Agenda packet — Newark City Council, September 10, 2026 (part 5 of 5)

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Q5. If you’re not happy with your current housing situation, what would make it better? (Check all that apply.)
Answer Choices
Response Count
(multi-select)
Respondent %
(out of 342)
I need a home with more space 106 31%
I would like to live in a different neighborhood 44 13% I rent, but would like to own my own home 86 25%
I need a place that is more accessible due to disabilities 14 4% I need a home with fewer housemates or roommates 24 7%
I like my home, but need to pay less 67 20%
I’m happy with my current housing situation 113 33%
Number of Respondents 299 87%
Q6. Of the following five options, which three do you think are the most urgent affordable housing needs in Newark at this time? Answer Choices
Response Count
(multi-select)
Respondent %
(out of 342)
Housing for families - larger units with more bedrooms for all families, especially multigenerational or large families 171 50%
Housing for smaller households - smaller units or housing types for young adults and couples starting out, single households, students and seniors looking to downsize
148 43%
Housing for seniors - specific developments for seniors, including housing with supportive services
112 33%
Housing for people with special needs - greater accessibility and supportive services for those with disabilities
47 14%
Housing for those experiencing homelessness - transitional housing and permanent supportive housing
82 24%
Housing for low-income and underserved households – subsidized housing
119 35%
Other (please specify) 30 9%
Number of Respondents 298 87%
APPENDIX B PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND INPUT SUMMARY B-4

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Q7. Thinking about the future of your neighborhood, what gives you optimism?
The survey received more than 200 responses to this question which were categorized and summarized in part in the community engagement summary included in this Housing Element.

Q8. Do you see your neighborhood as a place of opportunity for yourself and/or your family?
Answer Choices
Response
Count
Respondent %
(out of 342)
Yes 121 35%
No 60 18%
Somewhat 96 28%
Number of Respondents 277 81%
Q9. If you didn’t answer yes to the previous question, what are three of the most pressing issues that would need to change to feel like there is more opportunity? (Please select up to three)
Answer Choices
Response Count
(multi-select)
Respondent %
(out of 342)
Pollution from vehicles on neighborhood streets and freeways 55 16% Healthy food and grocery stores close to home or work 71 21% City infrastructure and facilities that support physical activity, including sidewalks, bicycle lanes, parks, and recreation centers 112 33%
Air or chemical pollution from industrial businesses and activities.
52 15%
Easy to access health care facilities 35 10%
Affordable, safe, and healthy housing conditions 106 31% Educational opportunities that are academically and culturally supportive
86 25%
Number of Respondents 219 64%
APPENDIX B PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND INPUT SUMMARY B-5

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Q10. The city could do a variety of things to create more housing affordability. of the following six options, which three do you think are the most promising or worth doing? (Please choose 3)
Answer Choices
Response Count
(multi-select)
Respondent %
(out of 342)
Create incentives for building affordable housing 120 35% Reduce the cost of building all housing, but especially affordable housing through lower fees and faster approvals
113 33%
Allow for a larger variety of housing through the city 93 27% Use city-owned land for affordable housing 94 27%
Use city funds to get more state, federal and private funding for affordable housing (through the city’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund)
117 34%
Enact policies such as inclusionary zoning that allow for a portion of affordable units in each development
96 28%
Number of Respondents 260 76%
Q11. What kind of housing would you like to see more of? (Check all that apply.)
Answer Choices Response Count(multi-select) Respondent % (out of 342) Backyard cottages 125 37%
Duplexes, triplexes and fourplex 86 25%
Cottage clusters 106 31%
Townhomes 104 30%
Small to mid-size multifamily 77 23%
Multifamily buildings downtown 75 22%
Number of Respondents 252 74%
APPENDIX B PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND INPUT SUMMARY B-6

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Q12. Where in Newark would you like to see more housing? (Please select all that apply)
Answer Choices
Response Count
(multi-select)
Respondent %
(out of 342)
Old Town (Thornton Ave between Cherry Street and Ash Street) 141 41% Bayside Newark (formerly known as The Dumbarton
Transit-Oriented Development, near Willow Street and Enterprise Drive)
99 29%
NewPark Place area (Newpark Mall Road and Cedar Blvd) 156 46% Other (please specify) 46 13%
Number of Respondents 248 73%
Q13. Which hazards, both natural and human, do you think are most important for Newark to address? (Please choose three)
Answer Choices
Response Count
(multi-select)
Respondent %
(out of 342)
None of the above 8 2%
Wildfires 53 15%
More frequent and intense heat waves 87 25%
Earthquakes 119 35%
Multi-year drought 179 52%
Sea-level rise and related flooding 150 44%
Hazardous materials spills 70 20%
Other (please specify) 32 9%
Number of Respondents 264 77%
APPENDIX B PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND INPUT SUMMARY B-7

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Q14. How concerned are you about the impact of sea level rise, bringing the possibility of increased flooding to the lower-lying communities of Newark?
Answer Choices
Response
Count
Respondent %
(out of 342)
Very concerned about the impact flooding will have on lower-lying communities
100 29%
Somewhat concerned about the impact flooding will have on these communities
92 27%
Not really concerned about it 50 15%
No opinion, don’t have enough information 26 8%
Number of Respondents 268 78%
Q15. Are there pollution and environmental issues you are concerned about in your neighborhood or larger community? (If so, please check all that apply.)
Answer Choices
Response Count
(multi-select)
Respondent %
(out of 342)
Issues related to car and truck traffic: Noise, air pollution 126 37% Issues connected to industry in the area: air pollution, dangerous fumes, dumping of chemicals
121 35%
Poor quality drinking water 81 24%
Trash in public spaces, vacant lots, graffiti 168 49%
Other (please specify) 29 8%
Number of Respondents 250 73%
APPENDIX B PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND INPUT SUMMARY B-8

