City Council - Regular Meeting

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Let's reflect for the uh agenda that all members of the city council are here this evening. Colleagues, we're going to close tonight's meeting in memory of retired Sergeant Frank Lair. Frank recently passed away. Frank having served our community for many, many years. We're joined uh tonight uh by his wife Angie who's online with daughters Joey and Kaylee. And we've talked about public safety here in the city of Newark and how important it is to make sure that we not only provide a safe community, but our residents feel safe. I didn't have the opportunity to know Mr. Lair, Sergeant Lair, but he undoubtedly uh exemplified the outstanding public service to our community, having served this community for at least 25 years. Let me tell you a little bit about Sergeant Frank Lair. He was a devoted public servant whose life was defined by service, leadership, and commitment to others. Frank was born on January 6, 1959 in Okinawa, Japan, and was raised in an Air Force family living primarily in Montana and of Allen, Illinois. From an early age, Frank was shaped by the values of discipline, responsibility, and service to country. He graduated from Ofallen Township High School in 1977, where he was a member of the football team, baseball team, school band, and

rifle club. Demonstrating his dedication to service, Frank graduated early in order to enter the United States Air Force, departing for basic training while the rest of his class walked the graduation stage. His military service was marked by distinction, earning multiple awards, including the Air Force Good Conduct Medal, Air Force Outstanding Unit Award, Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon, and the Basic Security Police Qualification Badge. Frank was honorably discharged in May of 1981 as an E4 senior air airman. Following his military career, Frank continued his path in public sa safety. After working in contracting security, Sunnyvale Air Force Base, Okinawa Air Force Station, and with the San Jose Airport Police, he joined the Newark Police Department in August of 1986, beginning a career of more than 25 years of service to the city of Newark. During his time with the New York Police Department, Frank served with a distinction in a variety of assignments, including two tours with the Southern Alama Narcotics Enforcement Team, later known as the Major Crimes Task Force. He was recognized as officer of the year in 1990, four years after he started with the city of Newark. That shows the kind of person that Frank was. He served as the assistant SWAT team leader and later a sergeant of the special enforcement team. He was also a field training officer, mentoring many officers who continue to serve today. Promoted to sergeant in 2004, Frank was known for his cander,

professionalism, and unwavering concern for officer safety. Frank retired from the department in January of 2012. After retirement, Frank and his wife Angie moved to Tennessee to be closer to family. Even then, his commitment to service did not end. He worked as a federal background investigator, later serving as the head of security for the Tennessee Rehabilitation Center, where he developed safety protocols to protect residents and staff. He later led security operations for Barrett Firearms and eventually operated his own small business. In his final years, Frank embraced time with family, riding his motorcycle, working on projects, and enjoying the companionship of his loved ones and his dog. Never fully slowing down, always fully engaged. Frank's Lair's life reflects a lifetime of service to his country, to the city of Newark, to the Newark Police Department, and to the many people whose lives he touched along the way. On behalf of the city of Newark and the community he so faithfully served, we extend our deepest consol condolences to Frank's family, friends, and loved ones, and many on the police force that are here this evening or maybe watching who worked alongside with Frank or Frank mentored over his many years with our community. We thank him for his service and will adjourn tonight's meeting in me remembrance of retired Sergeant Frank Lair. What I'd like to do folks at this moment is just have a moment of silence in memory of Frank and his service to our community.

Thank you, Frank. Thank you, Angie. Thank you, Joey. Thanking Thank you, Kaylee, for sharing Frank with us. He meant a lot to our community, and he will be sorely missed. Our hearts and prayers go to you and your family as you struggle with the loss of somebody that was significant not only to your family, but to our community as well. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we have no presentations this evening. Um, we're going to move to our public comment section. Public comment. This is an opportunity for anyone to speak on any item that is not currently on the agenda this evening. Is there anybody that would like to speak to an

I haven't even finished my comments yet. Mike, [laughter] welcome. Welcome. We're happy to have you. Thank you.

Thank you. um mayor that I'm here representing the First Presbyterian Church of Newark. And as usual, I'm giving you a reminder. This coming Sunday, 3:00 in the afternoon at the First Presbyterian Church is the 49th annual Martin Luther King celebration. And so if you add up the years, this goes back before we had a holiday and honoring Martin Luther King. and all started by Miss Jean Fickland. So I just want to come remind everybody everyone is welcome and I'm not sure through their committee where invitations went how it got out there but we're trying to just open it up for the entire community. We get people from Oakland to San Jose that come to Newark for this celebration. So thank you very much.

Thank you Mike. I know that the invitation was sent to my colleagues on the council. I certainly will be there and I know a number of my colleagues on the council will be there as well. We did see Miss Jean Fickland last night. I did mention to Miss Fickland how ironic it was in all honesty that the 49th annual event is going to be held on the 49ers football game. So, a little bit of prayer will go a long way. I'm thinking that day. So, uh I would certainly encourage the public to attend that event. Uh, and again, huge thanks to Miss Jean Ficklin for her continued service to our community. Is there anybody else that would like to speak under public comment on items that are not on the agenda? Seeing none, I'll go ahead and close public comment. Colleagues, I'll now re uh go to the consent calendar. And the consent calendar consists of the following items. The approval of the December 11, 2025 city council minutes. the approval of audited demands. Three, the wave future future further reading and adopt an ordinance amending the official zoning map establishing pursuant to title 17 zoning in section 170302 of the Newark zoning ordinance by reszoning a 084 acre parcel lot H from park to residential high density and reszoning at 28.26 26 area I'm sorry acre parcel from park to residential low density with a planned overlay district for the Mauy village subdivision project at 7400-7550 Maury Avenue APN's 5370850001-11 and 537-850-001-13 and 537-850-002-004 weigh further reading and adopt two

ordinances adding chapter 2.14 public art committee to to the Newark Municipal Code and two adding chapter 12.36 public art in public places and private development to the Newark Municipal Code. Mr. Bon, is there any item on the consent calendar you would like pulled? Not this evening, your honor. Folks, is there anybody in the audience that would like to have any item on the consent calendar pulled for conversation? Colleagues, any item you want pulled from the consent calendar. Okay. Can I get a motion and a second to approve the consent calendar, please? So moved by council member Kanchio.

I'll second is the mayor. Please vote. and the consent calendar uh passes unanimously.

Ordinance of the city council of the city of Newark amending the official zoning map established pursuant to title 17 zoning in section 170302 of the new zoning ordinance by reszoning a4 parcel lot H from park to residential high density. Also reszoning a 28.26 26 acre parcel from park to residential low density with the planned overlay district for the Mouri village subdivision project at 74007550 Mauy Avenue and an ordinance of the city council of the city of Newark adding chapter 2.14 public art committee to the New York municipal code. An ordinance of the city council of the city of Newark adding chapter 12.36 public art and public places and private development to the New York Municipal Code.

Thank you, city attorney. Folks, we're going to now go to public hearings. The first item under public hearing is to hear hearing to wave full reading and introduce by title only an ordinance amending section 17.18.030 and adding chapter 17.27 to the Newark municipal code to update the city's affordable housing program and affordable housing requirements. Mr. Benoon.

Yes. Good evening, your honor and members of the council. Uh this is a public hearing to consider staff's recommendation to amend the city's zoning ordinance as it relates to affordable housing. In general, the proposed amendments would accomplish two objectives. First, the proposed ordinance would require developers of projects of 20 more units to build affordable housing units along with market rate housing pursuant to specific affordability levels instead of the current obligation, which is to pay a previously approved fee. Second, the proposed ordinance would implement a live work Newark preference policy. While this policy has been implemented in several housing projects that have been approved by the council the past few years, this ordinance would make our existing practice now a formal policy. Tonight, our housing policy and programs manager, Mr. Michael Culum, will provide the staff report. Uh this is a fairly complex item and as such it necessitates a a detailed staff report. Uh so we do have a lengthy presentation for your review and consideration this evening. With that in mind, I'll now pass it over to our uh housing policies and programs manager, Mr. Culum. You have the floor, sir. Thank you, honorable mayor and city councilors. My name is Michael Kulum, housing policy and programs manager with the community development department. The item before you today concerns implementation of the city's six cycle housing element and proposed revisions

to the city's affordable housing program as codified in Newark Municipal Code 17.18. Uh this item is a public hearing to consider an ordinance um to consider uh waving a full reading and introduced by title only an ordinance amending chapter 17.18.03 03 and adding chapter 17.27 to NMC to update the city's affordable housing program. The agenda for tonight's uh presentation. Um following introductions, I'll provide a brief overview of the housing element and how staff's recommendations advance its implementation. Staff's recommendations, as the city manager has stated, can be thought of as two separate but interconnected components. The first that I'll present is the local preference policy which is supported by a study of the risk of residential displacement in New York. The second is an inclusionary housing policy which is supported by a financial feasibility study of adopting an amended inclusionary program. And finally, I I'll review the SQA implications of staff's recommendations and next steps. I'm joined this evening by Miss Christy Wong, principal at Community Planning Collaborative or CPC, formerly known as Bard and Driscoll. Uh CPC was the principal consultant who helped the city prepare our six cycle housing element and the 2021 2023 affordable housing work plan and most recently supported us in developing the housing.orgca.gov webpage. Also joining us this evening is Mr. Leo Ma man managing principal of Century Urban. Century Urban is a real estate economics uh and financial analytics firm. Miss Wong and Mr. MA are prepared uh the inclusionary study which was included as an exhibit to the staff report which they'll speak to later in this presentation. To start us off, I always like to look at the data informing our policy decisions. We know that California has an extreme housing shortage, particularly homes affordable to lower

and moderate income households. The most recent statewide housing plan found that California needs to build approximately 2 and a.5 million more homes by 2030 to adequately address our housing needs, of which 1 million should be affordable to low and very low-income households. In recent years, Newark has actually exceeded its fair share of those above moderate income housing. It's housing that doesn't have any kind of affordability restriction and is more likely to be priced at market rates. Our challenge and the challenge of communities across California has been serving those of lower incomes. With serving all members of our community in mind and lower income households in particular, city council approved resolution 11201 in 2021, thereby adopting the affordable housing work plan and establishing an investment framework for meeting our fifth cycle housing element targets. The work plan anticipated using housing impact fees for housing element implementation, including 80% of funds for the development of new affordable housing split between acquiring land or existing buildings for affordable housing and making loans or grants to affordable housing developers. 5% of housing impact fees were to be spent on a first-time home buyer program for which we're now getting underway. And the remainder was allocated toward various programs and studies and discretionary spending. The city's six cycle housing element, which we ended which we entered in 2023, um um sets new targets. We're not going to solve all of our affordability challenges with the housing element, but it is a great road map with achievable targets and goals. Newark's regional housing needs assessment, also referred to as RENA for the sixth cycle, is a target to permit 1,874 new homes, of which almost half should be for lower income households. While 1,874 new homes may sound intimidating, it's

actually 700 fewer homes than we permitted during the last housing element cycle with a smaller staff and fewer resources. So, we can do this if we stick to our plan and keep the mission of serving our community at the forefront. The housing element has 45 different programs and 35 policies that the city should adopt before 2031. And when reading it, you'll notice that each program has a quantified objective. Quantified objectives are like smart goals. They are specific, achievable, and measurable targets used to assess the city's progress in implementing each program. Furthermore, quantified objectives are time bound, meaning the city should take some kind of action to implement them on a specified time frame. Many of our programs have timelines for immediate implementation, midterm implementation, or by a specific date. Remember, the housing element is for years 2023 to 2031. So, we're past the immediate stage, and we're nearing the middle of that cycle. Tracking and measuring our progress with this is very important. The California Department of Housing and Community Development will begin monitoring our progress in July of this year, and demonstrating our good faith efforts to meeting our goals is essential to maintaining our housing element compliance. If we're not able to demonstrate compliance, HCD could mandate further programs beyond those supported by our community and approved by the planning commission and council, or at the more extreme end, revoke our compliance. Um before I launch into the meat of this presentation, one final slide that I like to share um with the planning commission and I'll share with you all moving forward as well is that how I like to think of our housing housing element programs, which is by breaking them down into these four major groups or buckets um that together work to

build housing faster, cheaper, and more sustainably. and more equitably. You'll see these graphics at the top of the slides. Um, today's presentation, this presentation predominantly focuses on those blue arrows, which are policies intended to speed up land uses, land use approvals and permitting to get housing built and people housed faster. The first component of this evening's public hearing is the proposed preference policy, which may also be referred to as a live work preference. Um um the right guy up at the top of the screen really means that this is a policy aimed at reducing displacement. So I'll touch on that as well. Um and I'll discuss how this fits into our housing element, how it's supported by a displacement study related projects and proposed implementation. Um this program, the dis the local preference policy fits into the fourth goal of our housing element, which is to help people stay in their homes and communities. It's both a measure to reduce residential displacement and also prevent homelessness. What we know is that our housing shortage, our shortage of affordable homes is contributing to cost burden. Uh cost burden is one thing that we're required to evaluate in our housing element. Cost burden means that a household is spending over 30% of their um household income on housing related expenses, rent, mortgage, utilities, um housing, household maintenance, and then you have extreme cost burden, which is when you spend 50% or more of your income on housing. When we did the housing element for Newark, we found that renters and homeowners alike experience cost burden um with one in 10 Newark households being severely costburden. Those are households that spend 50% of their income on housing. This leaves nothing at the end of the day to save for education, child care, a safety net in the event of a medical event, car crash, or so on. We also found that renters are

particularly vulnerable as a result of our extremely high housing costs, with two-fifths of renters being ex being cost burdened, of which a third are extremely cost burdened. This tells us that people want to live in our in our community to be part of Newark and they're willing to make sacrifices to do so, but it puts them in an especially precarious position. A lot of people we found have decided that the cost of living has just become too much. Uh, southern Alama County has some of the highest rates of out migration in the whole Bay Area with people predominantly going to Sanwaqin County, communities like Tracy, Stockton, Mntika. Um this is from a report um the Bay Area to central valley migration and its impacts. Um and the what we also see is that the people who are leaving may have been here for generations but they can't compete against folks with higher incomes who may be coming from Santa Clara, San Mo or San Francisco but who can't afford to live in Santa Clara, San Monteo or San Francisco. [snorts] And then one related effect here that we're seeing is that uh for the first time um the average first-time home buyer now in the United States in cal in California actually is 40 years old and the average home buyer overall is 59. Younger folks can't afford to purchase homes. There are also many people who earn too little to find an affordable home elsewhere in another county, another city. And so when they lose their home for whatever reason, they're more likely to end up homeless. This phenomenon is acknowledged in Alama County's Home Together community plan, which city council endorsed um in 2022. A central pillar of the home together plan is homelessness prevention, targeting those at risk of losing their homes with resources and support to get them through a temporary crisis and to stay housed. Homelessness prevention is typically administered outside of the homelessness system such as through community development programming whereas homelessness response is

typically in the domain of public health and human services. We work collaboratively across city departments and with Alama Health and HCD to ensure our programming is coordinated and comprehensive in accordance with home together and the city's endorsement. So that brings us back to our housing element program H4.1 which commits to developing anti-displacement programs for the Oldtown specific plan area and it has two quantified objectives. The first is to adopt and apply a local preference policy for new below market rate homes or BMR in the plan area. BMR means any unit that is restricted to lower or moderate income households. Uh and the preference requirement would apply to any unit that the city supports financially or entitles. Even though the city has not adopted this as a policy yet, we have applied it in practice to projects throughout the city, not just Oldtown. And then the second quantified objective is um one that we're not bringing for forward to you at this time. Um it has a slightly later deadline um but that program is to develop a larger anti-displacement program for Oldtown including commercial displacement. So to define the preference policy uh for recent projects, we've made it a condition of approval and stipulated in affordable housing agreements that any BMR units should give preference to households who live or work in Newark to the extent permissible under the law and any other project funding sources. Today's proposal is to incorporate this into Newark's MUN code so that it's a clear and and consistent requirement for new BMR units. State law requires us to demonstrate the purpose and need of local preference policies to ensure that those policies don't disperately impact members of any protected class. In other words, to ensure that the policy doesn't inadvertently discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, language spoken at home, etc. Uh the city would be able would be available to provide technical assistance to developers in applying for this preference policy and

the city would monitor projects to ensure that the policy is being carried out. In order to demonstrate the policy would not have a disperate impact. The city contracted with Seafull Consulting and the conquered group to produce the city of Newark policy study evaluation of the need for a local affordable housing live work preference given displacement risks. That is a mouthful. So, I'm just going to refer to it as the the displacement study. Um, the displacement study identifies housing needs and conditions affecting housing affordability in New York that contribute to residential displacement. It also evaluates whether and how the housing crisis disproportionately and negatively affects lower income renters and workers and considers whether a preference policy would negatively impact those protected classes. What this study found is that lower inome households have become increasingly vulnerable to displacement in Newark due to a mismatch in the number of housing units built versus the number of jobs created in Newark in the region. As a result, from 2010 to 2020, the number of lowerincome households has decreased by 2,000 in the city while the number of higher inome households has increased by 3,200. What was happening at this time 2010 to 2020 is that wages were stagnating while housing prices increased. The number of housing cost burden of of cost burden households increased by 20%. Over 1,700 residents were living in um overcrowded conditions, doubling or tripling up with family or friends. Um, and households of of color in New York were disproportionately lower income as compared to to white households, meaning that they were more likely to live at those in those overcrowded conditions and at risk of displacement. Finally, the study found that 5% of New York Unified School District students experienced homelessness in the 2021 2022 school year. That doesn't necessarily mean that they were living on the street or in a shelter. Um, it could have been living out of a car doubled up with other households in a

hotel, motel, or something of that nature. Um, but it's still certainly um a um it's still certainly a figure worth examining, which I will go back to. Um, to briefly look at the study's findings in greater detail, we see job growth in the dotted lines and housing permits in the solid line. Um yellow is New York and blue is Alama County. Um for every three jobs created from 2010 to 2020, only one home was permitted. Um this was undoubtedly a period of incredible growth for Newark. Um in terms of of both housing units and jobs um in both cases, we outpaced the county. Um um but it still wasn't enough to ease the pressure on housing costs. um this rapid increase in demand from new workers compared to the insufficient supply of housing, especially affordable housing. Uh a study, a finding from the study is that that negatively impacts lower-income households by increasing competition for housing and putting upward pressure on housing prices and rents. Next, the displacement study found that the median rent for a two-bedroom home increased during this time by 45%, outpacing median incomes. The asking rent for a two-bedroom in Newark in 2019 was about $2,300. Um, that's really considered affordable only to households making around or over $100,000 a year. This is a problem for employees and employers in lower wage industries. Um, um, in New York um, a a lower wage um, salary is considered about $40,000 a year. The study found that 40% of city jobs were in these lower wage industries. It's very significant. And the city did not have sufficient housing opportunities for the

workforce. Unsurprisingly, the number of lower inome households increased by 30 um sorry, the number of of lower inome households decreased by 32% from 2010 to 2019. This trend was generally consistent across Alama County, but more severe in Newark. Finally, the study found that about 27% of households in New York earn less than $75,000 a year. Some racial groups have a higher proportion of lower-income households. About 35% of black, American Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Hispanic households earn less than $75,000 a year. Um, meaning they're more likely to be costbururden and overcrowded than white households. Um, for context, um, um, at this stage in time, it was estimated there were about 5,400 white households in the city. That meant that 1,135, an estimate, were experiencing cost burden. 1,313 Asian Pacific Islander households were experiencing cost burden. 246 black households, which is 41% of black households in New York. 1,781 Hispanic households. As a result, um the City of New York displacement study found that a local preference is necessary to address growing displacement. It would not result in limits to access to housing by any individual protected class because the income eligible population for affordable rental developments is more diverse as compared to Newark's general population. Staff shared the displacement study and proposed preference policy with Alama County Housing and Community Development, the state department of housing and community development, and the US Department of Housing Urban Development. Alamina County approved the study and the proposed policy and required the city to indemnify the county against any claims resulting from applying the policy to the Timber Senior Housing development. We have had no challenges against that development. Um

the indemnification agreement is included as an exhibit to the staff report. Um the state did not comment on the materials and HUD did not provide a formal endorsement or rejection. So while not yet formal policy, the city has incorporated the local preference requirement into the conditions of approval and affordable housing agreements for recent projects including timber senior housing, the affordable housing at FMC Willow, which is being called Terascina, the Saha Thornton Avenue Apartments, and the Laaki Homes. There are limits on what units the preference can apply, however, notably homes for people exiting or at risk of homelessness or homes with county housing vouchers. The funding sources for those special needs units typically prohibit local preference policies although they do often have their own regional targeting. So if the planning commission re or sorry the planning commission is recommended um and now should city council adopt the proposed ordinance these new affordable units that are entitled or funded by the city would be required to implement the live work preference unless exempted by other laws or funding. In order to reduce regulatory burden on affordable housing, local governments are constrained in what additional reporting they can charge to affordable rental housing providers. But we could require uh lighter effort occupancy reports to ensure the policy is being applied without creating a fiscal impact on the city or housing provider. And for for sale projects, the city has contracted with Hello Housing to monitor, enforce, and provide technical assistance to developers for a first-time home buyer program and below market rate home ownership program. Staff are working with Hello Housing now on guidelines for those programs, which will present to council in the coming months, inclusive of the local preference policy. Um, I will pause there just because this is a lot of information and before I move on to the um inclusionary component of the ordinance, I want to ask if there

are any clarifying questions. Um, I'm welcome to answer those. Any clarifying questions on the portion that we've heard thus far? Council Kachio. Yes, thank you. I did have one question. It sounded like we are currently going into our third year of our qualified objectives. I wanted to understand though are we currently on target regarding our own timeline.

