Agenda packet — Newark City Council, July 24, 2025 (part 3 of 13)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-88

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-89

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING

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

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

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

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

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

Comment 14 Alyssa Lopez Hi, I was wondering if there is any action being taken to invest in some programs such as a first-time buyers programs for Newark Residents, or a low-income based programs. If so, I’d like to get more information or be interested in investing some input
Thank you!
Comment 15 Pat Callaway There has been opposition to Area 4 development and I am confused by your responses. Has Area 4 been scrapped or not?
Comment 16 Krisie Knutson
Those house are ugly , can’t you make some pretty houses APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENT D-93
RESOLUTION NO. 11, 201

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

NEWARK APPROVING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING WORK
PLAN
WHEREAS, in May 2015, the City Council approved Resolution 10, 361 approving an amendment of the Newark General Plan, adopted December 12, 2013, by replacing the Housing Element with the Housing Element Update 2015; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Housing Element is to support the vision of assuring the provision of safe, decent, affordable shelter for all Newark residents. The Housing Element places a particular emphasis on lower income Newark residents and residents with special needs, including seniors and persons with disabilities. The Housing Element includes an evaluation of housing needs in the City, based on demographics and housing conditions. As required by state law, it identifies sites sufficient to accommodate the City' s share of the region' s housing needs over an eight -year period, the Regional Housing Need Allocation ( RHNA), developed by the Association of Bay Area Governments ( ABAG); and
WHEREAS, the State of California continues to suffer a housing affordability crisis, which also manifests at the regional and local level. Based on data from ABAG, median rents in the Bay Area have increased over 44% between 2010 and 2015, while median household income has increased by 5% over same period. In 2017, over 40% of Alameda County renters spent 35% or more of their household income on rent; and
WHEREAS, the 2015- 2023 RHNA for the Bay Area identifies a total housing need of 187, 990 units, distributed among very -low, low-, moderate-, and above -moderate income levels.

The City of Newark' s RHNA allocation for the 2015- 2023 period is 1, 078 units ( which shall be accommodated through the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, but not necessarily constructed) and includes:
a) 330 units for very -low income households, with incomes at or below 50% of the Average Median Income (AMI)
b) 167 units for low income families, with incomes ranging from 51 % or 80% of AMI c) 158 units for moderate -income households, with incomes from 80% to 120%, and d) 423 units for above -moderate -income households with an AMI of greater than 120%; and
WHEREAS, between the period of 2015- 2020, the number of residential units constructed in the City or have had building permits issued for construction, includes 36 units of housing affordable for moderate - income households and 1, 062 units of housing affordable to above moderate -income households, for a total of 1, 098 units. The City has not produced units affordable to low-income or very -low- income households within the 2015- 2020 period, and WHEREAS, although the City has produced housing that exceeds the goal for above - moderate housing, the production goals for very -low, low, and moderate housing have not been met; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes the importance of continuing to proactively develop affordable housing in Newark to meet he needs of families who live and work in the City, consisted with the adopted Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, in November 2020, the City Council approved a contractual services agreement with Baird + Driskell Community Planning ( Consultant) to provide affordable housing program management services to the City; and
WHEREAS, City staff directed the Consultant to conduct interviews with the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the Community Development Advisory Committee to assess the affordable housing needs of the community and prepare a work plan that would guide the efforts of City staff and the Consultant over a two-year period; and WHEREAS, based on the results of the interviews, City staff and the Consultant have produced an affordable housing work plan that includes activities for the preparation of new affordable housing requirements, polices, and actions intended to significantly incentivize the production of affordable housing within the City, particularly at the very -low and low-income levels.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newark hereby adopts the 2021- 2023 Affordable Housing Work Plan as attached as Exhibit A.

Resolution No. 11, 201 2
I HEREBY CERTIFY the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newark held on May 13, 2021, by Council Member Hannon who moved its adoption and passage, which motion was carried after being duly seconded, and passed by the following vote:

AYES: Council Members Collazo, Freitas, Hannon, Vice Mayor Bucci and Mayor Nagy
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
SECONDED: Council Member Collazo
ATEST:
s/ SHEILA HAffRRINGTO
v
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
s/ STOPHER. KOKOTAYLO
Interim City Attorney
Resolution No. 11, 201 3
APPROVED:

ALAN L.I
a
Mayor
0 L
O C 04 CU
y OL
C
O E
6 Im OO rnU
tq
S
m
a' ++ N O— MO
N
C
o? Lp C NM C O = aQO C
O ,,
Q3 7
0) p O O
f0 6 N
LO
5 -
O
0OSC

51. OO
wO n
y• w m m o o o
o
et
om
rn
c
o rnY o too. o c Q
a
omoo
n '
a o t6 C
c6 RS a u),,._ iC O O.... w w
O
po c
Z L O o O o' c Fcoo
m + t y- 0
a) U Oo p
p •
UE
C
CO
N4) - L
E= cu. E
t
ai to
aG
ai 61s coa
aa' E CL U- o aa60 oQ EuA O
d
O
y .

L7 N
C C O ( 6 > C f6 V
0to Y
h
t
t3 C tT ul CJ
U y O
a N
v
0 J
OU 0
mr m 3 yT. 7 CO f6 _
O
O a
L
co_
CL= a
O y
U C t6
O
2 -
0-
0 Oa L
a
O
O
C>' N
L
O. O O
US
ao
uoiv O rna fl a
Oa
r_ tm cm CD: OS
cn
0 M=
0 75, 0 - 5, 0
0 v
0 W cu
4) C
0 0 m
4) a
0 a) m
a) C
0 ca
D C
u 0
0 c CU — a o : 5
c —
CU 0 . 0 Co TO 0
moo c
ca M 70
2 c
M co
C: ` 20 C:
0 0 0 , i;:; tt: E
fo=) . 2 E
0 co
a) 47 E 0 to
w
E
E w CU CU m E ' FA CU M E
5 In
CL cr., o
IM)
4) CD th w 5
uj
a - , O'=
2 0
E co o D. m m 0 0. 2
E
E o 0 0
E 0
a)
LL 0
5-
CL
E
D
E
4)
E E
4)
3: a
E
a
E
a
E
a
E
0 U
0 C: 0
C:
0 0 0
4 0)
E
T
E
A?
E
T
E
4)
k. CL
E ECLE
a
E
U.
0 z a) 0 D a)
tw
rm fo
a) 4)
2 0
0 C
3 ZO
LL cu cu
cu c ca c a a
M
r W
m :;-
u
O a c 0C: 0 0
tw : 3 m
4' C
cu
0 C:
0 0
E
4)
E E E
x
a) W Q) 4)
z E E E E
C:

GJ m 0S
E fn
E
0 1E
E2
0)
C) 00
a
0 3:
0) m
E cD
OZ
N
E
D
E
a) o a7 O 5- 4)
CL U) w
CN
4 co
CIA
CD
eq04
cm L. 4)0N cm
E
CL
U)
U.
0 CL
CL
m
0 41
0 QI
cr
0 4-
u
CL
kn
0; tw
4- m
0-
c

4.01 mu
0 m
0 LL
bD
a
V)
0 0
ai41
UA
E
4-01
LU
Item E. 1.

