride-hailing services, Newark residents benefit from In addition to paratransit and direct ride-hailing services, Newark residents benefit from the high level of service coordination and customer service provided by the City of Fremont's Ride-On-Tri-City! services team. City of Fremont staff ensures that eligible residents have expedited access to transportation services (applications can be processed within hours and urgent need transportation can be scheduled on the next day and sometimes even on the same day). Paratransit enrollment packets are sent out within a day or two of receipt of a completed application. Applications and application assistance are available at the Newark Senior Center and on the City of Newark's website.
Fiscal Year
2026-27 Service
Parameters
Fremont/Newark Wheelchair Accessible Paratransit Service Service Hours Monday - Sunday 8:00 am - 6:00 pm
Service Area All of Newark, Fremont, and Union City
Fares $4 per one-way trip within Newark, Fremont, and Union City Reservation
Hours
Ride reservations may be made Monday-Friday, 8 am - 5 pm and up to 3 days in advance. Rides are reserved on a first-call, first-served basis and are subject to vehicle space availability. Reservations and dispatch are provided through Nomad Transit, Inc. during the hours specified above. Standing order requests are processed and approved by Fremont's Transportation and Mobility Services team.
Enrollment
processing time
On the same day of receipt of the application. Expedited access to transportation can also be arranged on the same day or the next day as scheduling capacity allows.
Fiscal Year 2026-27
Service Parameters
Subsidized Direct-Ride Hailing Service with Lyft and Ride-Hailing Service with GoGo Technologies
Service Hours
24 hours per day, seven days a week, for rides ordered through an individual’s smartphone. Rides provided through GoGo Technologies (for individuals without smartphones) will be available 7 days per week, 8 am– 6 pm. Ride requests are made on the same day through the Lyft app on the rider’s own smartphone. Riders will receive special codes to apply to their rides in order to receive subsidized rides. Riders without smartphones will call GoGo Technologies’ GoGo Grandparent call center for a ride on the Lyft or Uber ride-hailing platforms.
Service Area All of Newark, Fremont, and Union City. Out-of-Area medical trips by staff approval only.
Fares
Riders pay the first $4 of a trip, and up to $16 of the trip will be subsidized.
Riders are responsible for all fares above $20. For staff-approved medical out-of-area trips, the rider pays the first $8 of the trip, and up to $4 of the trip will be subsidized; riders are responsible for all fares above $50.
Passenger fares will be charged directly through the Lyft app or by GoGo Technologies.
Enrollment Requirements Must be enrolled in the Fremont/Newark Paratransit program.
The following information offers an overview of rider statistics for individuals currently enrolled and using services provided by this program:
Expected Demand/ Use of Services:
Registrants at the end of Fiscal Year 2025-26 305
Projected Registrants for Fiscal Year 2026-27 425
Registrant Increase 39%
Registration is projected to increase as a result of expanded marketing efforts and targeted community outreach designed to increase awareness of available programs and services. The projection also reflects the continued growth of Newark's older adult population, which is expected to increase demand for senior programming.
The proposed Task Order not-to-exceed amount was developed based on projected program demand, including approximately 1,000 wheelchair-accessible vehicle (WAV) trips, 8,700 subsidized ride-hailing trips, and the associated costs for customer service, community outreach, and program administration. The increased investment in outreach and marketing is intended to expand program awareness, increase enrollment, and support the anticipated growth in ridership. Sufficient funding is available in the Measure BB Paratransit Fund (Fund 286) to support the proposed appropriation.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of the recommended action will amend the Fiscal Year 2026–27 operating budget by appropriating $189,642 from the available fund balance in the Measure BB Paratransit Fund (Fund 286) to the Measure BB Paratransit Professional Services account, 286.70.075.755.6220. The funding is derived from Measure BB transportation sales tax revenues administered by the Alameda County Transportation Commission and will support paratransit program operations.
STRATEGIC PRIORITY AREA
Foster a Safe and Healthy Community
Boost Financial Resilience and Excellence in Service Delivery REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by - Roya Gonzalez, Interim Recreation and Community Services Director Reviewed by - Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Reviewed by - Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Approved by - Lenka Hovorka, Assistant City Manager
Attachments
1797_Resolution
Task Order 34 - Paratransit 34
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWARK AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE TASK ORDER NO. 34 TO THE JOINT POWERS
AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF FREMONT FOR NEWARK
PARATRANSIT SERVICES
WHEREAS, a Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Newark and the City of Fremont on was entered into on August 17, 2009 for case management services; and WHEREAS, the City of Fremont agreed to perform services in accordance with the Task Orders issued by the City of Newark; and
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2013 the Joint Powers Agreement was amended to enable the City of Fremont to provide paratransit services to the City of Newark, in accordance with Task Orders issued by the City of Newark; and
WHEREAS, paratransit services includes essential door-to-door shared ride transportation services to Newark residents who are 70 years of age and older or who are unable to access public transit independently due to a medical or disabling health condition; and WHEREAS, funding for Newark Paratransit services is provided through Measure BB sales tax revenue administered by the Alameda County Transportation Committee (ACTC); and WHEREAS, the City of Newark wishes to continue paratransit services for the 2026-2027 program year.
WHEREAS, sufficient funding is available in the Measure BB Paratransit Fund (Fund 286) to support the proposed appropriation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newark that the City Manager of the City of Newark be and is hereby authorized to execute Task Order No. 34 to the Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Fremont for paratransit services, said agreement on file in the Office of the City Clerk and amend the 2026-2028 Biennial Budget for Fiscal Year 2026-27 by appropriating $189,642 as follows:
To: Measure BB Paratransit Professional Services 286.70.075.755.6220 From: Measure BB Paratransit Fun Balance 286.3000
1 TASK ORDER NO. 34 TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF NEWARK AND THE CITY OF FREMONT (PARATRANSIT
SERVICES FY 2026/2027)
This Task Order No. 34 (“Task Order”) is made and entered into by and between the City of Newark, a municipal corporation ("Newark"), and the City of Fremont, a municipal corporation ("Fremont").
RECITAL
A. Newark and Fremont entered into an agreement entitled Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Newark and the City of Fremont (“Agreement”), by which Fremont agreed to perform services in accordance with Task Orders issued by Newark.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. This Task Order hereby incorporates by reference all terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement.
2. SCOPE OF TASK ORDER. Fremont shall perform the services described in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement.
3. PAYMENT. For services performed by Fremont in accordance with this Task Order, Newark will compensate Fremont in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement, in an amount not to exceed $189,642 as described in Exhibit “B,” attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
4. SIGNATURES. The individuals executing this Task Order represent and warrant that they have the right, power, legal capacity, and authority to enter into and to execute this Task Order on behalf of the respective legal entities of the Newark and Fremont.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Newark and Fremont do hereby agree to the full performance of the terms set forth herein.
CITY OF FREMONT CITY OF NEWARK
Signature: Signature:
2 By: Christina Briggs By: David J. Benoun
Title: Assistant City Manager Title: City Manager
Date: Date:
3 APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Signature: Signature:
By: Elana Rivkin-Haas By: Kristopher Kokotaylo
Title: Senior Deputy City Attorney Title: City Attorney 4 EXHIBIT A TO TASK ORDER NO. 34 SCOPE
OF SERVICES
Paratransit Services for FY 2026-2027
1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The City of Fremont will a provide a suite of same-day transportation options for eligible Newark residents in order to improve their access to health care, shopping, errands and social and recreational activities. Newark residents needing wheelchair-accessible transportation will be able to access rides through the Wheelchair Accessible Van (WAV) service. Subsidized ride-hailing services will be provided to ambulatory Newark residents who are 70 years of age and older and under 70 years of age if they are ADA paratransit certified.
These transportation services will be provided from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027.
2. PERSONNEL
a. Personnel working on this program will include members of the City of Fremont’s Ride-On Tri-City! Program. The Fremont team consists of a Program Manager, Program Coordinator, Transportation Resources Specialist, Senior Office Support Specialist and Office Support Specialist. b. The City of Fremont will provide these services to the City of Newark for the specified period through its agreements with Nomad Transit, LLC (for WAV services), Lyft, Inc. (for Ride-Hailing Services), and GoGo Technologies, Inc. (for Ride-Hailing Services).
3. SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
a. Program Parameters:
(1) Rides will be provided:
Monday – Sunday, 8 am – 6 pm, 7 days a week
There is no WAV service on the following holidays:
New Year’s Day, Presidents Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day.
5 (2) Up to 30 monthly subsidized rides will be provided within Fremont, Newark and Union City.
Limited Out of Area trips (4 trips per month) will be provided as a pilot service to program participants using Ride-Hailing Services, contingent upon available funding.
6 (3) Passenger Fares:
Fares for Wheelchair Accessible Van (WAV) rides: $4 per one-way trip within Newark, Fremont and Union City. Fares are paid directly to the transportation provider.
Fares for ride-hailing services: Riders will pay $4 for local rides.
Riders are responsible for all fares above $20. For Out of Area trips, rider pays first $8 of a trip and up to $42 of the trip will be subsidized; riders are responsible for all fares above $50.
Passenger fares will be charged directly through the Lyft app or by GoGo Technologies.
(4) Ride Requests:
Wheelchair Accessible Van Service:
Same-day ride requests are available through the phone booking line, mobile app or web portal.
Ride-Hailing Service through Lyft App:
Ride requests are made on the same day through the Lyft app on the rider’s own smartphone. Riders requesting rides within the program’s parameters will automatically receive program subsidy.
Ride-Hailing Service with GoGo Technologies:
Ride requests are made on the same day. Riders without
smartphones will call GoGo Technologies’ GoGoGrandparent call center service and book a Lyft or Uber ride through GoGo’s automated system or through an operator. Rides that fall within the program’s parameters will automatically receive the program subsidy.
b. Services to be provided by the Transportation and Mobility Services Team include:
(1) Service Eligibility Screening & Program Enrollment
Staff will review applications, determine eligibility and enroll eligible individuals for transportation services. A Rider’s Guide will be provided to each enrolled participant. Pre-paid WAV 7 voucher books and taxi vouchers will be sold to program participants by mail or in person at Fremont City Hall. (2) Consumer Education and Service Coordination
8 Staff will provide one-on-one assistance to program participants who are experiencing difficulties in accessing or using the City’s transportation services. Staff will conduct monthly outreach at the Newark Senior Center.
(3) Program Monitoring
Fremont’s Program Manager will be responsible for the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of paratransit service operations. Staff from each city will meet periodically to evaluate program and adjust service operations as necessary.
(4) Service Documentation and Quarterly Invoicing
Documentation of paratransit services provided to each client will be kept in a manner consistent with the City of Fremont’s existing practice. Service statistics will be maintained and submitted to City of Newark staff on a monthly basis, and as otherwise requested. The City of Newark will be responsible for all required reporting to the Alameda County Transportation Commission.
9 EXHIBIT B TO TASK ORDER NO. 34 BUDGET
Paratransit Services for FY 2026-2027 The
FY 2026-2027 budget for Task Order No. 34 is: $189,642
Invoicing to Newark will be broken down as follows:
Trip costs, by month, for all one-way trips provided to Newark residents:
a) Total monthly charge for Wheelchair Accessible Van services divided by the total number of one-way trips provided and multiplied by the number of one-way trips provided to Newark residents.
b) Total monthly subsidized trip costs for Lyft rides provided through Newark residents’ Lyft smartphone app as invoiced by Lyft.
c) Total monthly subsidized trip costs for Lyft and Uber rides provided by GoGo Technologies for Newark residents as invoiced by GoGo Technologies.
Monthly administrative fee of 9.96% of total monthly trip costs.
The City of Newark will reimburse the City of Fremont for service provision and administrative costs associated with the Paratransit Program. The City of Fremont shall submit an invoice to Newark by January 30, 2027 for services provided in the first half of FY 2026/2027, and by July 31, 2027 for services provided in the second half of FY 2026/2027. Newark shall make payments to Fremont within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice.
Item E. 1.
DATE 07/23/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Dan Cianciarulo, Maintenance Supervisor
SUBJECT Hearing to consider property owners' objections and adopt a resolution confirming the Superintendent of Streets' Report concerning weed abatement assessments
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The City of Newark conducts an annual weed abatement program as a fire prevention measure. Vacant properties with the potential for extensive weed growth are typically included in the program and property owners have the option to either complete the weed abatement work themselves or have the work completed by a City contractor.
Following notification, property owners cleared 100 parcels and the remaining 20 parcels were cleared by the City's contractor, resulting in a combined total for all assessments of $17,088.
Staff recommends that the City Council, by motion, act upon any objections by property owners for assessments on their parcels for the 2026 Weed Abatement Program and, by resolution, confirm the Superintendent of Streets' Report concerning weed abatement assessments.
BACKGROUND
The City of Newark conducts an annual weed abatement program to abate weeds on vacant properties that are not properly maintained by property owners to the satisfaction of Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD). The program is authorized by, and conducted pursuant to, Government Code Sections 39560, et seq. The abatement work typically consists of tractor mowing, supplemented with manual labor to clear weeds abutting fences and removal of debris to facilitate tractor work. Property owners have the option to make their own arrangements for weed and debris removal.
All properties on which the City performs the abatement work are assessed the full cost of that work, including administrative costs. Administrative costs are 20% of the cost of the weed abatement services pursuant to the adopted Master Fee Schedule.
Prior to abatement, there were 120 industrial, residential and commercial parcels that had large areas of vacant ground with regular seasonal weed growth that could have developed into a fire hazard if not properly maintained.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The Superintendent of Streets' Report on the 2026 Weed Abatement Program is submitted pursuant to Resolution No. 11840 (attached) adopted by the City Council on April 23, 2026. The report showing the assessments for spring 2026 weed abatement has been posted as required. Owners whose properties are subject to an assessment may protest at this meeting or submit their objections prior to the hearing. As of July 7, 2026, no written objections have been received. On June 11, 2026, the City Council directed the Superintendent of Streets to abate weeds on 120 parcels, of which 20 were ultimately cleared by the City's contractor. This year, the assessments ranged from $384 and $2,880, depending on the amount of work required for each property (attached Exhibit A). The combined total for all assessments, including administrative fees, is $17,088. All work completed through the 2026 Weed Abatement Program is paid for through the proposed assessments.
FISCAL IMPACT
The total 2026 Weed Abatement Program assessments are $17,088, including applicable administrative fees. Program costs are initially paid through existing budgeted appropriations in the Maintenance Division operating budget and are recoverable through property assessments placed on the Alameda County tax roll. As a result, there is no anticipated net impact to the General Fund after assessment revenues are collected.
STRATEGIC PRIORITY AREA
Foster a Safe and Healthy Community
REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by - Dan Cianciarulo, Maintenance Supervisor
Reviewed by - Howard Young, Public Works Director
Reviewed by - Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Reviewed by - Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Approved by - David J. Benoun, City Manager
Attachments
Resolution 11840 - Adopted April 23, 2026
Resolution - 2026 Weed Abatement Assessments
Exhibit A 2026 City of Newark Weed Abatement – Total Assessments RESOLUTION NO. 11, 840
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWARK FINDING AND DECLARING THAT WEEDS
GROWING ON SPECIFIED PROPERTIES ARE SEASONAL
AND RECURRENT NUISANCES, AND RUBBISH, REFUSE,
AND DIRT UPON PARKWAYS, SIDEWALKS, OR PRIVATE
PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF NEWARK ARE PUBLIC
NUISANCES AND MUST BE ABATED, AND SETTING A
TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newark hereby finds and determines that weeds are growing upon the streets, sidewalks, or private property in the City of Newark as hereinafter described, and that rubbish, refuse, and dirt is upon its parkways, sidewalks, or private property hereinafter described in the city of Newark and that said City Council hereby declares that all weeds are growing upon the streets, sidewalks, or private property in said City and all rubbish, refuse, and dirt in parkways, or private property in the said City are a public nuisances and the same are hereby ordered abated in the manner provided in Section 39560 to Section 39586, inclusive of the Government Code of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the name of said streets, parkways, sidewalks, and private properties are contained in Schedule " A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this resolution as though set forth at length;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to mail written notices of the proposed abatement to all persons owning property described in this resolution, said written notice to be mailed to each person to whom such described property is assessed in the last equalized assessment role available on the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The City Clerk shall complete said mailing at least five ( 5) days prior to the time for hearing of objections by the legislative body. The notice shall be substantially in the form provided by Section 39566 of the Government Code of the State of California, except that notices shall be signed by the City Clerk and the heading of the notice need not comply with Section 39565 of the Government Code;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a public hearing to hear objections to the proposed removal of weeds, rubbish, refuse, and dirt will be held by the City Council at its meeting of June 11, 2026.