Uh as I mentioned we do have and I thank you for the question we have 45 programs um and 35 policies. Uh for some programs we have completed them for some we are in target and in some we are um behind. Um we will uh report on provide a complete progress report to um um HCD and city council um before April 1st. We'll provide you a full accounting of where we stand with each program. Excellent. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you.

Yeah, that would have been one of my questions. I certainly would like to know how we're doing in terms of our reporting before HCD, you know, sends us information as to how we're doing. So, thank you for uh agreeing to bring that back to the council uh in April. Any other clarifying questions? Council member Gindall.

Yes. [clears throat] So, um I'm very much in support of local preference. Um however, details matter. So I just wanted to understand um exactly well is it as clear as um except for those accepted exempted categories the um the units have to be rented or sold to Newark residents or New York workers or are there are there exceptions and ways for for that to um not happen?

Thank you for the question. Um it is a preference policy not an exclusion policy. Uh so the way that it typically works is that as applications come in uh applications from those who are who um are eligible for the preference policy holders, preference holders, people who live or work in New York, their applications would be considered first. If um there is insufficient interest or insufficient eligibility from those preference policy holders um the the agent selling or leasing the units would then go to um the next general population level but we cannot exclude um others from these housing units from this housing opportunity.

Yes. So just to cover it, so so there's typically a waiting list, say a rental a rental project. Um the people from Newark or who work in Newark would would be on the top of that would move to the top of that list and other people would be lower on the list. Is that is that correct? Um for rental units, uh I do expect that it would work in this way. Um and we will um um incorporate um those requirements into the affordable housing agreement for uh subsequently approved projects.

Great. Thank you. And then um I noticed the county requires indemnification. Um anybody who can indemnify us [laughter] if there were a claim. Um particularly I I I've I've heard of federal federal constitutional claims about um local preference policies. Um the is there any way is there any identification for us and I I really know there isn't. So um the the other part is there a way for us to build in an administrative remedy if there's people who are objecting so that we don't end up even if this maybe h happens when we renew it next time um so that we don't have immediate lawsuits filed and can and instead sort of talk it through. Is there is there any possibility of doing that?

Thank you for the question. I believe that in that scenario, if somebody were to challenge the merits of the preference policy, we would conduct an investigation um and uh take the findings of that investigation to the city attorney for council with um the city council to make a determination on how to proceed and whether or not the city wanted to continue with the enforcement of that uh that preference in that case. Um it would be difficult to say under those circumstances the cost if any of um that legal situation. Thank you. Thank you. Other questions, comments?

I have a couple comments and questions. This is an important issue to the city. Uh we've been talking about preference to folks that live and work in our community for a number of years now and I think your chart clearly shows why that's important to us with folks migrating out of the city of Newark. Uh we're never going to increase the number of jobs to meet the needs in our community and so I think it just creates greater pressure on those trying to live here in the Newark area. So, this council has routinely supported the concept of live work and certainly I want to see us encourage developers whether it be rental or owner occupied properties to seriously look at Newark residents that live and or work here. And I would ask Mr. Benoon uh as we look at this issue moving forward because it's so important to the city council that we look at the timber project for example uh which is really our first forier into live work um by providing Newark residents the opportunity to have their applications reviewed first. I'd be interested in the uh results, the outcome on how that process worked of the x number of units there at Timber. How many of those were Newark applicants and how many of those Newark applicants actually were able to secure housing in that development? Uh, I think that would be good information for the council to hear in terms of how successful are we in terms of getting the message out to our community and how seriously our developers taking that information and implementing it as we move forward. Secondly, I'd like to maybe look at abode s abode and the community cedar crest community apartments because it was always envisioned and certainly correct me if I'm wrong that that was

kind of viewed as trans uh transitional housing for folks there in some respect if I'm not mistaken that they would undergo job training and u other services that in some cases the residential use there was viewed is kind of a transitory opportunity. Um, and I may be wrong in characterizing that. Uh, Mr. Turner, if uh, if you want to feel free, no, feel free to correct me. Great. Thank you, Mayor. I understand this is the first correction of the mayor for 2026 and will be the last correction of the mayor in No. [laughter] Go ahead.

So, noted. Steven Turner, community development director. Yes, the Cedar Community Apartments um community is a a full-time permanent supportive housing development, meaning folks that sign a lease with Abode can stay there for as long as they are eligible to do so and are abiding by the terms of their lease agreement. Um Abode Services provides on-site services for residents. So, that's a unique aspect of the community that doesn't occur in other communities. um that um so where there are services for uh for financial for job training um there's not necessarily a hospital or health care on site but there are resources that are available. So those services exist for those community members but th it's it's not so much of a transitory or an interim step. It is permanent uh supportive housing uh for for that community.

Thank you for that. You're welcome.

Yeah. And again much needed in our community. Um but again dismay to you know even hear that 5% of our New York Unified School District uh students are counted as homeless and I understand that that's a 2122 count. Um I don't know if and when that number will be u reviewed. I know we're going to be doing a homeless count January the 22nd. I don't know if we're going to actually be able to count New York Unified School District students because as mentioned they be moving from, you know, couch to couch or whatever the case may be. So I'd be interested to know what that figure looks like in the future if uh additional information uh becomes known to us. And my last comment is regarding uh something that I I haven't seen a study on, Mr. Kulum and maybe you can comment on it if you if you're aware but the impact on the increases uh in minimum wage as they impact the service uh community uh you know we saw significant increases in minimum wage uh statewide and certainly they're justifiable because we have people living below the poverty level making whatever the minimum wage was at that time but I do recognize that in some cases minimum wage has been increased to 20 plus dollars per hour. I have to believe that that has somehow impacted uh the job market. Um I don't know if you have any comments on that and uh whether or not that issue in and of itself is maybe uh contributing to some of that displacement that we're hearing about. That's my last comment.

Thank you, sir. I can't comment on uh the relation of of wage increases to the job market. Uh but it's something that be happy to look into and return to you. Uh, I will say on the Newark Unified School District um component, wait for item F1. The future is now. Um, I'll share more in the following agenda item.

Excellent. Thank you. Please continue. Thank you. So, as for the second component of this item, inclusionary housing, um this item concerns amendments to our affordable housing program, which is a form of inclusionary housing, also referred to as inclusionary zoning. Uh similar to the local preference policy. I'll explain how this fits into our housing element, define it, explain how our current program works, the inclusionary study that was created to support um and inform staff's recommendations and then present those recommendations. Inclusionary housing is a housing production strategy within our housing element and it falls under goal five to increase access to affordable housing. Updating our inclusionary requirements uh to correspond to current market conditions is intended as a way to build more affordable housing faster and more financially efficiently. The housing element includes policy H5.4 which commits to updating the affordable housing program to require residential developers to make a portion of their units affordable to very low low or moderate income households. inclusionary housing, inclusionary zoning um is the name for this because it includes the affordable units in the same development as the market rate units. Staff's expectation is that the city would continue implementing um another separate program H5.2, two, which utilizes those housing impact fees to finance new affordable homes while also generating new affordable homes through our inclusionary requirements that would be built without city funding. So, these are two separate tools um that achieve the same outcome but through different means. Taking into account state law and the challenges of real estate development, staff's recommendation will include alternatives to the on-site build requirement, including payment of a housing impact fee. And then finally, our inclusionary requirements will be

regularly reassessed to ensure that they neither become an impediment to development nor leave affordable homes on the table. Related to this policy is that program H5.2 um which commits to ensuring an adequate amount of affordable housing um through three separate means. The first is our inclusionary requirement. Uh the second is through um state density bonus law which is codified in Newark municipal code chapter 17.19 and the final is our affordable housing fee program. Uh the joint objective for these three programs is to permit 778 affordable units over the 2023 2031 housing element period. It's split up in between 326 very low, 326 low, and 126 moderate income units. staff are taking uh council's direction in our housing element commitments to refine our affordable housing toolkit in response to current market conditions. Uh build requirements and fee requirements are two tools that do the same job building affordable housing. And so our intent with these reforms is not to toss out one tool or to only rely on another, but to refine when and how we use them to maximize affordable housing production. To that end, state government code defines inclusionary housing as both the requirement that as a condition of development of residential units, the development include a certain percentage of residential units affordable to and occupied by households with specific income limits. And it defines inclusionary housing as any alternative means of compliance, including but not limited to affordable housing impact fees. So we can break that definition down into three different buckets. The first is a build requirement mandating residential developers build affordable units alongside market rate units. Alternative means of compliance whereby instead of setting aside affordable units, the developer and the local government agree on another means such as dedicating land, building affordable

housing on a different site or something else that they negotiate. And then finally is paying an affordable housing impact fee which would then go towards meeting affordable housing needs elsewhere. Newark's current affordable housing program requires payment of the fee. That fee is assessed against residential and non-residential development, and the cost changes depending on the time of the development and its size. It's updated annually and published in the city's master fee schedule. Alternatively, our code allows residential developers to build affordable units at these percentages that you see at the bottom of the screen, which were laid out by council resolution in 2014. Um, you'll notice that our current ordinance for this chapter 17.18 is from 2018, but this resolution establishing these percentages is from 2014. So, this evening is a good opportunity to revisit and rightsize um um our requirements against current market conditions. under our this current program that alternative compliance um um requires uh that large lot single family homes which are about 5500 square ft in size or greater should set aside 21% of new units as affordable whereas rental apartments would be set aside at 12%. Uh the resolution 10184 further specifies how affordable units should be restricted to very low, low, and moderate income households. [clears throat] The affordable housing work plan from 2021 established an investment framework for spending our housing impact fees. It's just a framework. It's not binding, but it is a helpful road map. As you see from this chart, the fund has a current balance of $49.6 million, of which about $21.6 6 million has already been spent or committed. In that figure, I'm including um the minimum recommended

amount for the first-time home buyer program. Council has already approved the contract with Hello Housing to design that program and will return in the coming months to um um seek your approval for uh that program design and to actually allocate um funds for assistance for first-time home buyers. Michael, just a quick clarification on that chart. Yes, the first-time home buyer committed 2.3 million out of the 2.5 million. The remaining is um the contract with Hello Housing for program design. Okay.

Yes. [snorts] Um so the city has committed uh $19.3 million of its funding via notices of funding availability, direct loans or grants for the development of new affordable housing like the Saha project, Timber Senior Housing, and the Homekeep Cedar Community Apartments. Similarly, we've committed $200,000, as I said, for the first-time home buyer program. Um, and that leaves us with about $26 million for additional [snorts] affordable, sorry, $28 million with the 2 million for first-time home buyer for additional affordable housing work such as tenant protections programming and services, acquiring existing buildings or land for affordable housing, or shifting money around to issue additional notices of funding availability. One way we can measure the affordable housing program's impact is the number of units that have been built. Over the last six years, the city's committed 19.3 million in housing impact fees for new construction. And this money has supported 263 new low, very low, and extremely low-income units, of which 204 are complete or under construction, and 59 are in pre-development. Alternatively, developers who have opted to set aside affordable units within their larger market rate projects have amassed a pipeline of 208 affordable units over the last 11 years, including 75 which have been built. This doesn't include the 30 units at Maui Village. I'll briefly compare the differences between how these two pathways um actually get housing built. Uh projects funded by affordable housing impact fees are more likely to be standalone. 100% affordable housing buildings. Uh that requires a lot of subsidy from different government agencies. And these subsidies stack, so to speak, to collectively make up the full amount of money needed to build the project. It's not uncommon for an affordable housing project to have six, eight, 10, or even more funding sources. In our current environment, um of these, maybe one will be a private

loan from a bank. Uh the rest are typically awarded competitively. Timber senior housing, for example, has city housing impact fees, money from Alama County, measure A1, housing vouchers from the county housing authority, three different sources from the state, a private bank loan, and lowincome housing tax credits. That's eight sources. By contrast, affordable units included in a larger market rate project will probably have fewer sources and are more likely to be entirely privately funded. For these projects, there may only be three or four sources. um the majority of which is coming from a bank loan, a mortgage and then the remainder is coming from investor equity. These sources have to be enough to cover the cost of building the market rate units and the affordable units. What's important to take into account here is that land costs tend to absorb any excess profits. Meaning that in a market where projects pencil, land costs will go up because you can do more with that land. As a result, there rarely excess profits to support other project costs or or policy priorities. Project feasibility can change very quickly in this environment and to the extent that affordability is a policy priority, we have to be mindful of these sensitive market conditions. Uh the funding sources for private development um don't come solely from the developer. Development is extremely expensive and few if any developers are capable of fully self-funding. Rather, the developers role is to convince banks investors that their project will make enough money to pay interest in return on investment. The purpose of the banks and the investors is not to build housing, right? But to make money, produce more money. Uh they don't by nature have anything to do with housing. An investor could be a private equity company. It could be your pension or retirement fund, your healthcare company. and they choose where to invest

their money. To get investors to choose housing, the housing has to not only be profitable, but it has to produce a higher return than other investment sectors. So, the developer has to design a project that at the end of the day will sell or rent for a high enough price to make the worth the juice worth the squeeze for all of these other uh people. Um, we have gotten to a place in the Bay Area where development costs are the highest in the nation. So the market can't produce housing that is affordable to the average Joe or Jane independently and definitely not to lower income households. As a result, subsidies are needed to make new development affordable. Inclusionary housing policies collect that subsidy from new market rate development either through build requirements or fees. And so new market rate development we conclude is necessary to develop new affordable homes. Given affordable housing is dependent on market rate subsidy. Inclusionary housing policies must be carefully calibrated so as to not prohibit new market rate development nor to leave affordable homes on the table. High interest rates right now are really impacting multif family housing starts with a significant slowdown since interest rates went up in 2021 and 2022. Rates shot up just as a lot of new multif family housing was coming online. That sudden increase in supply had the effect of stabilizing rents which was good for renters. But with stable or depressed rents and higher interest rates, new developments were no longer financially feasible. Hence, we're seeing less new construction getting started. Um, and so with that in mind, state law requires cities that have an inclusionary ordinance to demonstrate the policy does not unduly constrain the production of housing. Um, for this reason, the city contracted with Community Planning Collaborative and Century Urban to study the effects of an inclusionary build requirement.

Um, I want to turn it over to Miss Wong and Mr. Ma. Um, but before I do so, can I ask are there any again clarifying questions? Sure, colleagues, questions on the section that we've heard up to this point now. Yes, Council Member Gindal. Um, thank you. Um, the um I I I see that you're exempting projects from the build first um that are below that are less than 20 units. Um, right. That that is the recommendation, but if I may, I might ask if we can hold that question until after we get to that portion of the presentation. Absolutely. Thank you.

Um, I'm I'm just checking to see if there's my points that are covered by what we we did. Um, yeah, I think I can I think I can hold my questions. Other questions, comments? I'll start with this slide.

Yes. See, I love when the state tells me local agencies, we need to demonstrate inclusionary ordinance does not unduly constrain the production of housing. You know, I wish there was somewhere where the uh state regulations uh impede and impact the city's ability to build quality housing um to meet the community needs. Uh it's interesting, you know, the state's always looking at local governments and what are you doing and yet we can't look at them and why are you doing? Um, but that that's a different story for a different day. Can we go back to slide 38, please? Yes.

And I found it interesting, of course, that we're using the Brookfield properties, my favorite development in the city of Newark, as an example. And I found it interesting because I hadn't thought about that before, Mr. Culum, where you talk about land costs certainly have an impact on the construction costs. Well, Brookfield owns that property, so land costs would certainly not be of impact to them in terms of penciling out the cost of construction of of housing at that location. I I found that interesting. Uh slide uh chart 36. Again, uh if I look at the inclusionary units alternative compliance, you know, we really just need to take New Park Place uh phase A out. their permit expired. They never built the units. There's no intent on them to build the units. Uh I certainly recognize the New York Station senior. Can you give a brief update, Mr. um Benoon or staff, on the Terracena FMC Willow 91 units and the Leachi homes 13 units as where those are in the process.

I'll invite Deputy Director Interiano. Thank you. Hi. Thank you, Mayor, City Council members. Yes, the Teroscino project was part of the uh FMC Willow project and so it's still u an approved project. Um they're um in the process of uh getting their development plans approved. Um they've had some delays in working with SFPU and some kind of a um disagreement about some rights out there, but sounds like they're almost there. So they're um about a year behind what their schedule was supposed to be. Uh but they're still moving forward and then they'll be looking for financing u very soon. In fact, they're doing that now. Great. So you see that project coming to the council at some point before that permit should lapse. Absolutely.

Beautiful. Absolutely. And the p the patch key, they've been fairly quiet. Um but they are um in the process of um getting their development plans reviewed, but they're not approved yet. Okay. So they've been they've been quiet besides that. Thank you very much for that. Sure. Other questions, comments? Questions? Yes. Council member Jorgens. I'm sorry, Vice Mayor Jorgens.

So, um, we've set the threshold for, uh, when this inclusionary policy, you know, hits in at 20 units. And it seems to me, you know, we got to hit a line somewhere, but, you know, anything on either side of the line is going to be a little bit, you know, more similar to projects on well, on another side of the line. So, I'm thinking on some of those smaller projects that do hit this threshold where we would be requiring them to um meet the threshold. We would still be able to as a council be able to approve an alternative means of compliance for, for example, a fee. If it, you know, developer comes in says, you know, it doesn't make sense for us to build the units, we'd rather pay the fee. And if council agrees, we would be able to approve that alternative means of compliance.

Yes, sir. That's correct. And I do include a section on alternative means of compliance in some of my subsequent slides. All right. And so we have a kind of minimum threshold. Do we have a maximum threshold on the alternative means of compliance where we'll no longer consider an alternative means of compliance? My worry would be about larger sites like New Park that we mentioned where it would be very challenging for any of the alternative means of compliance to meet our goals. Um, would we be in a situation where we would be required to accept some alternative means of compliance and end up in a kind of bad situation?

The draft ordinance doesn't specify a maximum threshold for accepting alternative means of compliance. Um, but it would be at council's discretion whether or not to approve it. Um, I'm also we consulted with the city attorney not aware of any existing or proposed state laws that would compel the city to accept alternative means of compliance.

All right. And I would hope uh you know that's good to hear. I I would hope that um staff you know continues to you know review state law when it comes to alternative means of compliance. I would be worried about, you know, a law that would require us to accept some state alternative means of compliance either with a larger project or, you know, one of our our alternative means of compliance is around land donation. We work with um developers who have properties in many jurisdictions, someone trying to use a land donation in another jurisdiction. Um, you know, I want to see affordable housing built in Newark and I I'm really impressed with this uh program. I think it's going to go a long way to doing that and I just want to make sure that um there's not any kind of unintended consequences for what we're doing. So, appreciate your answer to those questions.

