All right. Good evening. Good evening. The September 3rd, 2026 meeting of the Planning
Commission is called to order. Would everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
For which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all.
Will the Secretary please conduct the roll call?
For the record, the following commissioners are present for the meeting at the time of
roll call. Chairperson Tejada, Vice Chairperson Mendoza, Commissioner Rich,
Commissioner Solis, and Commissioner Tabuulu. Commissioner Zuber and Commissioner
Nay are absent at the time of roll call, but we do have a quorum. Thank you Mr.
Secretary. The next item on the agenda is announcements. Mr. Secretary are there
any announcements this evening? There are no announcements this evening. Moving on
to the consent calendar. There is one item on the consent calendar this evening. The
draft minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of July 2, 2026. Would any commissioners
like to pull the item from the consent calendar for corrections? If not, may I have a motion
to approve the consent calendar? Do I have a second?
Second. Second. It has been moved by Commissioner
Solis and seconded by Vice Chairman Doza that the consent calendar be approved.
Please vote on your screens. The motion passes with four yeses, zero noes and one
abstention. Next item on the agenda is staff reports and announcements. Mr.
Secretary do we have any staff reports or announcements this evening? There are
no additional staff announcements this evening. Perfect, thank you Mr. Secretary.
the next item on the agenda is public comments the public the public is
invited to make any comments related to agenda items that are not listed under
public hearings or other items of public interest at this time if you wish to
speak during public comments please fill out a speaker card and hand it to the
administrative assistant and speakers will be invited to speak public comments
are limited to three minutes per person. If you wish to comment on an item
listed under the public hearings portion of the agenda, you will have an
opportunity to do so when the item is heard. Please fill out the speaker card
and hand it to the administrative assistant. We are now taking public
comments. This is the time when any person may address the board on matters
not listed on this agenda. Again, items not listed on this agenda. I will now call
our first speaker. First speaker is, I may mispronounce this, is Chris Urb, there we
go, thank you for the correction, appreciate it. Good evening relatives.
First I'd like to acknowledge the Ohlone people whose territory that we occupy.
Good day, my name is Chris, Urban Res Life, Longoria. I am a citizen of the
cattle nation, and a resident of San Leandro for 42 years.
Stewardship of the land, Mama Earth,
is at its strongest when it's guided by both knowledge
and partnerships.
As we navigate this new issue with data centers
moving in our communities, this is a nationwide issue
on stolen land.
you as we as a community navigate this process we must remember that we want a
healthy vibrant community with not only data centers but with other
manufacturing currently in our city such as alco who releases toxins in our air
that affect our health and well-being on a daily basis. I am also very concerned
as to how we would handle an environmental emergency in our city. I am
deeply concerned about this permit near Davis Street Community Center. I know
currently it is not a data center and this is a conditional use permit.
I just want to share my feelings in the short time that I have. I ask you to all
of us as we navigate this issue in our communities nationwide that we all try
to walk in a good way because we have to work together as a community.
I'll hold thank you. Thank you. Do we have any more speaker cards? We do. And just as
a reminder this is public comments for items not on the agenda so if you have
comments for an item on the agenda we will be addressing that later. Next
speaker is Sarah Bailey. I realized at the last minute I needed to bifurcate
this statement. So I hope you read my email about the warehouse. This is coming
later paragraph that I feared was an AI Data Center because of its size.
Commissioner Rich assures me that an AI Data Center is classified differently
and would require an additional conditional use permit but staff is
coming to you soon with their recommended updates to the zoning of the
industrial area and our current mayor and certain members of staff want an AI
data center. I've endorsed James Mase by the way. Please make sure their
recommendations won't make it possible for an AI data center to slip past you
and slip past residents. I don't want to be another Hayward. I want the city to
ban them before such a mistake could happen. AI data centers are
environmental nightmares and one in San Leandro would be a threat to the health
safety of residents while providing no community benefit. Thank you. Thank you.
The next item on the agenda is presentations. Mr. Secretary are there
any presentations this evening? Tonight's agenda has one public hearing
item for consideration by the Planning Commission. If you wish to speak before
the Planning Commission please submit a speaker card and state your name and
address for the record. Meetings of the planning commission are recorded and
televised so please speak clearly for the record. The hearing item is agenda
item 7a-PLN 24-0030. Consideration of a conditional use permit, administrative
site plan review, and administrative exception height to allow the
construction and operation of a new warehouse slash distribution facility
approximately 241,000 square feet and 46 feet high on a 14.9 acre lot at 3199
Alvarado Street, Zoning District, IG, Industrial General, APN 077B-1201-015-00
Applicant, Ware Malcolm, Property Owner, CC Industries, Inc. May we please have the
staff report. Thank You chairperson. The project planner for this item, Loris
as far as we'll be providing the presentation
on behalf of staff.
Before, Lourdes, that goes into our presentation.
I just did want to spend the moment
to acknowledge some of the public comments
that we received on this item
and try to provide some clarity
on what the item is before you this evening.
I think the commissioners have received
a number of comments from the public
expressing concern about a data center
being approved this evening.
And I want just to provide some clarity for the record
that to the end before you is not for a data center.
And Laura just will go into a little bit more detail
but we are proposing a minor amendment
to the conditions of approval to state
as explicitly as possible that a data center
is not being approved by the commission this evening.
Any future data center proposal would be subject
to a conditional use permit which would have to come back
to the planning commission in order to be established.
So I just wanted to make that quick clarification
so that the commission focused their attention
on the matter with some clarity.
So with that, I'll turn it over to Lourdes.
Thank you.
Good evening, commissioners.
I am Lourdes Torres, Associate Planner
for the Community Development Department Planning Division.
The project before you, as before,
mentioned is a conditional use permit, site plan review,
and administrative exception for height
for an industrial project at 3199 Alvarado Street.
The project is on a 14.9 acre site
located in the General Industrial IG Zoning District.
The developer and property owner is CC Industries LLC,
a Henry Crown company which has owned the site
for a number of decades.