DATE 07/24/2025
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Tonya Connolly, Maintenance Superintendent
SUBJECT Hearing to consider property owners' objections and adopt a resolution confirming the Superintendent of Streets' Report concerning weed abatement assessments
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The City of Newark conducts an annual weed abatement program as a fire prevention measure. This is a combined effort between the City's Maintenance Division and the Alameda County Fire Department Fire Prevention staff. Vacant properties with the potential for extensive weed growth are typically included in the program and property owners have the option to either complete the weed abatement work themselves or have the work completed by a City contractor. Following notification, property owners cleared 102 parcels and the remaining 18 parcels were cleared by the City's contractor. The properties cleared by the City's contractor have a resulting range of assessments between $387 and $2,907. The combined total for all assessments was $16,376.

Staff recommends that the City Council, by motion, act upon any objections by property owners for assessments on their parcels for the 2025 Weed Abatement Program and, by resolution, confirm the Superintendent of Streets Report concerning weed abatement assessments.

BACKGROUND
The City of Newark conducts an annual weed abatement program to abate weeds on vacant properties that are not properly maintained by property owners to the satisfaction of Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD) Fire Prevention staff. The program is authorized by, and conducted pursuant to, Government Code Sections 39560, et seq. The abatement work typically consists of tractor mowing, supplemented with manual labor to clear weeds abutting fences and removal of debris to facilitate tractor work. Property owners have the option to make their own arrangements for weed and debris removal. All properties on which the City performs the abatement work would be assessed the full cost of that work, including administrative costs.

Administrative costs are 20% of the cost of the weed abatement services pursuant to the adopted Master Fee Schedule. Prior to abatement, there were approximately 120 industrial, residential and commercial parcels that had large areas of vacant ground with regular seasonal weed growth that could have developed into a fire hazard if not properly maintained.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The Superintendent of Streets' report on the 2025 Weed Abatement program is submitted pursuant to Resolution No. 11741 adopted by the City Council on May 8, 2025. The report showing the assessments for the spring 2025 weed abatement has been posted as required. Owners whose properties are subject to an assessment may protest at this meeting or submit their objections prior to the hearing. As of June 16, 2025, no written objections have been received. On June 12, 2025, the City Council directed the Superintendent of Streets to abate weeds on 120 parcels, of which 18 were ultimately cleared by the City's contractor. This year, the assessments ranged from $387 and $2,907. The lowest cost was for a vacant property that required minimal work. The combined total for all assessments, including administrative fees, was $16,376. All work completed through the 2025 Weed Abatement Program is paid for through the proposed assessments.

FISCAL IMPACT
Abatement costs are fully recoverable through property assessments, which are collected via the Alameda County tax roll, resulting in no net impact on the General Fund.

REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by - Tonya Connolly, Maintenance Superintendent Reviewed by - Howard Young, Public Works Director
Reviewed by - Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Reviewed by - Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Approved by - David J. Benoun, City Manager
Attachments
Resolution - Total Assessments
Schedule A - Weed Abatement - Total Assessments
(TCR1)
RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

NEWARK CONFIRMING THE REPORT OF THE

SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS CONCERNING WEED

ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS AND APPROVING SPECIAL

ASSESSMENTS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newark, by Resolution 11741, ordered certain rubbish, refuse, dirt, and weeds to be abated in the manner provided by Sections 39560 and 39586 inclusive, of the Government Code of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the Superintendent of Streets has caused said rubbish, refuse, dirt, and weeds to be abated. Nuisances abated and an accounting for the cost of abatement in front of or on each separate parcel of land has been set forth in a report entitled “Exhibit A – 2025 City of Newark Weed Abatement – Total Assessments” and attached hereto.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the report of the Superintendent of Streets attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A is hereby confirmed.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the cost of abating the nuisance for each respective parcel is set forth in said report under the column entitled “Total Assessment”.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that there is hereby levied a special assessment against each parcel of land described in said report in the amount of $16,376 as shown in said column “Total Assessment”.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the costs levied as a special assessment against the parcels of land described in said report shall become a lien upon the property. (TCR1)
I HEREBY CERTIFY the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newark held on _________________, by Council Member ____________________ who moved its adoption and passage, which motion was carried after being duly seconded, and passed by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

SECONDED:

APPROVED:
s/Michael K. Hannon
ATTEST: Mayor
s/SHEILA HARRINGTON
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
s/KRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO
City Attorney
The undersigned City Clerk of the City of Newark hereby certifies and attests that the undersigned has access to the official records of the City Council of the City of Newark, that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by said City Council of the City of Newark at a meeting of said City Council and that such resolution has not been amended or altered and are in full force and effect on the date stated above.
________________________
Sheila Harrington, City Clerk, City of Newark
________________________
Date

MAP SORT PARCEL ALCO APN LOCATION
MOWING
HOURS
TOTAL

ASSESSMENT
3 092 013100109 92-131-1-9 FILBERT STREET AT SNOW 4 $387.60

3.1 092 013100204 92-131-2-4 37243 FILBERT STREET 4 $387.60

3.2 092 013100300 92-131-3 37257 FILBERT STREET 4 $387.60 8 092 003001403 92-30-14-3 6717 THORNTON AVENUE 8 $775.20

11.39 092A200000400 92A-2000-4 SP RAILROAD R-O-W 8 $775.20

11.42 092 012702000 92-127-20 SP RAILROAD R-O-W 16 $1,550.40 15 537 046000725 537-460-7-25 6953 JARVIS AVENUE 6 $581.40 24 092 007500402 92-75-4-2 CHERRY STREET 4 $387.60

24.1 092 007500502 92-75-5-2 CHERRY STREET 4 $387.60
34 092 012601900 92-126-19 SMCTD RAILROAD R-O-W LOCUST & ELM 30 $2,907.00 35 537 085202800 537-852-28 8891 ENTERPRISE DR 9 $872.10 35 537 085202900 537-852-29 8891 ENTERPRISE DR 9 $872.10 36 092 011501100 92-115-11-3 37445 WILLOW STREET 18 $1,744.20 45 092 012501000 92-125-10 7843 RAILROAD AVE BETWEEN LOCUST & WALNUT 8 $775.20 53 092A103603102 92A-1036-31-2 6152 THORNTON AVENUE 8 $775.20 65 092 012701300 92-127-13 37079 ASH ST 4 $387.60
68 092 014000500 92-140-5 8333 ENTERPRISE DR 12 $1,162.80 71 092 010001103 92-100-11-3 THORNTON AVE 8 $775.20
72 092 005200400 92-52-4 THORNTON AVE 5 $484.50
TOTALS 169 $16,376.10
2025 Weed Abatement - Schedule A - Total Assessments
Item E. 2.