Thank you. I I did have one other comment regarding the first time homeowners program and I can't recall which slide it was was maybe the one before this or the one after this, but I think it's [clears throat] one where we have $2.5 million set aside.

200,000 of that's been committed to to the consultant to do the work that they're going to do. Um, and I know that this issue is going to come back to council for further consideration in the future. I really do want to look at, Mr. Benoon, an opportunity for some of those firsttime buyer dollars to be made available to Newark residents who are looking for some assistance maybe on a down payment for a home because that's really seems to be one of the areas where a lot of first-time home buyers really seem to be struggling. It's not necessarily making the monthly payment, but simply coming up with 50,000, 100,000, whatever the case may be in terms of that down payment. And maybe we structure it in such a way that the uh repayment to the city is either deferred to sale of the property um as we've discussed in other projects or a very low interest rate of something that just gives folks a opportunity to get into the market. because when you're asking, you know, young people under 40 to come up with $100,000 or $150,000, it's just uh insurmountable for so many folks. And if we can help a hundred people, whatever that cost would be, I'd certainly be willing to have us look at that uh down the road. Thank you. Those are my comments.

Thank you. Uh I'll now invite um [clears throat] Miss Wong and Mr. Ma to the podium. Thank you, Mayor C, mayor and council members. It's um really a pleasure to be here. Um we really have had the privilege of being able to support um your staff um through the course of the housing element and the affordable housing work plan and implementation and really appreciate that opportunity. Um so I I [clears throat] do want to this especially I think is a an important program that is both um an implementation piece for the work plan and for the housing element. So, it's a it's a nice thing to be able to bring forward. [clears throat] Sorry. Um, I want to introduce our partner, uh, Leo Ma with Century Urban. Um, they're a real estate advisory, investment, and asset management firm that provides a number of services to both public and private clients. And they're very well suited to being help help us gather the information and the input to make sure that we that we make recommend a financially feasible and strong policy for you. Um we've collaborated before on many projects including inclusionary and commercial linkage fee studies for multiple Bay Area agencies um including Vakavville and several jurisdictions in San Monteo County. Um so Michael did an excellent job um presenting on the background context for inclusionary housing efforts as well as inclusionary housing in general. Um so I don't want to be too repetitive but I do want to put some additional emphasis on the importance of studying the feasibility. Um there are limitations with feasibility analyses. You know it's a snapshot in time. Um our prototype analysis looks at certain example types of buildings and not every kind that that is brought forward. Um every project, every sponsor has their own nuances, their own dynamics. Um, but we're really trying to aim for a balance of where the public gets affordable

housing opportunities and we also don't deter new development um requirements. If we set them too low, we will leave affordable housing opportunities on the table. If we set them too high, then new development becomes infeasible and and no market rate or affordable housing gets produced. Um, so we wanted to briefly walk you through our process um and then be available for questions later. Um, so who did we talk to? Um it's important as you uh put together a pro uh policy um by getting feedback from stakeholders. So for this project we reached out both to market rate stakeholders already active in New York um and affordable housing stakeholders active in New York and the East Bay more generally. So that included affordable housing developers like Eden Housing and Mid Pen Housing and USA Properties um and also uh East Bay Housing Organizations and affordable housing advocacy organization. Um Century Urban conducted individual interviews with several market rate developers that uh either have projects or projects in the pipeline here. Um and we held two stakeholder meetings with those developers to gather feedback on the input u assumptions and test the results of the analyses. Um so what did we hear from these stakeholders? Um from across the board we heard and you know this is echoing what uh Michael already said. We heard a lot about the development environment um has a lot of challenges today. Um mostly but not exclusively related to the high cost to develop. Um so we also heard a strong desire for flexibility within the policy from stakeholders across the spectrum. um there was interest in having multiple pathways to comply with the inclusionary requirement whether that was on-site off-site fees or otherwise that you know we I understand there's a very strong interest here in getting the units built um but I think the the stakeholders believe that the

for the best environment that having options um and offering some level of flexibility um or opportunity to make a case for a different um approach was was really important. Um and that went for [clears throat] the affordable housing developers too. Um there was also interest in having some flexibility and nuance related to the implementation and so how the affordable units are provided, the location, the design, product type, etc. Um, and I do want to say that the market rate developers expressed some concerns that in this environment that the cumulative impact of impact fees can uh can be a challenge when they're already struggling to make to make projects uh work. So, um, development may be slow to get started. Uh, I think that's that's the baseline case today as it is. Um, but they they did want to underscore that. Um so as part of our background research we also looked at uh some of Newark's neighbors to understand their affordable housing requirements. Um inclusionary housing um is widespread in Alama County. Um affordable require sorry excuse me affordability requirements in these cities ranged from 10 to 20% of new units with with a lot of variation in the details um including uh treatment of small projects as I think was was raised earlier. Um also housing income levels targeted varied and then the different treatment of rental and for sale. Um for the rental um overall uh projects are asked to target lowincome households and for sale a mix of low and moderate income. Um so now I'm going to turn it over to Leo to talk through the feasibility input assumptions that and um informed by their research.

[clears throat]

Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, and council members. Um, I'm Leo Ma. I'm a managing principal with Century Urban. Uh, we are a real estate economic advisory firm that, as Christie has mentioned, has worked uh with um her firm and the city to prepare this feasibility study. Um to do this to prepare this feasibility study, we worked with city staff um to review the development pipeline um that's in uh in the city to identify uh six development prototypes, three rental prototypes and three for sale prototypes. And um the table that you currently see uh summarizes the three prototypes. There are two multif family rental prototypes. um one higher density larger prototype and one smaller infill rental prototype and then a town home rental prototype. Um and then there are three for sale prototypes, one uh condominium multif family type forale prototype, a town home for sale and a single family home for sale. Um and they all vary in terms of size and density um and unit mix um and average unit size and parking requirements. And um as I mentioned before, they're based on largely on the types of development that the city has either seen in the development pipeline or the city anticipates might occur in within the city based on um their conversations with developers. Um, I would also note that the uh some of the programs for these uh development prototypes may already reflect um incentives um such as parking incentives um that were um provided to developers to incre to improve the feasibility of their projects. Um and and again as Christie mentioned these de development prototypes are based on development projects that we're seeing at this point in time and they may change over time. Um but we are trying to c capture a snapshot a cross-section of the types of development that the city is may potentially see in the near future. So on the screen here you see a summary

of the input assumptions that we developed by talking to both um developers as well as conducting our own market research. Um and you can see that uh the development costs and in this case I would note that these development costs per square foot reflect the hard construction cost only. They're not total costs including soft costs, but they range from um $200 to $365 per square foot for a rental and $150 to $45 per square foot for the for sale. And the difference in the the range really depended on the prototype. Um you know, whether it's a multif family or a detached uh single family or town home product. Um we also did market research on apartment rents. um they range from 270 to 375 per square foot as well as market sales prices for the town homes and sale single family homes and they range from 690 to $725 per square foot. Um and then in addition to that we did research on operating costs for rental prototypes. Um and then uh last but not least we had to establish a target return threshold for both rental prototypes as well as for sale prototypes. Um and that target return threshold um helps us to determine whether or not the project is feasible. And uh Christie will present later the results relative to these benchmarks from our feasibility study. But the bench the targets that we established were a 7.75% yield on cost for rental projects. And that's defined as um the net operating income of the project divided by its cost, its total development cost. and then a for sale target return with a profit that's equal to 20 or 25% of total development cost. And here in this table, you'll see a summary of the total development costs per unit um for each prototype. And in this case, these total development costs do include hard and soft costs. So these are the total costs per unit. Um in addition to that you see a uh summary of the impact fees that are included in

those total development cost um on a per unit basis that are charged uh per unit um based on this the impact fees that the city currently charges. Um I would note though however that um you can see the summary of the impact fees that are included in the study but they exclude the public art fee which was um proposed a subsequent to the start of the study. So the study did not include that um public art fee. Um and then in addition to that I would note that the impact fees we include at the very bottom a row where we exclude the housing impact fee so that that way we when we um prep uh prepare the feasibility study um we can analyze what the effect of the on-site including on-site inclusionary affordable units is um without having the the in lie of the impact fee. So, with that, I will turn this back over to Christie.

Great. Thank you, Leo. Um, okay. So, now I'm going to just walk you through um our analysis and and looking at what what is the starting here, the target returns that um Leo had identified in their research of what what developers are typically seeking um to um what that threshold is when they're going to go move forward with a project. Um this next line um shows the results of the analysis that we did using the input assumptions from the last few slides. So based on um this so this is um this is today before with our current the current current inclusionary policy today where you're paying a fee. Um so this is the pro projected returns for developers including the housing impact fee. um this shows what they would expect the the profit ass uh expectations that they would have. So that if you look at that that looks like um only the town home for sale and the single family for sale prototypes are feasible at this time. Um so then what we did was we took out that housing impact fee so that we are we're netting that out before we layer layer in the new uh inclusionary requirement. Um so this is what those profits look like um without any fee at all. Um and it changes things a little bit but not dramatically. It doesn't actually shift um feas it doesn't turn something from infeasible to feasible or the other way around. Um and then we layered in a 10% set aside with with a with the idea you know we tested several different numbers and we looked at different affordability levels. um we were looking for to as closely match what the current current conditions are. So we did not think we're going we we cannot actually make

make it all feasible by taking away the fee. Right? So that that is not and that's not a desirable outcome for the city anyway. But that even doing that does not make it um a profitable endeavor. So we're think we our thinking was that it would be best to try to match um match the current conditions. So at a 10% set aside um you have this this line here in blue um where the numbers are not 100% on target. the the um for sale the forale um prototypes definitely struggle a little bit more because of the bigger difference between the affordable units and and market rate um and market rate prices. Um but this is this felt like the the best recommendation so far. Um so let's see. Um we then did just a little bit of uh oh sorry let me let me just clarify the 10% set aside is um for low income um for 50% AMI households uh area median income households and for the um for sale prototypes it's for 110% area median income oops sorry um households. So this last line was was just in the spirit of um the test testing different scenarios and trying to see what what does it look like um sort of some sensitivity analysis. What does it look like if the market changes in the next year uh a year or two like what is um what can we expect to see? And so we ran that uh 10% set aside with a 5% increase in market rents or sales prices and um came up with that bottom set of returns.

And I think that is going to hand it off to Michael. So we'll be happy to answer questions about the analysis um after Michael finishes his portion. Thanks.

Thank you Christie. Um, so based on the findings from the inclusionary study, our stakeholder feedback, and the city's housing goals, staff are recommending text amendments to uh section 17.18.030, which is our current affordable housing program, and the addition of chapter 17.27, which establishes this new affordable housing chapter with those inclusionary build requirements. The purpose and need of what these amendments are are establishing that they're meeting is to apply a build first requirement to residential projects of 20 or more units restricting 10% of all units below market rates to clarify and streamline city requirements and expectations to provide flexibility and discretion to accommodate unique development characteristics and to review and update our requirements regularly to keep pace with changes in the market and development. Um, first with that 17.18.030, uh, the purpose of this very minor amendment, it's really just one line of text. Um, the purpose of this is to retain our affordable housing obligations for residential projects that have already submitted a complete application. Um, we're not going to change the rules on people halfway in. Um, and then the second is to ensure that the housing impact fee is continued to be assessed to non-residential development. Um that's also an important source of housing impact fees and we don't want to lose that. Uh chapter 17.27 the new chapter um establishes the build requirement as the default inclusionary housing method as opposed to payment of the fee. 17.27 27 um um considers that affordability is based on a household's income as a percentage of the median income for Alama County um also known as area median income or AMI. The AMIs for Alama

County are included on this table. For homeownership projects, the average income restriction for affordable units would not exceed 110% of the Alama County area median income with no unit being above 120% AMI. For rental projects, the average income restriction should not exceed 50% AMI, which is very low income, with no unit exceeding 80% AMI. Uh what this AMI averaging means is for example if you have a project with six units you have two units at 30% AMI two at 50% AM AMI and two at 70% AMI that would even out to 50% AMI and comply. Um if a project is proposed to have 44 units you apply 10% the requirement would be 4.4 affordable units. Obviously you can't have 4.4 4 of a home. So the developer would pay the balance of that point4 fraction as the housing impact fee or they could voluntarily build an additional unit. Additional requirements would mandate that all affordable units should come online at the same time as or before the market rate units and that affordable units should reflect the same range of bedroom counts as the project as a whole, have access to the same amenities, be indistinguishable in terms of material materials, and be reasonably distributed throughout the project. We would monitor and enforce affordability requirements by recording them against each affordable unit for a term of 99 years. Uh the city would have first right to purchase any affordable units if and when they came up for sale. Uh and the developers or sales agents must ensure that tenants and buyers of the affordable units meet all eligibility requirements including with application of the live work preference which again the city has contracted with

Hello Housing to confirm eligibility and provide technical assistance and monitoring to those developers of for sale units. The proposed tax includes language specifying that it's the intent that these requirements shall not depend upon the availability of government subsidy. This doesn't preclude the use of such subsidies, but it also doesn't obligate the city or other public agencies to subsidize inclusionary build units. Nothing about this ordinance precludes the use of state density bonus law and Newark's implementation of state density bonus law. Density bonus has been a very popular way of producing more affordable housing through an inclusionary build requirement. Uh by including affordable units, developers can get waivers and concessions against density limitations and other development standards. They use these waiverss to build more market rate units and those additional market rate units help to provide subsidy for the affordable units. For projects of less than 20 units, the default would be to pay the fee. This accounts for the inevitability of those fractional units and the challenges of managing individual affordable units that are scattered across the city. So if you have an 16 unit project, you have one random unit somewhere. We've heard a lot of cases of jurisdictions elsewhere in the Bay Area that have quote unquote lost affordable units because they're out there on their own. They kind of slip through the cracks and then you've lost a really significant investment for the public. We don't want that to happen. Uh bearing in mind that the purpose of inclusionary housing is to get more affordable housing built. The proposed ordinance includes five different alternative means of compliance. All of these would be documented by an affordable housing agreement which would be jointly educated by the ed executed by the developer in the city. The first is the large project in Lou fee. Projects of 20 units or more could request to pay this fee. The approval would be at the discretion of city council. As I mentioned, we have a framework for how housing at impact fees are spent and there may be times when the city may decide that it's in the city's best interest to accept the fee.

So, we're leaving that door open. The second option is clustered affordable units. Um, of all the alternative means of compliance, this is the only one that actually still requires the master developer to build the affordable units and thereby most closely aligns with the policy intent of the build requirement. What's different with this option is that rather than dispersing the affordable units throughout the project or building the affordable and market rate units like for like the developer could cluster affordable units in a particular section or sections of the site. The units would still be of comparable bedroom counts, finishes and materials and have access to the same amenities. Uh but they could be slightly smaller. um the affordable units um sorry additionally the property management and resident services must be comparable to that of the market rate units um and better meet the resident's needs. One of the findings from the inclusionary study is that clustering would have less of an effect on the projected returns and thereby make projects more feasible. The example that the study cites is a development of large single family homes on large lots. If developers could provide an equal number of bedrooms but smaller number but smaller homes on smaller lots, the cost would be less and the return higher. Uh this has been the most common way that New York's existing affordable housing program has gotten developers to build affordable units themselves. Um, and then I'll note that the only thing that has changed about today's draft ordinance from the ordinance that was recommended for approval by the city coun by the planning commission um is that the planning commission ordinance recommended that this alternative could be approved by the city manager um as a kind of incentive. Um we are recommending um instead for you today that approval be made by city council um for clustering. just some examples of of what it currently looks like. New York Station Seniors um is one example. Um three separate market rate projects

within the Bayside New York development group together their affordable housing obligations to get this 75 unit senior housing project built. Uh the developers reserved a parcel within Bayside surrounded by and integrated among the market rate parcels if not the units um for the affordable building. Um, a second example of clustering, which we don't currently have yet, but we could in the future would mix housing types among the larger development. You can imagine a development of single family homes interspersed with duplexes or forplexes that by their smaller nature are more naturally affordable. I spent Christmas with my sister in Charlottesville. She lives in a new development of single family homes and town homes. One side of her street is detached single family homes. The other side is town homes. You could think of this as clustering. Um, the town homes are of the same architectural style and materials as the single family homes, but they're on smaller lots and have slightly less square footage. As a result, they sell for less than the single family homes, making them more affordable. Moving on, the next option is off-site development. This is similar to clustering, but would have the developer build the affordable housing on a site that is not contiguous to the market rate development. The developer would have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city that the proposed affordable housing project is financially feasible that the site is sufficient capacity to accommodate the required affordable units and approval would be at the discretion of council. Option D is site dedication um where the developer would propose to to dedicate a site to either the city or a city approved affordable housing developer. The developer would have to demonstrate that the proposed site could be competitive for public subsidy programs, was of equal or greater value than payment of the fee, and that the developer had control of the proposed site and that it could accommodate the the required units. Again, approval at council discretion. And then finally is option E, which leaves open the possibility for the developer and city to agree to some other means of of of

satisfying their affordable housing obligation approval at discretion of council. So the fiscal impact here is staff do not anticipate an immediate fiscal impact as a result of these proposed amendments. Uh there's approximately $28.8 million remaining um for the afford from in housing impact fees. City council may decide in the future that it's in the city's interest to accept the large project in Luffy should those fees substantially reduce. The project is exempt from SQUA um as it does not make any um entitlements or uh changes to allowed uses of land. Uh the planning commission commission unanimously approved resolution 2030 on December 9th recommending city council approve the draft ordinance. Just some comments from the planning commission. They had positive views of the local preference and the 10% build requirement but had some concern that the 50% AMI average requirement may inhibit development. uh they had some concern regarding the cumulative effect of development impact fees on project feasibility um and made some requests that staff consider this cumulative impact as a next step um with particular focus on special fee treatments for affordable units. Um and they also requested that staff assess overlap between local policy and state density bonus law to maximize housing production. Um and there is that that one change to the clustering um approval from what the planning commission approved recommended for approval and what is before you today. So if adopted the ordinance would go into effect on February 8th, 2026. Staff would consider updates to the housing impact fee on completion of the city's 2025 2026 Nexus study which is ongoing. Projects with complete applications submitted prior to February 8th will continue with payment of the housing impact fee or approved alternative means of compliance under 17.18. And large projects with complete applications submitted on or after February 8th will be required to set

aside 10% of units as affordable housing or seek alternative means of compliance. So it's staff's recommendation that you wave the full reading and introduce by title only this ordinance amending section 17.18.030 and adding chapter 17.27. 27. Now we welcome questions and comments from the council.

Thank you. Thank [clears throat] you for that report. Um, one thing you forgot to mention, Mr. Kulum, when you made that presentation to the planning commission, they were extremely impressed with the u presentation, the thoroughess, the completeness, and the detail that you prevent uh provided to them, and I would certainly echo their comments uh this evening as well. Questions, comments? Let me start down this end. Council member Grenal.

Yes, [clears throat] I am torn on on some of these issues. Um, one one one issue is the exemption of the exemption of units of 20 units or more um from the the from the concern from this requirement to build in to build in place. Um, that seems high. seems higher than other um locations um other locations are having. Um seems like a bigger project. However, I'm also concerned that our our housing impact fee is quite is is not really sufficient to appropriately replace what are would essentially be removing two units. So, um I guess um I guess you could you could make me feel better with um the process that we can go through to increase that that housing impact fee. Um so that so that those that are exempted are actually paying more because what what I'm seeing is um the the apartment rental for example would be um would a a a 19 unit apartment unit would give us about $140,000 toward and that's not going to build us a unit um even even if it's stack if there's a lot of stacking on top of it. So, um, so, so, so hopefully my question, maybe my question was more like amusing. I'm concerned about I'm concerned about that the, uh, I'm not concerned about the the the 20 if our housing impact fee is enough. But since it's since it's I in my opinion, not. I think we ought to have a low lower number to start so that we don't have a lot of cows that get out of the barn. Um, could you maybe that wasn't a question um but can you is my is my is my math right and um can you address that at all? No, I appreciate uh the the

question and the comment um and I share with you in agreement that I think really construction costs are are out of control um and have increased two to three times what uh we last assumed uh the cost of building a single unit would be when we conducted our nexus study in I think 2014. Um the city is in the process right now of updating its nexus study and is revisiting the housing impact fee. Um um I can't comment on on that myself. Um but um I do understand that staff will present um an updated nexus study to council in the future. Um, I will say that if we do increase the housing impact fee in the same way that we consider changes to the build requirement, that will impact the feasibility of of of market rate projects overall. So, we could impact we could increase the fee, but that might make the larger project less feasible

and produce fewer market rate and affordable units. So, this is really a difficult game of of math. Um but addressing our extremely high construction costs in California um are um a strong focus I think in 2026 of both local state and federal policy makers. Um and I've seen lots of um bill policy chatter um around measures to decrease development costs so that our money goes farther.