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Q16. What is your connection to Newark? (Please select all that apply.) Answer Choices
Response Count
(multi-select)
Respondent %
(out of 342)
Live here 242 71%
Work here 51 15%
Go to school here 40 12%
Have a business here 15 4%
Have family or grew up here (but do not live here) 23 7% Interested in Newark housing issues (but do not live here) 10 3% Number of Respondents 255 75%
Q17. Currently I live…
Answer Choices Response Count Respondent % (out of 342) In a home or condo I own 168 49%
In a home or apartment I rent 72 21%
In an unstable/unhoused situation 3 1%
Prefer not to say 11 3%
Number of Respondents 254 74%
Q18. How would you describe your home?
Answer Choices Response Count Respondent % (out of 342) A single family home 196 57%
A multi-family home such as a duplex or
apartment building
53 15%
A mobile or manufactured home 1 0.3%
Other (please specify) 7 2%
Number of Respondents 250 73%
APPENDIX B PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND INPUT SUMMARY B-9

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Q19. What is your age?
Answer Choices Response Count Respondent % (out of 342) Under 19 1 0.3%
20-29 9 3%
30-49 153 45%
50-69 72 21%
70+ 18 5%
Number of Respondents 253 74%
Q20. What is your race and/or ethnicity? (Check all that apply.) Answer Choices Response Count(multi-select) Respondent % (out of 342) American Indian or Alaskan Native 8 2%
Asian or Asian American 63 18%
Black or African American 3 1%
Hispanic or Latino 82 24%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 8 2%
White or Caucasian 107 31%
Other (please specify) 10 3%
Number of Respondents 241 70%
APPENDIX B PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND INPUT SUMMARY B-10

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Q21. We would love for you to be involved in this process. If you have not attended public meetings in the past, please share what is keeping you from attending. (Please check all that apply.)
Answer Choices
Response Count
(multi-select)
Respondent %
(out of 342)
I have difficulty understanding what is being said in English 18 5% I don't have the time to attend – too busy with work and/ or family 102 30%
I need child care to attend 25 7%
I don’t feel that my opinions are heard and taken into
consideration 88 26%
The time and /or day of the week meetings are held makes it difficult for me to attend 47 14%
Other (please specify) 52 15%
Number of Respondents 200 58%
Q22. and let us know if there’s anything else you want to tell us:

The city received more than 200 comments which were categorized and used to inform policies and programs reflected in this document.

APPENDIX B PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND INPUT SUMMARY B-11

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES

INVENTORY
Introduction
A Housing Element must include an inventory of available land that is appropriately zoned and suitable for housing development to accommodate a jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) as required by State law. This inventory for the City of Newark focuses on residential sites that are currently in the development pipeline, or vacant and non-vacant sites that can be made available for housing development affordable at varying income levels. This Appendix summarizes the evaluation of potential housing sites, and the adequacy of sites to meet development capacities to accommodate the City’s regional housing needs for the 2023-2031 planning period.

California law (Government Code Sections 65583 (a)(3)) requires that the Housing Element contain an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and non-vacant (i.e., underutilized) sites having potential for development. State law also requires an analysis of the relationship to zoning and services to these sites as well as identifying sites throughout the community, in a manner that is consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH).

The analysis presented in this Appendix demonstrates that there is an adequate supply of suitable land to accommodate the City’s housing allocation of 1,874 units, plus a surplus of 980 units to act as a “buffer” if sites develop to non-residential or at different affordability levels than assumed in the sites inventory. This section is organized by the following topics:
● Summary of Newark’s projected housing needs by AMI level ● Capacity to Accommodate RHNA
● Sites selection process, including a description of the methodology and evaluation of site criteria, realistic unit capacity, and sites to accommodate varied income levels ● Evaluation of sites in meeting AFFH requirements
● Individual site profiles
Projected Housing Needs
A key component of any Housing Element Update is identifying adequate sites to address the jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determines state-wide projected housing needs and allocates new housing unit target numbers to regional councils of government (COGs). State law (California Government Code Section 65584) provides for COGs to then prepare and adopt plans APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-1

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
that assign a “fair share” of the region’s housing needs to each city and county. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the COG that determines fair-share portions of state allocations for Newark. .

The City’s RHNA requirements for the 2023-2031 Housing Element projection period are summarized in Table C- 1 below. For the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period, the City of Newark is required to plan to accommodate the development of at least 1,874 housing units. This includes 464 units for very low-income households, 268 units for low-income households, 318 units for moderate-income households, and 824 units for above moderate-income households.

Housing Needs for Extremely Low-Income Households
Although the RHNA does not include allocations for extremely low-income households, Housing Element Law requires that jurisdictions estimate the need for housing units affordable to extremely low-income households and plan to accommodate this need. Extremely low-income households are those with incomes less than 30% of area median income. In Alameda County, 30% of the AMI is the equivalent to an annual income of $42,850 for a family of four. Households with extremely low incomes have a variety of housing situations and needs. For example, most families and individuals receiving public assistance, such as supplemental security insurance (SSI) or disability insurance, are considered extremely low-income households. Many households with multiple wage earners – including food service workers, full-time students, teachers, farmworkers, and healthcare professionals – can also fall into lower AMI categories due to relatively stagnant wages in these industries.