DATE 07/24/2025
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Joseph Balatbat, Associate Planner
SUBJECT Hearing to consider a Call for Review of the Planning Commission’s adoption of Resolution No. 2022 approving the Prologis project at 6756 – 6792 Central Avenue (APN:
92A-2165-14, -15, -16, and -17) consisting of the following entitlements: Design Review (DR2022-010), a Minor Use Permit (MUP2024-001), and a Conditional Use Permit (U2024-001) to allow for a new industrial building and associated on-site improvements and consider a resolution affirming the Planning Commission's action and a resolution overturning the Planning Commission's action
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The applicant, Ryan Marshall, and property owner, Prologis LP, (the "Applicant") submitted an application for a new industrial building and associated on-site improvements at 6756 – 6792 Central Avenue (the “Project”). The requested entitlements include the following:

Design Review (DR2022-010) for the construction of a new industrial building and associated on-site improvements. Pursuant to Newark Municipal Code ("NMC") §17.34.020, Design Review is required for all projects that require a permit for new construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, alteration, or other improvements to the exterior of a structure, site, or a parking area;

1. Conditional Use Permit (U2024-001) to allow for an “indoor warehousing and storage” use and a “wholesaling and distribution” use. Pursuant to NMC §17.09.020, an “indoor warehousing and storage” use and a “wholesaling and distribution” use require approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and

2. Minor Use Permit (MUP2024-001) to allow for an additional height increase to the new prefinished vertical tube steel fencing to be 6 feet tall within the minimum required 10-foot front setback area. Pursuant to NMC §17.17.040(A)(2), an additional height increase for fencing requires approval of a Minor Use Permit.

3. On June 24, 2025, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to approve the Project and adopted Resolution 2022 (the "Resolution), based upon the findings contained in the Resolution and subject to conditions of approval.

Staff sent a Notice of Action describing the decision to the members of the City Council and Planning Commission, the Applicant, all property owners within a minimum 1,000-foot radius of the Project site, all neighborhood and community organizations that filed a written request for notice of projects in the area where the site is located, and all persons and groups who have filed a written request for notice regarding the specific application.

Pursuant to NMC §17.31.100, a member of the City Council may submit a "Call for Review" of a decision of the Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or Planning Commission. Council Member Grindall requested a review of the Planning Commission’s decision to adopt the Resolution.

Staff recommends that the City Council consider one of the following actions:

Affirm the Planning Commission’s decision to adopt the Resolution (Attachment 3) without any modifications to project approvals;

1. Affirm the Planning Commission’s decision to adopt the Resolution with changes to the Project, the required findings of fact, and/or the conditions of approval; or

2. Reject the Planning Commission’s decision, thereby denying the Project based on an inability to make the necessary findings for approval.

3. Staff recommends that the City Council affirm the Planning Commission's Resolution without any modifications to the project approvals. However, if the City Council seeks to overturn the Planning Commission's decision, staff has provided a draft resolution (Attachment 5). The draft resolution includes a space for the City Council to identify where it was unable to make the necessary findings to approve the Project.

BACKGROUND
The subject site consists of four parcels, with a combined lot size of 17.4 acres.

Previous uses on the site include, but are not limited to, a recycling center, glass manufacturer, and pallet storage yard. The subject site consists of an existing warehouse building, uncovered storage yards, fencing, and hardscaped areas.

The subject site is zoned GI: General Industrial and has a General Plan Land Use designation of General Industrial and is primarily surrounded by industrial uses.

Project Description
The Project consists of a new industrial building and associated on-site improvements at 6756 – 6792 Central Avenue. The new industrial building is considered a speculative building with no tenants currently identified. The new industrial building would be approximately 315,390 square feet, which includes 33,806 square feet of office space and 281,584 square feet of industrial space.

A complete overview of the Project can be found as part of Staff's report for the Planning Commission meeting (Attachment 1).

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The General Industrial General Plan designation is intended to accommodate a broad range of manufacturing, warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution uses. This designation is implemented through the GI: General Industrial Zoning District.

The Project was reviewed under NMC Title 17 (Zoning) and complies with the applicable provisions of the Zoning Code, which include building height, setback, parking and loading, and fencing requirements.

The Project is subject to the Design Review criteria specified in NMC §17.34.060, Conditional Use Permit findings specified in NMC §17.35.060, and Minor Use Permit findings specified in NMC §17.35.060 and NMC §17.17.040(A)(1)(a)(ii). Overall, the Project would enhance the site and is compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding areas. The new industrial building consists of contemporary design elements with high-quality materials and clean forms that create an attractive building within the site. The Project would be complementary to the site and would enhance the appearance and features of the surrounding natural and built environment.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an “indoor warehousing and storage” use and a “wholesaling and distribution” use. The Project would be consistent with the type of uses found in the GI Zoning District. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the Conditional Use Permit findings. As mentioned earlier in this report, the applicant has not identified a tenant to occupy the new industrial building.

The applicant has submitted a Transportation Impact Study to analyze traffic impacts for the Project and various industrial uses. The study has been prepared to determine the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service (LOS) impacts associated with the Project. It included an analysis of trip generation for trucks and vehicles, impacts, mitigations, and recommendations. The study states that the Project's VMT to employee ratio of 14.02 is expected to be lower than the threshold of significance ratio for VMT to employee ratio of 14.6, and as a result, the project is determined to have a less-than-significant transportation impact.

As part of the Engineering Division’s conditions of approval, the applicant would incorporate LOS mitigation measures specified in the study, which include signal phasing adjustments at the northbound left lane at the Cherry Street and Central Avenue intersection to address the queuing deficiency.

Dock Doors
As part of the conditions of approval, the applicant would revise the Project plans to include the 32 dock doors with two grade-level doors and 14 door knockouts as part of the building permit submittal. It should be noted that as part of the project's conditions of approval, any changes to the design of the new industrial building that include the conversion of the additional door knockouts to dock doors for an “indoor warehousing and storage” use and/or a “wholesaling and distribution” use would require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit.