I HEREBY CERTIFY the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Newark held on April 23, 2026, by Council Member Catancio who moved its adoption and passage, which motion was carried after being duly seconded, and passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Catancio, Grindall, Little, Vice Mayor Jorgens, and Mayor Hannon
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
SECONDED: Council Member Grindall
AP D:
MICHA EL K. ANNON
ATTEST: Mayor
NEETU SALWAN
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
41( 10- vt( tKRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO
City Attorney
Resolution No. 11, 840 2
Weed Abatement Schedule A - 2026
MAP SORT PARCEL ALCO APN LOCATION
1 92A 072000510 92A- 720- 5-1 35450 NEWARK BOULEVARD
3 092 013100109 92- 131--9 FILBERT STREET AT SNOW
3. 1 092 013100204 92- 131- 2-4 372L3 FILBERT STREET
3. 2 092 013100300 92- 131- 3 37257 FILBERT STREET
5 092 002401000 92- 24- 10 SYCAMORE STREET NEAR 7303 DAIRY 6 092 002902200 92- 29-2 36952 MULBERRY STREET
7 092 004501100 92- 45- 11 MAGNOLIA STREET NEAR RICH
8 092 003001403 92- 30- 14- 3 6717 THORNTON AVENUE
8 092 003001502 92- 30- 15- 2 6733 THORNTON AVENUE
8 092 003001602 92- 30- 16- 2 6749 THORNTON AVENUE
8 092 003001804 92- 30- 18- 4 6781 THORNTON AVENUE
8 092 003001702 92- 30- 17- 2 6765 THORNTON AVENUE
10 092 003200300 92- 32- DAIRY AVENUE BETWEEN 36805 & 36926 11 092 004100803 92- 41- 8-3 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 092 002401700 92- 24- 17 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 537 052100801 537-21- 8-1 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11.1 537 052100802 537-21- 8-2 'SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11.2 537- 052100902 537-21- 9-2 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11.3 092 005400300 92- 54- 3 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11.4 092 020001501 92- 200- 15- SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11.5 092 025300100 92- 253- 1 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11.6 092A2 16500600 92A- 2165- 6 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11.7 092A230000700 92A- 2300- 7 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11.8 092A230000614 92A- 2300- 6-14 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11.9 092A250000500 92A- 2500- 5 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 2 092 002101601 92- 21- 16- SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 2 092A250000400 92A- 2500- 4 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 21 537 085002100 537- 850- 21 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 22 537 085002000 537- 850- 2 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 23 537 085001900 537- 850- 19 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 24 537 085001800 537- 850- 18 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 25 537 085001700 537- 850- 17 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 26 092 005400200 92- 54- 2 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 27 092 006800302 92- 68- 3-2 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 28 092 006900202 92- 69- 2- SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 29 092 006900300 92- 69- 3 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 3 092 002101602 92- 21- 16- 2 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 3 092 006701205 92- 67- 12- 5 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 31 092 006701400 92- 67- 14 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 32 092 006701900 92- 67- 19 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 33 092 006702000 92- 67- 20 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 34 092 006500200 92- 65- 2 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 35 092 006401000 92- 64- 10 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 36 092A1095 12900 92A- 1095-29 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 37 092A110005800 92A- 1100- 58 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 38 092A110501400 92A- 1105-4 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 39 092A200000400 92A- 2000- 4 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 4 092 001500400 92- 15- 4 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 4 092A20 1000200 92A- 2010- SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 41 092 012702100 92- 127- 21 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 42 092 012702000 92- 127- 20 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 43 092 006701205 92- 67- 12- 5 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 5 092A050610700 92A- 506- 107 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 6 092A050610600 92A- 506- 106 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 7 092A050 103000 92A- 501- 30 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 8 092A050209000 92A- 502- 90 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
11. 9 092A062006100 92A- 620-1 SP RAILROAD R -O -W
1 MAP SORT PARCEL ALCO APN LOCATION
13 092 0255011. 00 92- 255- 11 37200 SYCAMORE ST
14 537 085000200 537- 850- 2 7400 MOWRY AVENUE
15 537 046000725 537- 460- 7-25 6953 JARVIS AVENUE
16 092 003101900 92- 31- 19 36964 MAGNOLIA ST ( primary address undetermined) 18 901 011100900 901- 11- 9 CEDAR BOULEVARD ( near Eucalyptus Grove) 19 092A216500904 92A- 2165- 9-4 REDEKER PLACE AT CHERRY 20 537 900900100 92A- 501- 34- 13 CEDAR BOULEVARD
23 537 046001400 537- 460- 14 6500 OVERLAKE PL
23. 1 537 046001300 537- 460- 13 6800 OVERLAKE PL
24 092 007500402 92- 75- 4-2 CHERRY STREET
24. 1 092 007500502 92- 75- 5-2 CHERRY STREET
26 537 046000728 537- 460- 7-28 35255 FIRCREST STREET
26. 1 537 046002101 537- 460- 21- 1 FIRCREST STREET
27 092 008300900 92- 83- 9 36915 LOCUST STREET
28 092A230000612 92A- 2300-3 38403 CHERRY STREET
29 092A075000800 92A- 750- 8 35660 CEDAR BOULEVARD
33 901 018800600 901- 188- 6 39055 CEDAR BOULEVARD
34 092 012601900 92- 126-9 SMCTD RAILROAD R -O -W LOCUST & ELM
34. 1 092 012501700 92- 125-7 SMCTD RAILROAD R -O -W WALNUT & LOCUST
34. 2 092 012402200 92- 124- 22 SMCTD RAILROAD R -O -W SPRUCE & WALNUT
34. 092 011909900 92- 119- 9 SMCTD RAILROAD R -O -W SPRUCE
34. 4 092 010000802 92- 100- 8-2 SMCTD RAILROAD R -O -W WILLOW
34. 5 092 010000801 92- 100- 8- SMCTD RAILROAD R -O -W WEST OF WILLOW 35 537 085202800 537- 852- 28 8891 ENTERPRISE DR
35 537 085202900 537- 852- 29 8891 ENTERPRISE DR
36 092 011501100 92- 115-1- 3 37445 WILLOW STREET
36. 1 092 010000402 92- 100- 4-2 WILLOW STREET NORTH OF ENTERPRISE 38 092A072002600 92A- 720- 26 35178 NEWARK BOULEVARD
44 092 012401400 92- 124- RAILROAD AVENUE SPRUCE & WALNUT 45 092 012501000 92- 125-0 7843 RAILROAD AVE BETWEEN LOCUST & WALNUT 48 092 013400200 92- 134- 2 RAILROAD AVE BETWEEN LOCUST & ELM 49 092 013502300 92- 135- 23 WALNUT STREET CORNER LOT
53 092A103603102 92A- 1036- 31- 2 6152 THORNTON AVENUE
54 092A103604100 92A- 1036- 41 NEWARK BOULEVARD AND CIVIC TERR 58 092 004100201 92- 41- 2-1 36964 ASH STREET
61 092A258607600 92A- 2586- 76 BIRCH STREET ON CEDAR
62 092 010000705 92- 100- 7-5 WILLOW STREET
62. 1 092 014000302 92- 140- 3-2 WILLOW STREET
62. 1 092A235703100 92A- 2357- 31 WILLOW STREET
62. 1 092A241601500 92A- 2416- 15 WILLOW STREET
62. 1 092A241601300 92A- 2416- 13 WILLOW STREET
62. 1 092A258500200 92A- 2585- WILLOW STREET
62. 1 092A258502700 92A- 2585-7 WILLOW STREET
62. 2 092A258800201 92A- 2588--1 WILLOW STREET
62. 2 092 011600400 92- 116- 4 WILLOW STREET
62. 3 092 014501001 92- 145-0- WILLOW STREET
62. 4 092 014602300 92- 146- 23 WILLOW STREET
62. 5 092 006800100 92- 68- 1 WILLOW STREET
62. 092 007400200 92- 74- 2 WILLOW STREET
62. 7 092 007400200 92- 74- 2 WILLOW STREET
62. 8 092 007500700 92- 75- WILLOW STREET
62. 9 092A214100200 92A- 2141- WILLOW STREET
63 092A062304300 92A- 623- 4 36589 NEWARK BLVD
65 092 012701300 92- 127-3 37079 ASH ST
68 092 014000500 92- 140- 5 8333 ENTERPRISE DR
70 092A258800704 92A- 2588- 7-4 TIMBER ST AT CEDAR CT
71 092 010001103 92- 100-1- 3 THORNTON AVE
72 092 005200400 92- 52- 4 THORNTON AVE
73 901 011100300 901- 11- 3 SURROUNDING AREAS & 1 ` NER PORTION OF PARKING LOT 2 MAP SORT PARCEL ALCO APN LOCATION
74. 1901 018502000 901- 185- 20
74. 2 901 018502100 901- 185- 21
OTAL PAR
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWARK CONFIRMING THE REPORT OF THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS CONCERNING WEED
ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS AND APPROVING SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newark, by Resolution 11840, ordered certain rubbish, refuse, dirt, and weeds to be abated in the manner provided by Sections 39560 and 39586 inclusive, of the Government Code of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the Superintendent of Streets has caused said rubbish, refuse, dirt, and weeds to be abated. Nuisances abated and an accounting for the cost of abatement in front of or on each separate parcel of land has been set forth in a report entitled “Exhibit A 2026 City of Newark Weed Abatement – Total Assessments” and attached hereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the report of the Superintendent of Streets attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A is hereby confirmed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the cost of abating the nuisance for each respective parcel is set forth in said report under the column entitled “Total Assessment”.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that there is hereby levied a special assessment against each parcel of land described in said report in the amount of $17,088 as shown in said column “Total Assessment”.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the costs levied as a special assessment against the parcels of land described in said report shall become a lien upon the property.
Exhibit A 2026 City of Newark Weed Abatement – Total Assessments Map ALCO APN Location Date Mowed Hours Total Assessment 3 92-266-1 FILBERT STREET AT SNOW 06/19/2026 4 $384.00
3.1 92-266-2 37243 FILBERT STREET 06/19/2026 4 $384.00
3.2 92-266-3 37257 FILBERT STREET 06/19/2026 4 $384.00
6 92-29-22 36952 MULBERRY STREET 06/22/2026 4 $384.00
8 92-30-14-3 6717 THORNTON AVENUE 06/22/2026 8 $768.00
11.38 92A-1105-14 SP RAILROAD R-O-W / BIRCH 06/25/2026 8 $768.00
11.39 92A-2000-4 SP RAILROAD R-O-W / BIRCH 06/25/2026 8 $768.00
11.41 92-127-21 SP RAILROAD R-O-W / ASH TO ELM 06/24/2026 8 $768.00 15 537-460-7-25 6953 JARVIS AVENUE 06/23/2026 6 $576.00 16 92-31-19 36964 MAGNOLIA ST 06/22/2026 4 $384.00
26 537-460-7-28 35255 FIRCREST STREET 06/23/2026 4 $384.00 34 92-126-19 SMCTD RAILROAD R-O-W / LOCUST & ELM 06/25/2026 30 $2,880.00 35 537-852-28 9051 ENTERPRISE DR 06/17/2026 18 $1,728.00 36 92-115-11-3 37445 WILLOW STREET 06/19/2026 9 $864.00
36.1 92-100-4-2 WILLOW STREET NORTH OF ENTERPRISE 06/18/2026 18 $1,728.00 44 92-124-14 RAILROAD AVENUE / SPRUCE & WALNUT 06/24/2026 4 $384.00 45 92-125-10 7843 RAILROAD AVE 06/24/2026 8 $768.00
65 92-127-13 37079 ASH ST 06/25/2026 4 $384.00
68 92-140-5 8333 ENTERPRISE DR 06/18/2026 13 $1,248.00
71 92-100-11-3 THORNTON AVE 06/22/2026 8 $768.00
72 92-52-4 THORNTON AVE 06/30/2026 4 $384.00
TOTAL ASSESSMENT FOR 20 LOTS 178 $17,088.00
Item E. 2.
DATE 07/23/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Carmelisa Lopez, Senior Planner
SUBJECT Hearing to consider adoption of a resolution approving amendments to the Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2026-27 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests that the City's development impact fees be updated in the City’s Master Fee Schedule (MFS) for Fiscal Year 2026-27. The City’s development impact fees are required to be adjusted on an annual basis based on the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index for San Francisco, California.
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and, by resolution, approve an amendment to the MFS for Fiscal Year 2026-27 to reflect the updated development impact fees.
BACKGROUND
Staff annually reviews and analyzes rates for City services and incorporates them into the City’s MFS. The existing impact fees were approved with language in their respective resolutions that requires an annual adjustment based on the ENR Construction Cost Index for San Francisco, California (see Attachments 2 through 6).
The development impact fees provide funding for various projects in the city and are essential to providing continuing services to the community. The following is a brief description of each of the development impact fees being increased as part of this amendment:
Park Impact Fee: This fee provides funding for park land and new improvements.
Public Safety Facilities Impact Fee: This fee provides funding for additional or improved police and fire services for which the need is generated by new development within the city.
Community Service/Facilities Impact Fee: This fee provides funding for additional or improved governmental, social, and cultural facilities for which the need is generated by new development within the city.
Transportation Impact Fee: This fee provides funding for additional or improved traffic signal, operational, and infrastructure improvements for which the need is generated by new development within the city.
Housing Impact Fee: This fee provides funding to increase and improve the supply of housing affordable to households of very low, low, and moderate incomes for which the need is generated by new commercial, residential and industrial development within the city.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The subject development impact fees were approved through Resolutions 10,184, 10,505, 10,633, 10,634, and 10,635 and are listed in the MFS under the Construction Enterprise Fund Section (see Attachments 2 through 6). These resolutions require the development impact fees to be adjusted annually in accordance with the ENR Cost Construction Index for San Francisco, California.
ENR prepares a monthly national construction cost index as well as monthly construction cost indexes for 20 cities in the United States. The construction cost index for each city is calculated using local average prices for specific construction materials and the national average for union wages for laborers. According to the ENR website, differentials between cities may reflect differences in labor productivity and building codes and the varying quoting bases for lumber and cement.
When reviewing adjustments to the development impact fees, staff uses the Construction Cost Index for San Francisco because it represents the regional market of the San Francisco Bay Area. Staff also uses the Construction Cost Index for the same month (May) of each year for consistent annual reporting. Table 1 below shows the Construction Cost Index for San Francisco over the past five years.
Table 1. San Francisco Construction Cost Index (2021-2026) Year Percentage Change
2023 +1.8%
2024 -1.1%
2025 -0.9%
2026 +0.3%
Based on the ENR Cost Construction Index for May 2026, the development impact fees must be increased by 0.3%. The proposed changes are attached to this report as Exhibit A. If approved, the applicable development impact fees will be increased by
0.3% and will go into effect 60 days after approval.
A nexus study is underway to support a comprehensive update to the City's development impact fees, which is anticipated to be presented to the City Council in Fall 2026. Until the broader update is completed, staff recommends that the City Council amend only the Construction Enterprise Fund section of the MFS at this time to reflect the required annual ENR adjustment, as shown in Exhibit A. Following City Council action, the adopted amendments will be editorially merged with the unchanged portions of the Master Fee Schedule.
FISCAL IMPACT
The development impact fees collected reflect the cost of services provided by the City and are placed into the appropriate budget accounts. The fees are collected at the time of building permit issuance unless state law or an agreement between the City and applicant requires collection at a different time, such as prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Building permit activity and the proposed increase in fees may result in more fees collected.