Yes. and and but I'm my concern is that as it's structured now with our um very low with our fee that's not adequate in my opinion um and we're but allowing 19 unit projects to be built with using that fee that we're really um you know the feasibility shouldn't the being able to use the in Luffy by by right sort of that to be able to do that if they have a 19-unit project means that they've saved a lot of they've saved a lot of money. So, it really should be the cost of providing the the um inclusionary units should be roughly proportional to what they're what they're being charged in a fee and it shouldn't be a third of that. Otherwise, we're going to get a whole bunch of 19 unit projects because they they'll save a lot of money.

I can't comment on specific projects or what would be saved or would not be saved. I think it would depend largely on the on the type of project and housing unit. Um what we have from the study are only assumptions.

Um I I certainly share with you um your concern about are we leaving affordable homes on the table. Staff's recommendation is that this is um the best way to balance um our current market conditions with the goals and objectives of the city. I I hear you. Um I al also wanted to um to um agree with the planning commission. I'm I'm concerned about the the level of affordability on rental projects making them making them virtually impossible. So um I I don't know exactly the solution to that but I'm but I I really I really feel that we we may sort of step into something and make it very hard to develop higher density projects um in in the community by requiring 50% um AMI um of those units.

Thank you. We were intentional in that respect in um making it an average of 50% AMI so that it wouldn't be say all units at 80% AMI, all units at 30% AMI, but there could be some kind of spread um so that there could also be some higher income units to produce more revenue for the project and also serve a more diverse um population. That was our intent. I do think it would make it I do think it would um I I mean I'd like to see that adjusted. Um I I do think it would um really repress the the higher density projects. Thank you. And I think that was also as you mentioned, council member Gindall, that was a question by the planning commission to look at the AMI and as I recall the um your your presentation that night that that was something that would be reviewed on a periodic basis to determine whether or not uh that threshold needed to be reviewed and possibly increased. Was that my understanding as to what you advised the commission? Yes, the ordinance requires that the um um requirements be reassessed every 3 years and it also um allows the city council to adjust um affordability requirements, those percentages on a case- by case basis.

And and do do those specifically refer to rental units? The average 50% AMI requirement is specific to rental units. Um but the ability to adjust on case by case and reassess every 3 years is for the policy as a whole.

Yeah. The only reason I mention that is that uh if you're looking at a rate of return as [clears throat] indicated of about 7.75% on the rental market versus 20 to 25% on the owner occupied market. I can't imagine in all honesty, Mr. Benoon, why anybody would want to build apartment units in any community if the rate of return is so minimal. And uh we saw that with certainly the Brookfield development at New Park Mall. They indicated that it wasn't feasible even though they own the property. So um I think we the city uh need to do what we can to try to incentivize uh builders to want to build rental housing in our community. And I'm appreciative of the fact that we review this every three years, but I'll certainly um s you know ask um if if if Mr. Gandall would like to make an amendment to the motion at some point that increases the AMI to something other than 50% certainly we can entertain that as a council.

Can I make I'll just one quick clarification. the uh target return metrics for rental apartment prototypes versus for sale prototypes are two different metrics and they aren't they're calculated different ways. So they really shouldn't be compared to each other. Um and so uh but that notwithstanding that your comment is still valid that there is a big feasibility gap for rental current development of rental product in the city. Yes, I agree. Thank you, Council Gau. I I don't know if you had further questions. Um

no, I'm I'm I'm fine. Um I I I will want I will want to make a motion that adj adjusts not not only that but also the also [snorts] the 20% 20 unit cap. Um but I'm done with my questions at this point. If there's um even though my questions went very close to comments. Okay. They went questions. Let's take them all together. All right. Um the um so I I would I would be happy to make a motion when that time comes.

Okay. And and to Mr. Council member Grenal's comments regarding the 20 units and or less. I apologize, Council Member. I need clarification as to what specifically uh his suggestion was. You understood the question. I I didn't follow it as clearly as I could have. Maybe you can help me understand uh the context of his comment. Or I can do that. Or you can do that. [laughter] That might be better. But I heard you. I'll try I'll try again. Mr. Mr. column should not have to speak for me. [laughter]

Can I just offer one um one point which is um in talking about when developers are deciding whether to um whether to pay the fee which seems small compared to building units. Um the the bottom line, the return numbers that we're showing, we're really trying to aim for it to be neutral. Like the numbers that we have, we're trying to go for a neutral decision between whether uh a developer chooses to let me

pay the fee or the unit or to build a unit. So that is that is what we were aiming for and it is you're it is you're correct. it is not it doesn't quite work um across the board. It it does work better on the um on the rental side actually even though none of them [clears throat] work quite well right at this moment in time. Um so if you look at the comparing the the two yellow strips we were we were trying to get those to be as close as possible. And so in that in that scenario, it should for someone who is doing a multif family rental project, it should be kind of six and one half dozen whether they pay the fee or build it. So, I think I I just want to address your question about about um being concerned at that fringe at at the edge condition. Um that at least on the rental side, that isn't so much there isn't such a big dis difference between whether you pay the fee or whether you [clears throat] whether you build the units. um under these conditions right now um it would be more appealing to pay the fee for for most of the for sale and particularly for condo for sale if you were actually going to move forward.

Right. So um what what I'm suggesting is um you know we we first of all we are going to be amending our fee. I appreciate I appreciate that. But in in the meantime, we shouldn't allow so many of the units, a 19-unit project to to to [clears throat] be able to apply the fee and not do an inclusionary housing unit. A 10-unit project, I think, is the is the largest we should exempt because a 10-unit project can can do um one of the units as as uh inclusionary. So I I I don't I don't think with our fees structured as it is that we should be um that we should be allowing such a large such a large projectial to to be um to do that. Does does that make more sense?

It does. Is that something we should uh amend tonight or is that something that uh when staff comes back uh with the uh fee schedule that would be something we could look at at that point? If you're asking me I think I think we can amend that. We could amend that number to 10 tonight if um I believe, but that's up to the I certainly want to hear the input of the city attorney and the and the city management. Uh the item can certainly be amended tonight. Okay. From a procedural standpoint, no objection from our end.

Okay. I'll have you uh restate that uh when it comes time for you to make the motion so that everyone's clear as to exactly what you're proposing. And uh uh Mr. Rabanoon, do we typically, because we don't typically get amendments to motions here, do we uh take the the amendment first as a council as a whole or do we take the entire package with the amendment included and and uh proceed, you know, there from there? The council can pro proceed uh either route. Um we're fine with whatever uh direction the council provides. Uh the latter would probably be the most efficient way to address it.

Okay. And I think to Mr. Council member Grindall's point. I think that was an issue that the commission raised as well. So, uh, you'd be consistent with their comments. Other comments or questions? Okay. Yes. Yes. Council Jorgens.

Uh, just quickly a question about some of the um inputs into the study. Um, you know, I know that, you know, the state's concerns about, you know, undue constraints on construction of affordable housing. I share those concerns as well, but I also am concerned about leaving units on the table. Seems like a lot of our inputs to our study were from the housing developers themselves who are of course going to say, you know, look at all these fees and costs that are on me. Only the most profitable projects are feasible. And that might be true, but that hasn't necessarily been Newark's experience with um we mentioned the New Park project. They own the land, so land costs weren't a problem. You know, we look at the uh area 4 project which is, you know, under a development agreement that waves a lot of these fees. No houses out there, even though the first council meeting on that project was seven years before I was born. So, [laughter] we're not really seeing our experience as a city. In the meantime, we've had a lot of projects come in paying these fees. Um, so our city's experience hasn't been that um these fees are what's preventing housing from being built. Um, so I'm just curious about some of the inputs because that's obviously what the developers are going to say. Do we look at other subject matter experts? Um, I I don't think where we got to with the resolution is I think it's in a good middle of where I don't think we'll be leaving necessarily units on the table or preventing um housing from being built. But I'm just wondering about the inputs and do we hear from anyone that's not a housing developer?

Yeah, I'll invite Mr. Ma to speak to the inputs of the feasibility study.

Yeah. So we the inputs that we utilized in the uh feasibility study um they were in part derived from conversations with developer stakeholders but they but we also did our own market research and we've also done feasibility studies in other jurisdictions as um Christy has mentioned and so we cross reference that in addition to that those inputs and in addition to that we also have other sources such as uh contractors and cost estimating consultants and while they weren't engaged in an official capacity for the study we did um uh consult with other market participants such as those types of consultants and contractors to validate the cost. So they weren't solely just based on what the um developers were telling us if that's helpful. And then with and then with regards to revenue like um sales prices and rental rates, those were not based on a developer. We did our own independent market research.

No. And I I think you know where we got to with the recommendations is a good place. Um, I do agree with council member Grenal that I think uh 10 units is maybe a better place to kind of start the fee um or the requirements. I I do wonder council G dolls you um you also mentioned the 50%. Um I had thoughts about that number as well. I was just wondering what number you would you had brought it up so I'm deferring for to you to see what number you would like to see us be at and then maybe we can have a discussion from there on kind of what seems reasonable to make sure that we're facilitating construction. [clears throat]

Um actually I kind of want to get Steph's input on that. I'm I don't I don't want to be uh uh to be carving the turkey with an axe. So, um, given that we just went through turkeys, um, so, um, if I, if staff could give some input about some alternatives, I think that would be that would be worth doing. I just I'm just concerned about the, um, the burden it places on, um, higher density projects.

Maybe then um, we could have a [snorts] future agenda item on alternative options. We you know we amend it for the you know 20 to 10 this evening and then on the 50% AMI on the rental units we come back sometime in the future a couple different alternatives and are able to discuss that with kind of full understanding of the implications there. Okay, Mr. Mayor. Um, absolutely. And of course, we have the um ability to review individual projects if with an alternative means of compliance if there's if there's something arry in the process,

right? And we've done alternative means of compliance kind of going the other way with the Leoxy Homes project there. um in 2024 they had sent in a project that didn't was I think couple units short of the what they needed for the alternative means of compliance and we approved that because we did want to see affordable housing being built and I think as a council if in the meantime a project comes before us we can do the same thing to uh approve reasonable requests and and to that point uh

council member Jorgens and I think you made the same reference council gend I love the flexibility that we now have to not make it and you need to develop under these specific guidelines or don't bother coming to see us. It's it's it's great to give the flexibility to developers and ultimately have this council weigh in as to whether or not if the uh developer wants to specifically pay the housing impact fee and staff sees there's a benefit to that at the end of the day. You know, we may agree with that uh or we may not. But it's it's nice to give developers a full range of um opportunities to bring projects forward and let us comment at that point. Uh because that that's where we need to be. Council Cano.

Yes. Thank you.

Thank you so much for the eloquent presentation um from the three presenters. I I do actually agree with the local preference, especially the idea that you could work and live and want to be New York and have that same continuity. Um, I also, um, like the idea of having several options for the developers to choose from to work with the city and city council as well. Um, I am open to hearing the motion tonight from my fellow council member uh, regarding moving from 20 to 10. And I also appreciate how you did remind us as well during the presentation that if the AMI percentage is an issue, then project um by project, it could also come back to council. So we're not limited to the three-year intervals

to have to wait until another threeear cycle. So thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you.

So just to comment, couno, thank you for the comments. It sounds like if a developer were to say we we were to change the AMI requirement uh and the developer felt that uh what we had currently was too too challenging for them to make the project work. Uh it certainly wouldn't take away staff's ability to bring that project forward with an alternative means. Um so 50% doesn't work. They're suggesting 60% for for example. It doesn't preclude staff from bringing that project forward. uh and and simply identifying that even though the statute calls for 50%, they're asking for 60%, it's an alternative means of compliance, it's certainly something we consider. I think that was a kind of a point that you were making as well, Council Member Jorgens. Um we really have a housing crisis in the state of California. I mean, there's no other way to say it. We have a crisis. when you're looking at millions of homes that are not being built that need to be built, that is really one of the critical reasons why we have such an affordability issue uh here in the state of California. It's amazing and and I know if Mayor Ngi was standing here or sitting here, he would make the comment, but you know, after World War II, cuz I wasn't born yet, um we had, you know, thousands and thousands of troops coming back to the country and there was not enough housing to support the troops. We came upon the concept of let's build a lot of homes. They looked a lot alike, but they were smaller. You know, they were smaller, 1,500 foot homes that were affordable to folks that were coming back from the war. I I understand the cost of construction. I understand the high interest rates, but we continue to build and I know it makes it profitable for the developers. we continue to build, you know, 2,500, 3,500 foot homes that really are attractive to people that have those become

multi-generational homes. And I have no problem with that. Um, you know, it it it keeps that family nucleus together. But at some point, we need to really look at maybe smaller homes on smaller lots that then become really affordable to folks that are trying to get into the housing market. And maybe by reducing I mean my first home was 1,0 square feet. That was my first home, 1,0. And when you have a lot of kids, you got to start looking for another place to live. But uh 1,0 and we made it work and it was affordable. Um I don't know why we the state can't look at these type of constructions and and at some point do they not become more affordable for developers to u to move forward. on the issue of uh displacement and the issue of new, you know, preference to Newark residents. And I hadn't thought about this, Mr. Bun, but we do have a number of affordable projects around our city. I'm wondering if in adopting the ordinance that gives Newark preference and pre um on these units if we could apply that to units that subsequently become vacant at any one of these affordable uh complexes because it currently doesn't apply to them but could we apply it retroactively so as units become available in these unit uh in these developments that Newark applicants be given preference. Any thought on that?

I don't have uh an opinion as I sit here today. Um, based off that comment, I certainly um concur with that assessment. Uh, we'd be happy to review that item uh and come back. Uh, I would imagine that it would be largely dependent upon the nature of the project. To what extent did the city contribute funds? To what extent would the developer be willing to amend uh any funding agreements and I would only be looking at ones where we actually contributed financially to the project? Sure. Um, but we'd happy to look at that.

Okay. Excellent. Excellent. Any last comments? It sounds like um council member Gindoll that there's agreement to reduce the number of units down to 10. I think I heard that uh at least uh from the from the dis but it sounds like um with the alternative means of compliance that there is some flexibility on the AMI. Um so I would suggest if I may that we hold off on that item and give staff additional time to maybe look into that and see if there's some alternative proposals that they might want to uh bring forward to the council for consideration. Your thoughts? I concur with that point. I do have two further questions. Um do that and then go ahead and make a motion.

Okay. Thank you. Um one um how does how does all all of this interact with ADUs um being being built? Um, if if for example you had a project that was that had that was 19 units but seven of them were ADUs, even J8US, how how might this how might this work? And sorry I didn't I didn't let you know about this question ahead of time. [laughter] No, I thank you for the question. It's a good one keeping me sharp. Um, this as as worded only applies to primary dwelling units. It does not apply to accessory dwelling units. accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are exempt from payment of the housing impact fee.

Great. And it would it wouldn't change the numbers either. So if you had 20 units and eight of them were eight of them were ADUs, would that would that change that would that change that part of it? I know they're exempt because of state law, but in terms of calculating the whether they were whether they had to pay the um so whether they had to whether they had to build in in on site Artato, deputy community development director. Um so yes, I think those would be um accessory units. They're considered um they wouldn't be the principal units. So no, they wouldn't count. Okay. Only if it was 20 principal units.

Great. Um, so the the other the only other po point I wanted to make is that when they do pay fees, those are fees that we could use for for a more robust first-time home buyer program. Correct. Correct. Okay. Um, with that I'll be happy. Let me open up. Oh, yeah. [laughter] That that would be a good idea. Ladies and gentlemen,

I'm going to open up the the public hearing on this item. This is an opportunity for you to comment. um on this item. So, I'm going to open up the public hearing. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak to this item? I'll close the public um hearing and return it back to the council for a motion. Council Grindall.

Thank you, M. Mr. Mayor. the um I'd like to I'd like to move approval of the staff recommendation um with the exception of it of the there being 10 10 units or fewer fewer than 10 units instead of fewer than 20 units um throughout the throughout throughout the document in terms of the limitation of the application of the fee. Um just if I can just clarify. Sure. Um uh just so that it's clear for the record. So uh Council Member Gandalf 17.27 27.070 small project in Lou fees will now state that um and I'm just quoting a portion of it that the proposed res residential project has no more than instead of 19 10 dwelling units

to to be subject to the should be nine nine okay no more than nine dwelling units right city attorney yes council member Jorgens I'd like to second the motion great we have a motion and a second let's please vote And that passes unanimously. Thank you. Ordinance of the city council of the city of Newark amending section 1718030 of the New York Municipal Code and adding chapter 17.27 to the New New York Municipal Code to update the New York affordable housing program and affordable housing requirements. Thank you. Uh city uh manager, we're going to take a five-minute break.

Thank you for your patience, ladies and gentlemen. The next item is other business. Item F1 is wayful reading and by title only introduce an ordinance adding chapter 5.45 and adding chapter 5.50 to the New York Municipal Code to establish residential landlord and tenant relation relations regulations and a rent review program and adopt a resolution to amend the 2024 2026 banual budget and capital improvement plan to fund the emergency rental assistance program. Mr. Benoon.

Yes. Good evening, your honor, and members of the council. Uh item F1 is a recommendation from city staff to introduce two uh new ordinances to the city's municipal code. Uh this would include chapter 5.45, which would establish residential landlord and tenant re relations regulations. Uh that includes provisions related to residential evictions, relocation assistance, and anti-harassment. Uh it would also add chapter 5.50 to the New York municipal code, and this would establish a rent review ordinance. Uh tonight we have a presentation from our housing programs and policies manager, Mr. Michael Culum. Uh Mr. Coul, the floor is yours.

