Newark planners hear proposal for 315,000‑sq‑ft industrial building on Central Avenue; no vote recorded

City of Newark Planning Commission members heard a staff presentation and developer briefing Tuesday on a proposed speculative industrial building and associated site improvements at 6756–6792 Central Avenue, but the transcript does not record a final vote on the project.

Associate Planner Joseph Balabat told commissioners the project would consolidate four parcels into a single 17.4‑acre lot and demolish existing structures and 10 trees to build a primarily single‑story industrial building totaling about 315,390 square feet — including 33,806 square feet of office space and about 281,584 square feet of industrial space — with an overall height of about 49 feet 6 inches. "The requested entitlements include a design review, a conditional use permit, and minor use permit," Balabat said, reading staff recommendations. The applicant is listed as Ryan Marshall and the property owner as Prologis LP; a project representative identified himself as Nick Fafutis with ProLogistix.

Why it matters: The site fronts Central Avenue and lies in the city's GI (General Industrial) zoning district. The project is described as speculative (no tenant identified), so staff and commissioners focused on land‑use compatibility, truck access, and required easements for a planned Central Avenue overpass that would span about 75% of the project's frontage. The applicant would also be required to underground utilities along Central Avenue and dedicate easements as needed for the future grade separation.

Key project details and staff conditions

- Building and site: Proposed building footprint about 315,390 sq. ft.; primarily single‑story with a two‑story office component; exterior materials described as tilt‑up concrete with metal panel accents and a placeholder for public art at the front elevation. Balabat said a building with the originally proposed number of dock doors "may promote an indoor warehousing and storage use and a wholesale and distribution use rather than advanced manufacturing and research and development uses." The applicant provided a conceptual revision reducing the shown dock doors to 32 dock doors, two grade‑level doors and 14 door knockouts; staff required the revised plan be shown on building permit submittal and reserved commission review for any conversion of knockouts to active dock doors.

- Fencing and minor use permit: The applicant seeks a minor use permit to allow 6‑foot prefinished vertical tube steel fencing within the minimum 10‑foot front setback along the Union Pacific Railroad side. Staff found the request consistent with fence standards but required plan revisions to remove chain‑link fencing shown along part of the front property line.

- Parking, circulation and truck access: The staff presentation described new driveways on the Central Avenue frontage, pedestrian walkways, bicycle parking, a trash enclosure, a truck courtyard and trailer storage at the rear of the site, and an employee open‑space area with an outdoor cooking/seating area. A transportation impact study prepared for the applicant found less‑than‑significant vehicle‑miles‑traveled impacts but identified a queuing deficiency; the study recommended signal‑phasing changes for the northbound left lane at the Cherry Street and Central Avenue intersection as a mitigation and that recommendation is included as a condition of approval.

- CEQA and entitlements: Staff said a CEQA analysis prepared by EM Group concluded the project is exempt from further environmental review under CEQA Guidelines §§15168 and 15183 and California Public Resources Code §21083.3 because the development falls within assumptions of the certified FEIR and is consistent with the general plan. Based on its analysis, staff asked the commission to adopt the draft resolution approving the design review, conditional use permit and minor use permit.

Public outreach and applicant statements

Balabat said the applicant held two community meetings — Dec. 18, 2023 (no attendees) and Jan. 21, 2025 (at the Newark Library meeting room) — and staff had received written comments about sidewalk improvements along Central Avenue, CEQA review, and construction timing. At the meeting, Nick Fafutis described the developer as a long‑term owner seeking to provide community amenities, public art and site access points at no cost to the city, and said the project would represent "over $100,000,000" in investment (applicant's characterization in the presentation). When asked about a construction start date, the applicant indicated a possible start in 2026 but did not provide firm scheduling or phasing details.

Commissioner concerns and staff responses

Commissioners asked several operational and public‑safety questions. One commissioner asked, "Is the existing roadway gonna be demolished? What's gonna be done underneath that? Because that sometimes can be a problem for homelessness and people hiding under their, overpasses," and Associate Planner Balabat deferred technical infrastructure questions to City Engineer Scott Allman. Allman told the commission the Central Avenue overpass project "is underway and it's under design," and that the city was expecting a 90% design from the consultant in the near term, but he said there was no construction timeline available at the meeting.

Formal actions and status

The commission approved the minutes from the June 10 meeting (motion by Commissioner Fitz; second by Vice Chair Becker; the record shows five ayes and no nays). For the Central Avenue project, staff requested adoption of the draft resolution approving the design review, conditional use permit and minor use permit; no vote on that resolution is recorded in the posted transcript.

What happens next

Staff's recommended conditions require the applicant to revise project plans for building permits (including the dock‑door reduction and removal of chain‑link fencing on the frontage), work with the city engineer on easements for the future overpass, and implement the recommended traffic mitigation. The transcript does not record a final decision on the requested entitlements.

Ending

At the close of the recorded segment, the planning commission had heard the staff presentation and applicant remarks and posed follow‑up questions; staff sought adoption of the draft resolution but the transcript contains no recorded vote on that resolution.