STRATEGIC PRIORITY AREA
Boost Financial Resilience and Excellence in Service Delivery REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by - Carmelisa Lopez, Senior Planner
Reviewed by - Steven Turner, Community Development Director Reviewed by - Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Reviewed by - Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Approved by - David J. Benoun, City Manager
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Draft Resolution
Exhibit A - Development Impact Fee Changes
Attachment 2 - Resolution 10,184
Attachment 3 - Resolution 10,505
Attachment 4 - Resolution 10,633
Attachment 5 - Resolution 10,634
Attachment 6 - Resolution 10,635
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWARK AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newark is authorized to prescribe and establish fees in regard to services or functions performed by the City for the public in a governmental and proprietary capacity; and
WHEREAS, Resolutions 10,184, 10,505, 10,633, 10,634, and 10,635 require development impact fees to be adjusted on an annual basis based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for San Francisco, California; and WHEREAS, the City Council has previously adopted updates to the Master Fee Schedule by resolution, most recently on April 23, 2026, through Resolution No. 11,844; and WHEREAS, a public hearing has been duly noticed and held in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Sections 6062a, 66016, 66017 and 66018.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby amend those portions of the City of Newark Master Fee Schedule as set forth in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and made part hereof as though set forth at length for Fiscal Year 2026-27.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amendments to the City of Newark Master Fee Schedule shall become effective 60 days from the date of this Resolution, pursuant to Government Code Section 66017(a).
City of Newark
Master Fee Schedule – Effective September 21, 2026
EXHIBIT A
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES
V. CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISE FUND
- The proposed adjustments increase the Park Impact, Capital Facilities, Community Service/Facilities, Transportation, and Housing Impact Fees by 0.3% based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index per Resolutions 10,505, 10,633, 10,634, 10,635 and 10,184, respectively.
Account
No.
Fee
(in dollars)
V.
A.
4143 2. Park Impact Fee **
a. Projects without Land Dedicated for Parks
(1) Single-Family 30,510.92
30,602.45/dwelling unit
(2) Multi-Family Units 21,968.25
22,034.15/dwelling unit
b. Projects that Dedicate Land for Parks
(1) Single-Family 9,153.27
9,180.73/dwelling unit
(2) Multi-Family Units 6,468.35
6,487.76/dwelling unit
4144 3.
a. Public Safety 1
(1) Single-family residential 4,212.46 4,225.10/unit
(2) Townhome 4,212.46 4,225.10/unit
(3) Multi-family residential 2,527.28 2,534.86/unit
b. Community Service/Facilities 1
(1) Single-family residential 2,820.61 2,829.07/unit
(2) Townhome 2,820.61 2,829.07/unit
(3) Multi-family residential 1,410.81 1,415.04/unit
4144 c. Transportation 1
(1) Single-family residential 6,070.25 6,088.46/unit
(2) Townhome 3,155.85 3,165.32/unit
(3) Multi-family residential 3,763.48 3,774.77/unit
4144 (4) Office/Commercial 5.38 5.40/square foot
(5) Manufacturing/Research & Development 2.94 2.95/square foot (6) Warehousing/Distribution 5.88 5.90/square foot
Description
621.00.000.000 4144
624.00.000.000
Capital Facilities *
CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT
* Established by Resolution No. 8051 and amended by
Resolutions No. 9253, 10,6331, 10,6341, and 10,6351
** Established by Resolution No. 10,132 and amended by Resolution 10,505.
The above fees are effective as of August 8, 2016. Resolution 10,505 also requires the fee to be adjusted annually by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index, San Francisco, California.
622.00.000.000
620.00.000.000
622.00.000.000
Account
No.
Fee
(in dollars) Description
A.
4144 4.
a.
(1) First 1,000 sq. ft. floor area/unit** 24.46 24.53/square foot (2) All sq. ft. over 1,000 sq. floor area/unit 9.80 9.83/square foot b.
(1) Commercial 4.39 4.40/square foot
623.00.000.000 Housing
*** Established by Resolution No. 8802. Floor area for a commercial development equals the sum of the horizontal floor areas of the 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 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.
* 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.
Non-Residential Large Project in Lieu Fee*** (revised annually) DEVELOPMENT, Continued
Residential Small Project in Lieu Fee* (revised annually) ** No housing impact fee is charged for the first 200 sq. ft. of floor area for additions to existing dwellings.
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
RESOLUTION NO. 10 5 0 5
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWARK INCREASING THE PARKS IMPACT FEE UNDER
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001, REPEALING THE
FEE PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED IN RESOLUTION NO.
10132, AND AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
TO REFLECT THESE CHANGES
WHEREAS, the City Council ofthe City ofNewark, a general law city ( "City"), is authorized to prescribe and establish fees in regard to services or functions performed by the City for the public in a governmental and proprietary capacity; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. allows local governments to impose impact fees on new development in order to recover the cost of improvements that are needed to serve that new development; and WHEREAS, the existing Parks Impact Fee is insufficient, outdated, and needs to be brought into conformity with current conditions in the City; and WHEREAS, the City desires to have an updated Parks Impact Fee that will ensure that all new development pays the cost to continue the current parks standard; and WHEREAS, the City has retained Keyser Marston Associates to prepare the Parks and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee Study, dated May 2016, which establishes a reasonable relationship between the parks fee and the purpose ofthe fee, which study is incorporated herein and attached as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City has duly noticed, advertised, scheduled, and held a Public Hearing on June 9, 2016; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2016, the City Council reviewed material presented in the staff report including the Parks and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee Study, concerning the purpose ofthe fee and the relationship between the fee and its purpose; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ofthe City ofNewark which hereby fmds, declares, and resolves that:
1) The City herby receives and approves the Parks and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee Study ( "Fee Study "), which is attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution.
2) In adopting this Resolution, the City Council is exercising its powers under Article XI, Sections 5 and 7 ofthe California Constitution, Chapter 5 of Division 1 ofthe Government Code ( "Mitigation Fee Act "), commencing with Section 66000, collectively and separately.
3) After considering the Fee Study, this Resolution, and the testimony received at a public hearing, the City Council hereby makes the following findings:
a) In accordance with Section 66001, subdivision a, paragraph 1 ofthe Mitigation Fee Act, the purpose of the fees set forth in this Resolution, as specified in Exhibit A, is to provide for an expansion in parks and recreation capital facilities in the City as new growth occurs; b) In accordance with Section 66001, subdivision a, paragraph 2 ofthe Mitigation Fee Act, the fees collected pursuant to this Resolution, as specified in Exhibit A, shall be used to acquire land for parks and to construct improvements, such as playing fields, a skate park, or dog park, and other recreational uses and facilities for the City, and shall be used to fund any administrative cost associated with the park impact fee program;
c) In accordance with Section 66001, subdivision a, paragraph 3 ofthe Mitigation Fee Act, there is a reasonable relationship between the fees use (to pay for the acquisition ofpark and recreational facilities) and the type of development for which the fees are imposed in that the fees will be applied to residential development in the City, which will generate demands for park and recreational facilities;
d) In accordance with Section 66001, subdivision a, paragraph 4 ofthe Mitigation Fee Act, the Fee Study demonstrates that there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the Park Impact Fees and the cost of park facilities attributable to the development upon which the fee is proposed. Since the need for park and recreation facilities is inherently population -driven associated park facility costs are assessed based on average household population; and
e) In accordance with Section 66001, subdivision b ofthe Mitigation Fee Act, there is a reasonable relationship between the amount ofthe fees and cost ofproviding the parkland and park and recreational facilities attributable to the development in the City upon which the fees are imposed in that the fees have been calculated by apportioning the cost of parkland acquisition and park facilities construction to the number of residents attached by each type of new residential unit. 4) The City finds pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") this action is not a " project" because the Resolution provides a mechanism for funding the acquisition and development ofparks but does not involve a commitment to any specific project for such purposes that may result in a potential significant impact on the Environment (CEQA guidelines Section 15378, Pub. Res. Code Section 21080(b)( 8)( D)).
Resolution No. 10505 2
5) The cost estimates set forth in the Fee Study are reasonable estimates for acquiring parkland and constructing park and recreational facilities and the fees expected to be generated by future development will not exceed the future projected cost of acquiring parkland and constructing park and recreational facilities.
6) The method of allocation of the fees to particular development bears a fair relationship and is roughly proportional to each development' s burden on and benefits from the park and recreational facilities to be funded by the fees, in that the fees are calculated based on the number ofresidents each particular development will attract.
7) The Fee Study is a detailed analysis ofhow parks and recreational services will be affected by development in the City and the parks and recreational facilities necessary to accommodate that development.
8) The fees are consistent with the General Plan and, pursuant to Government Code Section 65913. 2, the City Council has considered the effects ofthe fees with respect to the City' s housing needs as established in the housing element of the General Plan.
9) The fee amounts set forth in this Resolution include the fair and reasonable costs of administration ofthe fee programs and are within the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act and other applicable law.
10) The fees are subject to adjustment, which approximate the fluctuation in market costs, and shall be adjusted annually in accordance with the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index, San Francisco, California. Additionally, seeing that land acquisition costs are an important component ofthe fee, the City shall review land acquisition costs every two years. 11) The City does hereby approve the following park impact fees on new residential development for park land acquisition and development of park and recreational facilities as follows:
Type ofUnit Fees for Projects that Do Not Fees for Projects that Dedicate Adequate Land for Dedicate Adequate Land for
Parks Parks
Single Family Unit 25, 000 7,500
Multiple Family Units 18, 000 5, 300
The fees shall be adjusted annually in accordance with the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index, San Francisco, California.) Resolution No. 10505
12) The Park Impact Fees shall not apply to approved projects that have a Development Agreement or Vesting Tentative Map unless the provisions ofthe document allow the application of such fees.
13) Residential Developers shall be given a credit against this fee for the actual cost ofpublic parks included in their developments.
14) Resolution No. 10, 132, which established the previous Park Impact Fee, is hereby rescinded.
15) The Master Fee Schedule is hereby amended to reflect the Park Impact Fees as set forth in this Resolution.
16) Effective Date: This resolution shall be effective upon date of adoption ofthis Resolution. In accordance with Government Code Section 66017, the fees set by this Resolution shall be effective 60 days from the effective date ofthis Resolution.
17) Severability. Each component of the fees and all portions ofthis Resolution are severable. Should any individual component ofthe fees or other provisions of this Resolution be adjusted to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining component or provisions shall be and continue to be fully effective, and the fees shall be fully effective except as to that component which has been judged to be invalid.
Resolution No. 10505 4
I HEREBY CERTIFY the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newark held on June 9, 2016, by Council Member Bucci, who moved its adoption and passage, which motion was carried after being duly seconded, and passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Hannon, Collazo, Bucci, Vice Mayor Freitas, and Mayor Nagy
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
SECONDED: Vice Mayor Freitas
jA EST:
s /SHEILA iN
CityAlerk
7T
J.
City
Resolution No. 10505
APPROVED:
40w
s /ALAN L. NAGY
Mayor
Resolution No. 10505
Exhibit A
m- 771
KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES
PARK AND RECREATION FACILITY DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEE STUDY
Prepared for:
City of Newark
Prepared by:
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
May 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IV
V.
MI
INTRODUCTION, SUMMARY OF CURRENT PROGRAM, RESULTS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................... ............................... 1 A. Summary of Current Program and City Objectives for Impact Fee ............................... 1 B. Report Background and Legal Context ......................................... ............................... 1 C. Facility Standards and Cost Allocation Approach .......................... ............................... 2 D. Maximum and Recommended Fee Schedules ............................. ............................... 3 MITIGATION FEE ACT NEXUS FINDINGS ....................................... ............................... 5 A. Purpose ......................................................................................... .............................. 5 B. Use of Fee .................................................................................... ............................... 5 C. Relationship ................................................................................... .............................. 5 D. Need .............................................................................................. .............................. 5 E. Proportionality .............................................................................. ............................... 6
DEMAND FOR NEW PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES AND SUPPORTED IMPACTFEE AMOUNTS ................................................................... ............................... 7 A. Service Population ........................................................................ ............................... 7 B. Average Household Size .............................................................. ............................... 7 C. Parks and Recreation Facility Inventory and Standards ................ ............................... 7 D. Parkland Development Costs ....................................................... ............................... 8 E. Park and Recreation Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Residential Development................................................................................ ............................... 9 F. Maximum Impact Fees Supported by Nexus Analysis .................. ............................... 9 USEOF FEE REVENUE ..................................................................... ............................. 11
IMPACT FEES IN NEIGHBORING CITIES, MAXIMUM SUPPORTED FEES, AND RECOMMENDEDFEES ..................................................................... ............................. 12 A. Park and Recreation Fees in Neighboring Jurisdictions ................. ............................. 12 B. Maximum and Recommended Impact Fees ................................... ............................. 12 FEE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION .......... ............................. 14
1. Credits, Reimbursement, and Exemptions ..................................... ............................. 14
2. Securing Supplemental Funding .................................................... ............................. 14
3. Annual Review and Periodic Study Update .................................... ............................. 15 I. INTRODUCTION, SUMMARY OF CURRENT PROGRAM, RESULTS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
This Parks and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee nexus analysis provides the City of Newark (the City) with the necessary technical documentation to support updating its current Park Impact Fee. This nexus analysis has been prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. ( KMA).
A. Summary of Current Program and City Objectives for Impact Fee The City currently levies a park impact fee of $7,460 per unit. The impact fees are used to acquire land and construct parks to meet the City's per capita parks service standard of 3 acres of parks per 1, 000 residents. The City' s per capita park standards and service park standards are contained in the City's General Plan.
The City's park impact fee is an " all- inclusive" park fee that addresses the impacts of new residential development on all types of recreational facilities including parks, playfields, aquatics and recreation centers. Although some cities have fees that are targeted to particular uses, the all- inclusive strategy is preferable because it provides the City with a greater degree of flexibility.
B. Report Background and Legal Context
The Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600 et seq.) permits cities to adopt parks and recreation development impact fees on new development to fund the associated, additional costs of providing parks and recreation capital facilities. Unlike the City's current land dedication requirement, which was established in conformance with the Quimby Act, the Mitigation Fee Act allows for fees to be charged to all new development that increases the need for capital facilities, including in -fill projects.
This Report provides the necessary technical analysis to support a schedule of fees to be established by an Impact Fee Ordinance and Resolution. The Mitigation Fee Act allows the City to adopt by Resolution a fee schedule consistent with the supporting technical analysis and findings provided in this Report. The Resolution' s approach to setting the fee allows periodic adjustments of the fee amount as may be necessary overtime, without amending the enabling Ordinance.
The technical analysis in this Report estimates the parks and recreation facility fee schedule that will fund new development's " fair share" contribution to future City investments in parks.
The key requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act that determine the structure, scope, and amount of the proposed Fee Program are as follows:
1 Quimby Act fees under the Subdivision Map Act can only be charged on new, subdivided residential development.
Quimby Act fees would not apply to projects that do not require a subdivision map, such as infill projects.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 1
SF- FS2 \wp \16 \16090 \002 \001- 001. docx
Collected for Capital Facility and Infrastructure Improvements. Development impact fee revenue can be collected and used to cover the cost of capital facilities and infrastructure required to serve new development and growth in the City. However, impact fee revenue cannot be used to cover the operation and maintenance costs of these or any other facilities and infrastructure.
Cannot Fund Existing Needs. Impact fee revenue cannot be collected or used to cover deficiencies in existing City capital equipment and facilities. The portion of capital costs required to meet the needs of the City's existing population must be funded through other sources. Capital facility investments that increase service standards for existing and new development must be split on a "fair share" basis according to the proportion attributable to each.
Must be Based on a Rational Nexus. An impact fee must be based on a reasonable nexus, or connection, between new growth and development and the need for a new facility or improvement. As such, an impact fee must be supported by specific findings that explain or demonstrate this nexus. In addition, the impact fee amount must be structured such that the revenue generated does not exceed the cost of providing the facility or improvement for which the fee is imposed.