Overall, the Project would be compatible with the surrounding industrial uses in the nearby area.

DESIGN REVIEW
Industrial Building
The design of the new industrial building would be a contemporary style design consisting of high-quality tilt-up concrete with metal panel accents. The location of the new building would be in the center of the property.  The new building would be predominantly single-story, with the exception of a two-story office. The overall exterior height of the new building would be 49’-6”, to the top of the parapet. Design elements and architecture features would include:
•    Tilt-up panels to be painted in three different colors. •    Perforated metal panel shading device.
•    Prefinished aluminum window frame and glazing.
•    Prefinished metal canopy above entry.
•    Prefinished aluminum curtain wall and glazing.
•    Prefinished aluminum storefront and glazing.
•    Roof mechanical screen.
•    Spandrel glazing.
•    Exterior wall-mounted building light fixtures.
•    Cast-in-place concrete stairs.
•    Access doors.
•    Roll-up doors.

The Project plans display the exterior colors and materials used on the new industrial building. Additionally, the Project plans include a placeholder for a public art installation at the front (north) elevation of the new building that faces Central Avenue.

On-Site Improvements
The Project would include new landscape areas, walkways, driveways, drive aisles, parking areas, bicycle parking areas, bioretention areas, an employee open space area, site lighting, fencing, vehicular gates, a truck courtyard area, and a trailer storage area.

The new landscaping would include trees, shrubs, perennials, grasses, and ground cover plants. The applicant proposes to remove ten existing trees on the site to accommodate the new on-site improvements.

Two new driveways would be created along the front (northwestern) of the property to provide access to the site and parking areas. As indicated in the Transportation Impact Study, prepared by Kimley Horn dated May 2025, the driveway at the west of the Project site along Central Avenue would be for “passenger car access only”. The driveway at the east of the Project site along Central Avenue would be for “truck access only”.

Pedestrian walkways would be provided along the parking areas, bicycle parking areas, Pedestrian walkways would be provided along the parking areas, bicycle parking areas, and the new industrial building. Sidewalks would be proposed along the project frontage on Central Avenue. As part of the Planning Division’s and Engineering Division’s conditions of approval, the applicant would need to revise the Project plans to show the design of the sidewalk along the property frontage on Central Avenue as part of the building permit submittal.

New site lighting would also be provided along the perimeter of the property. The rear (eastern) of the property, behind the new industrial building, would consist of a truck courtyard area and trailer storage area. The Project would provide a total of 396 on-site parking spaces, which would meet the minimum required number of on-site parking spaces as outlined in Chapter 17.23 – Parking and Loading.

An employee open space area would be provided along the front of the new industrial building. The employee open space area would include an outdoor cooking area, table and seating area, hardscaping, and landscaping. A 6-foot-tall perforated metal panel steel frame fencing, painted cement board wall, and amenity entrance gates would be installed around the new employee open space area.

MINOR USE PERMIT
Pursuant to NMC §17.17.040(A)(2), an additional height increase for fencing in non-residential districts requires approval of a Minor Use Permit. The applicant is requesting approval of a Minor Use Permit to allow for an additional height increase to the new prefinished vertical tube steel fencing to be 6 feet tall within the minimum required 10-foot front setback area. The new fencing would be located along the side (southern) property line adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad. Overall, the additional fence height request would comply with the fencing standards outlined in NMC §17.17.040 - Fences and Freestanding Walls, which include meeting the 6-foot height limitation and utilizing a tube steel material.

Parcel Map
The applicant will submit an application for a Parcel Map to merge the four parcels into one parcel for review and approval by the City Engineer, separately from the review of the requested entitlements. As part of the Engineering Division’s conditions of approval, the Parcel Map to merge the four parcels into one would need to be recorded at the Alameda County Recorder’s Office prior to issuance of the building permit.

Public Art and Signage
As part of the Planning Division’s conditions of approval, the applicant would be required to work with Staff on the public art installation as part of the building permit submittal. The General Plan includes a policy to use public art to commemorate Newark's cultural diversity, history, and unique character. The public art installation would help enhance the aesthetics of the new industrial building since the site is along Central Avenue, an arterial road, and the future overpass project.

The applicant has submitted a Signage Package for the new building and site. As part of the Planning Division’s conditions of approval, the applicant would need to apply for a Sign Permit to the Planning Division for review and approval to demonstrate compliance with Chapter 17.25 – Signage Standards.

Based on Staff’s analysis, the Design Review criteria, Conditional Use Permit findings, and Minor Use Permit findings for the Project can be made in the affirmative and are provided in Attachment 3 of this report.

COMMUNITY MEETINGS
The applicant held two community meetings on the Project. Notices for the community meetings went out to property owners within a minimum 1,000-foot radius of the Project site and the homeowners’ association in the Bayside Newark area.

The first meeting was held on December 18, 2023, at the Silliman Community Activity Center. No members of the public attended the meeting. The other community meeting was held on January 21, 2025, at the Community Meeting Room in the Newark Library.

The applicants’ team, City Staff, and one member of the public attended the meeting.

The applicants’ team presented an overview of the Project. Prior to the meeting, Staff received written comments regarding sidewalk improvements along Central Avenue, the status and review of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis, and the timeframe and duration of construction.

Required Noticing
Pursuant to NMC §17.31.060, on July 8, 2025, a public hearing notice was published in The Tri City Voice and mailed to all property owners within a minimum 1,000-foot radius of the Project site, all neighborhood and community organizations that have filed a written request for notice of projects in the area where the site is located, and all persons and groups who have filed a written request for notice regarding the specific application.

FISCAL IMPACT
The project is not expected to negatively impact the City's budget. As described in NMC Chapter 3.24, the City has established fees that are imposed upon projects to mitigate the impacts that the projects have upon the City's ability to provide public facilities. Per the current Master Fee Schedule, the Project would be subject to the following impact and in-lieu fees as described in the table below. In addition, the project would be required to pay the Community Development Maintenance Fee, which is

0.5% of the construction valuation.

Total Building SF 315,390 SF
Public Safety: $0.61 SF $192,387.90
Community Service/Facilities: $0.45 SF $141,925.50
Transportation: $5.93 SF $1,870,262.70
Housing Impact: $0.83 SF $261,773.70
Art in Public Places and Private Development: $0.21 SF $66,231.90 Grand Total $2,532,581.70
Grand Total $2,532,581.70
The applicant, property owners, and/or developer will be responsible for remitting the respective impact fees in effect at the time, prior to the issuance of any building permits for the Project. The collection of the impact fees is included in the conditions of approval.