The proposal is to remove the warehouse,
landscaping and parking, and to replace it
and improve the property with a 46 foot high,
approximately 241,400 square feet of warehouse
and to install site improvements.
The building would also include two offices of 10,000 square
feet each.
Part of the project is to continue
to operate industrial uses on the north side of the property
and to keep more passive uses on the south side.
We'll go into more detail about that later.
Additionally, the project would add key infrastructure
improvements including a new transformer and prove fire safety with fire hydrants and fire lane and
Cap the natural gas line that is existing and presently serving the site
The site is adjacent to several office commercial and industrial uses including warehouse facilities on the north and east side of the property
Some of these neighbors include the administrative offices for Davis Street Resource Center and NUG which is a cannabis retailer
both on Teagarden Street
There's also a prolagious warehouse across the street on Alvarado Street at
2950 Alvarado which is fronted by several furniture retailers in the main building up front that can be seen from the street on Alvarado
The site also borders the RS single-family residential zoning district on the south property line
Which you can see here depicted in yellow
As you can see many of the residents live on figure well drive and they share a property line with the project site
West of the site is the Nimitz Freeway interstate 80
This is the general site plan for the proposal
We've color-coded it a bit so as to understand the different operations throughout the site
As you can see here in the red area up on the north or the upper portion of the slide
The red area is the proposed new emergency vehicle access easement which would run through the property where Davis Street Resource Center is located
through their parking lot in
The purple areas that are below that and it's north of the building itself
That's where the commercial trucks would be operating all together. You can see on the northeast corner
There's a 40-foot driveway that would be exclusively for heavy-duty trucks and any trucks that would come to the site for the industrial operations
All the loading docks would be on the north side. You can see sort of the divot a lot of buildings do that
So it's to obscure the visibility from the street and then on the north west corner that area
You would see the truck turnaround
So not just for fire fire lanes, but also for any trucks that would need to do a turnaround
And be able to exit through the same driveway that then in turn from
On the south side of the building and to the east side of the building fronting alvarado Street
You see some peachy orangey areas those are the two vehicle passenger parking lots that would be servicing the site
So that would be any visitors any office workers again
The offices are on the south side at each corner their entrances would also be accessible through those parking lots
Landscaping would be installed throughout the site of no and we'll go into more detail are the front yard setback and
Then there's a south property
Sorry south property line
buffer that would be landscaped and at the back you would see
You would have a self-treatment bio retention area. That would also be hydro cedar native plants
We'll go on and explore more of this in detail as we progress
Now let's review the entitlements
The first entitlement will review the administrative exception for height now
We've seen this before with a few of the warehouses that you've seen in the last few years in this case the proponent
is proposing a 46 foot high building.
And what we wanted to show in this diagram
is the existing building itself is in the dashed lines.
It is already 37 feet high.
The maximum here in the IG is 30 feet.
So the existing building is 37 feet high
and it has a 60 foot setback from the south property line.
And the new building would be located
with a 100 foot setback from the south property line
with a maximum height of 46 feet.
That is what the applicant is requesting.
Part of staff's recommendation would
be to approve the administrative exception for height.
The next entitlement we review is the site plan review.
Site plan approval has to comply with all the zoning code
requirements.
We made this slide to sort of initiate a little bit more
of a deep dive into what the project is complying with.
Typically, the industrial projects,
they have to comply with the basic development regulations
the IG zoning district, typical things like log coverage, floor area, parking and what not.
However, the IG district also requires certain regulations be applied for any properties that
are adjacent to residential properties. So these are items like loading dock rubber bumpers
and a landscape buffer with a masonry wall. Now, a lot of these, all of these are basically
required by the zoning code
however
The warehousing logistics developments that are now being throughout
Developed throughout the state are subject to a new set of regulations that preempt the city's own zoning code
And so that one you might may or may not be familiar with it certainly was discussing your staff reports
Basically, this is California government code section 65098 point two and it was established or enacted in
through assembly Bill 98. So for short we call it AB 98. It was eventually refined again
about a year later with SB 415, but we will continue to refer to it as AB 98. So I have
to apologize if our presentation goes a little bit longer. We just want to make sure you
understand those regulations and how the project complies with it. So we'll go ahead and take
a moment to go through some of these slides a little bit more in detail with the three
major categories that AB 98 requires of these new warehouse developments. I do
have to say AB 98 applies to any warehouse that is being developed that is
within 900 feet of a sensitive receptor such as these residences. We'll start
with the general idea of parking transportation and access. These are all
zoning code requirements. The project itself does comply with the off-street
parking regulations including bicycle requirements as seen on your packet in
Development Regulations Table Attachment 3. You'll note that the project is also providing
long-term bicycle parking spaces. Now these are not required but they are providing those.
They continue to be served by AC Transit and the San Leandro Lynx shuttle as are many of the
industrial sites out in this area. And they are also now providing this emergency vehicle access
It's a second entry, basically, which is not there now.
And they aren't an existing truck route.
And so with that, we'll move on to the first set
of requirements for any AB98 projects.
Those requirements are sort of in the general category
of truck activities.
The first requirement is that the loading docks
have to be located as far away as possible
from the nearest sensitive receptor to the extent feasible.
And in this case, the developer has done that
by putting the loading docks on the north side of the building.
The other main requirement is to have a heavy duty truck driveway where the trucks would
only enter through there.
And they've accomplished that on the northeast corner of the property.
And finally, they do require that truck circulation also be sited away from the residential properties.
As you can see, even the truck turnaround is located away from the south property line.
There is a requirement for a buffer area.
We will talk about that later.
And actually, we'll talk about that next.
So this is another category of requirements for AB 98.
This is what a lot of people think about, in general,
for when there is an adjacency between residential
and industrial.
Put some trees around there or between them.
So to be more specific, AB 98 is requiring
that a building of this size under 250,000 square feet
provide a 50-foot setback.