The City can choose to charge parks and recreation development impact fees below the maximum, supportable fee schedule. Such downward adjustments in the fee schedule, if selected, are typically based on policy considerations related to considerations of development feasibility and fee levels in peer cities.
C. Facility Standards and Cost Allocation Approach
A facility standard is a policy that indicates the amount of facilities required to accommodate service demand. Examples of facility standards include building square feet per capita and park acres per capita. Standards may also be expressed in monetary terms such as the replacement value of facilities per capita. The adopted facility standard is an important component in determining development's need for new facilities and the amount of the supported fee.
Standards determine new development's fair share of planned facilities and ensure that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with the existing city infrastructure.
The City has a long established a standard of 3 acres per 1, 000 residents. This standard was reaffirmed in the updated General Plan that was approved in 2013 after significant community input. The parks and recreation facilities fees calculated in this report uses the City' s stated service standard and the cost of developing new parks to estimate the cost of maintaining the existing level of service to new residents through the buildout of the General Plan. New development will be required to fund the expansion of facilities at the same rate that existing development has provided to date. Thus, new development will not be funding any existing deficiency.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 2
SF- FS2 \wp \16 \16090 \002 \001- 001. docx
Excluding school -owned parks, there is currently approximately 3. 01 acres of parks per 1, 000 residents, which is equivalent to the City's stated per capita service standard.
The City has identified some, but not all of the planned new parks to potentially be funded by the fee ( and other sources, as necessary) through the 2035 planning horizon of the General Plan.' The City is in the process of preparing a Park Master Plan, which will prioritize future park development.
D. Maximum and Recommended Fee Schedules
Table 1 shows the City' s maximum supportable parks and recreation fee schedule as well as the recommended fee schedule. The maximum fee schedule is based on the nexus findings and technical analysis contained in this Report and represents the maximum parks and recreation fees the city could charge consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act. The calculation of the fee is presented in Section III of this report. The recommended fee schedule reflects a downward adjustment from the maximum supported fee. The recommendations are based on the fee levels being charged by surrounding communities. While we have identified a recommended fee range, the City has the discretion to adopt any fee amount up to the maximum amount supported by the nexus analysis.
Consistent with the City' s current fee structure, we are recommending that the impact fee remain an " all- inclusive" park fee that addresses the impacts of new residential development on all types of recreational facilities including parks, playfields, aquatics and recreation centers. Although some cities have fees that are targeted to particular uses, the all- inclusive strategy is preferable because it provides the City with a greater degree of flexibility.
The parks and recreation development impact fees will apply to new residential development to fund a share of future parks and recreation capital facilities investments in the City. The fee estimates include a 2 percent (2 %) fee program administration fee, consistent with other Mitigation Fee Act program administrative costs in many other California jurisdictions. 3 2 Appendix Table A -3
3 The 2 percent administration cost allowance is designed to cover the costs of preparing the development impact fee as well as the required reporting, auditing, collection and other annual administrative costs involved in overseeing the program. Development impact fee programs throughout California have applied similar administrative charges.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 3
SF- FS2 \wp \16 \16090 \002 \001- 001. docx
Table 1: Maximum and Recommended Park Fees
As shown in Table 1, the estimated maximum parks and facilities impact fee to fund both land acquisition and the construction of parks improvements that could be levied approximates 31, 000 per dwelling unit. For projects that dedicate land, a fee is only needed to fund facilities.
The maximum facility fee amount is $ 7, 700 per dwelling unit.
Fee comparisons with surrounding cities indicate that at these maximum levels, the City would be adopting parks and recreation fees that exceed the amounts being levied in surrounding cities. Given this consideration as well as the consideration that the City levies other impact fees, we are recommending that the adopted fees be less than the maximum fee levels. We are also recommending reduced fee levels on multi - family construction because of the reduced capacity of multi - family developments to absorb the same level of per unit costs as single family developments. While we have identified a recommended fee range, the City has the discretion to adopt any fee amount up to the maximum amount supported by the nexus analysis.
As shown in Table 1, the recommended fee to cover both land acquisition and facilities costs is 22, 000 to $ 25, 000 per unit for single family units and $ 15, 000 to $ 18, 000 per unit for multifamily units. For developments that dedicate sufficient land for park development the recommended fee range would be $ 6, 500 to $ 7, 500 per unit for single family units and $ 4, 500 to $ 5, 300 per unit for multifamily units.
E. Fee Indexing
Since land and construction costs continue to rise, it is important that the cost be indexed to inflation. The fee should be adjusted annually by a construction cost index, such as the Engineering News Record. Furthermore, land acquisition costs, which are an important component of the total fee and actual construction costs should be reviewed by the City at least every two years.
The calculation of the maximum fee levels is presented in Section III of this report.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 4
SF- FS2 \ wp \ 16 \ 16090 \ 002 \ 001- 001. docx
Maximum Supported Fees' Recommended Fees
Fee for Projects that Fee for Projects Fee for Projects that Fee for Projects Do Not Dedicate that Dedicate Do Not Dedicate Land that Dedicate Land for Parks Land for Parks for Parks Land for Parks
6, 500 to
Single Family Units 31, 000 $ 7, 700 22, 000 to $ 25,000 $ 7, 500 4, 500 to
Multi Family Units 31, 000 $ 7, 700 15,000 to $ 18,000 $ 5, 300 As shown in Table 1, the estimated maximum parks and facilities impact fee to fund both land acquisition and the construction of parks improvements that could be levied approximates 31, 000 per dwelling unit. For projects that dedicate land, a fee is only needed to fund facilities.
The maximum facility fee amount is $ 7, 700 per dwelling unit.
Fee comparisons with surrounding cities indicate that at these maximum levels, the City would be adopting parks and recreation fees that exceed the amounts being levied in surrounding cities. Given this consideration as well as the consideration that the City levies other impact fees, we are recommending that the adopted fees be less than the maximum fee levels. We are also recommending reduced fee levels on multi - family construction because of the reduced capacity of multi - family developments to absorb the same level of per unit costs as single family developments. While we have identified a recommended fee range, the City has the discretion to adopt any fee amount up to the maximum amount supported by the nexus analysis.
As shown in Table 1, the recommended fee to cover both land acquisition and facilities costs is 22, 000 to $ 25, 000 per unit for single family units and $ 15, 000 to $ 18, 000 per unit for multifamily units. For developments that dedicate sufficient land for park development the recommended fee range would be $ 6, 500 to $ 7, 500 per unit for single family units and $ 4, 500 to $ 5, 300 per unit for multifamily units.
E. Fee Indexing
Since land and construction costs continue to rise, it is important that the cost be indexed to inflation. The fee should be adjusted annually by a construction cost index, such as the Engineering News Record. Furthermore, land acquisition costs, which are an important component of the total fee and actual construction costs should be reviewed by the City at least every two years.
The calculation of the maximum fee levels is presented in Section III of this report.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 4
SF- FS2 \ wp \ 16 \ 16090 \ 002 \ 001- 001. docx
II. MITIGATION FEE ACT NEXUS FINDINGS
This chapter describes the necessary " nexus" between new development in Newark and the proposed capital facilities investments, as required under the Mitigation Fee Act — Government Code Section 66000 (AB1600). The new parks and recreation development impact fees will fund the investments in parks and recreation facilities, improvements, and land acquisitions required to maintain existing levels of park facilities service in the City - the "fair share" contribution of new development.
Nexus findings address: ( 1) the purpose of the fee and a related description of the facility for which fee revenue will be used, ( 2) the specific use of fee revenue, 3) the relationship between the facility and the type of development, (4) the relationship between the need for the facility and the type of development, and ( 5) the relationship between the amount of the fee and the proportionality of cost specifically attributable to new development. The subsections below describe the nexus findings for the Parks and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee.
A. Purpose
The fee will ensure an expansion in parks and recreation capital facilities in the City of Newark as new growth occurs.
B. Use of Fee
Fee revenue will be used to acquire land for parks and to construct improvements, such as playing fields, a skate park, or dog park, etc.
C. Relationship
New residential development in the City of Newark will increase the demand for and use of parks and recreation facilities. Fee revenue will be used to help fund new parks and recreation facilities in response to the increased demand.
D. Need
Each new residential project will bring new residents to the City and will generate incremental, new demand and use of the City's parks and recreation facilities. New revenues to fund investments in additional parks and recreation capital improvements are necessary to maintain the City' s parks and recreation capital facilities service standards.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 5
SF- FS2 \wp \16 \16090 \002 \001- 001. docx
E. Proportionality
The maximum, supportable parks and recreation fee schedule has been based on a parks and recreation capital facilities cost estimate derived by applying the proportionate increase in residential population associated with new development to the existing operative service standard /value of parks and park improvements. As a result, the fee program cost estimates are directly proportional to the relative increase in new development.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 6
SF- FS2 \wp \16 \16090 \002 \001- 001. docx
III. DEMAND FOR NEW PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES AND SUPPORTED IMPACT
FEE AMOUNTS
A. Service Population
The City's General Plan has established the City' s standard for functional public parkland at 3. 0 acres per 1, 000 residents. Therefore, under the City's policy, new residents are the determining driver /service population for new park and recreation facilities. As shown in Table 2, the City's population totaled approximately 43, 342 in 2013 at the time that the General Plan was prepared. By 2035 the population is anticipated to reach 60, 510, reflecting an increase of 17, 168 people over roughly the next 20 years.
Table 2: Service Population
Residents Service Population
2013 Population 43, 342 43,342
New Development (through -2035) 17. 168 17. 168
Total, 2035 60, 510 60,510
Source: General Plan
B. Average Household Size
Since residential park impact fees are often levied per residential unit, the average household size is needed to convert the demand of new residents into the demand of new residential units.
The residential occupant density factors for both single - family and multi - family units are derived from data from the US Census' American Community Survey. As shown below, the average household size is 3.23 persons per household.
Table 3: Average Household Size Assumptions
All Residential Units 3. 23
Source: American Community Survey 2010 - 2014.
C. Parks and Recreation Facility Inventory and Standards As summarized in Table 4 and detailed in Appendix Table A -1, the City has a total inventory of 130. 6 acres of existing parks. Of the existing acreage, approximately 44% are community parks, 45% are neighborhood parks, and 11 % are specialized parks. There are currently no parks under construction. The City is currently preparing a Parks Master Plan, which will detail the City's objectives for future park construction.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 7
SF- FS2 \wp \16 \16090 \002 \001- 001. docx
Table 4: Existing and Under Construction City Park Acres Source: Newark General Plan. Park Inventory is detailed in Appendix Table A - 1.
The City is currently providing a service level of 3. 01 acres per 1, 000 residents. The current inventory of park acreage in Newark meets or exceeds the City' s per capita service standard of
3. 0 acres per 1, 000 residents.
Table 5: Current Service Standard - Park Acres per 1, 000 Residents Existing Acres Under Construction Total Acres
City Park Acreage 130. 6 0 130. 6
Acres per 1, 000 Residents 3. 01 3. 01
General Plan Standard - Acres per 1, 000 Residents 3. 00 D. Parkland Development Costs
Table 6 provides an estimate of the cost of developing new parks, including the cost of acquiring land for park development. Land acquisition cost estimates are based on recent land sales for residentially zoned property or commercial sites that are part of residential development, as provided in Appendix Table A - 2. Given that the City intends to provide parks in proximity to residential neighborhoods, the cost of acquiring residential land is the appropriate indicator of park acquisition costs. Residential land acquisition costs generally range from $ 43 to $ 75 per square foot of land area. For purposes of this analysis, a land cost of $ 60 per square foot has been used, which reflects the average cost of sites of less than 20 acres.
The cost of developing park facilities varies significantly, depending on the nature of the facilities. Based on information provided by City staff, facility construction costs can range from approximately $ 12 per square foot up to $ 45 per square foot. For purposes of updating the City' s park fee, a cost of $ 18 per square foot or $ 784, 000 per acre has been assumed. As shown in Table 6, the cost to develop an acre of parkland is estimated to total $ 3, 136, 000 including land and park development costs or $ 784, 000 excluding land acquisition costs.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 8
S F- FS2 \ wp \ 16 \ 16090 \ 002 \ 001- 001. docx
Existing Acres Under Construction Total Acres
Community Parks 58. 1 0 58. 1
Neighborhood Parks 58. 8 0 58. 8
Specialized Recreation Areas 13. 7 0 13. 7
All City Park Acreage 130. 6 0 130.6
Source: Newark General Plan. Park Inventory is detailed in Appendix Table A - 1.
The City is currently providing a service level of 3. 01 acres per 1, 000 residents. The current inventory of park acreage in Newark meets or exceeds the City' s per capita service standard of
3. 0 acres per 1, 000 residents.
Table 5: Current Service Standard - Park Acres per 1, 000 Residents Existing Acres Under Construction Total Acres
City Park Acreage 130. 6 0 130. 6
Acres per 1, 000 Residents 3. 01 3. 01
General Plan Standard - Acres per 1, 000 Residents 3. 00 D. Parkland Development Costs
Table 6 provides an estimate of the cost of developing new parks, including the cost of acquiring land for park development. Land acquisition cost estimates are based on recent land sales for residentially zoned property or commercial sites that are part of residential development, as provided in Appendix Table A - 2. Given that the City intends to provide parks in proximity to residential neighborhoods, the cost of acquiring residential land is the appropriate indicator of park acquisition costs. Residential land acquisition costs generally range from $ 43 to $ 75 per square foot of land area. For purposes of this analysis, a land cost of $ 60 per square foot has been used, which reflects the average cost of sites of less than 20 acres.
The cost of developing park facilities varies significantly, depending on the nature of the facilities. Based on information provided by City staff, facility construction costs can range from approximately $ 12 per square foot up to $ 45 per square foot. For purposes of updating the City' s park fee, a cost of $ 18 per square foot or $ 784, 000 per acre has been assumed. As shown in Table 6, the cost to develop an acre of parkland is estimated to total $ 3, 136, 000 including land and park development costs or $ 784, 000 excluding land acquisition costs.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 8
S F- FS2 \ wp \ 16 \ 16090 \ 002 \ 001- 001. docx
Table 6: Park Development Costs per Acre
Land Acquisition Costs per Acrel $ 2, 352,000
Park Improvement Costs per Acre $ 784,000
Total Park Development Cost Per Acre $ 3, 136,000
Reflects average value of recent land sales in residential areas in Newark. Please SE 2 Cost estimate reflects City staffs estimate of average park construction costs.
Appendix Table A -2.
E. Park and Recreation Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Residential Development
Table 7 provides the estimate of the park acreage needed to accommodate the demand generated by new residents at the existing service level of 3. 0 acres per 1, 000 residents. As shown, it is estimated that an additional 51. 5 acres of improved parks will be needed to serve the needs of new residents through the General Plan buildout period of 2035. The cost of providing the needed parks is estimated to total approximately $164. 7 million including the cost of acquiring land ($ 9, 596 per additional new resident) and $ 41. 2 million, excluding the cost of land ($ 2, 399 per additional new resident).