ENVIRONMENTAL/PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Staff retained the consultant services of M-Group to determine if the Project is eligible for an exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CEQA analysis prepared by M-Group, dated June 2025, in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines evaluates the environmental impacts from the Project, included as Exhibit E of Resolution No. 2022 (Attachment 2). The analysis demonstrated that the Project is eligible for the following CEQA exemptions:

Consistency with Program EIR. The City of Newark 2013 FEIR provides for streamlining and/or tiering provisions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. This CEQA Analysis demonstrates that the Project would not result in substantial changes or involve new information that would warrant preparation of a subsequent EIR because the level of development proposed is within the development assumptions analyzed in the program level EIR (2013 FEIR). No further environmental review is required.

Community Plan Exemption. Streamlined environmental review per Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines and California Public Resources Code Section 21083.3. The Project is consistent with the General Plan and will not result in significant environmental impacts that were not previously identified as significant project-level, cumulative or offsite effects in the 2013 FEIR. The Project is exempt from further CEQA review since it is consistent with the General Plan.

As discussed in the analysis, the Project is within the scope of development projected under the General Plan for which an EIR was certified in 2013. The Project will implement applicable mitigation measures identified in the 2013 FEIR. In addition, the Project will be required to comply with applicable conditions of approval of the Resolution and is subject to uniformly applied development standards. With implementation of the required mitigation measures and conditions of approval, the Project will not result in a substantial increase in the severity or significant impacts that were previously identified in the program-level EIR, nor will the Project introduce any new significant impacts that were not previously identified. Therefore, there will be no additional environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in the 2013 FEIR.

Overall, the Project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15168 and §15183 and California Public Resources Code §21083.3.

Planning Commission Review
As described in NMC Chapter 17.30, the Planning Commission serves as the decision-making body for Conditional Use Permits. Requests for Design Review and Minor Use Permits may also be reviewed by the Planning Commission at the discretion Minor Use Permits may also be reviewed by the Planning Commission at the discretion of the Community Development Director.

On June 24, 2025, the Planning Commission received a staff recommendation for adoption of a resolution to approve the Applicant's requested entitlements. The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the staff recommendations and receive public comments. A member of the public, Mr. Stephen Cassidy, CEO of the Newark Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of the Project. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the staff recommendation and information contained in the staff report, the public testimony received, and discussed the merits of the project.

Following the discussion, Commissioner Aguillar made a motion to approve the staff recommendation, which was seconded by Commissioner Becker. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to approve the motion. Minutes of the June 24, 2025 Planning Commission meeting are provided in Attachment 4.

REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by - Joseph Balatbat, Associate Planner
Reviewed by - Steven Turner, Community Development Director Reviewed by - Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Reviewed by - Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Approved by - David J. Benoun, City Manager
Attachments
Attachment 1A -June 24, 2025 PC Staff Report
Attachment 1B - Draft Resolution
Attachment 1C - Project Narrative
Attachment 1D - Project Plans
Attachment 1E - CEQA Analysis
Attachmment 1F - CEQA Appendix A
Attachment 1G - CEQA Geotech Report
Attachment 1H - CEQA Appendix C-1
Attachment 1I - CEQA C-2
Attachment 1J - CEQA Appendix D-1
Attachment 1K - CEQA Appendix D-2
Attachment 1L - CEQA Appendix E
Attachment 1M - Concept Plan
Attachment 1N - Fire Truc Exibit
Attachment 1O - Signage Package
Attachment 2 – Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022 (with Exhibit A & B only) Attachment 3 – Draft Resolution – Affirming the Planning Commission’s Decision of Approval of the Project
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Minutes July 24th
Attachment 5 – Draft Resolution – Overturning the Planning Commission’s Decision of Approval of the Project
Staff Presentation
Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2025
City of Newark PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO
E.1 Hearing to consider DR2022-010, U2024-001, and MUP2024-001, a Resolution approving a Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Minor Use Permit to allow for a new industrial building and associated on-site improvements at 6756 – 6792 Central Avenue (APN: 92A-2165-14, -15, -16, and -17). The subject site is zoned GI:

General Industrial and has a General Plan designation of General Industrial – from Associate Planner Joseph Balatbat.
(RESOLUTION)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant, Ryan Marshall, and property owner, Prologis LP, submitted an application for a new industrial building and associated on-site improvements at 6756 – 6792 Central Avenue (the “Project”). The requested entitlements include the following:

1. Design Review (DR2022-010) for the construction of a new industrial building and associated on-site improvements. Pursuant to Newark Municipal Code (NMC) §17.34.020, Design Review is required for all projects that require a permit for new construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, alteration, or other improvements to the exterior of a structure, site, or a parking area;

2. Conditional Use Permit (U2024-001) to allow for an “indoor warehousing and storage” use and a “wholesaling and distribution” use. Pursuant to NMC §17.09.020, an “indoor warehousing and storage” use and a “wholesaling and distribution” use require approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and

3. Minor Use Permit (MUP2024-001) to allow for an additional height increase to the new prefinished vertical tube steel fencing to be 6 feet tall within the minimum required 10-foot front setback area. Pursuant to NMC §17.17.040(A)(2), an additional height increase for fencing requires approval of a Minor Use Permit.

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the following action:

1. Adopt the Draft Resolution, approving the Design Review (DR2022-010), Conditional Use Permit (U2024-001), and Minor Use Permit (MUP2024-001) for the Project based on the findings provided in Attachment 1, Draft Resolution.

PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
Property Description
The subject site consists of four parcels, with a combined lot size of 17.4 acres (756,061 square feet). Previous uses on the site include, but are not limited to, a recycling center, glass manufacturer, and pallet storage yard. The subject site consists of an existing warehouse building, uncovered storage yards, fencing, and hardscaping.

Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2025
The subject site is zoned GI: General Industrial and has a General Plan Land Use designation of General Industrial. The subject site is bounded by Central Avenue, Cherry Street, Redeker Place, and the Union Pacific Railroad. The subject site is primarily surrounded by industrial uses.

Project Description
The Project consists of a new industrial building and associated on-site improvements at 6756 – 6792 Central Avenue (Attachment 1, Exhibit D). In the Project Narrative, the applicant indicates:
“The Project is currently speculative in nature with no tenant prospects as of the application date. Our intent is to transform an underutilized industrial outdoor storage yard into a Class A, state of the art industrial warehouse with approximately 300 new permanent jobs”(Attachment 1, Exhibit C).

Below are the details of the Project and the requested entitlements:

Design Review
Industrial Building
The new industrial building would be approximately 315,390 square feet, which includes 33,806 square feet of office space and 281,584 square feet of industrial space with 46 dock doors with two drive-in doors at the rear (south) elevation of the building. The design of the new industrial building would be a contemporary style design consisting of high-quality tilt-up concrete with metal panel accents. The location of the new building would be in the center of the property (Attachment 1, Exhibit D).