They call it a buffer, but they've
clarified that it's basically a setback.
In this case, though, the setback is 100 feet.
They do require that they be landscaping, drought
tolerant landscaping.
In this case, the applicant is proposing
25 feet wide of drought tolerant landscaping.
The stormwater bioretension area would also be in there,
or one of the three.
And they require that they be a firm barrier,
either with a berm or a concrete wall.
In this case, they're meeting the requirement,
being conditioned for a 10-foot high precast concrete wall.
It would have to be decorative.
And one of the more important ones
is that there has to be a double row of trees
at a maximum distance of 40 feet on center.
And those trees have to be along that south property line.
You have to, quote unquote, a solid screen
be planted at minimum 15 gallon size containers right so we do see here that
the project is complying with us and that's basically along the south
property line so as to benefit and buffer against the residents is on
Figueroa Street on the right hand side of your screen there you do see the
front yard landscaping I do want to point out they are keeping nine
protected trees that are going to be on that front yard setback they are
planning on removing some trees I know there was a concern regarding the coast
live oaks there is a proposal to remove six I'm so sorry to apologize there was
a typo it's not seven coast live trees there's only six and those would be
removed the project is proposing to replace them with altogether 177 trees
and of those 34 of them would be coast live oaks and four others would also be
Valley Oaks which are not present at the site at this time. So we've arrived at
the third category of requirements for AB 98 for this project and that in
particular is for building energy efficiency. Now this gets a little bit
more technical but we don't have to do such a deep dive. Essentially the project
would be required to meet and exceed the requirements of the let me see here
title 24 part 6 and part 11 those are basically what people consider the
California energy code see here and the California green building standards code
the 80-90 language is very specific each one of these is taken specifically from
the law but you'll notice that it's not just about how we're going to build the
building but also how the building is going to operate and even beyond the
the building itself, also how the trucks would operate.
So the developer would be required to,
and it's part of their conditions of approval,
to install a solar powered system with battery,
but also to go to the level of detail of medium
and heavy duty electrical vehicle readiness
and charging stations for light duty EV.
So that would be the smaller vehicles.
They do have to actually provide the stations,
build them, construct them before they can occupy the site.
of course prohibit idling and provide in this particular case if there is sufficient power
available which hopefully there would be with the new transformer they would have to make
it so that any EV trucks or any trucks that need that power can actually plug in right.
So it goes beyond just what they would install today.
So that's basically the brunt of the AB98 requirements and with that we would actually
recommend to approve the site plan and we can move on to our next entitlement which
which would be the conditional use permit.
So typically with this, we do assess
the land use compatibility and whether or not the use
would put any stress on the public services and utilities.
In this case though, we reviewed quite a bit
about how AB 98 and our own zoning code requires there
to be these landscape buffers
and these particular operational restrictions on the site
to ensure that there is land use compatibility.
The site is not new to a residential area.
Both sites have been zoned IG and residential
for quite a number of decades.
This would be a continuation and improvement
upon the ability to operate together
and to have the industrial activities on the north side
away from the residences.
For the public services,
the property is basically in a low VMT area
that's vehicle miles travel.
And so what that means is that this area
has a home to work vehicle miles travel number
that is below the existing average home to work vehicle
miles travel number.
So what that means is that workers can actually
get to their home and to their work without having
to travel too many miles.
So in one way, being close to residential
can be a little difficult to work with.
But in another way, it allows for that sort
of reduction of greenhouse gases due to the driving.
that's where VMT says that it is presumed not to cause an impact and no
further traffic mitigation would be required right so I do also want to
address in terms of the public services with utilities the project is proposing
to have a new emergency vehicle access easement through the adjacent property
and they are adding quite a few number of fire hydrants and setting up the
building with fire sprinklers that would be an improvement upon what is
currently there the building the last time it was improved it was in 2008 and
so it's a little unclear whether or not they've kept up with some of those
requirements and again they are adding a new transformer and capping the gas line
so they're actually adding to the power capacity in the area altogether once PG&E
is able to set us up for that transformer maybe at some point in time
that could also improve the ability for other neighbors to decide to do the same
We'll move on to our general plan conformance, so the project is quite compliant with the
general plan, but we also wanted to point out that it is consistent with the economic
development strategy, which I believe you heard about recently and received a summary
on.
In fact, the document itself does mention that the city is not very well equipped to
accommodate some of this advanced manufacturing that we want to attract, and so in that particular
Instance what what this project brings brings to cities exactly what we're looking for increased power
Increase clear height. I'm sure you've heard that argument for other and then exceptions for height
And so it would be this project would be consistent with that economic development strategy as well
The project was subject to CEQA. It is subject to CEQA. We
conducted an
environmental review subject to CEQA and the proposal before use for a mitigated negative declaration
essentially with several mitigation measures,
the project would bring its potential impacts
to a level below significance.
As you'll notice on the left-hand side,
the first paragraph there,
we do have some requirements for making sure that any,
because of the substantial amount of grading
that we do anticipate to make sure
to look out for any impacts to cultural resources
and tribal cultural resources.
And so there are mitigation measures
that make it so that anybody working on the site
has to follow certain rules and regulations
to ensure that if anything is found
that it's appropriately managed and preserved
if needed or whatever may be the need.
So monitor or command and whatnot.
And fairly standard conditions of approval
and mitigation measures for a project
that has this kind of grading.
We are also proposing to adopt a mitigation measure
for tree protection.
Again, those trees along the front property line,
Those would be preserved, and so we would want to make sure
that those trees are protected during the grading activities.
Excuse me, I'm liking that.
Okay, and I do want to address the hazard,
hazardous and hazardous waste mitigation measures
that are in the Mitigation Monitoring Program,
Monitoring Reporting Program, has one and has two.
The developer initiated a standard voluntary agreement
review with Department of Toxic Substances Control,
And the reason for this is because the project is located in an area that is known to be impacted by the DWA plume.