HCD’s official Housing Element guidance notes that jurisdictions can use their RHNA for very low-income households (those making zero to 50 percent AMI) to calculate their projected need for extremely low-income households. HCD provides three methodologies for estimating this need: 1) allocate the percentage of very low-income need to extremely low-income households based on the ABAG region’s proportion; 2) allocate the percentage of very low-income need to extremely low -income households based on the current proportion for Newark; 3) assume that 50 percent of Newark’s very low-income RHNA is for extremely low-income households. To estimate the projected housing need for extremely low-income households, 50 percent of Newark’s 464 very low-income RHNA units are assumed to serve extremely low-income households. Based on this methodology, the City has a projected need of 232 units for extremely low-income households over the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period. More than half of this allocation will be provided through the Cedar Creek Apartments, which is already in the development pipeline and has received $6M in funding support from the City’s Affordable Housing Impact Fee Fund.

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-2

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Capacity to Accommodate RHNA
The total realistic development capacity of all sites in the land inventory is detailed in Table C-1 below which lists all consolidated sites in the sites inventory and total residential capacity against the City’s 6th cycle RHNA. The total realistic capacity shown is 2,854 units, which exceeds the net target of 1,874 units the City is required to plan to accommodate for its RHNA, and also supplements that allocation by providing a significant buffer representing more than 100 percent of the required RHNA for all income levels; this includes a 13 percent buffer for very low-income units and 10 percent for low-income units. HCD recommends that jurisdictions provide a 15 to 30 percent buffer beyond the minimum RHNA target to comply with the “no net loss” provisions of State Housing Element Law that require the jurisdiction to maintain sufficient capacity to accommodate its RHNA for the duration of the planning period at every income level. In addition to considering the aggregate number of units that the sites can accommodate, it is necessary to consider the potential for sites to accommodate housing that is affordable to all income levels, in accordance with the RHNA allocations, as discussed in the “Evaluation of Sites to Accommodate Varied Income Levels” .

Each of the two primary project types, Pipeline Projects and Sites Zoned for Housing, are presented in Table C-1 below and described in further detail in the Sites Selection section. As shown in Table C-1, the number of units from Pipeline Projects represents 67 percent of the city’s RHNA, including 59 percent of Newark’s RHNA for very low-income (VLI) housing. Though these Pipeline units do not fulfill the RHNA allocation at every income level, this demonstrates there are sufficient sites for the City’s RHNA and provides strong evidence there is residential developer interest and economic feasibility for housing development on the types of sites, including non-vacant sites, identified in this inventory. Table C-2 lists the APNs and acreage for all sites zoned for housing.

The following map shows the distribution of sites throughout the City of Newark with an inset for the boundary of the Old Town Specific Plan. Parcels indicated in yellow are active project sites (pipeline projects) while sites indicated in red are sites zoned for housing, or locations whose zoning and land use will support new housing. The map also shows three specific plan areas: Old Town Specific Plan, Bayside Newark, and NewPark Place Specific Plan. The site numbers match data in the following tables which show unit counts and the more detailed summary sheets found later in this document.

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-3

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure C-1: Housing Sites for the RHNA 6th Cycle
Source: Adapted by Community Planning Collaborative, 2023 APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-4

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table C-1: City of Newark Sites Inventory
Site Name
Income Level
Total Units
Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Planned and Proposed Projects (Also known as pipeline projects are sites 1 through 13) 1 Bridgeway / Gateway
(under construction)
0 0 0 134 134
2 FMC Willow - North (Parcel C)
(entitled)
47 23 21 64 155
3 FMC Willow - South
(entitled)
0 0 0 215 215
4 Harbor Pointe
(under construction)
0 0 0 192 192
5 Cedar Homes- 38478 Cedar Boulevard
(entitled)
0 0 0 118 118
6 Cedar Community Apts.
(complete)
124 0 0 1 125
7 Timber St. Senior Living
(entitled)
39 39 1 0 79
8 Lepakshi Homes - Building A, 6781 Thornton
Ave.
(active application)
0 0 0 60 60
9 Lepakshi Homes - Building B, 6781 Thornton
Ave.
(active application)
8 4 3 13 28
10 SAHA Development- 6347 -6375 Thornton
Ave.
(active application)
56 0 1 0 57
11 Mulberry Residential 36952 Mulberry Street
(entitled)
0 0 0 8 8
12 Bain Ave. & Magnolia St. - 37280 Magnolia
Street
(under construction)
0 0 0 10 10
13 Waymark Homes - Cedar Blvd (entitled) 0 0 0 76 76
Subtotal Planned and Proposed 274 66 26 891 1,257
Sites Zoned for Housing (Vacant and Nonvacant sites are sites 14 through 28) APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-5