The new building would be predominantly single-story, with the exception of a two-story office.

The overall exterior height of the new building would be 49’-6”, to the top of the parapet. Design elements and architecture features would include:
• Tilt-up panels to be painted in three different colors. • Perforated metal panel shading device.
• Prefinished aluminum window frame and glazing.
• Prefinished metal canopy above entry.
• Prefinished aluminum curtain wall and glazing.
• Prefinished aluminum storefront and glazing.
• Roof mechanical screen.
• Spandrel glazing.
• Exterior wall-mounted building light fixtures.
• Cast-in-place concrete stairs.
• Access doors.
• Roll-up doors.

The Project plans display the exterior colors and materials used on the new industrial building (Attachment 1, Exhibit D). Additionally, the Project plans include a placeholder for a public art installation at the front (north) elevation of the new building that faces Central Avenue.

Detached Trash Enclosure
A new detached trash enclosure would be proposed along the southeastern side of the property.

The new trash enclosure would be 10 feet tall. The exterior colors and materials of the new trash Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2025
enclosure would be similar to the new industrial building, which includes tilt-up concrete walls, perforated metal gate, corrugated metal roof, and a tube steel roof structure.

The new landscaping would include trees, shrubs, perennials, grasses, and ground cover plants (Attachment 1, Exhibit D). The applicant proposes to remove ten existing trees on the site to accommodate the new on-site improvements.

Two new driveways would be created along the front (northwestern) of the property to provide access to the site and parking areas (Attachment 1, Exhibit D). As indicated in the Transportation Impact Study, prepared by Kimley Horn dated May 2025, the driveway at the west of the Project site along Central Avenue would be for “passenger car access only”. The driveway at the east of the Project site along Central Avenue would be for “truck access only” (Attachment 1, Exhibit E).

Pedestrian walkways would be provided along the parking areas, bicycle parking areas, and the new industrial building. Sidewalks would be proposed along the project frontage on Central Avenue. As part of the Planning Division’s and Engineering Division’s conditions of approval, the applicant would need to revise the Project plans to show the design of the sidewalk along the property frontage on Central Avenue as part of the building permit submittal.

An employee open space area would be provided along the front of the new industrial building.

The employee open space area would include an outdoor cooking area, table and seating area, hardscaping, and landscaping. A 6-foot-tall perforated metal panel steel frame fencing, painted cement board wall, and amenity entrance gates would be installed around the new employee open space area.

New fencing would be installed along the perimeter of the site, which includes:
• 3-foot-tall prefinished vertical tube steel fencing.
• 6-foot-tall prefinished vertical tube steel fencing.
• 6-foot-tall chain link fencing.
• 6-foot-tall combination retaining wall with chain-link fencing above.

The new chain-link fencing would be located along the back side and rear of the property, which would not be visible from Central Avenue. The Project plans show new chain link fencing along a portion of the front (southwestern) property line. As part of the Planning Division’s conditions of approval, the applicant would need to revise the Project plans to remove the new chain link fencing along the front (southwestern) property line as part of the building permit submittal.

Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2025
In addition to the new perimeter fencing, two new 6-foot-tall vehicle gates would be proposed.

The new vehicle gates would be of tube steel material and would be installed along both sides of the property. Sheet CU-1.6 of the Project plans includes an illustration of the new fencing and vehicle gates (Attachment 1, Exhibit D).

Utilities and Easements
The Project would include the undergrounding of utilities, including tie-ins for stormwater, sewer, and water along Central Avenue.

New easements would be dedicated as part of the Project. Sheet EX2 of the Project Plans (Attachment 1, Exhibit D) shows the easements; however, the applicant will work with the City Engineer to ensure any other necessary easements are required for the Project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The City Engineer will review the dedicated easements for approval. As part of the Engineering Division’s conditions of approval, the applicant would need to submit the Plat and Legal Descriptions for the dedicated easements to the City Engineer for review and approval.

The proposed easements would include easements necessary for the future overpass project.

The City of Newark is in the process of developing plans to construct an overpass along Central Avenue above the Union Pacific Railroad and in front of the Project site. The overpass would extend across approximately 75% of the Project’s frontage.

Conditional Use Permit
As proposed, the new industrial building is considered a speculative building with no tenants. The Project Narrative stated, “Prologis, the Project Sponsor and Owner of the property, is proposing to demolish approximately 113,500 square feet of obsolete industrial buildings on site to construct a new industrial warehouse facility that can accommodate numerous uses that meet both the City and Prologis’ interests” (Attachment 1, Exhibit C). Advanced manufacturing uses and Research and development uses are also permitted uses in the GI Zoning District.

The applicant is proposing to include other potential uses to occupy the new industrial building, including an “indoor warehousing and storage” use and a “wholesaling and distribution” use.

Pursuant to NMC §17.09.020, an “indoor warehousing and storage” use and a “wholesaling and distribution” use require approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, the applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow such uses.

Although there is currently no tenant to occupy the new industrial building, the Project would be consistent with the type of uses found in the GI Zoning District. A Transportation Impact Study has been prepared to determine potential Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) impacts and/or Level of Service (LOS) deficiencies associated with the Project (Attachment 1, Exhibit E) and is further explained in the Analysis/Discussion section of this report.

Overall, the Project would be compatible with the surrounding industrial uses in the nearby area.

Minor Use Permit
Pursuant to NMC §17.17.040(A)(2), an additional height increase for fencing in non-residential districts requires approval of a Minor Use Permit. The applicant is requesting approval of a Minor Use Permit to allow for an additional height increase to the new prefinished vertical tube steel Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2025
fencing to be 6 feet tall within the minimum required 10-foot front setback area. The new fencing would be located along the side (southern) property line adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad.

To obtain approval of a Minor Use Permit, the additional fence height request would need to comply with the following material standards pursuant to NMC §17.17.040(A)(1)(a)(i)(3). Also, the additional fence height request would need to meet the required findings pursuant to NMC §17.17.040(A)(1)(a)(ii) and NMC §17.35.060.

Overall, the additional fence height request would comply with the fencing standards outlined in NMC §17.17.040 - Fences and Freestanding Walls, which include meeting the 6-foot height limitation and utilizing a tube steel material.

ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION
Generally, the General Industrial General Plan designation is intended to accommodate a broad range of manufacturing, warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution uses. This designation is implemented through the GI: General Industrial Zoning District.