What that is, it's basically underground. There might be a plume with contamination resulting from the historical uses in the area.
This IG zone that is very central to the city is quite impacted by that.
Maybe not in quantity per se, but we do deal with that within the city. It is a concern.
And so the applicant began the process with Department of Toxic Substances Control, and they are the one of the
regulatory agencies in the state that deal with this kind of contamination.
They have the experts to review the proposal and the proposed grading and construction and demo activities.
And so with the applicant consulting with them to come to an agreement as to the sampling, the testing, and the
agreement on any necessary
mediation. That would bring the project to a level below significance to ensure that
no such related impacts would be of significance pursuant to CEQA. So with that we are proposing
part of the MMRP, that has one HAZ1 mitigation measure and companion mitigation measure has
two which is for the soil management during the grading activities to make sure that the
workers are protected and also the neighbors are protected during
construction. I won't keep you much longer but to do want to mention the
notice of public hearing was sent out with the standard procedure was mailed
out to the nearest 500 residents sorry 500 foot mailing radius but we did
receive public comments and I do want to address a few of these public comments
one of those was about the truck noise I do want to point out the zoning code
It does require that any of these activities
that happen at the site, any extraneous noise
has to be reduced during the hours of 10 p.m., 7 a.m.
So this is already part of a zoning code.
This would apply to any existing industrial site
that's already developed.
It would apply here, even without the new building.
We also have a concern about the Coast Live Oaks.
As mentioned before, the project would install
34 new Coast Live Oaks,
far exceeding the requirement for a one-to-one replacement ratio that is in the zoning code.
And finally, we did have concerns about data center uses. That was the majority of the
comments to be received. And so we do want to clarify, again, that any data center that
would be proposed would be a separate conditional use permit review that would have to submit
altogether a separate application and come before you again for your decision making.
of the review would include a new CEQA review specific to those impacts of the data center.
But before you, we have no proposals for the data center. The applicant is not proposing
a data center here. And we are not recommending approval of such.
With that, with the review of the whole record, staff does recommend that the Planning Commission
Adopt a resolution adopting the mitigated negative declaration is m&e and
Mitigation monitoring reporting program mmr. P for PLN 24
3030 and approving a conditional use permit
Administrative site plan review and administrative exception for height
to allow the construction and operation of a 46 foot tall approximately
400 square feet warehouse distribution facility on a 14.9 acre lot at
3189 Alvarado Street PLN 24 dash zero zero three zero
Based on the recommended findings effect and subject to the recommended conditions of approval including the modified
approval to add that clarification that data centers would be a separate CEP review and CEQA review with that
I conclude my presentation and I will let you know that
Developers here would like to show you some slides as well
Perfect, thank you for that Lotus that was
Very detailed presentation took a lot of effort to get to that point. So, thank you
before we move on and
Start fielding questions from the Commission to staff
Wanted to take this opportunity for myself in a disclosure sort of setting and open the forum to commissioners as well
If there's been any ex parte communication with the applicant, so I'm disclosing that I've had two instances of
Ex parte communication with the applicant
Open them opening the floor to the Commission
Yeah, I have had
Meeting with the applicant on May 31st a phone call on September 1st in an email on September 2nd
Anyone else we seem to bear with us public. We seem to be having some mic issues tonight
So if we need a toggle between mics we can do that as well, but I see commissioner tab julu
I don't have the exact date with me, but I didn't meet with him
With the applicant thank you I forget the date, but it was fairly recent
Yeah, my my policy is not to have expertly communications with applicants, however some community members did contact me about it
Perfect. Thank you for that
Now that we're clear on that front we can open it up for questions from the commission to staff
Does the commission have questions for staff?
commissioner rich
Thank you very much for that presentation and especially for the clarification regarding data centers. That's very helpful
Um, I have a question regarding truck circulation on the site. There's the where the tractor trailers enter on we'll call the north side
um it
The path of travel appears to be like a sea.
And there's a turnaround at the northwest side
for the tractor trailers.
Can tractor trailers continue south
down the south side of the building,
or is there a gate or some way that prevents them
from continuing down to the south where the car parking is?
Again, yes.
Thank you for asking.
There is a gate installed, if you'll
notice, on the west side there.
I've labeled it internal gate, not a specified requirement.
So basically, where the purple area
meets the orange beach, there is a gate there for the truck.
So it would open up for the trucks and emergency vehicles
to enter.
So basically, anybody who was in a passenger vehicle,
basically a sedan or a car, they could not drive in.
And the trucks also could not drive out,
but they would have emergency vehicle access
so that the fire department can get in.
So effectively, there's no reason
why the trucks would ever go down.
It's also aligned with trees,
and so it wouldn't be comfortable for trucks, if you will.
Thank you.
I had some other questions,
but you answered them in your presentation,
and I'll save my comments for later.
Vice-chair Mendoza.
Yes, so my understanding is that as of right now,
Nothing precludes the applicant from eventually coming back
and applying to convert the location into a data center.
That's my understanding, right?
There is no, yeah, and if they did,
then it will require a CUP as, I mean,
yeah, CUP and SQL Review, right?
Now, here's a direct question.
So let's say that the building is completely
built down and finished.
Now, is this a speculative warehouse?
Yes, we would classify it as that.
It would certainly have a lot more
than we've seen most shell buildings have.
But it is a shell building.
However, it would be at the onset built for a warehouse.
So here's the key question.
So if they come back and say that they want to convert
into a data center and their place is already built down,
is the city in any kind of a legal situation
where it's not allowed to deny them that right?
In other words, because the public sentiment right now
is against data centers, will, in general, an applicant
do like a roundabout, apply it in this way,
knowing that eventually they're going to do a data center.
But once it's there, they already
invested millions of dollars.
And then they come back and say, well, we
are going to request for it to be a data center.
Would that put the city in any kind of legal jeopardy?
It would be a brand new conditional use permit review.
It would have to be evaluated on that proposal.
By approving this warehouse today,
We do not commit to approving a data center in the future either.