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Site Name
Income Level
Total Units
Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
14 NewPark Place (Phases A to D) 36 18 18 535 607
15 Grocery Outlet Shopping Center 27 26 0 0 53
16 Thornton Ave. Sites (within Old Town
Specific Plan boundary)
41 41 40 40 162
17 Cedar Blvd. and Timber St. Industrial Sites 0 0 0 61 61 18 E-Z 8 Motel 39 38 0 0 77
19 Cherry Plaza 15 15 0 0 30
20 Thornton Ave. Sites (outside of Old Town
Specific Plan boundary)
18 18 18 17 71
21 Sycamore St. Vacant Lot 25 25 24 0 74
22 Cedar Blvd. Public Storage Sites 0 0 0 41 41
23 Filbert Villas - 37243 & 37257 Filbert St.
(expired entitlement)
0 0 0 16 16
24 Filbert Ave. Sites 0 0 0 7 7
25 Mayhews Place - 36589 Newark Boulevard
(expired entitlement)
0 0 0 9 9
26 Locust St. & Railroad - 37093 Locust St.
(expired entitlement)
0 0 0 6 6
27 Fahmy Homes - 37503 & 37511 Cherry
Street (expired entitlement)
0 0 0 6 6
28 Neighborhood Infill Lots 0 0 0 17 17
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) 48 48 48 16 160
Middle Housing Units 0 0 200 0 200
Subtotal Sites Zoned for Housing 249 229 348 771 1,597
Total Capacity 523 295 374 1,662 2,854
Newark RHNA 464 268 318 824 1,874
Surplus % 113% 110% 118% 202% 152%
Surplus Units 59 27 56 838 980
Source: City of Newark; Community Planning Collaborative, 2023.

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-6

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

Above
Mod.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Above
Mod.
21 Sycamore St.

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

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

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

Above
Mod.

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

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

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

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

3. County of Alameda assessor’s data.

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

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

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-11

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Visibility triangle
requirements for corner
lots must be met.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-19

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

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

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

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

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

Sites for Rezoning
APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-20

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

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-21

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
and walkability.

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

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

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

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-25

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-26

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

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-27

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-28

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to project plans.

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-30

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

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

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

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

Link to project plans.

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-31

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

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

Link to project plans.

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-32

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

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

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

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-33

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

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

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

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

Link to project plans.

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-34

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

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

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

Entitlements include a Planned Development and Design
Review.

Link to project plans.

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-35

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

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

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

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

Entitlements include Planned Development and Design
Review.

Link to project plans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Entitlements are expected in late 2024.

Link to project plans.

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

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

Link to project plans.

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

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

Link to project plans.

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

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

Link to project plans.

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

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

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

The development includes a five level garage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-50

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX C HOUSING SITES C-53

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to project plans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to project plans.

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

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

Link to project plans.

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

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

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

Link to project plans.

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

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

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

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

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

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING

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

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

1. Carla Rodrigez

2. Taran Singh

3. Pamela Roush

4. Andrea Heckman

5. Matt Francois on behalf of Integral Communities

6. Carol Drake

7. Namit Saksena

8. Sarah Klaustermeier, Brookfield Properties

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

10. Neelam Noorani

11. Aundi Mevoli, BayKeepers

12. David Song

13. Rishika Rawat

14. Alyssa Lopez
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-62

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING

15. Pat Callaway

16. Krisie Knutson
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-63

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Response 1, above.

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

See Response 1, above.

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

See Response 1, above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Newark should focus on infill development instead.

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

See Response 1, above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-70

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-72

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-74

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-77

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

Best
David

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

Staff followed up with a PDF of the Newark
Safety Element

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-79

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

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

APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-80

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-81

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

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

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

Newark should focus on infill development instead.

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

Comment 7:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-83

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Comment 8:

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

Please see screenshots below:

Affordable Housing Agreement:

APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-84

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-86

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-88

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-89

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING

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

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

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

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

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

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

City Council Meeting
September 10, 2026
By-Right Housing
Overlay District (-BRH)
It is our mission to serve and partner with our community to continually enhance the quality of life of everyone in Newark City Council Meeting: September 10, 2026
Amendment to By-Right Housing Overlay District
Public Hearing to consider:
• An ordinance amending the Newark Zoning Map by
applying the -BRH Overlay District to specific parcels. 2 Agenda
3 1. Introductions

2. Housing Element Overview

3. By-Right Housing Overlay Zoning District

4. Sites Proposed for Rezoning

5. Findings/Notice/Environmental Review

6. Planning Commission and Staff
Recommendation

7. Q&A
Introductions
4 City of Newark
Michael Coulom, Housing Policy and Programs Manager
Steven Turner, Community Development Director
• City Council adopted the Housing Element (HE) on October 26, 2023, whereafter HCD found it compliant with state law on December 21.
• Newark’s HE establishes policies and programs to plan for 1,874 new homes by 2031, including 464 very low-income
homes and 268 low-income homes.
• The Housing Element is updated on 8-year cycles.
• We are currently in the 6th Housing Element Cycle.
• The 5th Cycle consisted of years 2015-2023.
2023-2031 Housing Element
5 Housing Sites for the RHNA 6th Cycle
• The Housing Element
must identify sites with
realistic capacity to
accommodate the City’s
RHNA.
• Sites must be zoned
appropriately and have
sufficient supportive
infrastructure.
• Newark’s site inventory
has capacity for up to
2,854 units, over 150% of
Housing Element Site Inventory
6 “Re-Used Sites”
7 • Cities may include applicable “Re-Used” sites from previous housing element cycles in their site inventories.
• State law requires Re-Used sites to be zoned for “by right” development.
• By right means a project must be approved without discretionary action that would trigger environmental review requirements.
• Rezoning must occur within one year of the state’s statutory housing element adoption deadline (January 31, 2023)
Government Code Section 65583.2
Housing Element Policies and Programs
8 Policy H3.1
Allow By-Right Approval of Projects with 20 Percent Affordable Units on “Reused” Sites.

Pursuant to AB 1397, amend the Zoning Ordinance to require by-right approval of housing development that includes 20 percent of the units as housing affordable to lower-income households, on sites being used to meet the 6th Cycle RHNA that represent “reuse sites” previously identified in the 4th and 5th Cycles Housing Element, and on sites that are subject to a text amendment to accommodate the lower-income RHNA.