Table 7: Park Land and Improvement Needs to Serve New Residents New Residents (through 2035)
Current General Plan Parks Service Standard
Additional Park Acres to Serve New Residents
Cost per Acre ( Table 6)
Administration Cost Allowance
Total Cost per Acre
Additional Park Acres to Serve New Residents
Total Park Investment Required to Serve New Residents
Cost Per New Resident
F. Maximum Impact Fees Supported by Nexus Analysis
17, 168
3. 00 acres per 1, 000 residents
51. 504
Land +
Improvements
Improvements
Only
3, 136,000 784,000
2. 00% $ 62,720 15, 680
3, 198,720 799,680
51. 504 51. 504
164,746,875 41, 186,719
9, 596. 16 $ 2,399.04
As shown above, the cost to provide new facilities to serve the demand of new residents is estimated at $2, 399 per resident excluding land acquisition costs and $ 9, 596 per resident including land acquisition costs. By applying the average density of 3.23 residents per residential unit, it is estimated that the maximum supported parks and recreation impact fees is 7, 700 per residential unit excluding land acquisition costs and $ 31, 000 per residential unit including land acquisition costs.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 9
S F- FS2 \wp \16 \16090 \002 \001- 001. docx
Table 8: Maximum Parks Fees Supported by Nexus Analysis In the simplest mathematical form, the equation for calculating the maximum fee per household is as follows:
per capita park service standard) X ( cost per acre) X ( average household size per unit) maximum fee per household
Incorporating the information specific to this analysis for Newark, the formula is as follows:
3 acres / 1000 residents) X ($ 3, 198, 720/ acre) X ( 3. 23 residents / unit) = $ 30, 996 per unit; and 3 acres / 1000 residents) X ($ 799, 680/ acre) X ( 3. 23 residents / unit) = $ 7, 749 per unit.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 10
SF- FS2 \ wp \ 16 \ 16090 \ 002 \ 001- 001. docx
Fee for Projects that Fee for Projects that
do not Dedicate Land Dedicate Land (Fee
Fee Funds Land + Funds Improvement
Improvement Costs) Costs)
Maximum Fee per New Resident ( Table 7) 9,596. 16 2, 399. 04 Maximum Fee per New Household 3. 23 persons per hhld. 30, 996 7, 749 Rounded 31, 000 7, 700
In the simplest mathematical form, the equation for calculating the maximum fee per household is as follows:
per capita park service standard) X ( cost per acre) X ( average household size per unit) maximum fee per household
Incorporating the information specific to this analysis for Newark, the formula is as follows:
3 acres / 1000 residents) X ($ 3, 198, 720/ acre) X ( 3. 23 residents / unit) = $ 30, 996 per unit; and 3 acres / 1000 residents) X ($ 799, 680/ acre) X ( 3. 23 residents / unit) = $ 7, 749 per unit.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 10
SF- FS2 \ wp \ 16 \ 16090 \ 002 \ 001- 001. docx
IV. USE OF FEE REVENUE
The City plans to use park impact fee revenue to acquire parkland and construct facilities to add to the system of park and recreation facilities. The park facilities that are planned at this time are listed in Appendix Table A -3.
The City is embarking on a comprehensive Citywide Park Master Plan to assess community needs, provide greater project detail, and prioritize projects. The outcome of the Master Plan should be used to review the fee and consider any appropriate modifications.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 11
S F- FS2 \wp \16 \16090 \002 \001- 001. docx
V. IMPACT FEES IN NEIGHBORING CITIES, MAXIMUM SUPPORTED FEES, AND
RECOMMENDED FEES
A. Park and Recreation Fees in Neighboring Jurisdictions KMA surveyed the impact fees levied by the nearby cities of Union City, Fremont, Hayward, Dublin, Pleasanton and San Leandro. The park and recreation facility impact fees and total impact fees for these cities are presented in Appendix Table A -4. They are summarized in Table 9.
Table 9: Comparison of Fees'
excludes affordable housing fees and tees charged on ouudmg permir vawarlons. 2 for units with more than 4 bedrooms, additional park fee is $ 5, 531 per bedroom. Total additional fee is $ 6, 210 per bedroom. 3 Pertains to non - senior units.
As shown, Newark' s existing parks fee at $ 7, 460 per dwelling unit is the lowest among the surveyed cities. The second lowest parks fee is levied by Pleasanton, with a fee of $ 9, 709 per unit. There is also a large disparity among the surveyed cities, ranging from $ 9, 700 per unit in Pleasanton to $ 29, 500 per units in Fremont. Pleasanton and Hayward are at the lower end of the range, Fremont and Union City ( up to $ 28, 193 per unit) are at the high end, and San Leandro and Dublin are in the middle of the range.
B. Maximum and Recommended Impact Fees
We recommend that the adopted fees be set below the maximum in order to be consistent with the fees of other cities in the market area and to not overly burden the cost of new development, given that the City has other impact fees. Separate and reduced fee recommendations are 5 Fee amount varies by bedroom count. $ 29, 502 is the fee for a four - bedroom unit.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 12
S F- FS2 \ wp \ 16 \ 16090 \ 002 \ 001- 001. docx
Per Unit Park Fees Total Per Unit Impact Fees
Single Family Multi Family Single Family Multi Family
Newark 7, 460 7,460 12,462 12, 045
Union City - Subdivision - Avg. 28, 193 28, 193 42,075 38, 138 16, 628 to 12, 691 to
Union City - Non - subdivision 2, 746 to $ 3, 096 2, 746 to $ 3, 096 16, 978 13, 041 0 BR - $ 9, 220 0 BR - $ 9,220 0 BR - $ 12, 363 0 BR - $ 12, 363 Fremontz 4 BR - $ 29,502 4 BR - $ 29,502 4 BR - $ 31, 012 4 BR - $ 31, 012 Hayward 11, 953 9, 653 11, 953 9, 653
Dublin 19,227 12, 017 30, 197 19, 229
Pleasanton 9, 709 7, 969 22,206 16, 256
17, 416 to 15, 891 to
San Leandr03 16, 079 14, 054 18, 094 16, 069
excludes affordable housing fees and tees charged on ouudmg permir vawarlons. 2 for units with more than 4 bedrooms, additional park fee is $ 5, 531 per bedroom. Total additional fee is $ 6, 210 per bedroom. 3 Pertains to non - senior units.
As shown, Newark' s existing parks fee at $ 7, 460 per dwelling unit is the lowest among the surveyed cities. The second lowest parks fee is levied by Pleasanton, with a fee of $ 9, 709 per unit. There is also a large disparity among the surveyed cities, ranging from $ 9, 700 per unit in Pleasanton to $ 29, 500 per units in Fremont. Pleasanton and Hayward are at the lower end of the range, Fremont and Union City ( up to $ 28, 193 per unit) are at the high end, and San Leandro and Dublin are in the middle of the range.
B. Maximum and Recommended Impact Fees
We recommend that the adopted fees be set below the maximum in order to be consistent with the fees of other cities in the market area and to not overly burden the cost of new development, given that the City has other impact fees. Separate and reduced fee recommendations are 5 Fee amount varies by bedroom count. $ 29, 502 is the fee for a four - bedroom unit.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 12
S F- FS2 \ wp \ 16 \ 16090 \ 002 \ 001- 001. docx
offered for multi - family units in recognition that multi - family units typically cannot bear the same level of impact fees as single family developments.
Table 10: Maximum and Recommended Park Fees
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 13
SF- FS2 \ wp \ 16 \ 16090 \ 002 \ 001- 001. docx
Maximum Supported Fees Recommended Fees
Fee for Projects that Fee for Projects Fee for Projects that Fee for Projects that Do Not Dedicate that Dedicate Do Not Dedicate Dedicate Land for Land for Parks Land for Parks Land for Parks Parks
31, 000 $ 7, 700 22, 000 to $ 25, 000 $ 6,500 to $7, 500 Single Family Units Multi Family Units 31, 000 $ 7, 700 15, 000 to $ 18, 000 $ 4,500 to $5, 300 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 13
SF- FS2 \ wp \ 16 \ 16090 \ 002 \ 001- 001. docx
VI. FEE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION
The Mitigation Fee Act includes a series of reporting requirements designed to ensure that development impact fee revenues are properly accounted for, used appropriately, and that, where funds are ultimately not used, are reimbursed. In addition, jurisdictions adopting fee programs should determine their preferred approach to updating the fee schedule and whether they intend to allow for exemptions, credits, and reimbursements (under any additional circumstances). The following fee program implementation and administration parameters are our standard recommendations. The City's existing program may already include some or all of these recommendations.
1. Credits, Reimbursement, and Exemptions
Under certain and limited circumstances, as determined by the City, the Impact Fee Resolution could allow developers subject to the fee to obtain credits, reimbursements, or exemptions. In cases of redevelopment, the demolition of space should provide a fee credit. In other words, the gross fee obligation should be calculated based on the scale of the proposed new development, with a fee credit to be applied for existing square footage to be removed ( or retained) using the applicable fee for the existing square footage (land uses). Residential units that are being replaced due to a natural disaster are also exempt from the impact fees. And, units that are subject to the existing land dedication requirements will only be subject to the parks facility impact fee and not the entire fee that covers both land acquisition and park improvement costs.
All other fee credits and /or reimbursements should not be allowed by right but rather should be subject to review by City staff and Council to ensure that such credits or reimbursements are warranted and appropriate. Potential examples where fee credits and reimbursements might be considered include: ( 1) cases where a Development Agreement specifically envisions extraordinary, direct investments in parks and recreation facilities of equal to or greater value to the City than the applicable parks and recreation fees; and 2) exemptions where the City elects not to impose fees for certain categories of development, such as affordable developments, are also an option, though alternative funding sources to offset a loss in fee revenue would need to be provided.
2. Securing Supplemental Funding
The maximum, supportable development impact fee is set to cover the parks and recreation facilities investments that will maintain citywide capital facilities standards as new growth occurs. To the extent that the adopted fee is less than the maximum and /or the City's goals envision an overall increase in parks and recreation facilities and parkland standards, supplemental funding will be required to fund park facilities. In addition, to the extent that exemptions are provided for particular types of development, supplemental funding will be required to make up for this lost funding.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 14
SF- FS2 \wp \16 \16090 \002 \001- 001. docx
3. Annual Review and Periodic Study Update
The Mitigation Fee Act/AB 1600 ( at Gov. C. §§ 66001( c), 66006( b)( 1)) stipulates that each local agency that requires payment of a fee make specific information available to the public annually within 180 days of the last day of the fiscal year. This information includes the following:
A description of the type of fee in the account
The amount of the fee
The beginning and ending balance of the fund
The amount of fees collected and interest earned
Identification of the improvements constructed
The total cost of the improvements constructed
The fees expended to construct the improvement
The percentage of total costs funded by the fee
Because of the dynamic nature of growth and capital equipment requirements, the City should monitor inventory activity, the need for improvements, and the adequacy of the fee revenues and other available funding. To the extent particular issues are identified, adjustments to the fee program may be required.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 15
SF- FS2 \wp \16 \16090 \002 \001- 001. docx
APPENDIX A: Park Inventory, Residential Land Sales, Park Construction Costs, and Impact Fees of Neighboring Cities
Appendix Table A -1
Newark City Park Inventory
wi,........ 1 r•n
Park Name Acres Faciliites
Neighborhood Parks
play structures, softball fields, basketball
Jerry Raber Ash Street Park 6. 1
court, picnic, horseshoe pit
Susan Johnson Bridgepoint Park 3. 5 play structures, picnic facilities Byington Park 3 play structures, picnic facilities
play structures, basketball court, par
Civic Center Park 5 1
course, picnic facilities
lawn, paths, par course. 16 -acre water area
Lakeshore Park 26 with fishing and boating
play structures, basketball court, picnic
Mayhews Landing Park 8. 3
facilities
Mirabeau Park 6 play structures, paths, picnic facilities Musick Park 0_8 play structures, picnic facilities
Total, Neighborhood Parks 58.8
Community Parks
play structures, lighted softball, basketball,
Birch Grove Park 12. 2
tennis, picnic, restrooms, water feature
lCommunity Park 16. 3
ISportsfield Park /Silliman Center 29. 6
Total, Community Parks
Shirley Sisk Grove
MacGregor Fields
Total, Special Use Parks
Total, City Parks
Source: Newark General Plan
58. 1
play structures, warm -up wall, basketball,
handball, lawn, paths, tennis, picnic,
community center
softball fields, soccer fields, aquatic center,
gymnasium, showers, locker room, dance
studio, fitness center, teen room, children' s
room, meeting room, childcare
Special Use Parks
3. 2
open space for summer concerts
10. 5 soccer and baseball practice fields
13. 7
130. 6
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
SF- FS2 \wp \16 \16090 \002 \Newark parks analysis 05 0416; 5/ 10/ 2016 e
Ln
a
uj
aw
w
e
0/
m k$
@o
q
q o® w
I
m j[
0 m
3 7
CD
E
x
n
um
0 m
5 e/
am
k
G
7 m
G
3 m
m
m
ul
w
w
w
w
R Im G
3 0
R
0 2d
2 0
7 9
0S
0 0
0 0
0 0
S
G
00 0
IA
6 g
t
e
g
M
w
w
k
w
M
k
k
a
k
v
7 7
k
0 o
w
m
d
a0 g2 2 s
Ga
7 M
E
0 * 7
0 a@
o = ,
a
@
M
g,
hE0
a
o
S
70 o
u<
E k/
4 0
k
0 )
00 c
o
m
i0
7 076
e
m Ln
Q E ;& aCL § i
R ®% d \
g
z § M \
w
w7
0 mz
E
n
n
m
D
m
m
E »
E/ 90
m
0 E
o CO
Di
EE
j
k
7 S
D
5 CL 4)
tr
mkd
i 7'Z
N N
D 0
l ii W W Q7 m z W D n N
c
N
3 r- 0
0 O
7r T N
a'
0 7 3 n 3' v 3•
D0 O
O
G e,, N N 70 D D D 0 f
7 DD
3 0,
3 N D
aNi * O0 O0 fD3 C0 r N D
rt fD fD D D n
D
CA = J 3 3 w3 D v
D
v
D
0 C v
N> O 0
rr
7C" v fl1 N
d C
o
3 a)
a
p x X
0 N 5'
3O..
T. D
G7
p
T.
ro
7 SZ a O
0 •
S
3 1
d
G) it C p D n
m
Cl
v
Dt D Nr+ UO rt n
vii
w
C
3 r+
a
Q Q
D
D r3i•
0 o d r+ r n
3 D r f7 1
O 0_ D 3r+
v
to
r' CD D Dp' 0
3 70
D 3 O
uo
r+ 3 D
0 D
3 7
77-
3 n• 3 3 a E
D
3 0
a DD 5' N Z S
N
M
3 O 3• rf
r*.
O QO D
L' 3 3
z
3 gyp D UU rr r=+ r-r
Ln r
N
O
S
O
Oq
0 cn
N0 G7
rt
M.
0 O 3 rD
n
3 D n
r+
3 0)
YQ
n rr
n
rr 7 n D 3
1 Vii V).
3 3
rD 3 3 EA
D
v
rD
v
m
3 r+
O
0 3
V)
1 z O N
tD a°a vr+
p ( D
00 C
77 Q- T
r D
3 D) D
0)
2 N n
D 0 W 3 W 0 Q? N
c
N
O
C
3 C
3 r- 0 D
v
3 i
a'
0 fu
3 D0 O G e,, N N 70 D D D 0 f DD s Gl C 3 N D D O
C to 3 O
D r rt 7
D rr r* r+ O_
o o D D) a) D v 77, 0 0 o- 0
3 O.. N
n G7
p
ro 0_ CL
Vrti S Q. d v a) m
7r
Dt D r+ N UO rt 7 n w
Q Q
v
O
3 v N
rD
77- 77 3
r+ D
z
O
0N G7 M.
n n D n
r+
YQ
n rr r+ rr 7 n D 3
3 rD 3 3 EA
v
v
3 o -a r~
Dl 3 m
3CL
f7
X
D
Q a
D
o D
d W
d
a
O
M
m
3 rhN
da
a o o v
s
d
d
d
O
Omo m O33
3 v a
z
f
N
c
0 3
3cwI I N3mII
3 3
m vl
G D
mII TIN
Wn LN dSNOn 3
m
PQ . fDII6 TNIIO
O3O acA
m
0 c o
Ou II
OD oKd
rr fDn
m gp T
y ID N ry
v
D
T
o
DD
y L
1C
C
9 C X N D J r
N
J M
m
N C• N l\ A r j
N
m N\
c m o
fD \ fG
a
D G
z Av
O m
V
o
a° 3° O
o N D
D O D N N
G< o m m N A 3 N •"
N A N
N
p O
O 1p tD
m
V
r
T
T
N N
O D al O
z
O
N N w j N N c
n : Ul O A 00 T O
m
G
O
I' m A W N N
N N J
O Q 0J 0J 0J
m {
N
NjJ
Y
N N N N j W N t/ t0 W V N tD N N
Uri tp W N N N V1lO lAW t0 W t0 w N O W N H
J O N A O J
3 W
O N N N \
N W N N O W O~i T OV W Om0 O OW1 W O m VAiV N O A W
Li G
O
J
A
1~! I m OW1
F N m VI l0 W N V N
m W l0 m
A
N N O
A
A
N
e
O V N
z z z
z z,
n o 0 0 0 N N > > t, m m
3 w
n
J
m m io m ' m f°
w N W
m
io
umi w
p•
N
D O
a
d A D O z z 3
O O 0 0 0 O O C j 0 C
t'o Jm Jm JID J •• m
N y m m
toN iM1 ` w
m?