And it does not give them really a running start.
They have to basically show the proposal for the data center and the staff and the planning
commission could evaluate it on that proposal.
But nothing precludes in the future for them to apply for data center.
No, not until the zoning code is updated, if at all.
But the zoning code would remain the same in the I.G. district.
A data center would require CEP.
Thank you.
Any other questions from the commission?
Commissioner Tabjula.
Could you elaborate a little bit more on the public noticing that was done for this project?
Sure.
I apologize.
I blew right there.
So the notice of—well, let's start here.
For the environmental review, we are required to do notification.
And so as we were we prepared a mitigated negative declaration, we are required to post
a notice of intent and to mail it to the adjoining property owners.
So that was done and the neighbors along Figueroa Street, they received a notice about that.
And we did receive one comment.
One of those comments was about concerns for the data center, which we've addressed.
The other comment was from E.B.
and the Water Utility Agency asking that the analysis be done on the later documents,
not the 2020, the 2025, but perhaps this is more to your question, the notice of public
hearing, that's the notice that gets mailed out to a 500-foot radius around the property
itself, right, you know, taking the measurement from the perimeter of the property.
And so, we mailed approximately 150, I believe, notices, most of those are located, as you
can see the smaller properties those are in the Arizona district generally and
that's where we received upwards of 10 comments from the public and assuming we
will receive more tonight but yeah so we mail the notice that's the biggest part
of it but we also post the legal ad in the newspaper and we also posted at the
project site we're required to do three postings one at the project site at
least but we did three there and we did two at City Hall in both golden boards
any additional questions from the Commission yes go ahead vice chair yeah
one more question so we voted hearing the Commission for speculative
warehouses before do you happen to have a an idea of why this particular project
it's causing so much attention from the community.
Well, so we did do a little bit of research on this.
What you're looking at here is the southern end
of a central area that's zoned General Industrial
IG in the city.
I don't have a zoom out version, but effectively past I-880
and past Doolittle.
Those are the two other big General Industrial IG zoning
districts in the city.
This central one is one of the few ones
that actually has this adjacency to residential.
And so I would imagine part of that
is because we have this adjacency,
and part of that is because there's more people
keeping their eyes out on these developments.
But we did also check in the last 10 years or so,
this is the largest warehouse that we have proposed.
We've had several big projects as well.
A lot of them, like I said, also with height exemptions.
They're all trying to modernize, which is what the general plan
calls for.
But I must point out that also this
is one of the bigger sites in the city,
in the industrial areas.
It is quite historically an industrial site
and continues to be sown to such.
Any further questions from the commission?
Okay, I just had a few myself here.
I forget which street it is,
but I know there's an abutting residential section
that comes directly up to the property line.
Has there been a day lighting study
or a shadow study conducted so that it's known
with the height going up from 36 to 47, I believe you said.
What does that do in terms of casting a shadow,
daylighting issues for those adjacent neighbors that are right up to the property line
We we're not required to do those. We also don't have those
However, there is a general guideline of a 45-degree angle
So basically with this building be sent being set back at a hundred feet and it being under 50 feet
Basically the shadows would not necessarily reach
the even the landscaped area abutting the residential properties
And elsewhere the setbacks are actually larger
And then that's only if the Sun were coming from the north side, but it comes from the south side
We're at a certain latitude where actually the shadows would hit more in the north side, okay?
Yeah, I think it was the slide where you had the existing parcel in a dash configuration
And then you have the new parcel overlaid in a dark blue
The concern there just popped up when I saw the dark blue and the proximity to the adjacent residential
Right. Yeah, so basically in the blue you can see the double arrow and blue that's the 150 sorry 100
South setback 100 foot South setback. So again, the building it would be 46 feet high
The shadows would not really reach the property line. This helps seeing it back the image. Okay. Perfect. Thank you for that
next question was
Regarding landscaping and some of the exterior upgrades
One of the slides had mentioned 10-foot wall masonry wall for the budding
Residential to property line limit and then 40 foot on center for trees
Maybe this would be more of a question for the applicant when we get to that point but
The height of the trees when they do get to full maturity. They're planted at 40 foot on center
What what what's the height when they reach full maturity?
You know, I I do not know
But the whole intent is to basically have a green screen where it's canvassing off
The actual structure itself from the residential parcels, right?
okay, so I mean that would be great to know if we're looking at kind of a
25 foot 30 foot span on maturity and how long it would take to get to maturity, right?
So these would be bay laurels
Specifically the ones that are sort of in a zigzag fashion
Achieving that double row and so I can certainly look that up and just the general number if you'd like
But the idea and the requirement is that they do indeed create like a visual
They call it a solid screen solid step solid dash screen in the code in the in the state code
But this would satisfy that because they do specifically call for maximum 40 feet on Center
And they do call for that minimum 15 gallon box size
Container size, okay, and then I think you said for the wall
We're not dealing with just kind of run-of-the-mill masonry wall. It'll be a decorative finish masonry wall that demises between the two, right?
The the state code requires a decorative masonry
Decorative wall and so what is being proposed is a precast concrete wall and there are different patterns that can be created on those
During the building permit plan tech we would ask for those that level of detail to be on the plans
Again, whenever we have those kinds of specific details
We want to make sure that they show up on the plan so that they get built and we do inspect for those at the end
Of the you know as they go to do their inspections
Okay, it would be quite similar to what's along Fremont Avenue already
But the this one would come up to 10 feet
Last question for me it goes to the mitigated negative declaration
One of the mitigation measures is the soil management plan and there's a series of
Criteria that should be met as part of that. One of them is monitoring and reporting
My question is just wanting to get a better understanding with the amount of demolition grading earth work, etc
That's going to be happening as part of this project
does monitoring and reporting also
include a
vibration monitoring control plan for adjacent receptors for residential parcels as those construction activities are going to be happening
Can you hear me now? Okay. I believe
We don't anticipate for there to be necessarily any types of activities that would require that would generate that much vibration
That's something that happens when do when they do like pile driving and whatnot
But there are general requirements for noise
That are part of our standard conditions of approval to look out for that thing
We do have requirements here so for has one there are requirements about you know at each stage if they do encounter any
Contaminated soils what to do with that and you know to apply the remediation, but there wasn't necessarily a concern for that
But we could bring in our sequel consultant if you'd like to
Request the specifics of that document sure that's fine
Is that okay that person sir would that be something we do now?