Program H3.6
Pursuant to AB 1397, amend the Zoning Ordinance to require by-right approval of housing development that includes 20 percent of the units as housing affordable to lower-income households, on sites being used to meet the 6th Cycle RHNA that represent “reuse sites” previously identified in the 4th and 5th Cycles Housing Element.

NMC 17.15 – BRH Overlay Zone District
9 • Newark’s 6th Cycle Housing Element includes 11 reused sites consisting of over 40 individual parcels.
• The Planning Commission voted 5-0 on November 14, 2023 to recommend City Council adopt the –BRH Overlay Zone District. • City Council voted with 3 ayes and 2 recusals on January 11, 2024 to adopt Ordinance 547 establishing the –BRH District.
• Ordinance 547 unintentionally omitted 17 parcels
Proposed –BRH Parcels
10 • Site 20- Thornton Ave. Sites
(outside of Old Town)
• Site 16- Thornton Ave. Sites
(portions)
(within Old Town Specific Plan
Area)
• Site 22- Cedar Blvd. (portions)
Public Storage Sites
Proposed –BRH Parcels
11 20
16 22
Proposed Additional –BRH Parcels
12 Assessor’s Parcel Number Street Address
92-29-14-2 6505 THORNTON AVE
92-29-15-2 6521 THORNTON AVE
92-50-1-3 6658 THORNTON AVE
92-50-2-3 6642 THORNTON AVE
92-50-3-3 6626 THORNTON AVE
92A-919-8-2 6211 THORNTON AVE
92A-919-9-2 6223 THORNTON AVE
92A-919-11-2 6263 THORNTON AVE
92A-919-12-2 6275 THORNTON AVE
92A-919-13-2 6289 THORNTON AVE
92A-919-14-2 6319 THORNTON AVE
92A-919-15-2 6333 THORNTON AVE
92A-919-19-2 6389 THORNTON AVE
92A-919-20-2 6417 THORNTON AVE
92A-919-21-2 6433 THORNTON AVE
92A-919-22-2 6449 THORNTON AVE
92A-2375-33 38290 CEDAR BLVD
• Three (3) Re-Used
Sites
• 17 Parcels
Applicable Sites and Qualifying Development
13 All sites meet state requirements to:
• Allow residential as a permitted use
• Allow residential densities of 20 units per acre
• Be large enough to accommodate a minimum of 16 units
Projects eligible for review under the -BRH Overlay District must:
• Restrict at least 20 percent of units to lower-income households • Comply with all local objective standards and site development criteria
-BRH Projects would be reviewed ministerially in accordance with the objective design standards and procedures recommended by the Planning Commission on July 14, 2028, if zoning text amendments are adopted by City Council
Summary of -BRH Overlay Zone District
14 Staff Recommendation
• Adopt an ordinance concerning NMC 17.15, originally established in 2024
o No amendments to zoning text
o Amend the Zoning Map to add 17 parcels to the –BRH Overlay Zone District
Purpose
 Comply with state law
 Complete implementation of Housing Element Policy H3.1 and Program H3.6
 Avoid potential land use and zoning conflicts
Findings of Fact
15 A. The amendment is consistent with the general plan; B. Any change in district boundaries is necessary to achieve the balance of land uses desired by the city, consistent with the general plan, and to increase the inventory of land within a given zoning district; and
C. The amendment will promote the growth of the city in an orderly manner and promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare.

Public Notice
16 • Newspaper advertisement: August 25, 2026
• Mailed notice to property owners of affected parcels
• Mailed notice to property owners within 500 feet of each affected parcel
Environmental Review
17 • Requested action is exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Guidelines. o No changes to existing land use
o No changes to the intensity of land use
o No project entitlements would be approved with the requested action o No potential for causing a significant effect on the environment Planning Commission Recommendation
18 • The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed action on July 28, 2026 and voted 4-0 to adopt Resolution 2037 recommending City Council adopt the draft ordinance.

Planning Commission & Staff Recommendation
19 Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Newark Zoning Map by applying the-BRH Overlay District to specific parcels.

Item F. 1.

DATE 09/10/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Lenka Hovorka, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT Waive full reading and introduce by title only an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newark amending Chapter 2.09 of the Newark Municipal Code ("City Councilmembers-Compensation") to increase the salaries of the Mayor and City Councilmembers SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
On June 25, 2026, City Council approved the 2026-2028 Biennial Budget that included a seven and one-half percent (7.5%) increase for the Mayor and Councilmembers. Staff recommends that the City Council waive full reading and, by title only, introduce an ordinance amending Chapter 2.09 of the Newark Municipal Code ("City Councilmembers-Compensation") to increase the salaries of City Councilmembers and Mayor by seven and one-half percent (7.5%) effective January 1, 2027.

BACKGROUND
The salaries and benefits for the Mayor and City Councilmembers are set by City ordinance. The current monthly salaries are $3,179 for the Mayor and $1,453 for each Councilmember. City Council salaries were last increased on January 1, 2025, by six percent (6%).