N W A ° i a
m v
O J
ml0 YNW lm0 N
w
N
D . r0.
i°p z z d
zO zO z0 z0 z
iI N N
0 N N N N NW w NA
TD. . T°.
N N
N W A 3 OJ OAJ dJ
N N N N N N O N ~ 001 tN0 O W W W T O
ON1 0Nl OOl m 0
p V N N O
V
Nm
J
J t/1
m o
A N 0 V O O O 00 0J
N (% I
N
I] O N
J N N p w
j
O N
d
N N N N N N G
l
W
lmlf V 001 m N
I. a O1 { O A
N N
0 v T
w N Q W N O
F z m A A m to :. •• C
N J v>• N N
z C< 6
N
m m CJ
z a° z 3° A w d ;+ 7?
c n zO H o• w a
m m°
N m m T a w N N 3 an J
d .... b N O O n
d "G V N O w N "
w o T w J
o
r°o
J_
z 0O
A D
70A
oz
m OT
n F
mzO OInm
2 -Z{
G1
C
a 3
z
Z
D
A
Dm
m
Oc
z
c7
1/ I
n - p
3 o a D > >
c =
y N
of
o o _ _
i O m
nN. m F
N
fD
N
o o a 3 3 i3 o
CD
m
MD
N F w v
m
m o a m N
F
D'
c < m
o
a n O 3
Oo
v
az°
p w ° 3 m n
A
3 0 D
N7
A
O N = d
c a
N
O
f0
m n °
N m »
O
N O V
O ^
i
NOG M _
W N
m o.
o
N
m
a m
q D
n = fU n
J w
M
N
F
o
a=o ? H
m
3 ai3
a
m. <
H
D_
A N
a
O
s
I
a
m
0 d
ET
O.
O.
O
OaII aNIID
wC
D
Du II
w
m
D a
D I I
d ac
NN
v
3 a
A
ANa » II
T
3cn
1p
m 3
w WT
m ^ II II
n00m
w T
Aa3
0 0
dN
d
3NO
O
a
3 o g
of c
T
v
D'
o
I
i
W
T
I
ofv
V O A 1nI i
n m nF re n
3 o f a
o nP D
O
D ZR
N
O. rp) O
ZR
vOi O N Q N O- Np e 9
C d
A W J! O T T
v oEi o I-+ o
o
in in o- A
G'
Baca
n
1 2
O W S N
d
61 JD
o
m
w N w D3
v
A Sk a
I
Noe
C
i
O O»
N p
o
N o
6 U
J
p a s an
T
m i r r c p o0i
A N T W 9
NW W .
D
D
I
w n
v Ey
R
ro nP
u
RL
D D- i
1 oo•. i i
Nm
0 o
N o ZRp
n
o DI
0 3 3 i
I
1 m
F
Dx2zDZ
G1
0 A2Gf
AIn
I
RESOLUTION NO. 10, 634
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWARK ESTABLISHING AN IMPLEMENTING
RESOLUTION FOR THE COMMUNITY SERVICE
FACILITIES IMPACT FEE, UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 66001, IN ACCORDANCE WITH MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTION 3. 24.040 AND AMENDING THE MASTER
FEE SCHEDULE TO REFLECT THESE CHANGES
WHEREAS, the City Council ofthe City of Newark, a general law city ("City"), is authorized to prescribe and establish fees in regard to services or functions performed by the City for the public in a governmental and proprietary capacity; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. allows local governments to impose impact fees onnew development in order to recover the cost of improvements that are needed to serve that new development; and WHEREAS, Chapter 3. 24 ( "Development Impact Fees ") of the Newark Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to adopt implementing resolutions establishing development impact fees in order to mitigate the impacts that projects have upon the City' s ability to provide public facilities;
WHEREAS, the existing fee needs to be brought into conformity with current conditions in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to have an updated Community Service Facilities Impact Fee that will ensure that all new development pays the cost to provide community service facilities needed to support new development; and
WHEREAS, the City has retained Keyser Marston Associates to prepare the Public Safety and Community Service Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study, dated March 2017, which establishes a reasonable relationship between the Community Service Facility Fee and the purpose ofthe fee, which study is incorporated herein and attached as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City has duly noticed, advertised, scheduled, and held a Public Hearing on May 25, 2017; and
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2017 the City Council reviewed material presented in the staff report including the Public Safety and Community Service Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study, concerning the purpose ofthe fee and the relationship between the fee and its purpose; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ofthe City ofNewark which hereby fords, declares, and resolves that:
1) The City hereby receives and approves the Public Safety and Community Service Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study (" Fee Study"), which is attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution.
2) In adopting this Resolution, the City Council is exercising its powers under Chapter 3. 24 of the Newark Municipal Code, as well as pursuant to Article XI, Sections 5 and 7 of the California Constitution, Chapter 5 ofDivision I of the Government Code ( "Mitigation Fee Act"), commencing with Section 66000, collectively and separately.
3) After considering the Fee Study, this Resolution, and the testimony received at a public hearing, the City Council hereby makes the following findings:
a) In accordance with Section 66001, subdivision a, paragraph 1 of the Mitigation Fee Act, the purpose of the fees set forth in this Resolution, as specified in Exhibit A, is to provide for an expansion in community service capital facilities in the City as new growth occurs; b) In accordance with Section 66001, subdivision a, paragraph 2 of the Mitigation Fee Act, the fees collected pursuant to this Resolution, as specified in Exhibit A, shall be used to acquire land and to construct improvements identified in Exhibit A and shall be used to fund any administrative cost associated with the community service impact fee program;
C) In accordance with Section 66001, subdivision a, paragraph 3 of the Mitigation Fee Act, there is a reasonable relationship between the fees use (to pay for the acquisition and construction of community service facilities) and the type of development for which the fees are imposed in that the fees will be applied to development in the City, which will generate demands for community service facilities;
d) In accordance with Section 66001, subdivision a, paragraph 4 of the Mitigation Fee Act, the Fee Study demonstrates that there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the Community Service Facilities Impact Fee and the cost of community service facilities attributable to the development upon which the fee is proposed. Since the need for community service facilities is inherently population- driven, associated community service facility costs are assessed based on average household population and employment; and
e) In accordance with Section 66001, subdivision b of the Mitigation Fee Act, there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fees and cost of providing the community service facilities attributable to the development i n the City upon which the fees are imposed in that the fees ResolutionNo. 10,634
have been calculated by apportioning the cost of commrmity service facilities acquisition and construction to the number of residents and employees attracted by each type of development.
4) The City finds pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") this action is not a " project" because the Resolution provides a mechanism for funding of community service facilities but does not involve a commitment to any specific project for such purposes that may result in a potential significant impact on the Environment (CEQA guidelines Section 15378, Pub. Res. Code Section 21080(b)( 8)( b)).
5) The cost estimates set forth in the Fee Study are reasonable estimates for acquiring and constructing community service facilities and the fees expected to be generated by future development will not exceed the future projected cost of acquiring and constructing community service facilities. 6) The method of allocation of the fees to particular development bears a fair relationship and is roughly proportional to each development' s burden on and benefits from the community service facilities to be funded by the fees, in that the fees are calculated based on the number ofresidents each particular development will attract.
7) The Fee Study is a detailed analysis of how community services will be affected by development in the City and the community service facilities necessary to accommodate that development.
8) The fees are consistent with the General Plan and, pursuant to Government Code Section 65913. 2, the City Council has considered the effects of the fees with respect to the City' s housing needs as established in the housing element of the General Plan.
9) The fee amounts set forth in this Resolution include the fair and reasonable costs of administration ofthe fee programs and are within the requirements ofthe Mitigation Fee Act and other applicable law.
10) The fees are subject to adjustment, which approximate the fluctuation in market costs, and shall be adjusted annually in accordance with the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index, San Francisco, California. 11) The City does hereby approve the following community service impact fees on new residential and commercial development for community service facilities as follows:
Resolution No. 10,634
Residential Development
Type ofUnit Fee per Unit
Single Family Unit 2,311
Townhome Unit 2,311
Multiple Family Units 1, 156
Commercial Development
Type of Use Fee per Square Foot
Office /Commercial 86
Manufacturing/Research
and Development
18 Warehousing/Distribution 36
These fees shall be adjusted annually in accordance with the Engineering News Record Constriction Cost Index, San Francisco, California.)
12) The city council may elect to waive the payment of the impact fee if a residential or nonresidential development project provides community benefits in excess of those required by the impacts of the project, and ifthe city council finds that the expected benefits to the community exceed those that would be provided by the payment of the Community Service Facility Impact Fee. Such community benefits may include the provision of senior housing, the generation of significant taxes, or the elimination ofnuisances.
13) The Community Service Facilities Impact Fees shall not apply to approved projects that are covered by a Development Agreement or Vesting Tentative Map unless the provisions of document allow the application of such fees. 14) Developers shall be given a credit against this fee for the actual cost of community service facilities included in their developments.
Resolution No. 10, 634
15) The Master Fee Schedule shall be amended to reflect the Community Service Facility Impact fees as set forth in this Resolution.
16) Effective Date: This resolution shall be effective upon date of adoption of this Resolution. In accordance with Government Code Section 66017, the fees set by this Resolution shall be effective 60 days from the effective date ofthis Resolution.
17) Severability. Each component of the fees and all portions of this Resolution are severable. Should any individual component of the fees or other provisions of this Resolution be adjusted to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining component or provisions shall be and continue to be fully effective, and the fees shall be fully effective except as to that component which has been judged to be invalid.
I HEREBY CERTIFY the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council ofthe City ofNewark held on May 25, 2017, by Council Member Hannon, who moved its adoption and passage, which motion was carried after being duly seconded, and passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Hannon, Freitas, Vice Mayor Bucci and Mayor Nagy NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Collazo
SECONDED: Vice Mayor Bucci
Resolution No. 10, 634
APPROVED:
O - z / I
s /ALAN L. NAG
Mayor
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO.
10, 634
G '
I,
KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES
PUBLIC SAFETY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE FACILITIES
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY
Prepared for:
City of Newark
Prepared by:
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
March 2017
IIf_\-1 Ill X01; Kd01Lk0 =10k&?
INTRODUCTION, SUMMARY OF CURRENT PROGRAM, RESULTS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ........... ......................... . ....... . ....... ...... . ................... ........ I.............. 1 A. Summary of Current Program and City Objectives for Impact Fees ............................. 1 B. Report Background and Legal Context ............................. ............. ......... ...... ........ ..... 1 C. Facility Standards and Cost Allocation Approach .......................... ............................... 2 D. Maximum and Recommended Fee Schedules ............................. ............................... 3 E. Fee Indexing ................................................................................. ............................... 3 II. MITIGATION FEE ACT NEXUS FINDINGS ....................................... ............................... 4 A. Purpose ...........................................................,............................. .............................. 4 B. Use of Fee Revenues ................................................................... ............................... 4 C. Relationship ......... ......... ......... .......... ........... . ...... ............. ,......... 4 D. Need .............................................................................................. .............................. 4 E. Proportionality .............................................................................. ............................... 5 III. DEMAND FOR NEW PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES AND SUPPORTED IMPACT FEE AMOUNTS.................................... ...... .. .................. .............................. ....... ..................... 7 A. Public Safety Facility Needs to Serve Newark through 2035 ......... ............................... 7 B. Service Population ........................................................................ ............................... 7 C. Public Safety Facility Costs Attributable to New Service Population ............................ 9 D. Distribution of Public Safety Facility Demand by Land Use ............ ............................. 10 E. Supported Public Safety Facility Fee Levels .................................. ............................. 11 IV. DEMAND FOR NEW COMMUNITY SERVICE FACILITIES AND SUPPORTED IMPACT FEEAMOUNTS... 12
A. Community Service Facility Needs to Serve Newark through 2035 ............................. 12 B. Public Service Population .............................................................. ............................. 12 C. Community Service Facility Costs Attributable to New Development .......................... 15 D. Distribution of Community Service Facility Demand by Land Use .. ............................. 15 E. Supported Community Service Facility Fee Levels ........................ ............................. 16 V. USE OF FEE REVENUE ..................................................................... ............................. 17 VI. IMPACT FEES IN NEIGHBORING CITIES, MAXIMUM SUPPORTED FEES, AND RECOMMENDEDFEES ..................................................................... .............................18 A. Public Safety and Community Service Facility Fees in Neighboring Jurisdictions. ...... 18 B. Maximum and Recommended Impact Fees ................................... ............................. 19 VII. FEE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION .......... .............................20 A. Credits, Reimbursement, and Exemptions ..................................... ............................. 20 B. Securing Supplemental Funding. ......................... — .............................. ..................... 20 C. Annual Review and Periodic Study Update .................................................. ............... 20
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Current Impact Fees .................................................................... ............................... 1 Exhibit 2: Maximum and Recommended Fee Schedules ............................ ............................... 3 Exhibit 3: New Public Safety Needs ............................................................ ............................... 7 Exhibit 4: City of Newark Population and Employment ................................ ............................... 8 Exhibit 5: Public Service Population ............................................................ ............................... 9 Exhibit 6: Distribution of New Service Population by Land Use ................... ............................... 9 Exhibit 7: Public Safety Facility Costs Attributable to Demand from New Development .............10 Exhibit 8: Distribution of New Service Population for Public Safety Facilities by Land Use ........ 10 Exhibit 9: Distribution of Public Safety Facility Costs by Land Use Demand . ............................. 11 Exhibit 10: Current and Anticipated population and commercial and industrial stock ................. 11 Exhibit 11: Supported Public Safety Facilities Impact Fees by Land Use ..... ............................. 11 Exhibit 12: Needed Community Service Facility Improvements .................... ............................. 12 Exhibit 13: City of Newark Population and Employment ............................... ............................. 13 Exhibit 14: Public Service Population ............................................................ ............................. 14 Exhibit 15: Distribution of New Service Population by Land Use .................. ............................. 14 Exhibit 16: Community Service Facility Costs Attributable to Demand from New Development.15 Exhibit 17: Distribution of Demand for New Community Service Facilities by Land Use ............ 15 Exhibit 18: Distribution of New Development's Share of Community Service Facility Costs by LandUse .................................................................................... ............................. 16 Exhibit 19: Existing commercial and industrial stock and anticipated amount of new space ...... 16 Exhibit 20: Supported Community Service Facilities Impact Fees by Land Use ........................ 16 Exhibit 21: Comparison Public Safety and Community Service Facility Impact Fees ................ 18 Exhibit 22: Maximum and Recommended Fee Schedules ........................... ............................. 19 I. INTRODUCTION, SUMMARY OF CURRENT PROGRAM, RESULTS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
This Public Safety and Community Service Facility nexus analysis provides the City of Newark the City) with the necessary technical documentation to support updating its current Public Safety Facility and Community Service Facility impact fees. This nexus analysis has been prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA).
A. Summary of Current Program and City Objectives for Impact Fees The City currently levies both a public safety capital facilities fee and a community service capital facilities fee on residential and non - residential development. The fee revenues are used to fund a portion of the cost of new capital facilities to serve people who live and /or work in Newark. The portion of costs to be funded by fees on new development reflects the share of the future service population comprised of future residents /employees. The pro rata share of facility costs attributable to existing residents and employees will not be funded by fees levied on new development. The current impact fee amounts are as follows:
Exhibit 1: Current lmoact Fees
Single- family residential
Multi- family residential
Commercial
Industrial
4n, 9aa per unit
2,079 per unit
1. 73 per square foot
0. 17 per square foot
1, 942 per unit
1, 596 per unit
0.36 per square foot
0. 31 per square foot
The planned future public safety and community service capital facilities are identified in the City's General Plan and capital improvement plan and through interviews with executive staff, and are detailed in Tables 4 and 5 of this report. Key planned improvements include a new library, city administration building, and police center at the city's current civic center, a performing or cultural arts center, and a new senior center.