Hi
Commissioners good evening. I'm Abe a leader with rank on consultants. We assisted your staff in preparing the ISM and D. I
Want to make sure I understand your question, but it was involved with hazards and vibration
So we have two sections of the ISM and D that deal with each of those issues
for the soil and groundwater
management plan and the other hazardous materials conditions I mean mitigation
measures those don't require the kinds of equipment and activities that cause
vibration we do separately in the noise section analyze potential vibration
impacts from construction and we there's a formula we apply this a modeling and
we did not identify any significant vibration impacts okay and what what
mitigation measure specifically is that if you're saying it's not in soil
management plan as part of monitoring and reporting but it's in construction.
You said for noise we didn't identify any mitigation measures required once we
modeled out the vibration it wasn't going to be a significant impact for
hazards the hazards we looked at our soil and groundwater contamination and
whether they could be exposed during grading or exposed people working at the
site and so for those we did identify mitigation having to do with regulatory
oversight. This is one of the most regulated you know activities in the
country is anything regarding contaminated materials, so their
mitigation requires full coordination with those state agencies that regulate
hazardous materials, and also during excavation so that any if any
contamination as Lord has said is encountered it's managed and disposed of
properly. Okay yeah I guess just that just kind of raises a few questions with
maybe the metrics that were used in terms of the distance from construction
to receptors that would be in a line of sight or in a view of potential
vibration impacts. Again I just I worry about the residential parcels that are
next to the construction that's going to be ongoing and it seems as though just
building in a buffer, building in some insurance if you will for potential
vibration issues not to be incurred by those residential parcels would tend to be something
copacetic that could be incorporated as part of the environmental process.
So it's a great point and when we do identify that certain types of equipment are going
to be operating very close to say buildings that could be damaged by vibration or if construction
is going to happen at night, vibration disrupts sleep.
and we didn't identify those when we do,
the kind of mitigation measures we apply
is to limit certain types of equipment
within a certain distance of those sensitive receptors.
However, we didn't identify those potential impacts
this time, so we didn't apply mitigation
because that's contrary to CEQA.
However, if you wanna discuss with the applicant
what their equipment mix is,
maybe there's a way to minimize vibration
near the property line.
OK.
I guess maybe I'll further the discussion once the applicant
comes to the stage, and there's a question forum for them.
Again, my concern is with the amount of equipment,
heavy, heavy equipment that we're talking about,
not kind of run of the mill, building up townhomes,
we're talking building a 47-foot concrete structure in a new
warehouse facility.
So this is demolition of an existing structure.
Demolition has the potential to go sideways
at any point in time.
There could be lots of noise that occurs
and lots of vibration.
So I worry about those parcels again.
And if what you're saying is the acceptance
in terms of city staff for incorporating these measures,
I'll defer to you as the expert
and I'll defer my concerns to the applicant
to see if potential measures could be brought in
on their own accord.
Understood, thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, any other final questions for staff?
No, I think we're good then.
Mr. Secretary, I do believe you said
that there's an applicant presentation as well?
Do we wanna handle that before public hearing?
So go from staff report directly to applicant.
I would recommend that.
Okay.
So thank you, Lotus for your presentation.
And with that, we'll go ahead and invite the applicant up
for their presentation.
Yeah, thank you, Chair, and good evening, commissioners.
My name is Chandler Elliot.
Here on behalf of the applicant, CC Industries,
for the proposed industrial redevelopment project
at 3199 Alvarado Street.
As was mentioned, we're requesting
approval of a conditional use permit, an administrative site
plan review, and administrative exception for building height.
And then I did just want to address with you
commissioners directly, the intention
here is not to, in no way, construct a data
center on this site.
We're proposing a warehouse and distribution use here.
And the intent is not to come back later
to try to propose a data center.
So to start, I wanted to provide the commission with photos
and a little bit of context on the existing site.
As some of you may recall, this was the former Levitz building
up until about 2008.
And then DHE took the lease over.
And then in 2022, the lease expired.
And the property owner spent roughly two years
trying to release the building and really struggled
with tenant interests.
So at that point, they decided to move forward
with this redevelopment application that was initially
submitted back in 2024.
now jumping to the proposed building.
We're proposing a replacement of the existing building
with a modern facility, which will have a smaller footprint.
The rendering shown on this slide was developed
to give the commission a visual of the proposed building
and site improvements.
This perspective is from Alvarado Street,
facing west at one of the two car parking entrances
that we'll be providing on the site.
Next, I'd like to touch on why we're proposing
a new building here.
The property was marketed for several years
with little to no tenant interest.
The technical constraints on the building
are the clear height, location of the loading docks,
abnormal column spacing,
and an outdated fire suppression system,
along with limited power service to the building,
as was mentioned.
The proposed facility will address a lot of these constraints
with a modern clear height, updated fire suppression,
standard truck dock heights, and all
on the north side of the building,
on one side of the building, separated car and truck
entrances, and an expanded electrical service.
The electrical service that we proposed
or requested with PG&E through their new service application
is a 4,000 amp service.
They've come back to us and noted
that they can offer a 1500 kVA transformer, which
is very typical for this type of industrial distribution use.
And as was mentioned, it is a speculative development
at this time.
So getting any differentiations in power from PG&E at this time
can be difficult.
The building will address a lot of these constraints
while also still reducing the footprint,
increasing the setback from the southerly property boundary,
and substantially increasing the amount of landscaping.
This next slide speaks to why
this is the right project for this location.