Chapter 2.09 of the Newark Municipal Code requires that the City Council, as part of the two-year biennial budget cycle, review its compensation and consider increases in the Consumer Price Index for the region and increases in compensation awarded to staff since the previous adjustment to City Council compensation.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
During the presentation of the draft 2026-2028 Biennial Budget to the City Council on May 28, 2026, staff reported the combined annual increases for 2025 and 2026 in the Consumer Price Index totaled five and two-tenths percent (5.2%). Staff compensation increased seven and one-half percent (7.5%) over the same two-year period. The cost of a seven and one-half percent (7.5%) salary increase for the Mayor and City Councilmembers would be $12,060 for the period of January 1, 2027 to June 30, 2028, Councilmembers would be $12,060 for the period of January 1, 2027 to June 30, 2028, the effective date through the end of the 2026-2028 biennial budget cycle. The estimated annual total compensation impact, including pension and medicare, would be $11,200.

After presentation of this information and City Council discussion, a majority of the City Council agreed to include a seven and one-half percent (7.5%) salary increase for the Mayor and Councilmembers in the proposed 2026-2028 Biennial Budget, which was adopted on June 25, 2026, on a 3-1-1 vote, with Councilmember Grindall opposing and Councilmember Little absent.

State law requires that City Council compensation be approved by ordinance. This requires an amendment to Chapter 2.09 of the Newark Municipal Code. A draft ordinance has been prepared that would, starting January 1, 2027, increase the monthly salary of Councilmembers from $1,453 to $1,561. The Mayor's monthly salary would increase from $3,179 to $3,417. There are no other proposed revisions.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this action, as the seven and one-half percent (7.5%) salary increase was included in the 2026-2028 Biennial Budget approved by City Council on June 25, 2026.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY AREA
The recommended action aligns with the City Council's Strategic Priority Area of Boost Financial Resilience and Excellence in Service Delivery.

REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by - Lenka Hovorka, Assistant City Manager
Reviewed by - Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Reviewed by - Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Approved by - David J. Benoun, City Manager
Attachments
Ordinance Council Compensation
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWARK AMENDING CHAPTER 2.09, CITY

COUNCILMEMBERS - COMPENSATION, OF THE NEWARK

MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE SALARIES OF CITY

COUNCILMEMBERS AND MAYOR BY SEVEN AND ONE-HALF
PERCENT (7.5%)
WHEREAS, Chapter 2.09 ("City Councilmembers - Compensation") of the Newark Municipal Code provides for the payment of salaries and benefits to Newark City Councilmembers and the Mayor; and
WHEREAS, Newark Municipal Code section 2.09.010 establishes a Councilmember salary of one thousand four hundred fifty-three dollars ($1,453) per month; and WHEREAS, Newark Municipal Code section 2.09.010 establishes a Mayoral salary of three thousand one hundred seventy-nine dollars ($3,179) per month; and WHEREAS, said salaries took effect January 1, 2025; and WHEREAS, City Councilmembers and the Mayor have not received an increase in salary since January 1, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized by Government Code Section 36516 to increase the salary of Councilmembers in an amount not to exceed five percent (5%) per calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of salary; and WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized by Government Code Section 36516.1 to pay an elected Mayor salary in excess to that which they receive as a Councilmember; and WHEREAS, at the City Council meeting held on May 28, 2026, City staff provided a presentation to the City Council regarding the Mayoral and City Councilmember salaries; and WHEREAS, at the City Council meeting held on June 25, 2026, the City Council adopted the 2026-2028 Biennial Budget which included seven one-half percent (7.5%) salary increases for the Mayor and City Councilmembers; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to increase salaries of the Councilmembers and Mayor by seven and one-half percent (7.5%) starting January 1, 2027.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newark does ordain as follows:

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

SECTION 2. Amendment of Section 2.09.010 the Newark Municipal Code. Subsections (A) and (B) of Section 2.09.010 (“Salary”) of Chapter 2.09 (“City Council”) of Title 2 ("Administration and Personnel") are hereby amended as follows (replacements in double underline; deletions in strikethrough):

2.09.010 Salary.

A. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 36516 and 36516.5, each councilmember, other than the mayor, shall receive a salary of one thousand four hundred fifty-three dollars one thousand five hundred sixty-one dollars per month commencing January 1, 2025 January 1, 2027.

B. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36516.1, the elective mayor shall receive compensation in the amount of three thousand one hundred seventy-nine dollars three thousand four hundred seventeen dollars per month commencing January 1, 2025 January 1, 2027.

SECTION 3. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.

SECTION 4. CEQA. Approval of the ordinance is exempt from further environmental review under the general rule in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. As a series of text amendments and additions that do not authorize any new activity, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 5. Publication and Effective Date. In accordance with Government Code section 36516.5, this ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2027. Before expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage, this ordinance shall be published in the Tri-City Voice, a newspaper of general circulation published and printed in the County of Alameda and circulated in the City of Newark.

Item H. 1.

DATE 09/10/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM David Benoun, City Manager
SUBJECT Provide direction regarding staff preparation of City Council meeting minutes and approve the July 9, 2026, City Council meeting minutes
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
City Council directed staff to review past meeting minutes and recommend whether additional City Council comments should be included in the July 9, 2026, minutes. Staff reviewed past practices of capturing City Council discussion in City Council meeting minutes and recommends that the City Council approve the July 9, 2026, regular City Council meeting minutes as amended, and direct staff to proceed with preparing Hybrid Action and Summary Minutes for future meeting minutes.

BACKGROUND
On July 23, 2026, City Council voted 4-0, with Council Member Catancio absent, to continue the approval of the July 9, 2026 regular City Council meeting minutes so that staff would have an opportunity to review past meeting minutes.

Since the July 23 meeting, staff reviewed several examples of minutes from Newark City Council meetings over the past five years, reviewed the laws and regulations pertaining to the preparation of City Council minutes, and conducted a survey of Alameda County cities.