Thank you, honorable mayor and city councilors. Uh and Mr. Bonoon, our city manager. Um this presentation has some similar slides to the previous presentation and so I'll move through those more quickly. Um but this item is to introduce a the proposed ordinance. Staff will recommend that city council wave its full reading and only introduce by title um chapters 5.45 and 5.0. As Mr. Boon said um these establish resident landlord and tenant relations regulations, rent review. Um separately we are going to uh recommend that council adopt a resolution creating an emergency rental assistance program. and I'll go into what that is. Uh I um will touch quickly again on how this relates to our housing element displacement in Newark. Continuing with the theme from our public hearing item, how we engage the community and stakeholders for these proposed ordinances. Um what landlord and tenant relations, rent review and mediation, and emergency rental assistance are. Uh and then finally, how this relates to SQA next steps and staff's recommendations. I'm joined again this evening by Miss Christy Wong from Community Planning Collaborative. As I stated, California needs two and a half million homes. Most of our housing challenges come from our shortage of affordable homes, housing in general. We have our housing element. [laughter] We're in our sixth cycle. We need 1,874 new homes. Um, specifically, this item before you today is going to focus on the fourth goal um of our housing element to help people stay in their homes and communities. Um, while we are aiming to build new homes, we also recognize that we're not going to build almost 2,000 housing units overnight. And so, in the meantime, we also need to preserve the housing that we have and pro and protect the people that we have

who are vulnerable to displacement and homelessness. Um [clears throat] again we have quantified objectives. I group this um series of recommendations again under policies intended to reduce displacement and homelessness. Um as for these tenant protections as I'm kind of calling them as a as a bucket. Um I'll discuss related plans and studies. Housing element program H4.3 which concerns just cause eviction. Program H4.6 six, which concerns tenant stability, community and stakeholder input. Additional programs that we're recommending as a result of that community and stakeholder input, including anti-harassment, rent review, and and mediation, and emergency rental assistance. And then I'll go into the ordinance structure and uh the resolution. Goal four is to help people stay in their homes and communities. Um, it's a focus on anti-displacement and homelessness prevention. As I mentioned earlier this evening, city council endorsed the Alamina County Home Together Plan in 2022. A central pillar of which is homelessness prevention. Homelessness prevention is typically um administered by community development departments. And some of those strategies that the plan references are um shallow subsidies, which are kind of like a couple of months of maybe $500,000 to support households with housing expenses, rent, utilities. Um it's not a one-time payment. It's not forever. Um but it helps people get through um a kind of like longer uh hard time. um right to counsel, which is um providing tenants with legal assistance in the event of an eviction or some kind of housing dispute um or helping to pay

for that legal assistance and emergency rental assistance, which is one-time assistance in paying rent and housing expenses. You're now familiar with the displacement study from item E1 which found that as a result of increased housing demand coupled with wage stagnation and um we have a 20% increase in the number of cost burden households and overcrowding with households doubling or tripling up. Households of color have felt this squeeze disproportionately and 5% of Newark Unified school districts students have experienced homelessness in the 2021 2022 school year. I want to take this presentation to unpack that a little more. Um the displacement study saw that 5% figure in 2021 2022. Um we see similar rates today um as reported by data from the 2024 2025 school year. Um, but what it means to experience homelessness as reported for students is different from how homelessness is counted by certain other agencies. Um, it really asking how many people are experiencing homelessness depends on which definition you use. Um, HUD, the federal department of housing and Urban Development defines homelessness as either living in a place not meant for human habitation, like on a street or in a homeless shelter. um every two years happening this Thursday, January 22nd, volunteers across America fan out across their cities on a single night to count all of the people who are unsheltered or in emergency shelters. This is called the point in time count or the PIT. Um when the PIT was last done in 2024, 76 people were counted as experiencing homelessness in New York. The bar graph on the bottom left of your screen shows the PIT count over the last several years. Blue is unsheltered uh people. Yellow is sheltered people. They're in an emergency shelter or

homeless shelter. The yellow count has stayed fairly consistent. Um it's probably tracking with the bed count at the second chance shelter which has a maximum capacity of about 34 beds. However, if you go and you ask the US Department of Education what it means to be homeless, you get a similar sounding but significantly different answer. The McKini Vento Act, which is a federal piece of legislation, um defines homelessness as living somewhere not meant for human habitation or in a shelter, but also includes several other types of accommodation, including doubling up with other households, which we know from our housing element research is common in Newark, as well as staying in hotels or motel, kind of temporary transitionary housing. um school districts, the federal department of education use that McKini Vento definition which is broader. When you include the number of people doubling up in your definition of homelessness, you see a lot more people experiencing homelessness. That's not necessarily they're experiencing homelessness, you know, all the time 100% with the pit count. That's just one night. Could be one night theoretically that someone's experiencing homelessness. When you look at the school district figures, that's students who experienced homelessness at any point over that 2024 2025 school year. Doesn't necessarily mean they were homeless for the entirety of the school year. Um, but it's helpful to look at this data. It's often um reported in in racial figures. Um what we see um is that of um is that Hispanic or Latino experience students experience homelessness at disproportionately higher rates than students of other races. Um of Latino students experiencing homelessness in New York, 93% or roughly 137 students were doubled up at some point in the 2425 school year. For Asian students,

that was 84% of of a of homeless Asian students or 27 students. um we're double doubling up. We're in a um with 15% in a temporary shelter. And of white students um about 12 white students experienced homelessness in New York last year. In total, that's about 176 students who were doubled up. Um that doesn't include other members of the students household who were doubled up with them, parents, younger siblings. on its own that 76 number is that's 176 is 100 more than the pit count caught. So whether or not you agree that doubling up should be included in the definition of homelessness, you can still take it as a sign of extreme vulnerability. We have 176 children, likely others, um who are living off of the kindness of friends, family are very close to the point of becoming literally homeless. Um, an additional data point that we h that we look at in light of displacement um is a the Bay Area eviction study which was published by our regional government MTCAG in September. That study found that for every 43 households in Alamina County, one will experience an eviction lawsuit. Um, so that's actually where they've received an eviction notice. It's going to court. In Newark in 2023, there were 95 eviction lawsuits or one in 48 renter households. So, we're doing a little a little better than the county. Um, but still um that's significant. Um, and we see that eviction rates continue to increase now at a 10-year high. um they dropped significantly in 2020, 2021 and the years after because of the co um moratorum on evictions, but they've now shot up um and are exceeding where they were um by 10 years ago significantly.

Um and then finally, what I'll state with this slide is that these court records represent only a fraction of displacements. um what you might more commonly think of as an eviction, your landlord saying you're evicted, but if they don't actually issue the paperwork, you just choose to leave, that doesn't get picked up in these figures. So again, it's it's thought by many that these numbers are an underount of what you would commonly think of as evictions. With that in mind, our housing element program H4.3 commits to developing an ordinance to try to um put some guard rails around evictions. Um the program would prohibit landlords from ending a teny, a lease or convict or or evicting a tenant without a specific reason. Evicting a tenant for a specific reason is commonly referred to as just cause. the just cause is that reason. So we have one primary quantified objective for this um which is to develop and implement that ordinance. Um we aim to um through that support 15 low-income residents each year to stay in their homes.

Michael, just I'm sorry. Real quickly on that slide, um 1482 expires in 2029. I'm sorry. Yes. 2030. Yep. Thank you for catching that.

Thank you. Yep. Um, so the tenant protections act was established in 2019, also known as a AB1482 and it establishes several rights and obligations of residential landlords and tenants concerning the following. The first is eviction proceedings. Um, it creates this definition of just cause which I just went over and it defines procedures and noticing requirements for terminating a residential teny. The second is relocation assistance. Um, establishing compensation standards that residential landlords must offer tenants when terminating a qualifying teny or lease. And the third is a rent cap, establishing a maximum limit that a residential landlord can increase during a 12-month period. Um, that limit is 5% change in the cost of living. um 5 5% more um plus a 5% change in the cost of living cumulatively 10% whichever is lower. Um importantly AB1482 will sunset on January 1st of 2030 unless otherwise extended by the state legislature. Um the way that AB1 1482 defines just cause again is a written reason for terminating a tenency of 12 months or more. That 12-month figure is key. Um, and um, it splits the reason up into a no fault or an at fault eviction. No fault refers to no fault of the tenant, meaning the tenant has um, not violated any terms of their lease. An example of a no fault eviction could be the owner wanting to move back into the property, deciding not to rent it anymore simply, or their intent to demolish or substantially rehabilitate the property. At fault refers to an eviction at the fault of the tenant. Um such as violating the terms of their lease, not paying rent, um causing or permitting

nuisances, criminal activity on the property, something of that nature. Um AB1482 establishes several noticing requirements. Um um in the event of a curable lease violation um a landlord shall issue the notice of violation with the opportunity to cure prior to issuing a notice of termination. So say um um something in your lease says that you can't have guests for more than four nights in a row. Um landlord takes notice of this. Oftentimes it might be a curable violation within your lease to have that guest leave. um they can't simply terminate you because five nights have passed with a guest and you're out. Um similarly, you have to notice the tenant of their right to that relocation assistance. Um you have to notice um these requirements in the rental agreement, the lease. Um and if you don't include these notices um at the appropriate times, then um you can't evict the person. you would have to restart that eviction process. Um, for AB1482 and relocation assistance, in the event of a no fault eviction, the landlord should compensate the tenants with one month's rent or to wave the equivalent in rent at the effective um um type of notice of termination. So, they either my rent's $1,000, I wish um they pay you $1,000, or they wave that last month's rent. um um that payment has to be made within 15 days of sending the notice. Um there's a catch there that you're paying somebody before they actually leave the property. That's a risk to the landlord. So, if the tenant does fail to vacate on time, um the landlord has the right to recover that money as damages. Um and again, this only applies to no fault evictions. It doesn't apply to the at fault

evictions. Um I'll move on to um program H4.6 six um which has some overlap. This program commits to supporting tenant stability through minimum lease terms and relocation assistance. Uh the quantified objective for this again is passing an ordinance um um outlining those terms for relocation assistance and as well as commonly like for example how much a landlord could charge for a security deposit. Um there have been some recent um laws related to tenant stability that have passed. Not only AB1482 um but also AB12 passed in 2024. Um this bill limits security deposits to one month's rent although landlords who own no more than two properties can charge up to two months rent. Um and again as I stated AB1482 establishes those legal statements for for paying relocation assistance. one um similar result of AB1482 um because it only applies to units that have it because it only applies to tenencies that have a 12-month lease, um the 12-month lease has now become a kind of industry standard within rental properties. Um so whereas um we might have previously considered as part part of this housing element program setting a required minimum lease term, a landlord has to agree to to rent a property for a minimum of 12 months. Um that's less necessary now because it's become an industry standard. Um I'll now turn it over to Miss Wong to discuss how we engage stakeholders.

Great. Hi again. Thank nice to nice to be able to be here uh all evening. Um so we um we did in 2024 early 2025 we worked with the city to do outreach and and hear from the community. Um so it was a mix of virtual and in-person activities. Um we went to Newark days uh with Stephen Turner. Um we held online and in-person workshops. Um, we did an online survey in both English and in Spanish. Um, and we did and we had a mix of other formats. Um, we also spread the word for each of these activities through Newark News, text mygov, the city websites, and the um, the city's Facebook page. Um, and um, really tried to put out the word that we were looking for people's input um, and and hear from a variety of different groups. And then we also did some targeted outreach and meetings with um individual stakeholder groups and we had some very um good response on on that front in terms of when when we were um identified some specific groups to talk to. So, we worked with the New York promator um to have a meeting with several um Spanish-speaking residents um and had conducted facilitated that entire meeting in Spanish um and got a lot of great feedback out of that conversation. Um we had one-on-one meetings with um the tenant stakeholder groups listed above um as well as uh several property owner stakeholder groups. So that included rental housing associations, um, apartment, the California Apartment Association, realtors, um, in order to make sure that we were hearing any concerns that they might have, things that they want to see from the city, um, and and other feedback that would be

relevant to to this policym. Um, and so what did we hear? um across uh all groups. We heard a lot of support for tenant protections um around wanting to protect the the community in Newark. Uh understanding that that rents were rising for uh all income levels and wanting to support the stability of the households that are in Newark. um that was, you know, we we heard that from landlords and property owners as well as tenants that they, you know, they everyone has um good feelings about this community and wants to be able to support the ability for um residents to remain. Um and so AC the most popular tenant supports that we heard were for emer emergency financial assistance programs um producing more affordable housing and um among tenants uh rent control or um rent stabilization. Um on the tenants side among the Spanish speaking participants, we also heard a lot of um interest in uh protections related to habitability issues and relationships with property owners and landlords. Um and then on the property owner side, uh we heard some opposition to rent control and just cause regulations that exceed AB1482. So there was a lot of acceptance. I think that that is that is the environment in which uh their property owners are operating. Um and while there was there was some curiosity and interest in what the city was proposing um after we've presented the city's proposals, they generally agreed that that what was being proposed was moderate and and not um problematic for them. Um, and I would say there's general feedback supporting the city,

partnering with uh services provider to work with uh households in in the city. Um, and one thing that's not mentioned up here, but the planned um inspection building inspection program was something that we heard a lot of enthusiasm for as well. I think that's all I have here.

Thank you, Christie. Um so we've now told you uh what our housing element uh commits us and aspires us to. Uh we've told you what relevant state laws, research, studies, best practices um are currently in place. We've told you what we've heard from our community and from our stakeholders. Um, based off of all of that information, um, staff are recommending an ordinance to create these two new chapters within New York Municipal Code, as well as to establish the emergency rental assistance program. Um, I'll walk you through um, chapter 5.45 first, followed by 5.50, and then finally the RAP program. [clears throat] Um, so 5.45 45 is proposed to be titled the residential landlord and tenant relations ordinance. Um the purpose and need of this ordinance is to implement the city's housing element um and achieve our quantified objectives to help people stay in their homes and communities. Um this um primary primarily functions to continue to ensure that tenant protections and supports apply in the event that AP1482 does expire on January 1st, 2030. Um secondly, uh this chapter helps to clarify landlord and tenant rights and obligations under existing state law. Much of what this ordinance includes for Newark's municipal code is already in state law. By putting it into our code with applicable supports and noticing helps those landlords and tenants understand their rights and obligations. Um there are a few notable exceptions to this ordinance um that are similar to um state law and which we would incorporate into New York Municipal Code. Um so I'm just going to name those first before I tell you exactly what the ordinance

does. Um but this ordinance would not apply to um short-term transitional lodging like hotels, motel, those operators would be able to remove an occupant if they overstayed or were violating the terms of their occupancy. Similarly, school and university dormitories. Um, a second or a third rather example are really a roommate situation um where um the owner has a a tenant roommate that they share bathroom or kitchen facilities. It's not working out anymore. Maybe you want to move in your partner. Um in that situation, the the owner occupant would still have um the right to um terminate the teny without these additional steps. um single family homes um would be subject to this ordinance. That's pretty different from um AB1482. Um there still would be some exceptions though in the event that the single family home is owner occupi owner occupied and the owner is renting three or more units or bedrooms including ADUs for those with questions about ADUs. Um, so in that case, if you are an owner occupant, but you're you're renting out a lot of rooms in your home, um, you're more so you're deriving a significant amount of impact of of income from that. It's a little separate from the kind of roommate situation. Um, and then the other big one that I'll mention here, just to call out from these on the screen, is housing that's been issued a certificate of occupancy in the last 15 years. That's newer housing. Um that 15-year trigger is quite common in um state law. Um it's an AB1482 and we've seen it in other recently proposed and passed bills um

that concern tenant protections. Um um so these are some of the types of housing and living situations that would be exempt from the ordinance. Um what the ordinance actually does is it establishes these definitions of just cause including at fault and no fault. within um Newark Municipal Code in line with AB1482. Some examples of at fault, default and payment of rent, breaching your lease, causing a nuisance, committing waste is another term. Um um and then uh the tenants's refusal to execute a written extension or renewal of the lease, criminal activity, um assigning or subleting in violation of the tenants's lease, things of that nature. [snorts] Um, examples of no faults include again the owner's intent to reoccupy the residential property. Um, there are some guard rails around this. The owner can't decide to move in for a week just to get rid of a tenant and then move back out and bring in somebody else at a higher rent. Um, the owner has to occupy it for a minimum of 12 continuous months. And they also have to move in within 90 days of of the uh the tenant vacating. Um um other examples include withdrawal of the property from the rental market. Um under law, we can't require um a property owner to rent their property. So they do have the right to simply decide not to rent it anymore. Um in the event that a government order requires that or finds that the unit is inhabitable or needs to be vacated, that would be no fault. Um, and if the owner intends to demolish or sub substantially remodel the property, that would be no fault. And again, there are guard rails around rehabilitation, remodeling. Um, that has to be a specific standard. You can't decide you're going to repaint and evict your tenant. Um, it has to be a substantial remodel of 30 more days.

Um the ordinance would establish um a relocation assistance requirement for no fault evictions. Um that part is similar to AB1482 where we expand beyond AB1482 is that um AB1482 requires payment of one month's rent. We are recommending council require two months rent. um whatever rent is in effect at the the time the notice of termination is sent. Um the payment should be provided within 15 days of sending that notice of termination. Um alternatively, the landlord could um compensate the the tenant with one month and then wave the final month's rent. Um some additional provisions um if the tenant fails to vacate after um um their deadline again the landlord can recover that relocation assistance as damage. Um and if the landlord fails to provide um relocation assistance um then that notice of termination is void. The tenant uh cannot be evicted. Um the ordinance also establishes several requirements for the landlord to notice their tenants. Um um the ordinance would require that all landlords send um a notice of their tenants rights within 60 days of the effective date of this ordinance whenever entering or renewing a lease. Um when sending that notice of termination and as any other such time as may be required by the city such as if this chapter is significantly amended. Um that notification should be in at least three languages. Um and she'll notice tenants of their right to just cause eviction protections, right to relocation assistance. And even though it's not part of our code, um we would still require that notice to include um limits on rent increases as they are in effect per AB1482. Um,

finally, as it relates to noticing requirements, um, landlords would also be required to, um, inform the community development department when sending a notice of of of termination and then to update the community development department on the outcome of that termination within 60 days of sending the notice. The reason for this is one for enforcement measures, but two, as I stated, we don't have great data, great understanding of how many evictions are actually taking place. If we require um landlords simply to let us know when they send a notice of termination, we have no way of finding out what the outcome actually was. We have no way of measuring whether or not this policy has been effective. Um and so we think that um this followup, this 60-day followup is also essential to effective management um and monitoring of the policy in the program. Um I'll take this slide just to walk you through um two possible scenarios of just cause at fault and just cause no fault eviction under this ordinance. Um to start with at fault, we'll say um Lena has rented a home to Thomas for the past 3 years. In October, Thomas stopped paying rent. Lena has just cause to terminate Thomas's tenency at fault. Lena may evict Thomas, but she does still have to send him the notice and the city with the reason of termination and a deadline, a date to vacate. On the other hand, we can look at an example with Sarah and Beatatrice. Sarah inherited her mother's home 5 years ago. Since then, she's rented it to Beatatrice, who's abided by all terms of her lease. However, Sarah's daughter and grandchildren are now moving back to Newark and would like to live in the home. Sarah has just caused to der to terminate Batrice's teny at no fault. In this case, Sarah, these actions that you see in the these actions that you see on the screen and and more in that chapter

5.450 4550 um would be considered an affirmative defense for the tenant should eviction actions be taken out. So, um what that means is if the landlord attempts to evict the tenant at fault, um or no fault, um and the tenant has um evidence of any of these actions or behaviors being taken out against them, um the tenant could use that information in their defense against the eviction. Um, all of the reasons are not listed here and these are just kind of like short form. But I do want to make specific notice that the item um concerning interference with the tenants's right to privacy specifically goes on to include asking information about the tenants's residency or citizenship status or refusing to accept equivalent um alternatives to a social security number or a tax ID number. something demonstrating residency qualifications to be a tenant. Um we felt that that was important to include specifically for Newark as a welcoming city. Um and then the final component of um of this chapter is a property registration and um small fee. The ordinance would require landlords to register their rental properties with the city provided that rental property doesn't fall into any of those exclusions. [clears throat] This would be a very limited rental registry with the intention of really being a light touch and not invasive on the landlord's privacy, not to create a significant administrative burden for the landlord um or for the city. Um, at this point we're thinking that um an appropriate fee um for this registration would be about $25 per unit. Um, your um actions

today don't actually include approving that fee. Um, if the ordinance is approved, we will return to you with an amendment to the master fee schedule with a final fee, but we think it would be something in the range of $25 just based on um um research that we've done with other jurisdictions with similar ordinances and programs. And that fee would go towards covering the cost of implementing these ordinances, the registry, and providing um landlords and tenants with um support and understanding their rights and obligations. Um here I I briefly have kind of compared the significant areas in which um staff's recommendations differ from AB 1482. Um the rent cap is not proposed today to be codified in New York Municipal Code. Um though the noticing requirements letting um tenants know about AB1482's rent cap would still apply. Um [clears throat] but we are not proposing that Newark cap rents. Um that being said, rents are deacto still capped so long as um the law AB1482 is in place. Um next, single family homes generally speaking um are subject to this ordinance except when owner occupied um and not renting um several rooms. Um we expand the requirement for relocation assistance from one month to two months rent. Um and whereas AB1482 doesn't have any property registration requirement um or support to tenants and landlords in compliance with its requirements. Um the city would um assess a modest annual fee to landlords to help provide resources and counseling um for support. [clears throat] Um I think I'll I'll I'll pause there briefly um before I go into chapter 5.45. Are there any clarifying

questions? If I'll start down at this end of the room, council Katachio or Jorgens, any questions at this point. Down this end. Yes. Council member uh Eve Little Marie. I'm sorry. Quick question. Don't worry. The name is small. The name is small. Wow. I'll never say that a second time. Quick question. Um how many rental units do we think we have in Newark? [clears throat] Um about a third of our housing stock is rental units. Um, I did this math with the city attorney in advance of this presentation. Um, if you if you um maybe give me a moment while the council is deliberating, I can come back to that and get you that figure.