It's consistent with the existing zoning
and general plan designation with no change of use proposed.
The site offers strong regional access
to the A80 corridor via Marina Boulevard
and Alvarado Street.
The project will modernize the building
return the site to productive use, generating local construction, and long-term operational
job opportunities. And lastly, CC Industries intends to remain a long-term owner of the property
and continue its existing partnership with the city. Here's a brief overview of the site's
statistics. As you may have seen, I'll touch on them here briefly. It's 15 acres. The proposed
building is 241,000 square feet, which is a net decrease in roughly 10,000 square feet of the
existing building. 36 foot interior clear height with 226 car parking stalls, 82 trailer stalls,
and 110,000 square feet of landscaping which covers roughly 17% of the site. The 50 dock doors
that are on the north side of the building are a typical kind of dock to square footage
ratio for typical distribution warehouse and distribution use
Looking at access circulation and traffic a full transportation analysis was completed through the application and CEQA process
The analysis identified no new traffic impacts and that no traffic mitigation measures are required
as shown on this exhibit on-site circulation includes two separate car entrances a
dedicated truck driveway and a full on-site truck turnaround. The on-site
truck turnaround will prevent trucks from circulating through the car parking
areas and prevent any trucks from entering or exiting through the
designated car entrances along Alvarado. The project will provide 14 short-term
and 16 long-term bicycle parking spaces for a total of 30 spaces.
Landscaping and screening was a big focus as we worked through the site plan
with city stakeholders. The site plan includes a decrease in pavement area
across the site and an increase in landscaped area. The total landscaped
area is estimated to be 110,000 square feet which includes a 33,000 square foot
bioretention area that does not exist today. The bioretention area will aid in
improving stormwater management throughout the site. During the planning
process the primary focus areas for landscaping included Alvarado Street
frontage and the southern property boundary. The proposed screening along
the southern property boundary now includes a 10-foot precast concrete sound
wall with a horizontal weave pattern. I know the decorative component was
discussed though weave pattern is not final so we'll work through that with
city staff. We are also proposing two rows of evergreen trees, a hundred foot
buffer from the property line to the building. Ten of the existing trees in
Alvarado will be preserved and new trees will be added where street trees do not
exist today. The plans include the addition of a hundred and seventy seven
new trees and a native drought tolerant palette and chair to hopefully address
your question about evergreen trees we anticipate generally those at full
maturity are over roughly 25 feet in height. The existing building today here's
another perspective from Alvarado Street from a little bit further north on
Alvarado. So this is kind of a before picture and then here's the proposed
building from from that viewpoint as well. Turning to sustainability, the
building is expected to be all-electric and the gas connection will be capped as
was mentioned. The building will have renewable elements incorporated into the
design. Structurally the building will allow for a rooftop solar with an
electrical service that will allow for interconnection of that solar array. The
electrical service will be sized with capacity to supply EV chargers on day
one along with capacity for expansion of those EV chargers in the future. 56 of
the 226 parking spaces will be EV charging spaces. A major portion of the
planning phase for the project involved compliance with AB 98. In order to meet
these standards we included screening and a hundred foot buffer from the
southern property boundary, kept trucks and docks on the north side of the
building and increased the size of the trees in the landscaping plan above what
is typically required. Additionally the applicant intends to pursue LEED
certification for the building which generally includes but is not limited to
energy-efficient lighting and HVAC equipment, low flow fixtures and proper
documentation of construction materials. As we sought feedback from city
stakeholders through the planning process we felt that EV and bike parking
were areas where we could offer additional features above the code. The
EV parking stalls as indicated here 46 are were noted in the staff report were
committed to providing 56 EV stalls a little bit above and beyond based on
discussions with city stakeholders and we do intend to make a good-faith effort
to engage a public EV charging company for that kind of initiative here.
However some of the impacts of that related to traffic and power you know
electrical load expansion we're not initially you know analyzed in in the
project where we do intend to make that good-faith effort. The bike parking is
also located near the main office entrance. The long-term bike parking
we're providing 16 stalls and those will feature a secure uncovered enclosure to
protect a bicycle from both theft and weather. I did also want to address here
the vibration discussion. Condition 16 of the conditions of approval does regulate vibrations
related to construction on site. In an effort to solicit feedback, we did outreach to adjacent
neighbors beyond the city's minimum noticing radius. Additionally, we discussed the project
with adjacent businesses and organizations to help them better understand the project
and how we can hopefully continue to be a good neighbor.
The fire access easement was discussed.
That'll be a closed, air closed off area with a locked gate
for emergency personnel to access,
but we did have to work with the neighbors
to get through that.
During project construction, we are committed to work
with local construction unions
to construct a high quality building.
We've partnered with the Carpenters Union,
the local building trades and Liuna. In closing we appreciate the Commission's
time and consideration of this project. This project will return a vacant site
to productive use with a modern smaller building creating local construction jobs
and attracting new businesses in alignment with the city's economic
development strategy. We respectfully request approval of the project and look
forward to a continued partnership with the city. Thank you for that presentation.
We may have you up here for a second
as we field questions for the applicant,
opening it up to the commission.
Any questions for the applicant?
Vice Chairman Doza.
Thank you for the presentation.
So CC Industries is the property owner basically, right?
And it's gonna develop the property.