In 1959, the City Council approved Ordinance 51, “General Procedural Ordinance” (Attachment 1). Section 9.F of Ordinance 51 is now codified in Newark Municipal Code Chapter 2.08.090 and states that a member of the Council may request, through the presiding officer, the privilege of having an abstract of their statement on any subject under consideration by the Council entered in the minutes. If the Council consents thereto, such statement shall be entered in the minutes.

Government Code Section 40801 requires the city clerk of a general law city to keep an accurate record of the proceedings of the legislative body. The style or format in which cities record actions are at each City’s discretion. In a survey of the other 13 cities in Alameda County, 11 cities indicated their use of an “Action Minutes” format, while two cities use a “Summary Minutes” format. These formats are described in the Discussion/Analysis section of this report.

Reviewing over 20 examples of meeting minutes from previous Newark City Council meetings, Newark has used a hybrid approach of the “Action Minutes” and “Summary Minutes” format, as described below. In addition to the written record/minutes of each meeting, all Newark City Council meetings are recorded, archived on YouTube since March 25, 2021, and available through links provided on the City’s website.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Staff reviewed and considered four approaches to documenting City Council meetings.

The approaches differ primarily in the amount of discussion included in the minutes and the level of staff time required to prepare and verify the record. 1) Action Minutes
Action minutes document the formal actions taken by the City Council, including motions, seconds, and vote results, without summarizing the discussion or deliberations that preceded the action. This is the predominant style used by other Alameda County cities.

Advantages:

Most concise and efficient format to prepare and review.

Clearly identifies the official actions taken by the City Council.

Minimizes the need for staff to interpret, characterize, or summarize individual comments.

Provides a clear and readily reviewable record of the City Council's formal decisions.

Disadvantages:

Provides little context regarding the issues considered or the deliberations that preceded an action.

Does not document informal indications of the Mayor's or Councilmember's positions when those indications occur outside of a formal vote.

Does not summarize public comments or other speakers' statements made during the meeting.

May be less informative to members of the public who did not attend the meeting. 2) Summary Minutes
Summary minutes document the formal actions taken by the City Council and provide a narrative summary of the discussion and deliberations on each agenda item. The intent is to capture the substance of the discussion without providing a word-for-word transcript.

Advantages:

Provides greater context regarding the issues considered by the City Council.

Can make meetings more accessible to members of the public who did not attend.

Provides a narrative record of the deliberative process in addition to the final action.

Disadvantages:

Requires substantially more staff time to prepare, review, and finalize.

Requires staff to exercise editorial judgment in determining which comments to include and how to characterize them.

Creates a risk that the Mayor's or a Councilmember's comments could be unintentionally omitted, condensed, or characterized in a manner that does not accurately reflect the intended meaning.

May result in disagreements over whether the minutes accurately captured or interpreted the discussion.

Establishing a consistent and neutral approach to summarizing individual comments would require additional staff time for training.

The primary concern with this approach is that summarization requires staff to interpret statements made during live discussion, which inevitably risks changing their emphasis or meaning. Staff does not recommend establishing a practice of summarizing individual Councilmember's comments because summaries can inadvertently misconstrue intent or misinterpret words. Additionally, this approach encourages disputes over whether the Mayor's and each Councilmember's statements were included, how they were worded, and whether the summaries accurately reflect their positions.
3) Verbatim Minutes
Verbatim minutes provide a word-for-word transcription of the proceedings.

Advantages:

Provides the most comprehensive written record of what was said during a meeting.

Avoids the need for staff to summarize or characterize individual comments.

Allows readers to review the discussion directly rather than relying on a staff-generated summary.

Disadvantages:

Producing and maintaining a verbatim record requires significant staff time and resources.

Meeting transcripts can be lengthy and difficult for the public, staff, and the City Council to use as a practical reference.

Computer-generated transcription is not sufficiently reliable to eliminate the need for staff review. Errors can alter the meaning of a statement or, more significantly, incorrectly reflect an action taken by the City Council.

Staff would need to review, correct, and proofread the transcript to ensure its accuracy, creating a workload that is not feasible within current staffing levels.

While Zoom and other technologies, including artificial intelligence tools, can generate transcripts, those transcripts cannot simply be incorporated into the official minutes without careful review. Staff recently identified errors in a computer-generated transcription that materially and incorrectly changed the action taken by City Council. A verbatim format would therefore require staff to devote substantial time to transcription review and proofreading, in addition to the time required to prepare the minutes themselves. No city in Alameda County, including Newark, currently or has in recent history, relied on verbatim minutes as their primary record of City Council meetings. 4) Hybrid Action and Summary Minutes
The hybrid approach combines the efficiency and clarity of action minutes with limited documentation of comments and discussion. Newark City Council meeting minutes have used this hybrid format for many years. In using this format, the amount of detail recorded for each agenda item that includes City Council deliberations varies. Simple items in which deliberations do not include material changes to the agenda item may be reflected in the minutes as "The City Council engaged in discussion and asked clarifying questions." Whereas, a more complex item may include a few sentences to briefly describe the topics discussed during deliberations in order to bridge a clear gap from the action on the agenda to the final action taken.

Advantages:

Retains the efficiency and clarity of action minutes.

Provides additional context regarding the progression of an item without requiring staff to characterize or summarize individual comments.

Avoids the significant staff time required to prepare, transcribe, and proofread discussion summaries or verbatim transcripts.