I need it right now. No, [laughter] I'm just kind of curious with the $25, you know, and also a lot of people never need the mic. Um, a lot of people don't have it. they just have two houses and they rent [clears throat] it to somebody else. How many are we not counting? And that's another thing I was just thinking about because if you have two houses or you know the back, how would you how do we patrol who you know because there's a lot of stuff people just sell you know on the side a lot of a garage units are being rented out and stuff like that. So that's one of my concerns of how do we really find out?

Yeah, thank you for that question. Currently, um Newark's business licensing requirements require um rental property owners to register their property if they have more than three units in town. That could be a threeunit building. Um it could be three separate units. Um but there's a lot of of units that, you know, are single family homes or maybe a duplex that wouldn't be be caught there. Um, but what this ordinance requires is that if you have a single family home or a duplex that you want to um, evict somebody from, um, if you don't register that unit with the city, that eviction could be deemed void. And so it is in the interest of the property owner to register um, the property. And with that, they will get access to um [clears throat] resources and advice that the city will be making available um using those fees.

Thank you. A couple quick questions. Uh can you go to slide 33? Yes. I want to revisit Lena H. So, she may begin the eviction process, but you also indicated earlier on in your presentation, she does she have to give him an opportunity to cure that situation as you described it here? I think that that would depend on um um the lease, the rental agreement between Lena and Thomas and probably the um how late Thomas is um in paying rent specific circumstance.

Um I appreciate that uh we're going to give uh tenants two months. I I really appreciate that because I don't think one month um gives a family enough time, especially in this rental market to even try to find something that uh will meet their financial needs. So, I appreciate the fact that we're looking at a two-month uh situation. Landlords that fail to comply with any of these rules and regulations, will they be subject, Mr. Poon, to any kind of administrative fines? Who's and who's going to if that's the case, who's going to manage that?

Thanks. Um thank you for that question. I I I do have a later slide about that, but um just to answer quickly, um yes, any violation of um this ordinance would be considered a misdemeanor. And in New York Municipal Code, misdemeanor are punishable by up to a $1,000 fine um which may be enforced by the city attorney, but that's a criminal action, right, Mr. Manoon? Misdemeanor, up to $1,000 fine. Are we looking at an alternative administrative fine as a as a substitute to a misdemeanor fine?

Um, yeah, it's a case- by case basis. Uh, staff would be entitled to under the law to change it and enforce it under uh the infraction. Uh, so that would be an administrative process. Um, the mayor's correct that would be a criminal process for a $1,000 fine uh for misdemeanor, but uh as I said, uh staff would be able to elect remedies and go with a lower uh administrative fine uh if staff felt that was appropriate. And and that's what I would suggest moving forward as we look at this. We look at more of an administrative fine process versus a criminal process. Thank you very much. Go. Thank you. Very good. I'm sorry, Council Gall.

Not at all. [clears throat] got got a few questions. Um so um this only applies to tendencies of 12 months or more. Correct. And that's going forward or ever, right? So if someone's been in in their unit already 12 months, then these then and without the exceptions that you specified, this this would this would apply. [snorts] This would apply for um all tenencies of 12 months as currently, right? Um exactly. Even if they they

well so if next month if this comes into effect um soon after it's come coming into effect, it's only been a month. Um but the tendency has been has been 12 months or more. So it applies. Yes. Thank you.

And that's consistent with AB1482 as well. I was going to ask if the state had the same rule. Um the um first of the the emergency rental assistance program comment first. It's a fantastic idea. I think it's a it's such a it's a relatively small cost that will keep someone from being homeless. This is a this is a no-brainer. it's going to the cost of us dealing with people who are homeless and challenges involved with. So if if if a program like this can keep people in their homes, that's that's fantastic. So my question about that is is the money that you've proposed the 250,000 enough. Um, and I guess just to en encourage that if if it turns out not to be, uh, this council member would be would be interested in reviewing that going forward because I I think this this can be a very important, um, program for our community.

Thank you. If I may, might I address that in one of my later slides? Absolutely. Yeah. Thank you.

Um, let's see. Um, I think you addressed this a little bit, but h how would this these new rules and program be marketed? Are we going to are we going to send uh are we going to send this out? Um, you know, and because some of these requirements are certainly going to be new to people. Um, we we don't even, you know, Newark has has traditionally not even required a business license even for even for a four or five unit project. So, we don't really know who we don't even have their addresses exactly. So, um which is my next question, but um [snorts] the um so h how how are people going to be let to be aware of this and in particular the emergency rental assistance program? I people in the state where they're facing eviction and homelessness may not be firing on all cylinders. So having having a way for them to for them to know about that now I think would be really great. So um that's my question.

Thank you for the question. It's a very good one. Uh we want people to know about this certainly. Um I think we would approach marketing through several different means. Um we have our new Newark housing web page. We have the city web page obviously, but we're also very soon to open the New York Family Resource Center um which is going to be a tremendous um place for getting information out. But um I've also coordinated with my colleagues within the rack and community services department to discuss using that as an actual place for people to meet and I'll discuss this in the rent review and mediation section of this presentation um to actually provide services directly um related to this ordinance to get information out coordination with existing housing service providers who operate in Newark in the region. direct housing providers, the Fremont Family Housing, Fremont Family Resource Center, which operates as the the the regional kind of housing services center for southern Alama County. Um, and we could consider other means um as recommended advised by by council, the city manager, and our community and public relations.

I'll go ahead and recommend talking to Promator. Yes, of course. Um, we'll certainly follow up with all of our stakeholders.

Great. Um, thank you for that. the um the you you call this not a full this the the the 20 $25 fee the registration program. Um you call that not a full registration program. How is it different and why not why don't why don't we want that? Um, rental registries have um not been a very popular mechanism um among property owners um because they require a lot of information, a lot of followup, a lot of monitoring um that I think can seem um invasive for the administrator of that registry, in this case the um it takes a lot of work um to maintain that. Um and I think um those registries can include a lot of additional data that may not be might be nice to have information but may not necessarily be um um entirely necessary for us to implement these ordinances. So, for example, I think it's unlikely that our rental registry would uh require rental property owners to report to us on the rent um that they are charging each tenant. Um we may not require them to um report precisely on um the size of the residential unit, what other kind of like features it might include like parking, outdoor space, things of that nature. Um I think more so our rental registry would be more limited in requiring the um name and contact information of the property owner. Um the obviously the address um and maybe

the unit size. Um but we're we're at this point we're we're starting small and those other changes could be something that we decide to um consider in the future if we think it's warranted.

Got it. and and you wouldn't need council action on those changes. That's just administrative change. If if if you were to add, for example, I I do wonder whether you're going to find that it's helpful to know the rent that's being charged because you're you do have some rent stabilization included in this. So, um you may you may I I like the idea of keeping it simple. Um there's going to be resistance anyway. Um, so but you could add that without having to come back to council for for for that kind of direction. The ordinance is worded in such a way that we we could add that without returning to council, though I think it may certainly be advisable for us to do so regardless.

Any changes to the fee would necessitate a council review at to that extent. Uh, no, I was referring to what was included in the applic in the form essentially in the form in the process. We'd be happy to change it administratively. We would of course work with our council. Uh my comment was more about the fee if there was a desire to amend the fee to capture those increased costs resulting from the extended application.

Understood. Um okay, sorry, I'm almost done. Um back to ADUs. Um how does how does this apply to ADUs that are in that are in the rental market um and want to be withdrawn? Um you have many people buy ADU are building ADUs. they're using it as their uh guest room or you know studio or something like that that they they're not putting it on the market. So this this does apply to the um ADU.

Generally speaking, it would not apply to an ADU or a JADU. Um it would only apply if the um property owner was an owner was um well it would only apply if the property owner was not living there, right? and was renting out like the ADU as well as multiple homes with or multiple rooms within the single family home. Well, that's not an unusual circumstance. So,

it's certainly not. No, no. But I think in in the event that some of the examples that you were sharing where someone's using it as an extra room, a place for guests, for in-laws, um, and you wanted to have that space back, you would be able to do that generally speaking.

Great. Um, okay. So, um I think that's Oh, what you indicate that there's going to be I hope this may be something later, but you're going to be um employing a a contractor to do to manage the program. How much is how much is their fee? How much are you expecting that to cost? Um we have done some preliminary research into this and um the they're um usually US Department of Housing and Urban Development certified housing counselors who do this work and they operate on a fee for service basis. Um and so that's how we um have part that's part of how we kind of came to this $25 per unit registration fee for this um to help cover those costs. So it would be a fee for service. it would be um it would not have a fiscal impact on the city.

Oh, thank you. And I know there's more uh presentation u coming. Are there any other follow-up questions on the portion that we've heard thus far? Okay, please.

Thank you. Um so the uh second component of this ordinance is rent review. Um again um um we did hear during the stakeholder engagement process that um there was a lot of interest in amongst tenants in a rent cap or stabilization ordinance that wasn't part of our housing element. Um rent stabilization rent caps are very unpopular among landlords. Um but we have um um instead kind of pivoted to recommending this rent review and mediation component to provide additional resources for both tenants and landlords to discuss kind of air out grievances around rent increases and help to address that conflict. Um the way that this ordinance would work um is that a tenant can seek rent review um whenever a landlord proposes to increase their rent by more than 5% in a single 12-month period. So um if they do 5% in April and then they want to do another 2.5% cost of living increase in July um the tenant would be eligible to request rent review. Um similarly um um in order to do so the tenant has to submit that request to the community development director. In practice that would be a fee for service contractor. um they have to do so within 15 calendar days of receiving the notice of rent increase. Um the first step would be that the tenant and the landlord would engage in consiliation um where they provide relevant information, exchange proposals, engage in that discussion. If they come to a resolution during consiliation, that's great. They can independently choose to formalize that agreement um in a new form concerning the rent increase. The city would not be a party. Um if they

don't resolve that dispute, the tenant would be uh entitled to request mediation. Um that's a um a much more formal and higher um standard. Um however um this mediation would still be non-binding. Um that's consistent with what we see from other jurisdictions in the Bay Area and Alama County. Um if the landlord failed to appear at either consiliation or mediation, the rent increase would be void. Uh similar to the noticing for just cause, the landlords would have to notice their tenants of um the availability of rent review. Um at the same time that they send the the notice of rent increase, um it would have to be available in three languages. Um and if they fail to send that notice, the rent increase would be void. Um this would have a separate um registration fee. Again, small um this is something that administratively we have to kind of break it up. Um but that registration fee would be would be minor. um and help the city to um recoup the costs of um these administrative systems and um covering the cost of consiliation and mediation if needed. Um we would use these combined fees um from both of those registration sources to contract with um one or more HUD certified housing counselors with experience in Alama County to provide tenants and landlords with resources and counseling. Um the councelor would prepare an annual report for the city on services rendered. Um and the ordinances would include language certifying that any va v violation of um these rent increase um requirements would again be

an affirmative defense for the tenant in an eviction lawsuit. Um um and again it's it's as I stated um violation would be considered a misdemeanor publish punishable punishable by fine as currently worded in the ordinance. Um um and to the next finally um we are proposing that uh council allocate funds for the establishment of an emergency rental assistance program or RAP. Um this would support tenants with one-time small grants for housing expenses including rent, utilities, security deposits. Um these would provide um housing stability and reduce episodic homelessness kind of brief instances entrances into homelessness at a very low fiscal impact to the city. Um somewhere probably in the range of $3 to $7,000 typically. um we'll work sub subsequently to figure out what that maximum and minimum amount of assistance is. Um and so the request today is to allocate um at least $200,000 for direct financial assistance and up to $50,000 for program administration. That would probably be a three-year contract. Um in practice, looking at other jurisdictions, um the actual contract value would be a good deal lower. Um, but for the sake of not having to come back to you, we are requesting an allocation of up to $50,000 for that program admin. Um, Newark residents currently have access to an RAP program through Seasons of Sharing, which is a a nonprofit um providing services to Alama County. Um, that program is administered by Echo Housing, who does a lot of work here in Newark and other parts of the county. Um, and Seasons of Sharing makes available grants of up to $3,000. Um, the challenge, however, is that, um, Seasons of Sharing is really significantly oversubscribed. Um, and

the program administratively is very underresourced. They only have enough money to support about 20 households a week countywide. Um, so getting at um a kind of question of whether or not $200,000 is sufficient um for the need in Newark, that's very difficult to say because the way the current program works is the hotline opens for 20 minutes every Monday morning. People call and leave a voicemail and the first 20 callers are accepted into the program. So, there's so many people um that are likely trying to get access to the system. Um um but we don't know exactly how many we don't know specifically how many are in New York. Um and then additionally, Newark has does have some specific experience with this because um an RAP program was made available um again in partnership with the county during the CO 19 pandemic when a lot of people were out of work and struggling to make rent. Um, this program going back to our stakeholder engagement process was really popular among both tenants and landlords. Um, as tenants get the money to stay housed and landlords get the money that they would otherwise um um not be able to recover. [clears throat] Um, so staff recommend establishing this local emergency rental assistance program for New York tenants. It would provide these small grants to eligible households for qualifying expenses. It would be administered by a HUD certified counselor and it would utilize funds um from the city's affordable housing impact fee fund. Um it would be governed by administrative guidelines and updated as program needs change. Um um you can I you know I kind of almost want to request that the council consider this as something as a pilot program. um we will assess um the the spend rate of that $200,000

um and return to council with a report on um the status of those funds um the outcomes of the program and recommendations on how and whether to proceed. Um so if adopted by c by city council the ordinance um would go into effect on Tuesday May 1st 2026. We are delaying that intentionally um to give us time to contract with that um HUD certified counselor um um um in order to prepare and publish all of the required noticing forms, do all of the marketing, prepare the um program guidelines and other resources. We don't want any landlords um to like walk into a violation. Um, we want to make sure that this rolls out smoothly. So, the ordinance would go into effect on Tuesday, May 1st, and then landlords would have another two months to notice the tenants of their rights under this ordinance. Um and then annually staff will report to council on the effectiveness of the rent review program, the status of the fees collected, use of the RAP funds, and um we hope to be able to use the the findings from those reports and the data to consider additional displacement and homelessness prevention activities as part of um the forthcoming homeless action plan. H [clears throat] um staff's recommendations would establish these three programs. They would have a minimal fiscal impact on the city. The RAP program would be funded by the affordable housing impact fee fund which has nearly $29 million available to spend. Um and then the rent review and mediation and uh counseling um for the tenant landlord relations ordinance would be administered on a fee for service basis. Um this these recommendations are exempt from SQA. Um and so we recommend that

you adopt this ordinance adding chapters 5.45 and 5.50 and approve the resolution amending um the bianual budget and capital improvement plan to appropriate funds for the RAP program. Colleagues, before [clears throat] I ask for questions, comments, I want to ask is there anybody from the public that has questions, comments on this item? Okay. Now come back to the dis questions, comments. Council member Jorgens.

Yeah. So on the uh you said [clears throat] that uh staff is going to report to council on effectiveness of this uh you know route review and mediation. You know how should we be thinking about success? Do we have any metrics? Um how how are we going to be measuring success on this program?

Um thank you for the question. Um that program because it's new, it's not part of our our housing element, it doesn't have a clear quantified objective. Um but the quantified objectives um for other programs in that kind of group, they generally aim to assist about 15 to 20 households per year. Um so I would preliminarily um aim for assisting 15 to 20 households per year in staying in their homes and we will um fully have the data from this these these eviction and rent increase noticing reports to be able to measure that.

All right. And then uh you know we don't have you know a potential HUDcertified housing counselor for the program yet. What what's a timeline that we would say okay we need to have this in place by this date for us to be able to implement this program? I think we would proceed immediately with um seeking out that that counselor. Um we um engaged some as part of the stakeholder engagement process and we were also referred to others through that process. So, we certainly have some um folks in mind, but we didn't want to make a a predetermined decision.

All right. And I'm glad that we've had those initial conversations um because it's, you know, obviously easier to uh meet our timeline goals if there's the work's already mostly been done. Um really appreciate um the presentation as a whole. Really glad to see us going beyond uh kind of the state law, especially when it comes to the single family houses. I think some real creative solutions to uh really protect our residents. So, I'm really really glad to see a lot of that there. Thank you. Questions on this side? Yes. Council member Eve Marie Little.

Just a quick question. You know, back to my question about communication. This is going to be a hard one. I've rented at my place for four or five years. I have a good relationship with my landlord. You know, how would I know about this information? How and I know it's just once again reaching out to the community. That's a big thing. Not today, not tomorrow, but that's just something we have to be aware of. Maybe Colleen, we could add this into the the quarterly that we do and just be aware of it. And I think a lot of this is the language barrier for a lot of people.

Um, so that's my only con. I mean, everything's great. My only concern is we have to make sure we communicate this information. What I can get mediation, I can talk. I know I didn't know about the 2.5% increase. I didn't know about the 5%. I'm a renter. So, this is information. I would like to figure out a way that we could get it out to our residents efficiently and things of that sort. Thank you. Yes, we will be. Okay. Yeah, there's no right or wrong. I have to say this is just something a pleasure. Thank you, Council Member Jordans. Anything further? Gindel, I'm sorry. It's It's late. [laughter] It's late. [clears throat] Been here for a year. Yes.

Um I just want to say um because I neglected to the last presentation, both these presentations have been very well organized and very informative. they there's a lot of information and it takes time to to get through it but just wanted to really thank you for that that work. So um other than that I don't have any further questions at this point. Thank you. I have a couple questions couple comments. Can you go back to slide 38 please?

Yes. I worry about this one from the standpoint I understand the the concept and from the perspective of you know people working collaboratively together they'll reach an outcome that's beneficial to all but we've heard of situations uh specifically up in San Francisco for example that uh landlords will go to uh extraordin ordinary means to to remove a tenant. Um, so though the tenant may raise issues regarding rent increases, for example, we heard of situations where landlords uh indicate, well, I'm moving my family back into the unit. I want you to vacate within the next 30 to 60 days. And then after they vacate, they look to rerent the unit. I'm I I just put that on the table. worry about folks that look to circumvent the good intentions that we have laid out in terms of how tenants and landlords work together and just would ask that we kind of keep an eye on that uh as we move forward. On slide 41, please. I really do like the uh HUD certified housing counselor and as we look to bring that person on board and you made reference to the resource center, I would like that person to have specific hours if possible at the resource center so that they are available to answer questions uh as we move forward. As we look at um the RAP, which I support, uh this is for folks that are income qualified. Yes.

Um the resolution doesn't specify that. Um but that's something that we would likely include in the program guidelines. Yes. Okay. Mhm. Okay. I I think that's important, you know, as we look at displacement and folks that are challenged based on finances, whether it be to pay the security deposit, rent, things of that nature. I I want to focus um at least on those that are income qualified, of course. Um any thoughts as you gave that presentation because the landlord benefits through RAP.

Any thoughts or have you seen in other jurisdictions where it's a dollar for dollar contribution by the landlord we we contribute a dollar they contribute a dollar because at the end of the day they benefit because we're in essence giving a grant to a tenant to pay rent security etc. any thoughts on having the landlords contribute uh financially u in this regard? Otherwise, at the end of the day, uh the tenant moves out, they lose everything, the landlord, and uh I mean, they pursue they may pursue it legally, but you know, you're not going to go after somebody that has no income to begin with.

Any thoughts on asking landlords to contribute in some form, maybe not dollar for dollar, but in some form? Yeah, that's a very interesting um concept. I haven't uh considered that in the past. What I will say is similar examples with which I'm familiar um are um some findings from that Bay Area eviction study. Um tenants are much more likely to be able to stay in their homes and prevent an eviction if they have legal assistance. Um, and so, um, if the tenant is able to go to an eviction case with an attorney, um, you see a lot more situations like that where they work out something like a payment plan, perhaps a portion of like forgiveness. Um, and so, um, when I mentioned to you, you know, next steps, um, you know, those additional kind of programs to help incentivize landlords to participate, um, are are some that we may bring to you.