The Project was reviewed under NMC Title 17 (Zoning) and complies with the applicable provisions of the Zoning Code, which include but are not limited to the height requirement, setback requirements, parking and loading requirements, and fencing requirements.

The Project is subject to the Design Review criteria specified in NMC §17.34.060, Conditional Use Permit findings specified in NMC §17.35.060, and Minor Use Permit findings specified in NMC §17.35.060 and NMC §17.17.040(A)(1)(a)(ii). Exhibit A - Findings of Fact of the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) includes responses to how the Project meets the required criteria and findings for the entitlements. Overall, the Project, if approved, enhances the site and is compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding areas. The new industrial building consists of contemporary design elements with high-quality materials and clean forms that create an attractive building within the site. The Project would be complementary to the site and would enhance the appearance and features of the surrounding natural and built environment.

Dock Doors
Since the Project consists of a speculative building with no tenant, Staff believes that it is necessary to address the proposed number of dock doors to ensure that the Planning Commission can make the necessary findings for approval. Specifically, a building with 46 dock doors may promote a “indoor warehousing and storage” use and a “wholesaling and distribution” use, rather than advance manufacturing and research and development uses. In response, the applicant provided a Conceptual Plan (Marketing Plan) showing 32 dock doors with two grade-level doors and 14 door knockouts, which Staff believes allows the Planning Commission to make the findings for approval (Attachment 2). As part of the Planning Division’s conditions of approval, the applicant would need to revise the Project plans to show the 32 dock doors with two grade-level doors and 14 door knockouts as part of the building permit submittal. It should be noted that as part of the Planning Division’s conditions of approval, any changes to the design of the new industrial building that include the conversion of the additional door knockouts to dock doors for an “indoor warehousing and storage” use and/or a “wholesaling and distribution” use would require Planning Commission review and approval.

Conditional Use Permit
Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2025
As mentioned earlier in this report, the applicant has not identified a tenant to occupy the new industrial building. The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an “indoor warehousing and storage” use and a “wholesaling and distribution” use. The Project would be consistent with the type of uses found in the GI Zoning District. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the Conditional Use Permit findings as further explained in Attachment 1 of this report.

The applicant has submitted a Transportation Impact Study to analyze traffic impacts for the Project and for various industrial uses. The Transportation Impact Study has been prepared to determine potential Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) impacts and/or Level of Service (LOS) deficiencies associated with the Project (Attachment 1, Exhibit E). The Transportation Impact Study included analysis of, but not limited to, trip generation for trucks and vehicles, impacts, mitigations, deficiencies, and recommendations.

The Transportation Impact Study indicates that “the project VMT/employee ratio (14.02) is expected to be lower than the threshold of significance ratio for VMT/employee (14.6) and as a result the project is determined to have a less than significant transportation impact” (Attachment 1, Exhibit E).

As part of the Engineering Division’s conditions of approval, the applicant would need to follow the mitigation measures specified in the Transportation Impact Study, which includes signal phasing to address the queuing deficiency at the northbound left lane at the Cherry Street and Central Avenue intersection.

Overall, the Project would be compatible with the surrounding industrial uses in the nearby area.

Parcel Map
The applicant will submit an application for a Parcel Map to merge the four parcels into one parcel for review and approval by the City Engineer, separately from the review of the requested entitlements. As part of the Engineering Division’s conditions of approval, the Parcel Map to merge the four parcels into one would need to be recorded at the Alameda County Recorders’ Office prior to issuance of the building permit.

The applicant has submitted a Signage Package for the new building and site (Attachment 4). As part of the Planning Division’s conditions of approval, the applicant would need to apply for a Sign Permit to the Planning Division for review and approval to demonstrate compliance with Chapter 17.25 – Signage Standards.

Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2025

The first meeting was held on December 18, 2023, at the Silliman Community Activity Center.

No members of the public attended the meeting.

The other community meeting was held on January 21, 2025, at the Community Meeting Room in the Newark Library. The applicants’ team, City Staff, and one member of the public attended the meeting. The applicants’ team presented an overview of the Project. Prior to the meeting, Staff received written comments regarding sidewalk improvements along Central Avenue, the status and review of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis, and the timeframe and duration of construction.

PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
The entitlements for the Project include:

1. Design Review (DR2022-010) for the construction of a new industrial building and associated on-site improvements. Pursuant to NMC §17.34.020, Design Review is required for all projects that require a permit for new construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, alteration, or other improvements to the exterior of a structure, site, or a parking area;

When conducting Design Review, the Planning Commission shall evaluate projects to ensure that they satisfy the criteria in NMC §17.34.060 to the extent that they apply. Also, the Planning Commission shall approve or conditionally approve the Conditional Use Permit request based on the findings required by NMC §17.35.060. Lastly, the Planning Commission shall approve or conditionally approve the Minor Use Permit request based on the findings required by NMC §17.35.060 and NMC §17.17.040(A)(1)(a)(ii).

The inability to make one or more of the findings is grounds for denial of an application. Based on Staff’s analysis, the Design Review criteria, Conditional Use Permit findings, and Minor Use Permit findings for the Project can be made in the affirmative and are provided in Attachment 1 of this report.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Staff retained the consultant services of M-Group to determine if the Project is eligible for an Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2025
exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CEQA analysis prepared by M-Group, dated June 2025, in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines evaluates the environmental impacts from the Project, included as Attachment 1, Exhibit E. The analysis demonstrated that the Project is eligible for the following CEQA exemptions:
• Consistency with Program EIR. The City of Newark 2013 FEIR provides for streamlining and/or tiering provisions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. This CEQA Analysis demonstrates that the Project would not result in substantial changes or involve new information that would warrant preparation of a subsequent EIR because the level of development proposed is within the development assumptions analyzed in the program level EIR (2013 FEIR). No further environmental review is required. • Community Plan Exemption. Streamlined environmental review per Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines and California Public Resources Code Section 21083.3. The Project is consistent with the General Plan and will not result in significant environmental impacts that were not previously identified as significant project-level, cumulative or offsite effects in the 2013 FEIR. The Project is exempt from further CEQA review since it is consistent with the General Plan.

As discussed in the analysis, the Project is within the scope of development projected under the General Plan for which an EIR was certified in 2013. The Project will implement applicable mitigation measures identified in the 2013 FEIR. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with applicable conditions of approval (Attachment 1, Exhibit B) and is subject to uniformly applied development standards. With implementation of required mitigation measures and conditions of approval, the Project would not result in a substantial increase in the severity or significant impacts that were previously identified in the program level EIR, nor would the Project introduce any new significant impacts that were not previously identified. Therefore, there would be no additional environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in the 2013 FEIR.