Reduces the risk of inadvertently misinterpreting or mischaracterizing the Mayor's a Councilmember's comments.

Disadvantages:

Does not provide a narrative account of the discussion or the reasons individual Councilmembers expressed support or opposition to an item.

Members of the public seeking a detailed account of the discussion would need to refer to the meeting recording.

Staff recommends that the City Council continue using the Hybrid Action and Summary Minutes approach, supplemented only by documentation of informal polls conducted during City Council deliberations. Under this approach, the minutes would clearly document the City Council's formal actions and, when applicable, informal polls requested by the Mayor or presiding officer, but would not summarize individual comments. Informal polls would be identified as such and would not be presented as formal actions or votes.

This approach provides a practical balance between maintaining a clear record of City Council action and providing limited additional context regarding informal polls, while avoiding the significant staff resources required to prepare, transcribe, review, and proofread discussion summaries or verbatim transcripts. Most importantly, it avoids placing staff in the position of interpreting or paraphrasing the Mayor's or a Councilmember's statements, which could inadvertently misconstrue or misrepresent their comments.

Attached are the July 9, 2026, regular City Council meeting minutes in two formats.

Attachment 2 is the original action minutes presented to the City Council for approval on July 23, 2026. Attachment 3 is a track-changes version of the original minutes that incorporates the informal poll conducted at the July 9, 2026, regular City Council meeting. Attachment 3 illustrates the preparation method recommended by staff for the July 9, 2026, meeting minutes and for future City Council meeting minutes. Should additional context, such as individual comments, be of interest to include in City Council meeting minutes, staff recommends the City Council follow the procedure outlined in Newark Municipal Code Chapter 2.08.090. This allows the Mayor or a Councilmember to formally request that their statement be added to the meeting minutes and ask the City Council to vote on the request. If the Council approves the request, the vote directs the City Clerk to add the statement to the minutes.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the recommended action. If City Council directs staff to prepare Summary or Verbatim Minutes, additional staff time would be required, likely resulting in a personnel allocation request, dependent on the direction provided.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY AREA
Boost Financial Resilience and Excellence in Service Delivery REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by - Lenka Hovorka, Assistant City Manager
Prepared by - Neetu Salwan, City Clerk
Reviewed by - Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Approved by - David J. Benoun, City Manager
Attachments
Attachment 1: Newark Municipal Code - 2.08.090 - Rules of debate.

Attachment 2: July 9 2026 Meeting Minutes original
Attachment 3: July 9 2026 Meeting Minutes Redlined
Newark Municipal Code - 2.08.090 - Rules of debate.

A. Presiding Officer May Debate and Vote. The mayor may move, second, and debate from the chair, subject only to such limitations of debate as are imposed by this section on all members, and shall not be deprived of any of the rights and privileges of a council member by reason of his/her acting as the presiding officer.

B. Getting the Floor. Every member desiring to speak shall address the chair, and upon recognition by the presiding officer, shall confine himself to the question under debate, avoiding all personalities and indecorous language.

C. Interruptions. A member, once recognized, shall not be interrupted when speaking unless it is to call him/her to order, or as otherwise provided in this section. If a member, while speaking, is called to order, he/she shall cease speaking until the question of order be determined, and, if in order, he/she shall be permitted to proceed.

D. Privilege of Closing Debate. The council member moving the adoption of an ordinance or resolution shall have the privilege of closing the debate.

E. Motion to Reconsider. A motion to reconsider any action taken by the council may be made only on the day such action was taken. It may be made either immediately during the same session, or at a recessed or adjourned session thereof. Such motion must be made by one of the prevailing side, but may be seconded by any member, and may be made at any time and have precedence over all other motions, or while a member has the floor it shall be debatable.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any member of the council from making or remaking the same or any other motion at a subsequent meeting of the council.

F. Remarks of Council Member. A member of the council may request, through the presiding officer, the privilege of having an abstract of his/her statement on any subject under consideration by the council entered in the minutes. If the council consents thereto, such statement shall be entered in the minutes.

G. Synopsis of Debate. The clerk may be directed by the presiding officer, with consent of the council, to enter in the minutes a synopsis of the discussion on any question coming regularly before the council.
(Ord. 51 § 9, 1959)
(Ord. No. 448, § 1, 3-10-2011)
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.

Thursday, July 9, 2026, Regular Meeting Draft Minutes Page 4 of 5 Public Comments
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

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.

No one from the audience requested to speak.

The Mayor requested that the AC Transit presentation be scheduled annually.

Thursday, July 9, 2026, Regular Meeting Draft Minutes Page 2 of 5 C. PUBLIC COMMENT
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.

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.

1. Approval of Audited Demands

2. Approval of June 25, 2026, City Council Minutes

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

Thursday, July 9, 2026, Regular Meeting Draft Minutes Page 3 of 5 E. PUBLIC HEARINGS

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.

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.

Thursday, July 9, 2026, Regular Meeting Draft Minutes Page 4 of 5 F. OTHER BUSINESS

Public Comments
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.

Council Members asked clarifying questions and held discussion regarding the project.

Mayor Hannon conducted an informal poll of the Council. Mayor Hannon, Vice Mayor Jorgens, and Council Members Catancio and Little supported and Council Member Grindall opposed directing 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.

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.

Thursday, July 9, 2026, Regular Meeting Draft Minutes Page 5 of 5 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.

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 participate. He also emphasized the importance of honoring those who sacrificed for today’s freedoms.

I. CLOSED SESSION

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

Newark City CouncilSeptember 10, 2026

Newark City Council
September 10, 2026