B. Report Background and Legal Context
The Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600 et seq.) permits cities to adopt impact fees on new development to fund the associated, additional costs of providing capital facilities to meet the demands generated by new residents and employees.
This Report provides the necessary technical analysis to support a schedule of fees to be established by an Impact Fee Ordinance and Resolution. The Mitigation Fee Act allows the City to adopt by Resolution a fee schedule consistent with the supporting technical analysis and findings provided in this Report. The Resolution' s approach to setting the fee allows periodic Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 1
S F- FS2 \wp \16 \16090 \003 \001 -001. docx
adjustments of the fee amount as may be necessary over time, without amending the enabling Ordinance.
The technical analysis in this Report estimates the public safety and community service facility fee schedules that will fund new development' s "fair share" contribution to funding future public safety and community service facility capital improvements. The key requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act that determine the structure, scope, and amount of the updated fees are as follows:
Collected for Capital Facility and Infrastructure Improvements. Development impact fee revenue can be collected and used to cover the cost of capital facilities and infrastructure required to serve new development and growth in the City. However, impact fee revenue cannot be used to cover the operation and maintenance costs of these or any other facilities and infrastructure.
Cannot Fund Existing Needs. Impact fee revenue cannot be collected or used to cover deficiencies in existing City capital equipment and facilities. The portion of capital costs required to meet the needs of the City's existing population must be funded through other sources. Capital facility Investments that increase service standards for existing and new development must be split on a "fair share" basis according to the proportion attributable to each.
Must be Based on a Rational Nexus. An impact fee must be based on a reasonable nexus, or connection, between new growth and development and the need for a new facility or improvement. As such, an impact fee must be supported by specific findings that explain or demonstrate this nexus. In addition, the impact fee amount must be structured such that the revenue generated does not exceed the cost of providing the facility or improvement for which the fee is imposed.
The City can choose to charge impact fees below the maximum, supportable fee schedule.
Such downward adjustments in the fee schedule, if selected, are typically based on policy considerations related to considerations of development feasibility and fee levels in peer cities.
C. Facility Standards and Cost Allocation Approach
A facility standard is a policy that indicates the amount of facilities required to accommodate service demand. The City's General Plan identifies new public safety and community service facilities that will be needed to serve Newark residents and employees through the 2035 planning horizon of the General Plan. As noted in the General Plan, Newark's city hall was built in 1966 and many of its systems are now outdated and the space does not fully meet the needs of Newark today. To serve the existing and future population, the General Plan identifies the need for modernizing or replacing City Hall, building a new library, performing arts center, and Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 2
SF- FS2 \wp \16 \16090\003 \001- 001. docx
police facilities. Needed improvements to be partially funded by the fees on new development are listed in Tables 4 and 5.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, facility costs have been allocated to new development proportionate to new development's share of the City' s service population upon buildout in 2035. This approach ensures that new development will bear only it' s fair share of costs and will not be funding improvements to cure existing deficiencies.
D. Maximum and Recommended Fee Schedules
Exhibit 2 shows the fee schedules supported by this study and represents the maximum public safety and community service facility fees that the City could charge consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act. The calculation of the fees is presented in Section III of this report. We recommend that the City adopt fees equal to the maximum fee amounts because the total impact fee obligation does not exceed the total obligation in adjoining cities and the recommended fees are needed to mitigate the facility needs of new residents and employees. However, consideration could be given to allowing for the reduction, with City Council approval, of fees to support high - income job generation and sales tax generating uses.
The fee schedules include a 2 percent (2 %) administration fee, consistent with other Mitigation Fee Act program administrative costs in many other California jurisdictions.
Exhibit 2: Maximum and Recommended Fee Schedules
Public Safety Facility Fee Community Service Facitit
Residential $ 2,311 per unit 3,451 per unit
Commercial $ 1. 72 per square foot 1. 19 per square foot Industrial $ 0.36 per square foot 0.50 per square foot
E. Fee Indexing
Since construction costs continue to rise, it is important that the cost be indexed to inflation. The fee should be adjusted annually by a construction cost index, such as the Engineering News Record.
Marston Associates, Inc. rage s
2 \wp \16 \16090 \003 \001- 001. docx
II. MITIGATION FEE ACT NEXUS FINDINGS
This chapter describes the necessary " nexus" between new development in Newark and the proposed capital facilities investments, as required under the Mitigation Fee Act — Government Code Section 66000 (AB1600). The new public safety facility and community service facility development impact fees will fund new development's "fair share" of needed capital facilities as identified in the General Plan to provide an adequate level of service to Newark.
Nexus findings address: ( 1) the purpose of the fee and a related description of the facility for which fee revenue will be used, ( 2) the specific use of fee revenue, 3) the relationship between the facility and the type of development, (4) the relationship between the need for the facility and the type of development, and ( 5) the relationship between the amount of the fee and the proportionality of cost specifically attributable to new development. The subsections below describe the nexus findings for both the Public Safety Facility Impact Fee and the Community Service Facility Impact Fee.
A. Purpose
The fees will ensure that new development contributes its "fair share" towards funding the construction of new capital facilities that are identified in the City' s General Plan.
B. Use of Fee Revenues
Public safety facility impact fee revenues will be used to fund a portion of the cost to construct the public safety capital facilities identified in Table 4. Similarly, the community service facility impact fee revenues will be used to fund a portion of the cost to construct the community service capital facilities identified in Table 5. These facilities will benefit the entire City of Newark.
C. Relationship
New residential development in the City of Newark will increase the demand for and use of public safety and community service facilities. Fee revenue will be used to help fund new development's pro rata share of the cost of new facilities that will be built to serve the entire City.
D. Need
The City's General Plan has identified new public safety and community service facilities that are needed to serve Newark through the year 2035. These new facilities are needed to serve both existing and new residents and employees. Each new residential and non - residential project will bring new residents and employees to the City and will generate incremental, new demand and use of the City's public safety and community service facilities. New revenues to Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page
SF- FS2\wp \16 \16090 \003 \001- 001. docx
fund investments in new public safety and community service facilities are needed to fund needed capital facilities as identified in the City's General Plan.
Given that impact fees on new development will fund approximately 26% of the cost of new public safety capital facilities and 21% of new community service capital facilities, the City will need to secure funding from other sources to construct the capital facilities. It is anticipated that the balance of funds will come from the following sources:
Local half cent sales tax;
City General Fund surpluses;
Regional, state and federal grants
E. Proportionality
The maximum, supportable public safety facilities and community service facility fee schedules have been derived by the following steps:
1. Establish the list of capital facilities to be funded, in part, by fees on new development.
The source for this list is the City's General Plan and the City's Capital Improvement Plan.
2. Establish the current and future (year 2035) population and employment estimates for the City of Newark. Sources for these estimates are the State Department of Finance, the City's General Plan, demographic research companies, and City staff.
3. Establish estimates of the current and future number of housing units, square feet of commercial space, and square feet of industrial space in the City. Sources for these estimates are the State Department of Finance, City staff, and the trends in the employment density of new development.
4. Establish the population base to be served by each capital facility to be funded by impact fees. For example, a new administration building at city hall will serve all future residents and employees. A new senior center, however, will serve all future residents, but not employees.
5. Calculate the percentage of each future service population comprised of existing residents /employees and the percentage attributable to new residents /employees.
6. For each capital facility, multiply the cost of the facility by the percentage of demand attributable to the new service population.
7. Distribute the cost allocated to new development by land use (residential, commercial, and industrial) based on the land use composition of the applicable service population.
The distribution of demand for fire facilities has been determined based on the distribution of fire/EMS protection service calls by land use.
8. Aggregate the public safety capital facility costs attributable to new development by land use.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 5
l \SF- FS2 \wp \16 \160901003 \001- 001. docx
9. Divide each land use's share of new development cost by the projected amount of new development (units, commercial square feet, or industrial square feet) to establish the public safety facility fee amount on new development.
10. Aggregate the community service capital facility costs attributable to new development by land use.
11. Divide each land use's share of new development cost by the projected amount of new development (units, commercial square feet, or industrial square feet) to establish the community service facility fee amount on new development.
With this methodology, the fee program cost estimates are directly proportional to the relative increase in new development.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 6
SF- FS2 \wp \16 \16090 \003 \001- 001. docx
III. DEMAND FOR NEW PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES AND SUPPORTED IMPACT FEE
AMOUNTS
A. Public Safety Facility Needs to Serve Newark through 2035 City staff have identified the following list of needed public safety facility improvements based on the facility needs identified in the City' s General Plan and the City's Capital Improvement Plan.
These new facilities are anticipated to meet the City' s needs through the year 2035. As shown in Exhibit 3, the total cost of capital facilities is estimated at $42 million, with a $ 23 million police center at the Civic Center accounting for 55% of the entire cost of new facilities.
Exhibit 3: New Public Safety Needs
Fire Admin Portion of City Administration Building 2, 557,400 2,608,548 Community Alerting and Warning System 75,000 76,500
Fire Station No. 27 Energy Efficient Windows 40,000 40,800 Fire Station No. 27 Training Tower 2,000,000 2,040,000
Fire Station No. 29 Truck Exhaust System 45,000 45,900
Replace Fire Station No. 27 5, 300,000 5,406,000
Replace and Expand Fire Station No. 29 6,400,000 6,528, 000 Ladder Truck/Fire Engine to serve new population 1, 200,000 1, 224,000 Traffic Signal Preemption ( Opticom) 160, 000 163, 200
Total Fire 17,777,400 18,132,948
Police Center at the Civic Center $ 23, 016, 600 $ 23,476,932 Police Vehicles (5) to serve new population $ 325, 000 $ 331, 500 Police Department Substation Facilities $ 850,000 $ 867,000 Total Police $ 24, 191, 600 $ 24,675,432
B. Service Population
The proposed new facilities will serve all of Newark. Therefore, the applicable service population for public safety capital facilities is both residents and employees. As shown in Exhibit 4, the City's current population is 44,733. By 2035 the population is anticipated to reach 60, 510, reflecting an increase of 15,777 people over roughly the next 19 years. Approximately 19,363 people work in Newark, with employment in commercial businesses totaling approximately 12,500 and employment in industrial businesses totaling approximately 6, 860. Employment is expected to grow by 4,950 through 2035.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 7
SF- FS2 \wp \16 \16090 \003 \001- 001. docx
Exhibit 4: City of Newark Population and Employment
In recognition that employees' demands for city services is generally limited to the time that they are at work, the impact of employees is weighted less than the impact of residents. Based on analysis underpinning the current impact fees, it is assumed that the public facility demand created by each employee is equal to 0. 36 of the impact of each resident. The fractional demand per employee is calculated by multiplying the share of daily working hours relative to activity hours ( 5) by the fraction of 5 working days out of 7 days per week ( 71). The derived weighted average is . 36.
The service population for Public Safety facilities is the sum of the resident population and. 36% of the employment base. As shown in Exhibit 5, the current public safety service population is approximately 51, 700 and the service population of residential units currently under construction, which will not be subject to the updated impact fee, is approximately 2, 933. The service population associated with new growth through the year 2035 is estimated to total 14, 626, which represents 21. 1% of the total service population in the buildout year of 2035.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 8
SF- FS2 \ wp \ 16 \ 16090 \ 003 \ 001 - 001 Aocx
Additional i
2016 In progress i
Population' 44,733 2,933 12, 844 mmmm60,510
Employmentz
Office 1, 197 850 2,047
Retail 7,762 900 8,662
50 % R &D 3. 545 350 1 4.896
Total Commercial 12, 504 3, 100 15,604
Light Industrial 1, 749 300 2,049
Heavy Industrial 1, 565 200 1, 765
50% R & D 545 3 350 1 4895
Total Industrial 6. 859 1= 8 KI
Total Employment 19,363 4,950 24,313
1 State Department of Finance E -5 is source of estimate of current population. Estimate ofpopulation in 2035 is the Newark General Plan.
2 ESRI is source of current employment estimates. 2035 employment estimates have been provided City staff.
In recognition that employees' demands for city services is generally limited to the time that they are at work, the impact of employees is weighted less than the impact of residents. Based on analysis underpinning the current impact fees, it is assumed that the public facility demand created by each employee is equal to 0. 36 of the impact of each resident. The fractional demand per employee is calculated by multiplying the share of daily working hours relative to activity hours ( 5) by the fraction of 5 working days out of 7 days per week ( 71). The derived weighted average is . 36.
The service population for Public Safety facilities is the sum of the resident population and. 36% of the employment base. As shown in Exhibit 5, the current public safety service population is approximately 51, 700 and the service population of residential units currently under construction, which will not be subject to the updated impact fee, is approximately 2, 933. The service population associated with new growth through the year 2035 is estimated to total 14, 626, which represents 21. 1% of the total service population in the buildout year of 2035.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 8
SF- FS2 \ wp \ 16 \ 16090 \ 003 \ 001 - 001 Aocx
Exhibit 5: Public Service Population
li "g( iYsae'
Residents
Existing SDOF, E -5 44,733 73. 9%
In progress City staff + SDOF 2,933 4. 8%
New Growth 12.844 21_2%
Buildout General Plan 60, 510 100. 0%
Employment
Existing ESRI 19,363 79.6%
New Growth City staff 44,950 20.4%
Buildout 24,313 100. 0%
Public Service Population f
Existing 51, 704 74.6%
In Progress 2, 933 4.2%
New Growth 14.626 21_1%
Buildout 69,263 100. 0%
Public service population is an allocation factor which differentiates between the impact of employees and residents. It equals residentpopulation plus .36 of employment. Para prior Newark General Plan, the .36 factor reflects an adjustment of one -half (8116) to reflect the workday's share ofawake hours and an adjustment of5/ 7 to reflect the work - week's share of the number of days in a week.
The distribution of the additional 14,626 service population from 2017 through 2035 among the land uses is as follows:
Exhibit 6: Distribution of New Service Population by Land Use Residential 12, 844 87.8%
Commercial 1, 116 ( 3, 100x 0.36) 7.6%
Industrial 666 (1, 850 x 0. 36) 4.6%
Total New Service Population 14,626 100%
C. Public Safety Facility Costs Attributable to New Service Population The cost of new public safety facilities attributable to the demands of new development is generally estimated by applying the 21. 1% factor to the facility cost schedule. However, because some of the facilities are needed solely to serve the new service population, the overall percentage of costs attributable to new development is 26. 1 %. 1 As shown below in Exhibit 7, it 1 A new fire engine ($ 1. 2 million), an expansion of Fire Station No. 29 to house the new engine, and five police cars 325,000) are needed to serve exclusively the new service population.. 100% of the cost of these facilities is allocated to new development. Please referto Table 4 for a detailed allocation of costs.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 9
S F- FS2 \wp \16 \16090 \003 \001- 001. doox
is estimated that new residents /employees will create the demand for approximately $ 11. 2 million of new public safety capital facilities through 2035. Demand attributable to existing residents and employees is estimated to total $31. 7 million.
Exhibit 7: Public Safety Facility Costs Attributable to Demand from New Development Total .. to Ne
with 2% Admin. Fee Development
Total Fire $ 18. 1 million $ 5.7 million
Total Police $ 24.7 million $ 5. 5 million
Total, Public Safety Facility Costs $ 42.8 million $ 11. 2 million D. Distribution of Public Safety Facility Demand by Land Use Since impact fees are levied per unit or per square foot of new non - residential development and often vary by type of non - residential development, the service population needs to be broken down by land use. As provided in Exhibit 8, the distribution of the growth in the service population is as follows: 88% from new residents; 8% from new commercial employees; and 50/c from new industrial employees. For purposes of this analysis, it has been assumed that the distribution of demand is proportionate to the distribution of the service population.
The source of demand for new fire protection facilities has been estimated based on the distribution of service calls submitted to the Newark Fire Department during calendar year 2015.
The call records and the source of calls are detailed in Table 10. As summarized below, approximately 77% of calls originated from residential homes, 19% from commercial establishments, and 4% from industrial establishments.