Overall, the Project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15168 and §15183 and California Public Resources Code §21083.3.

REQUIRED NOTICING
Pursuant to NMC §17.31.060, §17.34.070, and §17.35.050, on June 10, 2025, a public hearing notice was published in The Tri City Voice and mailed to all property owners (i.e., 70 property owners) within a minimum 1,000-foot radius of the Project site, all neighborhood and community organizations that have filed a written request for notice of projects in the area where the site is located, and all persons and groups who have filed a written request for notice regarding the specific application. The City has not received any written correspondence on this project as of the writing of this report. Any communications received prior to the public hearing will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and made available to the applicant and public.

PLANNING COMMISISON ACTION
Staff requests the Planning Commission to consider the following action:

Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2025
Attachments

1. Draft Resolution
Exhibit A – Findings of Fact
Exhibit B – Conditions of Approval
Exhibit C – Project Narrative
Exhibit D – Project Plans
Exhibit E – CEQA Analysis

2. Conceptual Plan (Marketing Plan)

3. Fire Truck Exhibit

4. Signage Package
Resolution No. ______ 1 of 30
DR2022-010, U2024-001, and MUP2024-001
RESOLUTION NO. ______

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWARK APPROVING DR2022-010, U2024-001,
AND MUP2024-001, A DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE

PERMIT, AND MINOR USE PERMIT FOR A NEW

INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED ON-SITE
IMPROVEMENTS AT 6756 – 6792 CENTRAL AVENUE (APN:
92A-2165-14, -15, -16, AND -17)
WHEREAS, Ryan Marshall, (the “Applicant”) and Prologis LP (the “Property Owner”), filed with the City of Newark an application for a Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Minor Use Permit for a new industrial building and associated on-site improvements at 6756 – 6792 Central Avenue (APN 92A-2165-14, -15, -16, and -17) (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the property at 6756 – 6792 Central Avenue (the “Project site”) has a combined lot size of approximately 756,061 square feet (17.4 acres) and has a General Plan LandUse designation of General Industrial and is currently zoned GI: General Industrial; and WHEREAS, the Applicant and Property Owner seek a Design Review, which pursuant to Newark Municipal Code (NMC) §17.34.020 is required for all projects that require a permit for new construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, alteration, or other improvements to the exterior of a structure, site, or a parking area. Approval of the Design Review requires the Project to meet the Design Review criteria pursuant to NMC §17.34.060 to the extent that they apply; and WHEREAS, the Applicant and Property Owner seek a Conditional Use Permit, which pursuant to NMC §17.09.020, an “indoor warehousing and storage” use and a “wholesaling and distribution” use requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit requires the Project to meet all the following Use Permit findings pursuant to NMC §17.35.060; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant and Property Owner seek a Minor Use Permit, which pursuant to NMC §17.17.040(A)(2), an additional height increase to the new prefinished vertical tube steel fencing to be 6 feet tall within the minimum required 10-foot front setback area requires approval of a Minor Use Permit. Approval of the Minor Permit requires the Project to meet all the following Minor Use Permit findings pursuant to NMC §17.35.060 and NMC §17.17.040(A)(1)(a)(ii); and WHEREAS, a California Environmental Quality Act (the "CEQA") analysis was prepared as set forth in Exhibit E to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Project in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. With implementation of the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the 2013 General Plan and conditions of approval as set forth in Exhibit B, the CEQA analysis determined and demonstrated that the Project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168 and 15183 and California Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 because the level of Resolution No. ______ 2 of 30
development proposed is within the development assumptions analyzed in the FEIR and the Project is consistent with the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to NMC §17.31.060, §17.34.070, and §17.35.050, a public hearing notice was published in The Tri City Voice on June 10, 2025 and mailed as required for a public hearing, and the Planning Commission held a meeting on said application at 7:00 p.m. on June 24, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 24, 2025, and fully considered the Project, entitlements, staff report, findings of fact, conditions of approval, public comments, and all other testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the staff report, exemptions from CEQA, and standards for approval reflect the City’s independent judgement and analysis of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Project conforms with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for which are incorporated herein by reference and are available for review at City Hall during normal business hours and on the City’s website; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Project satisfies the requisite findings of fact necessary for approval of the Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Minor Use Permit as further explained in the staff report and the findings of fact associated with this Resolution, as identified in “Exhibit A” attached to this Resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Newark as follows:

Section 1. That the forgoing recitals are true and correct and made part of this Resolution.

Section 2. That the Planning Commission hereby makes the necessary findings and determinations required by the NMC to approve the requested Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Minor Use Permit for the Project, as further explained in the staff report and findings of fact for approval as set forth in “Exhibit A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 3. Based on the findings and determinations, the Planning Commission hereby approves DR2022-010, U2024-001, and MUP2024-001, a Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Minor Use Permit for a new industrial building and associated on-site improvements at 6756 – 6792 Central Avenue (APN 92A-2165-14, -15, -16, and -17), subject to the Conditions of Approval, as further set forth in “Exhibit B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

Resolution No. ______ 3 of 30
This Resolution was introduced at the City of Newark Planning Commission’s June 24, 2025 regular meeting by Commissioner _________________________, seconded by Commissioner _________________________, and passed as follows:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

STEVEN TURNER, Secretary LORI BOGISICH, Chairperson
Attachments
Exhibit A – Findings of Fact
Exhibit B – Conditions of Approval
Exhibit C – Project Narrative
Exhibit D – Project Plans
Exhibit E – CEQA Analysis
Exhibit A: Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ______ 4 of 30
Exhibit A

FINDINGS OF FACT
DR2022-010, U2024-001, and MUP2024-001
6756 – 6792 Central Avenue
Alameda County Assessor’s Parcel Number(s) 92A-2165-14, -15, -16, and -17 Design Review Criteria (Newark Municipal Code [NMC] §17.34.060) A. The overall design of the project including its scale, massing, site plan, exterior design, and landscaping will enhance the appearance and features of the project site and surrounding natural and built environment.

The Project consists of a new industrial building and associated on-site improvements at the site located at 6756 – 6792 Central Avenue. The new industrial building will consist of a contemporary style design that will provide a variety architectural features, design elements, colors, and materials. The height of the new building will be 49’-6”, measured from grade to the top of the parapet.

The new on-site improvements, which include new landscape areas, walkways, driveways, drive aisles, parking areas, bicycle parking areas, bioretention areas, employee open space area, site lighting, fencing, vehicular gates, truck courtyard area, and trailer storage area, will complement the architecture of the new industrial building. The Project will enhance the site and will be compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding environment.

Additionally, the Project will respect the surrounding development pattern. Overall, the Project's design will be complementary to the area.