Great. I appreciate that. When you have skin in the game, you're more likely to want to come to an equitable resolution. Um my last comment was um as you know my government job was down in San Jose and we had a housing inspection program and uh we did charge fees to landlords and the information that we obtained from the landlords uh was fairly minimal. You know [snorts] who owns the property, how many units are on the property so we could calculate what the fees were moving forward. So I I would agree with you the more simplified we make the process the more likely we're going to get participation. We send out an annual business tax license renewal, do we not, to our business owners, including landlords. That's certainly an opportunity to council member Grenal's point and and council member Little's point on how we get that information out is to include information in their annual business tax renewal notice that additional fees will be um assessed in the near future whether they're through the business tax license process. I mean, there's no reason to send out a separate fee uh notification if they already have a business license. Maybe we just simply add a line to that that includes the this fee as well. So, just something for you to consider as well.

It's a good idea. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments? If not, can I get a motion in a second to approve staff's recommendation? So, moved by council member Jorgens. Second by Eve. Second by Council Member Eve Marie Little. Please vote. And that passes unanimously. Ordinance of the city council of the city of Newark adding chapter 5.45 to the New York Municipal Code and adding chapter 5.50 to the New York Municipal Code to establish rent review and residential landlord ten relations requirements.

Boy, the the time between meetings in December and meetings in January, boy, it just kind of just creeps up on us, doesn't it? Uh ladies and gentlemen, the next item is adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute a contractual services agreement with DOW deck for the development of an urban forest management plan. Mr. Benoon.

Yes. Good evening, your honor and members of the council. Uh item F2 is a recommendation from city staff to authorize the city to sign an agreement with a consultant to assist with the preparation of the city's first urban forest management plan. Our env environmental services manager, Mr. James Scanland will provide the council with the report that explains the benefits of having such a plan and provide an overview of the the development of the plan, including a proposed project schedule. With that in mind, I will now pass it over to our environmental services manager, Mr. Jim, Mr. James Scan.

Thank you, Mr. Benoon. Uh, good evening, honorable mayor, council members. Pleasure to be here this evening. Um again as uh um David mentioned I'll be presenting proposal to develop an urban forest management plan and uh Kevin Cullinin from DUDE who's a proposed project manager I believe is still online with us this evening and available to answer questions. Let's find out you there David. Uh I'm still here. [laughter] Thank you.

Okay. So um an urban forest comprises all the trees and green spaces within a city and a urban forest management plan provides a framework for maintaining and enhancing the urban forest. So currently the [clears throat] city maintains approximately 12,600 trees in the public right ofway. The annual tree maintenance budget is approximately $300,000 and maintenance staff plants about 100 trees per year in the parks and 50 trees per year in the road right away. [clears throat] So this uh graphic shows uh many of the benefits of an urban forest. They include cleaner air uh reducing the urban heat island effect, saving energy, providing food and wildlife habitat. So, uh, this is a chart of the percent urban tree canopy cover in various cities in Alama County. And as you can see, Newark is on the relatively low end of the urban tree canopy. But, uh, a lot of this has to do with the geography of specific cities. Within the New York boundary, we have the, um, Cargill salt ponds and the bayands, which aren't appropriate for trees. So, I think as part of this effort, what we'll do is um we're going to be developing a target for a tree canopy, but I think what we'll do is define what area we we're going to be uh targeting that tree canopy for. So, some of the bay lands and and that area I think will be excluded and we'll develop a target based on the remaining area in the city. So, this is a an outline of the scope of

work. Uh we'll be uh developing a or updating the tree inventory. Um again developing a canopy cover percent canopy cover uh target. Um developing developing tree species recommendations for what kind of trees to to plant uh in various areas. Uh developing a a guidance manual for best management practices for uh planting and uh maintaining trees. We'll be engaging uh um conducting a community engagement effort to get citizens involved in this as well. Uh part of the reason is partly for input on public rightway trees, but also to get uh a robust tree canopy. We're going to need residents to also be planting trees on private property. We're going to be encouraging uh that as well for residents and businesses. Um we'll also be uh developing an implementation and monitoring plan. So the selection process uh the the city released a request for proposals to develop the urban forest I put management master plan here but management plan. Um the city received six proposals. uh the propos proposals were reviewed by staff and dudex proposal was the highest ranked. The the proposed schedule is that uh September of this year of 2026 uh provide an update to council on the draft results of the assessment and community outreach. uh spring of 2027 draft a draft urban forest management plan presented to city council and by the summer of 2027 the final urban forest management plan to the council for adoption. So, the recommendation um staff recommends that council adopt a

resolution to authorize the city manager to execute a contractual services agreement with the due deck to develop an urban forest management plan. With that, I'll take any questions or comments. Thanks, Jim. Questions from this side of the aisle? Council Grindall, thank you for [clears throat] the thank you for the presentation and uh and the work you're doing. This is a very important the um dudek duek was the where was that where was due in terms of the cost side of things I know that wasn't probably probably your primary concern but were they the most expensive

um there was a range and I think I put in the the staff report but um the lowest was I believe 38,000 the highest was 500,000 um the three that were the high most qualified that we brought in for interviews were all in about the same range, about 170. They're all within a couple thousand of each other, about 174,000. Um, we put in a contingency into the contract, so it's a 200,000, but the three highest ranked are all within a few thousand dollars of each other. Thank you. Yeah, questions down on this side, Council Member Jorgens.

Yeah, so it says um, you know, it was noted that, you know, we're going to need to work with some of the private property owners uh, to be successful here. that obviously can present a real challenge. Um so you know what do we hope that that looks like that kind of work? Um well doing a lot of public outreach to folks having community meetings and um there's a possibility if you know funding's available we can provide uh trees to residents as well um either at free or at reduced cost and encourage um folks to um plant trees on the property and let them know of all the good reasons why having trees on your property is is useful for shade and for cooling and energy efficiency and uh you know food as well if there's fruit trees or

yeah I know the city of Fremont has a similar program where they give future shins they are able to do that through a grant with Calire um so I'm not sure if you know similar grant funding would be available but you know I appreciate that there's going to be that uh work focused on uh the private property owners also just say for me you know I would like to see uh to some extent you know if we're going to do this work let's make this work public. Um once we have our tree canopy listed, let's uh have it somewhere that you know residents can see it both

um just to kind of know like okay this is what our tree canopy is. Um, but also if there's, you know, an issue with a tree, you know, it might be easier to focus, you know, if we have that, you know, instead of, you know, sometimes you can say it's in front of the house at this address, but sometimes, you know, for example, if it's along Jarvis, it might say it's on Jarvis, it's kind of close to the street. And, you know, just for staff to know like um what what tree resident is complaining about. It it would be good to have that, you know, if we're doing this work anyways, might as well make it public. Yeah, I think it would be good information for the public to have. Yes.

I had a similar questions to council member Jorgens and I heard you were use the word encouraging residents of private property because as you can imagine, we've had a lot of uh uh trees planted by the city over the decades that have been subsequently removed by property owners for a variety of reasons. And uh part of them may be due to the species of the tree, whatever the case may be. But I agree with council member uh Jorgens. Anything we can do to incentivize folks to put a tree on their property, um whether it be grants or whatever the case may be, I would certainly welcome those opportunities. Um big thanks, Mr. Bon, to city staff, maintenance staff, and uh for partnering with a lot of the nonprofits around our community. We've seen opportunities where trees have been planted at city parks. Um certainly increasing the canopies that are available for folks to enjoy when they're at the parks on a hot day to get some shade. So big thanks to the city for partnering with a lot of the nonprofits uh to bring a lot of trees to our community and I know that that will undoubtedly continue in the 26 era. So thank you for that. Uh, is there anybody in the audience that would like to comment on this item? If not, I'll look for a motion and a second to approve staff's recommendation.

I'll move approval by council grandal by council. Seconding, please vote. And that passes unanimously, 5 to zero. Thank you. Okay, great. Thank you. Three, adopt a resolution approving the city of Newark's emergency operations plan 2025 revision as the official emergency management framework for the city and affirming its alignment with the Alama County operational area emergency operations plan. Mr. Benoon.

Yes. Good evening, your honor and members of the council. Uh the city has a comprehensive emergency management plan, otherwise known as a CMP, uh that was adopted back in 2013. Uh this plan guides the city's responsive uh response to specific emergencies. Uh to align with new state practices, staff is recommending certain changes to the plan, and that includes transitioning from the CMP format uh to a much simpler emergency operations plan, now called an EOP. Tonight, our emergency uh coordinator, Mr. Richard Martinez, will provide the council with an overview of the recommended updates. Mr. Martinez. Thank you.

Good evening, uh, honorable mayor, council members. Uh, my name is Richard Martinez. I'm the emergency service coordinator. We also have online, uh, Brenda How from Hal Consulting. Um, I did check, she is online. Um, and so tonight we'll be, uh, providing you an update on our project timeline. uh some highlights about the new plan that we were uh recommending and then a recommendation. So to start with the project timeline um as uh city manager David Benoon mentioned uh we currently have a comprehensive emergency management plan. It's a little bit uh a little over 10 years old. Uh it consists of the emergency operation plan, the standard operating procedures, the um annexes, continuity of operations and continuity of government. So it entails about 770 pages. So it's uh it's a pretty large um you know uh book and it excludes recent legislation around emergency management which was really focused on um you know um all hazard [clears throat] and u access and functional need uh focus. So what we did was we uh uh we partnered with the city of Union City and we selected how consult consulting to uh to update our EOP. Um we next went and uh picked out uh staff from each of the departments to do a citywide uh project team to support uh updating this plan and then on March 4th we began the update uh with how consulting. The first thing we did was we uh had the uh development of the uh EOP draft. We then sent it to the project team uh and they provided us feedback on uh what to change on on the plan. We then uh how consulting then revised the EOP and we uh sent the draft EOP to disaster council. We're now at the adopt and implement uh portion of the timeline where uh

disaster council uh in October uh approved uh sending the EOP to city council with the recommendation to adopt the plan. Uh tonight we're here at city council to make the recommendation uh for uh adopting the EOP. And if it is adopted, uh we will then roll roll out the uh updated EOP uh and it will replace the CM. So some highlights about the new plan. Uh we developed this new plan using FEMA's comprehensive uh preparedness guide or CPG 101. Um it is in standard with uh the national incident management system or NIMS. Um we also updated the EOP base plan and annex. So the base plan is basically uh what we're going to do and the annex tells us how we're going to do it when we respond to disasters. We also uh were able to create um you know different tools within uh uh for our emergency operations center. We also uh added uh or updated plans and job aids for uh our EOCC staff. And then we also developed uh department continuity of operation plans. So this is very important. So, um when uh we don't have our day-to-day operations available to us, these department continuity of operation plans allow us to um still operate and serve our community. Some other uh key improvements uh again uh we mentioned the CPG 101 uh the plan was developed with, but this plan also is aligned with Alama County Operational Area uh EOP. Uh the county just updated their EOP uh last year and so we're in uh we're in standing with uh with our county and this is an all hazards framework so we can actually use this uh EOP for any type of disaster. The purpose of the revision was to outline the methods and procedures staff will use in an emergency situation. Um, it's

developed with a whole community approach, uh, focusing on, uh, those with access and functional needs. And it could, uh, potentially be somebody who has transportation needs, somebody who has, uh, a second language, uh, English isn't their first language. Um, and it also supports the provision for emergency public information, and it serves as an operational plan and reference document for pre-emergency planning. The updates again uh our base plan is updated uh to be current uh to this year. Uh job aids have been updated and we also uh updated the forms that uh FEMA requires us to complete during an emergency. Uh the department uh continuity of operations were added and this uh this plan will be uh used to train our staff um as um on how we respond to disasters. [clears throat] So switching gears a little bit uh in 2025 we want to talk a little bit about what our staff did uh around training around emergency management. We actually conducted two tabletop uh exercises. Uh both of them were functional exercises where we had a disaster scenario that uh could impact uh the city of Newark. And we had uh two teams, one primary and one backup team who uh walk through the process of what they would actually do uh if a disaster were to hit. and how they could help our community. We also began uh EOCC section training. So uh each section has a responsibility uh in the EOCC and so we're training our our uh staff on what their role and responsibility will be uh within those sections. We also did uh outside training as well. Uh we brought in TICSS uh Texas&M's uh engineering group. Uh they are a um a grant-f funded uh organization. um that provide uh no cost trainings for uh jurisdictions. And so we brought them

in to do uh public information officer training uh here right here in Newark. Uh and we'll continue to uh look at opportunities with TIGS to bring them in uh for additional trainings. We also uh brought in uh the uh VOCC or virtual emergency operations center integration team to uh provide level one admin training for uh six of our staff members. So that it um one of the requirements that the county is really asking us to do is to start using the VC tool on responding to disasters. It's basically an EOCC online and allows us to u fill in information and give it real time to uh to the county. So if we need a a mutual aid request or a resource request that will go real time to to the county within this VC training. So, we'll also be training the rest of our staff on uh how to put enter in uh information into VOCC uh throughout the next year. So, looking forward uh to 2026 uh employee preparedness. Uh we uh we plan to conduct two more functional tabletop exercises uh one in May and one in October. Uh we're also going to be uh focusing on getting our EOCC section teams uh training and uh auditing the EOP and we'll be training against that EO EOP uh tool. And then we're also looking to send employees to the uh California Specialized Training Institute or CSTI. One of the requirements uh for ELC staff, they need to be uh certified in the role to be able to be um you know be able to work in an ELC and we get reimbursement uh for that for that stuff. So we'll be sending people to our uh to the CSCI training. I also want to just uh make a note we have um we have foundational

training that we have all our employees take and we're at 98% of um of our employees have completed that training. So uh the foundational training has um is been a really good learning for all our employees. Uh [snorts] talking about community uh we have our community emergency response team. Uh in October of last year, we held a cert academy with in partnership with Alama County Fire and uh we had 12 uh Newark residents who completed the training. Three of them have uh signed up for our C program and we continue to engage the other nine uh to uh encourage them to join our team. Um we when I started this uh as a C program leader uh we had two uh C members. Uh we're now at 16 and uh we're going to continue to try and grow this program. Uh we also offer um training uh on the second Wednesday of every month for our community members. Uh these are all preparedness trainings and they're uh no cost and they're available to um to any community member who wants to join. And we do this in partnership with the city of Union City. So uh we alternate locations. one uh one month we're in Newark over at the senior center and then one month we're over in Union City at the uh C building. Uh we also do quarterly trainings and those are specifically just for our SER members uh because those are our hands-on practical trainings uh when a disaster hits our C team are going to work together and so we want to get that practice in uh as a team. We also uh have the plan, prepare, respond and recover training. Uh we've been offering that to our business partners. Uh this training is a three-part training. It's fire extinguisher training. It's handsonly CPR that includes abdominal thrust maneuver as well as a personal emergency preparedness training. Uh and

again, this is no cost to the uh employers. uh but their employees get trained and it's a good opportunity for them to uh learn how to potentially save a family member, a friend, a neighbor or even a stranger's life. Um when uh with this training uh we're also planning to uh expand this uh uh this program out to um homeowners association apartment complexes uh the school district and we're actually offering it to our city staff as well uh so that they can uh be part of this training. We also have uh communication education and community outreach uh as part of our office of emergency services. Uh yesterday I uh presented to the uh retired teachers association. Um and last year I reported uh I uh presented to seniors and retirement. Um and so we're going to continue to provide those uh education uh opportunities uh here in our community. Um and we're also doing community outreach with our SER program. So we've uh participated in stay uh state of the city uh fourth of July pancake breakfast and uh Newark days. and we're going to continue to look for opportunities to educate our community around emergency preparedness. So, with that, um the city uh city staff uh recommends uh to the city council to adopt a resolution approving the city of Newark's emergency operations plan and affirming alignment of the city of Newark's EOP with the Alama County operational area emergency operation plan.

Thank you, Richard. Folks, is anybody in the audience has questions or comments on this item? I'll come up to the dis and look to this side. Questions, comments. Council member Little. Um, so I just want to tell you, thank you so much. I'm a big fan of emergency preparation and getting on top of things. Um, and I appreciate everything you guys are doing. Quick question. I never noticed anywhere mentioned children's training. Could that be something we'd possibly look for at the future? Like working with kids, not just scouts, but I'm saying maybe high schoolers or things. So, I think great if we can get them involved and even basic training. Uh, and if you need help, I would love to help you with that. But I think it's important that we start working with kids at a young age with basic things.

Yes. Um, thank you for the question, um, council member. Uh we actually are looking at um having the opportunity to uh reach out to the uh Newark Memorial High School um and create a a cert like mentorship program um because the high school kids get uh volunteer hours and what's a better way than than to do it that way. Um as far as uh for for children uh maybe a little younger age uh have no problem uh wanting to uh find ways that we can educate them with their parents. Um because one of the the uh big takeaways around the PEP uh program is really educating the parents and the family, right? Because if the parents know the plan but the kids don't um then you know you you could have a breakdown in in response. So um yeah, we're we definitely will be looking at other opportunities to train with uh with kids.

I I do want to I know it's really late, guys, but but I want to share something with you guys. Back in 2001, there was a little girl that went to school and they were talking about earthquakes and tsunamis and things of that sort and she had learned what how to keep an eye out for tsunamis and she went to Thailand in 2003 when they had that big situation and she noticed the ocean was going in and everybody was going in to look at seashells and she started yelling saying this is the warning sign of tsunami and she they think she saved two to 300 lives just from that one thing of her remembering that. So I'm just saying these are little things kids they actually remember. So I I I really think it's important we start possibly incorporating children into this. But thank you very much. Absolutely.

Other questions on this side? Questions on this side? Council Kachio, thank you so much for your presentation. I too agree fullheartedly with community preparedness. Um, I do also appreciate uh in in order to really help our community that you're also reaching out to the seniors and the elderly community especially because sometimes they might feel disenfranchised. And so to not know what's going on and then to panic or go into panic mode, I think that would be even more difficult and [snorts] um hard on our senior community. So I really want to thank you for everything that you're doing. Thank you.

Thank you. A couple qu uh really more comments than questions. Uh first of all, I want to echo um Council Member uh Little's comments about educating children. Uh these these are kids that are sponges. You know, they they they take in information uh and retain it for quite some time. There may be situations where we know that there are certain hazards that kids are exposed to maybe even around the household that uh might be an opportunity for us to maybe visit some of the schools and talk to them about the importance of you know whether you know don't touch a hot stove or whatever the case may be or you know so there may be some opportunities there to to tap into that u that resource. Um I appreciate the fact that we're doing those exercises Mr. afternoon, you know, but exercises are one thing. Going through an actual um disaster is something completely different. I had the opportunity to do that in San Jose, both with the 89 earthquake and of course the um burndowning burning of Santana Row. Uh it's amazing to watch the u that in in real life. Uh folks just understanding their role, their responsibility and getting it together and not just the city staff, Mr. but all the outside agencies that you have to rely upon whether it be you know working with Republic services to make sure we have sufficient dumpsters for debris and things of that nature there's a significant amount of coordination that needs to go on so uh the more training we do in that regards the better I was thinking you know many times when there is a disaster you know the first person that is a spokesperson for the community is the mayor or the vice mayor I don't know if we've actually thought of including the mayor vice mayor in some component to talk about your role as the mayor, the vice mayor, or even a council member if those folks are out of town to uh bring calm to the community and let the community know that we we are

certainly aware of the situation. We're moving in a direction to address the disaster in this form or fashion. So maybe to think about some possible incorporation of the council in terms of how how we as the elected members of the community get that message out to the u to the community. Uh mayor, if I may. Yes. Uh the council, we did hold a training with the council a few years ago. That was obviously with a previous council uh staff is working on developing a training session for uh the new council in the coming months.