Exhibit 8: Distribution of New Service Population for Public Safety Facilities by Land Use I
is Ili.o
Distribution for Police Facilitiesi
Percentage 100% 87.8% 7. 6% 4.6%
Distribution for Fire Facilities
Percentagez 100% 77% 19% 4%
r Exhibit 7
2Table 10
The demand for new public safety facilities by land use is estimated by applying these demand percentages to the facility costs attributable to new development. As shown in Exhibit 9, the costs attributable to new residential development is estimated to total $9.2 million, the cost attributable to new commercial development is estimated to total $ 1. 5 million, and the cost attributable to new industrial development is estimated to total $451, 000.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 10
SF- FS2 \wp \16 \16090 \003 \001- 001. docx
Exhibit 9: Distribution of Public Safety Facility Costs by Land Use Demand r- acnny UOS[ S Aitnoutame 5. 5 million 5.7 million 11. 2 million to New Development
880, 000 sq. ft.
Industrial Service Population 666
Residential 4.8 million (87.8 %) 4.4 million (77 %) 9.2 million ( 84 %) Commercial 0. 4 million (7.6 %) 1. 1 million ( 19 %) 1. 5 million ( 12 %) Industrial 0. 2 million (4.6 %) 0.2 million (4 %) 0. 5 million ( 4 %) Totals may not add due to rounding.
E. Supported Public Safety Facility Fee Levels
Since impact fees are levied per unit of new development, the growth of the service population must be translated into projected new residential units and new building square footage. Based on US Census data, an average household size of 3.23 has been assumed to convert population projections into projected residential units. City staff has provided estimates of existing commercial and industrial stock and the amount of new space anticipated to be built through 2035. See Exhibit 10 below.
Exhibit 10: Current and Anticipated population and commercial and industrial stock Residential Population 12,844 3,977
Commercial Service Population 1, 116 880, 000 sq. ft.
Industrial Service Population 666 1, 250,000 sq. ft.
Supported fee amounts on new development to fund needed public safety facilities are determined by dividing the portion of costs attributable to the demand generated by new development by the magnitude of new development anticipated through 2035. As shown in Exhibit 11, impact fees of $2,311 per residential unit, $ 1. 72 per square foot of new commercial development and $ 0. 36 per square foot of new industrial development are warranted to fund the construction of public safety facilities in Newark to serve the needs generated by new development.
Exhibit 11: Supported Public Safety Facilities Impact Fees by Land Use Costs Allocated to New Development $ 9, 187,925 $ 1, 512,565 $ 451, 442 $ 11, 151, 931 New Development (Units or SF) 3, 977 880,000 1, 250,000 Impact Fee per UniUSF $ 2, 311 $ 1. 72 $ 0.36
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 11
SF- FS2 \wp \16 \16090 \003 \001- 001. docx
IV. DEMAND FOR NEW COMMUNITY SERVICE FACILITIES AND SUPPORTED IMPACT
FEE AMOUNTS
A. Community Service Facility Needs to Serve Newark through 2035 City staff have identified the following list (Exhibit 12) of needed community service facility improvements based on the facility needs identified in the City's General Plan and the City's Capital Improvement Plan. These new facilities are anticipated to meet the City's needs through the year 2035. As shown, the total cost of capital facilities is estimated at $71. 46 million. The largest planned expenditures include a $ 21. 1 million new library at the civic center, a $ 17.3 million new city administration building at the civic center, a $ 9 million performing arts center, and a $ 7.5 million senior center.
Exhihit 12- Needed Community Service Facility Improvements City Administration Building at Civic Center 17, 262,450 17, 607, 699 Equipment Shop Heavy Duty Vehicle Hoist 60,000 61, 200
History Center (Phases 2,3,4) 4,000,000 4,080, 000
Library at the Civic Center 21, 098,550 21, 520,521
Mowry Avenue Backup Walls 900,000 918,000
New Fuel Management System 60,000 61, 200
New Senior Center 7,500,000 7,650,000
Newark Boulevard Backup Walls 1, 200,000 1, 224,000
Performing ( or Cultural) Arts Center 9, 000,000 9,180,000 Service Center Fuel Tank Canopy 130,000 132,600
Service Center Storage Facility 400,000 408,000
Service Center Waste Disposal Upgrades 250,000 255,000
Silliman Complex Restroom /Maintenance Facility 700,000 714,000 Thornton Avenue Streetscape 2,200,000 2,244,000
Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations 200,000 204,000
New Homeless Shelter 1, 500,000 1, 530,000
Service Center Expansion 5.000,000 5,100.000
Total Community Facilities 71, 461, 000 72,890,220
B. Public Service Population
The proposed new community facilities will serve all of Newark. Therefore, the applicable service population for most community service capital facilities is both residents and employees.
As shown in Exhibit 13, the City's current population is 44,733. By 2035 the population is anticipated to reach 60,510, reflecting an increase of 15, 777 people over roughly the next 19 years. Approximately 19,363 people work in Newark, with 12, 500 employed in commercial Associates, Inc. reyn
16090 \003 \001- 001. doox
businesses and 6, 860 employed in industrial businesses. An additional 4, 950 employees are expected through 2035.
Exhibit 13: Citv of Newark Population and Employment
In determining the population to be served by the new facilities, it is recognized that employees' demands for city services is generally limited to the time that they are at work. Therefore, employees are weighted less than residents. Based on that analysis that was undertaken to support the current impact fees, it is assumed that the public facility demand created by each employee is equal to 0. 36 of the impact of each resident. The fractional demand per employee is calculated based on a fraction of 8 hours out of 16 activity hours per day ( 5) times the fraction of 5 working days out of 7 days per week (. 71). The derived weighted average is . 36.
The public service population for all community service facilities except the senior center is the sum of the resident population and. 36% of the employment base. As shown in Exhibit 13, the current service population is approximately 51, 700 and the service population of residential units currently under construction, which will not be subject to the updated impact fee, is approximately 2, 933. The service population associated with new growth through the year 2035 is estimated to total 14, 626, which represents 21. 1% of the total service population in the buildout year of 2035.
Given that employment does not contribute to the need for senior centers, the service population for the senior center is the residential population. As shown in Exhibit 14, it is estimated that the City' s population will increase by 12, 844 from 2017 through 2035 from new residential development, excluding new units currently under construction, which will be subject Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 1
SF- FS2\ wp \ 16 \ 16090 \ 003 \ 001- 001. docx
Additional -
2017 through
i In progress i
Population' 44,733 2, 933 12, 844 60, 510
Employment'
Office 1, 197 850 2,047
Retail 7,762 900 8,662
50 % R &D 3,545 350 1 4, 895
Total Commercial 12, 504 3, 100 15,604
Light Industrial 1, 749 300 2,049
Heavy Industrial 1, 565 200 1, 765
50% R &D 545 3 350 1 4_
Total Industrial 6.859 185 8.709
Total Employment 19,363 4,950 24,313
State Department of Finance E -5 is source of estimate ofcurrent population. Estimate ofpopulation in 2035 is the Newark General Plan.
2 ESRI is source of current employment estimates. 2035 employment estimates have been provided City staff.
In determining the population to be served by the new facilities, it is recognized that employees' demands for city services is generally limited to the time that they are at work. Therefore, employees are weighted less than residents. Based on that analysis that was undertaken to support the current impact fees, it is assumed that the public facility demand created by each employee is equal to 0. 36 of the impact of each resident. The fractional demand per employee is calculated based on a fraction of 8 hours out of 16 activity hours per day ( 5) times the fraction of 5 working days out of 7 days per week (. 71). The derived weighted average is . 36.
The public service population for all community service facilities except the senior center is the sum of the resident population and. 36% of the employment base. As shown in Exhibit 13, the current service population is approximately 51, 700 and the service population of residential units currently under construction, which will not be subject to the updated impact fee, is approximately 2, 933. The service population associated with new growth through the year 2035 is estimated to total 14, 626, which represents 21. 1% of the total service population in the buildout year of 2035.
Given that employment does not contribute to the need for senior centers, the service population for the senior center is the residential population. As shown in Exhibit 14, it is estimated that the City' s population will increase by 12, 844 from 2017 through 2035 from new residential development, excluding new units currently under construction, which will be subject Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 1
SF- FS2\ wp \ 16 \ 16090 \ 003 \ 001- 001. docx
to the existing fees. The additional 12,844 residents will account for 21. 2% of Newark's population by 2035. Therefore, 21. 2% of the cost of the senior center is estimated to be attributable to the impacts of new development.
Exhibit 14: Public Service Population
Factor Source
Percent
Number Allocation
Residents
12, 844
Existing SDOF, E -5 44,733 73. 9%
In progress City staff + SDOF 2, 933 4. 8%
New Growth 12.844 21_2%
Buildout General Plan 60,510 100. 0%
Employment
100. 0%
Existing ESRI 19,363 79.6%
New Growth City staff 4.950 20_4%
Buildout 24,313 100.0%
Public Service Population r' I
Existing 51, 704 74.6%
In Progress 2,933 4.2%
New Growth 14.626 21. 1%
BUIldout 69,263 100.0%
Public service population is an allocation factor which differentiates between the impact of employees and residents. It equals resident population plus .36 of employment. Per a prior Newark General Plan, the ,36 factor reflects an adjustment of one -half (8116) to reflect the workday's share of awake hours and an adjustment of 517 to reflect the work - week's share of the number of days in a week.
The distribution of the additional 14,626 service population from 2017 through 2035 among the land uses is presented in Exhibit 15:
Exhibit 15: Distribution of New Service Population by Land Use New Service ..
New Development
All facilities, except senior center
Residential 12, 844 87.8%
Commercial 1, 116 ( 3, 100 x 0. 36) 7.60/b
Industrial 666 ( 1, 850 x 0. 36) 4.6%
Total New Service Population,
All except Senior Center
14,626 100. 0%
Senior Center 12,844 100%
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 14
SF- FS2 \wp \16 \16090 \003 \001 -001. docx
C. Community Service Facility Costs Attributable to New Development The cost of new community service facilities attributable to the demands of new development is estimated by applying the 21. 1 % factor to the facility cost schedule for all improvements, excluding the senior center, and applying a factor of 21. 2% to the total cost of the senior center.
As shown in Exhibit 16, it is estimated that new residents /employees will create the demand for approximately $15.4 million of new community service capital facilities through 2035, which accounts for approximately 21. 1 % of total project costs. Demand attributable to existing residents and employees is estimated to total $57.5 million.
Exhibit 16: Community Service Facility Costs Attributable to Demand from New Total Community Facilities, excluding senior center
Senior Center
Total, Community Service Facility Costs
65.24 million $ 13.78 million ( 21. 1 %)
7.65 million $ 1. 62 million ( 21. 2 %)
72.89 million $ 15.40 million (21. 1 %)
D. Distribution of Community Service Facility Demand by Land Use Since impact fees are levied per unit or per square foot of new non - residential development and often vary by type of non - residential development, the service population needs to be broken down by land use. As provided in Exhibit 17, the distribution of the growth in the service population for facilities excluding the senior center is as follows: 87.8% from new residents;
7.6% from new commercial employees; and 4.6% from new industrial employees. For the senior center, 100% of the cost is apportioned to residential development. For purposes of this analysis, it has been assumed that the distribution of demand is proportionate to the distribution of the service population.
Exhibit 17: Distribution of Demand for New Community Service Facilities by Land Use Distribution for Community Facilities, Excluding the Senior Center' Percentage 100 % 87.8% 7. 6% 4.6%
Distribution for Senior Center
Percentage 100% 100% 0% 0%
I Exhibit 16
The demand for new public safety facilities by land use is estimated by applying these demand percentages to the facility costs attributable to new development. As shown in Exhibit 18, the costs attributable to new residential development is estimated to total $ 13.72 million, the cost attributable to new commercial development is estimated to total $ 1. 05 million, and the cost attributable to new industrial development is estimated to total $0.63 million.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. rage -io
SF- FS2 \wp \16 \16090 \003 \001- 001. docx
Exhibit 18: Distribution of New Development' s Share of Community Service Facility Costs by i and I1ca
E. Supported Community Service Facility Fee Levels
Since impact fees are levied per unit of new development — per residential unit or per square foot of new commercial or office development, the average household size and the average employment density is needed to convert the demand of new residents /employees into the demand of new residential units and new building square footage. Based on US Census data, an average household size of 3.23 has been assumed. City staff has provided estimates of existing commercial and industrial stock and the amount of new space anticipated to be built through 2035, which are presented in Exhibit 19.
Exhibit 19: Existing commercial and industrial stock and anticipated amount of new space Commercial Service Population 1, 116 880,000 sq. ft.
Industrial Service Population 666 1, 250,000 sq. ft.
Supported fee amounts on new development to fund needed community service facilities are determined by dividing the portion of costs attributable to the demand generated by new development by the magnitude of new development anticipated through 2035. As shown in Exhibit 20, impact fees of $3,451 per residential unit, $ 1. 19 per square foot of new commercial development and $ 0.50 per square foot of new industrial development are warranted to fund the construction of community service facilities in Newark to serve the needs generated by new development.
Exhibit 20: Supported Community Service Facilities Impact Fees by Land Use Costs Allocated to New Development
New Development (Units or SF)
Impact Fee per UnIUSF
13, 722, 088 1, 051, 188
3, 977 880, 000
3, 451 1. 19
627,322 $ 15, 400,598
1, 250, 000
0. 50
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. rage io
SF- FS2 \wp \16 \16090 \003 \001- 001. docx
V. USE OF FEE REVENUE
The City plans to use public safety facility fee revenues to construct the facilities identified in Exhibit 3. The City plans to use community service facility fee revenues to construct the facilities identified in Exhibit 12.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 17
S F- FS2 \wp \16 \16090 \003 \001- 001. docx
VI. IMPACT FEES IN NEIGHBORING CITIES, MAXIMUM SUPPORTED FEES, AND
RECOMMENDED FEES
A. Public Safety and Community Service Facility Fees in Neighboring Jurisdictions KMA surveyed the impact fees levied by the nearby cities of Union City, Fremont, and Milpitas.
The impact fees levied in these cities are presented in Appendix Tables A -1, A -2 and A -3, and summarized in Exhibit 21.
As shown, the distribution of types of impact fees and the total fee amount varies considerably among the jurisdictions and by land use. Newark is the only jurisdiction with a dedicated public safety fee for police and fire department capital improvements. In comparison, Union City has a general capital facilities fee, which it levies only on residential development. Both Union City and Milpitas do not levy any material impact fees on non - residential development. Newark's total fee amount on new residential development is significantly less than the fees levied in Union City and Milpitas. Newark's residential fees are also less than the fees levied in Fremont, but the difference is not as large.
Newark' s impact fees on commercial development are within the band of fees charged by Fremont but significantly more than the fees levied by Union City and Milpitas, both of which do not levy any significant charges on new commercial development. Newark's impact fees on industrial development are less than the fees levied by Fremont but more than the negligible fees levied in Union city and Milpitas.
FYhihit 91- Cmmnarison Public Safety and Community Service Facility Impact Fees* ilY' .
Public Safety Facility Fees
1, 989- 3BR =$ 371;
Residential $ 2, 079 413R = $ 457 0 0
Commercial $ 1. 73 9. 18 - $ 0. 31 0 0
Industrial $ 0. 17 0. 10 - $ 0. 24 0 0
Community Service Facility Fees
1; 596 - 313R = $ 2,569 8,624-
Residential $ 1, 942 413R= $ 3,163 12, 231 0
Commercial $ 0. 36 0.55 - $ 0.92 0 0
Industrial $ 0. 31 0.31 -$ 0. 71 0 0
Total Fees
22, 135- 3 B = $29,158 38, 138 - 29,089-
Residential $ 29,732 4 BR = $31, 012 42,075 44,673
Commercial $ 7.06 6. 22 - $ 7.57 1. 00 0
Industrial $ 1. 85 2.03 - $4. 53 1. 00 0
excludes affordable housing fees levied on residential development and fees levied on building permit valuations or any basis other than per unit or per square foot.
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.