Great. and maybe think about including if you if we didn't do that previously and I don't recall to be honest with you kind of a a public information officer component to that to here here's you know mayor vice mayor council member what you want to focus on when the media shows up and asks you know what are you doing about this so thank you for that um the training that you mentioned that you do on a every twoe basis um and you may be doing that currently I don't know if that calendar of events is currently listed in our newsletter in terms of these are the trainings that are going to be offered for example over the next 90 days so people can choose whether or not they want to attend not attend but the more information we get out there to the community as to yeah that would be something I'd be interested in attending uh the better and then my last comment big uh kudos to you Mr. Martinez uh for taking the cert program from 2 to 16 and continuing to grow. The more people that we have in our community that are certified to help in a disaster, the better. And under your leadership, um that program has grown and continues to grow. Uh many of us have participated in some of these exercises. And again, um the more knowledge that we have as to how to respond under certain circumstances, the better we are as a community. So, thank you for your leadership in that area.

Thank you, mayor. Get a motion in a second to approve staff's recommendation. I'd like to motion it. Motion made by Council Member E. Marie Little, seconded by Council Member Canio. Please vote. And that passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. The next item on our agenda is to adopt a resolution of intention and wave full reading and introduce by title only an ordinance authorizing an amendment to the contract between the board of administration of the California public employees retirement system known as Kalpers and the city council of the city of Newark. Mr. Benoon.

Yes. Good evening your honor and members of the council. Uh, as the council is aware, last year the city entered into new memorandum of understanding with our various labor partners. As a result of those negotiated agreements, the city is now required to amend the city's contract with Kalpers. This is a relatively straightforward item that we would ordinarily place on the consent calendar. However, state laws requires state law requires that this item be placed on the non-consent calendar. Uh, as such, we have a brief oral report from our human resources director, Miss Britney Fry. So before she begins, what I'm understanding you saying is this is again more mandates from the state to local governments. Um so I appreciate that. Thank you. Please.

Thank you. Uh good evening honorable mayor and council members. Uh as city manager Benoon mentioned, this is a very brief uh summary or presentation that I have for you this evening. and it will summarize a request uh for council to adopt a resolution of intention and to wave full reading and introduced by title only an ordinance authorizing an amendment to the city's contract with uh Kalpers. [clears throat] This item is the result of recently negotiated memorandum of understanding with the city's two public safety uh units bargaining units which is the New York Police Association and the Newark Police Management Association. As part of those negotiations, uh, the city council authorized the removal of the additional 1.5% employee cost share that is currently paid by new local police members under government code section 20516. This cost share is in addition to the 13.75% that they will continue to pay and does not impact the cost sharing in place for classic local police members and nonp police employees. Because the city participates in Kalpers, any change to the cost sharing provisions must be formally reflected through a Kalpers contract amendment and must follow Kalpers's required legislative process. That process requires two actions by the council. The first is adoption of a resolution of intention which summarizes the proposed change and provides public notice and the second is adoption of an ordinance authorizing the contract amendment and execution of the amendment uh of the amended Kalpers contract. This evening's action would accomplish the first step. The second reading uh and adoption of the ordinance would be scheduled for February 12th in accordance with Kalper's required timelines and no other retirement plan changes are proposed as part of this action. In terms of fiscal impact, the removal of the 1.5% cost

share applies only to new uh police local safety employees and was already anticipated and authorized by council during labor negotiations. There are no additional fiscal impacts beyond what is already budgeted and expected at this time. And if approved on schedule, the ordinance will become effective 30 days after adoption with the anticipated Kalpers contract amendment effective date aligning with the first full pay period following that date, which would be March 15, 2026. And with that, staff is recommending that council adopt the resolution of intention and wave full reading and introduce by title only the ordinance authorizing the Kalpers contract amendment. And that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions.

Great. Thank you for that. Is there anybody in the audience that has questions on this item? Seeing none, I'll turn to this side of the aisle. Turn to this side of the aisle. No questions. I need a motion and a second to approve staff's recommendation. I'll move I'll move the staff recommendation. Thank you, Council Member Grindall. Second by Council Member Jorgens. Thank you very much. Please vote. And that passes unanimously. Thank you very much for the presentation. An ordinance to the city council of the city of New York authorizing amendment to the contract [clears throat] between city of New York and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees Retirement System.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, the next item on our agenda is item number five, resolution approving an amendment to the employment agreement with city manager David J. Benoon to serve as city manager and approving an amendment to the city's salary schedule in conformance with California code of regulations title 2 section 570.5. Uh Mr. Benoon,

Mr. Cocutello. Thank you uh Mr. Mayor. Good evening uh Mayor Han and members of the city council. I'll be providing a brief oral report on this item. Under state law SP1 1436, any changes to executive compensation which include the city manager um require an oral report and that's one of the reasons that this item is not appearing as a consent item. Late last year, the city council may recall it conducted a performance evaluation of the city manager and also engaged in labor negotiations with Mayor Hannon serving as the labor negotiator on behalf of the uh city and the city council. The result of the negotiations is a proposed 5% merit increase to the base salary uh for city manager Benoon which would result in a base salary of $383,7760. Um, I do want to highlight that the city conducted a salary survey in November of 2025 which revealed that uh, city manager Bon's compensation is currently 5.7% below market for um, the uh, comparable cities. Uh, when factoring in the proposed uh, 5% increase in annual base salary this evening, Mr. Bon's salary would still be 1.1% below market. Uh this would be the fourth merit increase during city manager Benoon's seven plus year tenure as city manager the city of Newark. I also do want to note for the record that um city man city manager Benoon out of the 14 cities in Alama County is the second longest tenur city manager um here in Alama County. And with that I'm certainly glad to answer any questions.

Thank you city attorney. Is there anybody in the audience that has questions on this item? If not I'll return to the council. Um, I'm going to make some comments, um, if I may. Uh, first of all, you took the sale, um, the wind out of my sail, um, by indicating that Mr. Benoon is the second longest city manager in Alama County. Um, something we are extremely proud of. We read every day the trials and tribulations of various cities around the Bay Area, whether it be mayors, council members, city managers, city employees. But one thing that we have had here in the city of Newark is stability at the city manager position. Um, going back many, many years. Again, having worked in government, uh, as some of my colleagues have, it wasn't uncommon to see city managers change every 3 to 5 years because they were moving from one job to another job to another job. And every job certainly necessitated a substantial increase in compensation. We're fortunate here in the city of Newark to have a city manager that's been here already for seven years. Born in Newark, educated in Newark, uh raised in Newark, and now working in Newark. And just some of the things that uh he was able to accomplish just in this last year. And I could go on with an extensive list, but you know, as a as a council, we had our first city council retreat, never done before. Um and certainly important when you bring in u you know three new council members uh to the dis uh completed the first city's master plan facilities master plan. We have a lot of buildings in the city that are underutilized. We've heard from the community that there's um opportunities for reuse of a lot of these buildings. So we put together the facilities master plan the city's first resource center which will open up this next month. um you know there's so many resources we provide to our community and in some cases the community is not aware of all the real

benefits that we the city provide to them. This is an opportunity to create a centralized location where folks can come ask questions raise issues uh be heard. Um, and I'm I'm especially pleased that it's going to be located uh over near the Ash Street Park location because again, the most vulnerable part of our community is the Hispanic community because that's a community where we have a lot of folks that are undocumented who are afraid or unwilling to come and seek city services or seek city guidance. uh we need to make sure that they know that we welcome them to our community and that uh their issues are our issues and we're here to uh support them. Held the city's first impact day uh supported and led efforts supporting police wellness uh and critical. We we hear many many times about police officers that uh are either on light duty or have to retire due to disabilities. You know, we're doing everything that we can because public safety is such a precious resource in our community. It's our responsibility not to make sure not only to make sure that they're healthy physically, but healthy mentally. And we've done a good job in that regard. Hired our first communication and public engagement manager. Welcome. You've done outstanding work. The newsletter that you've put together is, I think, what we envisioned uh and and you've been able to deliver that. our first housing policy and programs manager we saw tonight was um it really wasn't a city council meeting. It was really a Michael Kulum uh presentation throughout the entire event. So again, you've surrounded the the greatest responsibility you have, Mr. Bon, and to the folks that are listening is to hire competent and qualified staff to serve as executive members of your of your cabinet. And you've done that. And of course, we save so much money by

contributing to the section 115 trust to address long-term pension and oped liability. We know of communities in our county that have ignored their pension responsibilities and at some at some point, you know, the they're going to have to pay the piper and uh you know, we're not in that situation. We we have uh always maintained a conservative budget which gives us the ability to uh go year in and year out with a positive budget situation moving forward. We we have a positive budget this year. Um so I I could go on and on, Mr. Bennoo, but um I I certainly appreciate what you've done for our community and uh I wanted to make sure that I summarize that. Uh colleagues, other comments, questions? If there's no other comments or questions? Yes, Council Member Quindall. Um, I just want to echo the mayor's comments, um, and but particularly point out the importance of filling key positions and staffing up for the police department. That takes a lot of effort, a lot of work um, while you're doing everything else. So, it's public safety is really critical and wanted to compliment you on that. Thank you.

Other questions, comments? Okay. And yes, Council Kanchio, I also wanted to comment that um as the city manager, I feel like the city actually never sleeps even when everyone's seemingly sleeping. I know that you're always aware of what's going on and so I also appreciate that as well. Thank you.

So, this is an action item. I need a motion in a I'm going to go ahead and make the motion. I'm going to do something that the mayor doesn't typically do. I'm going to go ahead and make the motion to support this and seconded by Vice Mayor Jorgensage. Thank you. Please vote. And that passes unanimously five to zero. Thank you again, Mr. Bon, for your service to our community. Colleagues, this is the time that um oh, I'm sorry. The there is a city council matter. City council members report on attendance at intergovernmental agency meetings. I'm sorry. So, we need to adopt a resolution approving the mayor's appointment of two city council members.

I'll come I'll come to that since I already started. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Um, we're going to adopt a resolution approving the mayor's my appointment of two city council members or the mayor and one council member to serve as the city of Newark's representatives on the Fremont Newark AC Transit inter agency liaison committee. Uh Mr. Bon, do you have any further information on that in terms of the um when they meet uh the composition of that uh that organization? Do you have any further information on that? Unfortunately, we received little information from ACTC um in terms of uh what are the requirements um and the fundamental purpose of it. I actually do believe Miss Sawwan may have some information related to this.

Thank you. Um uh we have uh so um in their memo they mentioned uh they will have no more than three meetings per year and each meeting will not uh exceed 90 minutes and no meeting will be in January. Okay. Thank you very much for that. Uh yes. Did you say 19 minutes or 90 minutes? Okay. Oh, you were already on the 19, weren't you? [laughter] Uh 90 minutes. Folks, do I have two volunteers? uh uh from the council that would like to do this. I'd like to volunteer. Council member Gdall, I'd like to. Council member Little and Vice Mayor Jorgens.

Okay. Um I'm going to approve two council members. I'm not going to sit on this and I'm going to go ahead and appoint uh Council Member Grindall and a rec request because I think we have to take a motion on this item. I'm going to recommend Council Member Grindall and Council Member Little to be our representatives. And I would imagine as with any other committee, uh, Mr. Benoon, uh, would this be something that we would review as part of the committee assignments on an annual basis? So if Mr. Grenal and Miss Little are this year, we can change it next year. Would I be correct in that assumption?

Correct, your honor. We tried putting this on the item uh, that item that you just referenced at the December council meeting, but received it right after we posted the agenda. So we would include it every item. Okay. Thank you. I'm I'm I'm going to make a note. U, Mr. Benoon, if you would remind me that Vice Mayor Jorgens will get that assignment uh next year. Be happy to do that. Thank you very much. So, we have I'm going to make a motion that we appoint Council Member Grind and Council Member Little to serve as our representatives on this committee. Uh may I get a second? Happy to second. By the vice mayor, uh Jorgens, thank you very much. Please vote. And Oops. I was late. I was late. That's okay. I'm assuming you you [laughter] agree with I I do agree.

So that passes unanimously. 5-0. Thank you. Uh city manager report.

Yes. Good evening, your honor, members of the council. I have two items for city manager updates. If we could have the PowerPoint loaded. [snorts] Next slide, please. Uh the first one, as Mr. Martinez mentioned earlier this evening, uh the cities of Newark and Union City are hosting a joint monthly community training. Uh the purpose of this uh monthly training uh this particular one is fire extinguisher training. Uh this is scheduled for Wednesday, January 14th from 7:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. This will occur in the city of Newark this time. Uh specifically at the Clark W. Reticer Senior Center, uh located over on Enterprise Drive. Uh there is no cost to attend. This is a free event. Uh members of the public uh are encouraged to register online uh on and that information is listed on the city's website. Um if you go to the city's website, go to search, enter Union City and Newark fire extinguisher training, it should be easily accessible. Uh the next item is uh if the council may recall uh earlier tonight on the consent calendar, the council approved the formation of the city's first ever public art committee. Um we are now accepting applications for members of the public to serve on the public art committee. Uh we're encouraging uh members of the community uh to submit applications. This committee will help guide public art projects throughout the city such as murals, installations, and creative placemaking efforts. Uh this will reflect Newark's character and our community. Uh for those of you who don't know, uh the public art committee uh serves as an advisory role to the city council and supports the planning and development of visual public art across Newark. Applications are available on the city's website. It's listed right there. Uh you may also, next slide, please. You may also email the city clerk on the email address uh listed on the slide. You can drop off an

application uh in [clears throat] person at city hall. Address is listed on the slide. And a friendly reminder that Newark is city hall is open Monday through Thursday as well as every other Friday from 8 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. And also you do not need to be an artist. You just need to be a need to have a voice, a perspective, and a love for Newark. Applications are due on February 6th. That concludes city manager updates for this evening.

I I love that art piece, by the way. So I want to see that on one of our buildings. If we could show that slide again. And that was just beautiful. You know, I'm looking for some real creativity, you know, among our artists around town to do what they can to, you know, really beautify our buildings. I think that's an outstanding piece of art. As to the fire extinguisher training, uh, Mr. Bon, was there any thought given to those that attend the training that they be provided with a small fire extinguisher? Because most folks do not have one in their home. home. And if we're going to train folks, maybe if you've signed up, took the training, we can provide you with a small fire extinguisher so that if the need should arise, you have something uh available. Thoughts?

Sounds like a great idea. I'd be happy to look into it. Great. Thank you. Council comments on other items. Council Kachio. Yes.

Thank you. On February 28, Saturday, from 12 o'clock to three o'clock, in partnership with Senator Dr. Wahhab, I'm going to be hosting a Lunar New Year celebration at the Newark Library. And I also realized that there's going to be several different celebrations during that month as well. And so I plan to also attend others. [snorts] Um, just so people also understand that Lunar New Year is a floating type of holiday and that it does change and so this year it is from February 17 to March 3rd. Additionally, I did attend the AVA energy meeting and it was announced that their electric bike drawing [snorts] reimbursements for Alama County have been very successful. So, they're very excited about that. Also, while we were at holiday, I was able to attend the firefighters holiday celebration, which had the Grinch and Santa. Uh, [laughter] and what was always really great, too, is we had a toy drive there. And so, that's always important to support our Newark nonprofits and our children in our community. Additionally, uh last weekend I was able to attend a 3-day girls basketball tournament at Newark Memorial um for Optimus that's been going on since the 80s, so for over 30 years. And so that's just always wonderful to just see not only our girls out there, but also girls from other teams and people from the community. Thank you.

I'll cut back. Um, I've already got a bunch of events planned for this year. I know we're we're tired, so I'm going to go quick. Um, I'm just going to talk about the two that are coming up. Uh, Thursday, January 29th, I've partnered up with American Legion 837 and we're organizing the first ever Tri City Veterans Mixer. So, we're trying to incorporate and meet a lot of mixers, a lot of veterans in the area, of course, Vietnam, Korean, but we're also focusing a lot on the Gulf War and Iraq and Afghan. They don't have anything for them. So, we're trying to get them connected. Oh, it's gonna be at O Sullivan's. It's going to be from 5:30 to 8 o'clock. I'm sponsoring the appetizers. That's my gift. Um, but don't eat them all. Um, but please come out. It's going to be a lot of fun. So, what I'm asking everybody, if you know veterans, please let them know about this event. It's very important. The more the information we can get out there, the better. It's free. It's fun. Let's connect people. It's important and they need to be appreciated. Um, the second, and that's focusing on veterans. The second event I'm working on is, uh, this one's a save a date, Mission Peak Yo-Yo Day. We're going to go back to the nostalgic fun. I'm bringing out Duncan Yo-Yos is going to be sponsoring it. I got them to sponsor it. Um, I'm also got this the the San Francisco professional spin doctor's class, which is the professional yo-yoist of San Francisco are coming out. I'm buying them pizzas and and Cokes and they're Coca-Cola and that's how they'll be paid and uh they're going to do tricks, teach kids how to do yo-yoing and bring out some really cool stuff and really neat things. Also, we have about 12 yo-yos that are coming out that have competed at regionals, nationals, and international competitions, including Ian Smith, which has won in three of five categories internationally. Um, and those are the two events that are right now moving along. Of course, I've got about seven other ones for 2006 2026. Thank you.

Well, let's let's make sure we highlight your son, who is isn't he a yo-yo expert? So, my that's how I got into I know I got into that world. I'm sorry. Um, so my son is a professional yo-yoist. Um, if you Google Austin Roman, A U S T I N R U H L M I N, you'll see he competes. He's competed twice at nationals. I've seen him perform. He's quite quite the master. I never knew that would be where my money is going. Council member Grenell.

Yes. Um, I just want to um I did attend yesterday the um Alama County Library u commission advisory commission and all the way up in Albany. So that was um fun. Um but uh but it was a very very nice to view the Albany library. Um it's nice to see all the libraries in Alama County and realize once more that ours is the best. Um so um on January 26th at 6:8 p.m. I'm going to have a town hall with Tamali's um where people can just stop by and talk to talk to me. So, anybody anybody in our vast listening audience wants to come, um please u please stop by. Thanks,

Vice Mayor Jorgens.

Yeah. Um thank you. Uh 2026 um marks the 150th anniversary of Newark being formed as a town. If you're wondering how you start a town in an area that has 250 cows and not 250 people, [laughter] the way you do it is you bring together the South Pacific Narrow Coast, South Pacific Coast Narrow Gauge Railroad with uh two uh very wealthy investors, Alfred Davis and James Far. Um with you pull out some plans that were done before by Eie Pin, who had a lot of ideas and no money. Um, and you start to build a town, you build, you know, you get industry of the railroad, which, you know, formed the backbone of Newark's economy for a long time and, you know, the ideas of, you know, building a community together. And, uh, so this year we get to celebrate 150 years of Newark. I'm waiting for you to come out with a booklet, you know, the the 20 interesting facts about Newark that you didn't know, which I imagine you could do pretty easily. make it 100.

Okay. Um, a couple reminders. Um, one, I want to compliment Debbie Rodriguez, uh, the retiring CEO for Viola Ble. Miss Rodriguez retired as the CEO. We celebrated her retirement yesterday. 38 years she was with Viola Ble, an organization started by her mother. So that just simply shows the value of volunteerism in our community and how one person Violet Ble really made a difference in terms of the number of residents served. Debbie mentioned that when they first started uh the center they've served, you know, a handful of folks on an annual basis. Last year they served over 20,000. So there's a real need in our community and uh Debbie Rodriguez is to be complimented for her service and we will recognize her at the next council meeting. Uh just a reminder, Stephen Cassidy, the CEO for our Chamber of Commerce, passed away and they will be celebrating um you know his life this Saturday at um San Leandro High School, their theater theater arts uh center at 100 p.m. So certainly you're you're encouraged uh to attend and and remember his contributions to our community. And then last, um, let's remember retired Sergeant Frank Lair. Um, again, a member of our community that served us for 25 years. He passed away. And, uh, I was glad that his wife and kids were able to hear us speak of him because, as you know, Frank had retired and moved to Tennessee. And, you know, at that point when you get into retirement, uh, you think, you know, my my days of public service are behind me. I'm now just kind of forgotten, you know, cog in the public service system. But uh you know we in Newark uh don't forget those that served our community and and Frank did it with distinction. It was a honor to be able to recognize him not even having known him but knowing the type of person that serves

our community in the public safety realm we know he was an outstanding individual. So we will adjourn tonight's meeting in his memory as mentioned and uh thank you colleagues for your patience tonight. It was a long meeting and uh we'll get back to normaly maybe next meeting. Huh Mr. Venoon. Yes. You jinxed it. I jinxed it. We are journed.