So when you say that you're not planning
putting a data center there. Usually that wouldn't be CC Industries. That would be
like a tenant that would come along and say I want to establish this type of
business, you evaluate it, and then you move on that, right? Yeah, I mean
that's correct except we, you know, the site generally won't be marketed in that
way. We've had a lot of discussions with, you know, City Economic Development
director and others to really seek out a user that's a right fit for the city
here. Okay and then so what type of tenor will you think? Yeah it's tough
to say right we see a wide variety of tenants it's really what the market can
bear. They're manufacturing. Yeah yeah exactly and you know different uses kind
of come and go right and we have to kind of ride that ride those those waves as
they come and go, so. Okay and then one final question. Does CC industry has any
other corporate entities or any other names that that's worked with in the
past and also is there any what percentage if any of data centers those
CC industry properties have? I don't have a good figure on that. I'm a
representative so large land holdings across across the country but not aware
of the you know any affiliation front to my knowledge are you away if you see
industries has any attain and there are that data centers I'm not that's it
thank you yeah any additional questions for the applicant from the Commission
Commissioner job you look thank you for the presentation and what is the main
reason for requesting the height exemption like I know the regulations of
40 and existing building is 36 something yeah that's a great question so the the
building height that we're requesting here is 46 feet that's the top of the
parapet of you know of the side of the building with with these facilities
clear height is very important to attract potential users, you know, whether
it be manufacturing or distribution. And so going any any lower than 36 foot
clear height, really you lose any kind of competitive advantage in the market. And
so, you know, you could go up to 40. We've kind of split the difference at 36 feet.
Thank you.
So yeah, again, thank you for the presentation.
A couple of thoughts from me, certainly appreciate the metrics and how you guys are going about
laying out the footprint for this development.
The slide that showed the tape of you going above and beyond what the bare minimums are,
I appreciate seeing that information in the deck.
And the good faith effort that you're also going to be entertaining, I know it's more
tenant-driven, but for public charging as an option for EV, that's something I'm encouraged
to see.
It just shows the good faith and the potential partnership with the city.
A few maybe pointed questions here as it relates to the south side, I believe it's the south
side of the parcel where there's 16 houses in close proximity.
You mentioned 25 feet for the maturity of the trees.
I understand probably the design as it relates to the landscape
is going to be in flux, and there's still evaluation
that's happening on that front.
If the 40-foot on center for a 25-foot high tree
doesn't necessarily give the full green scape that
provides a benefit to the houses on the backside,
would you guys be open to reevaluating the 40-foot
center potentially looking at 20 foot on center just for that stretch on the
south side where those 16 houses come into play. Yeah I think as long as we can
work you know with the site plan yes okay so I think yeah based on our
understanding of the landscaping and tree you know distance between each
other there's a limit you know to where it gets it gets tight and the trees
can't fully grow so we would need to balance that out to ensure that you know
we want these trees to you know maintain health as they grow to full maturity
sure and I'm sure the city arborists and others would be involved in those
discussions but I'm just putting it out there as food for thought as those
conversations evolve the true intent is to have the green scape and if the 25 at
40 doesn't get us there can we look at the 25 at potentially 20 is what I'm
getting at. The other question I had here related to the masonry wall, ten
foot high wall, what's the thickness of the wall? That's a good question. I'm not,
I don't have that offhand. Okay. And I don't think it's been finalized yet I
guess. Sure. It was a better answer. Okay. But we're looking at a, maybe I'll take a step
back the current condition that separates those 16 houses from the
existing land as it stands today what is the current condition can you remind me
again of what's the separation barrier yeah so there's limited landscaping at
least from you know our side of the property right because it's all pavement
and then I believe it's my understanding is it's roughly eight feet fence kind of
scattered fence along there. So eight feet scattered fence is that a CMU type
fence or wood fence? I don't have that offhand. Okay looks like city staff. Yes
the majority of them are all wood fences. Okay so then the new 10 foot wall that
gets constructed is the intent that it would be set back from those existing
wood fences or replicate the limit line where those fences are and replace it?
Typically, developers will build on their own, but I will hand that off to Jared.
Yeah, that's accurate.
Yep.
Okay, so you would be set back from the wooden fences?
Yep.
Okay, and what's the setback for it?
The details have not been worked out on that specific distance.
Okay.
I guess another kind of good faith thing is these discussions of all between developer
and city to please involve those 16 houses as those discussions happen because timing
of that new wall going up, the existing fence that's there, these are all going to be pointed
questions that if I was living in one of those 16 houses, I would want to have clear line
of sight and information on.
So I would just ask that those be coordinated conversations that happen in a collaborative
environment. For point of clarification on some of that so there is a condition
of approval which is fairly standard to require that any construction that would
happen on adjacent properties receive approval from the neighbor and so that
way there's no encroachment without permission. So that is already in the
conditions of approval but we will note your directive here. Appreciate that. Let's
the last question that I had is I guess as it relates to vibration we were
talking about earlier so condition of approval 16 I can see that and I can see
the two sentence description that it carries so it leaves a lot to the
imagination with what it truly entails my concern again goes back really to the
south side and those 16 houses and their proximity to construction activities
that are going to be happening two things come to mind would there be an
option where actual vibration receptors could be discussed with those 16
property owners and vibration receptors installed so that it's within an
epicenter range of construction activities and if it reaches a certain
tolerance there could be some mitigation protocol put in place to avoid any
potential damages to those houses as an option, one option.
Second option would be looking at the sequencing of this masonry wall.
Can you go about your construction sequencing to install that masonry wall before you get
into heavy demolition activities, heavy grading activities?
The whole intent of that masonry wall is for it to be a sound barrier.
least to some degree that sound barrier could detract from vibration transmitting
from your construction site over to those 16 residences. Yeah I think we're
open to both suggestions whatever is going to be most effective to you know
monitor it you know for the betterment of the adjacent residents so. Okay open
of both maybe I will sidebar this with city staff about how to incorporate that
now that we understand the applicants appetite and willingness to kind of meet
those criteria is about building in a condition of approval so that there's
some safeguards there for those 16 houses yep yeah and as you mentioned the
you know vibration monitoring you know we could do out at the property line so
you know that that's you know managed by us so property owners aren't you know
having to worry about it but that seems like a simple solution. Yep as the way
those receptors would work as soon as you put it on the side facing towards
your construction site from the residential properties you'll be able to
pick up remotely if you're getting to a certain vibration point. So the only time
you would need to interface with those 16 houses is if it's peaks you have peak
Construction volume peak vibration volume. Yeah, okay
Well, thank you very much. I appreciate that. Oh
One more question vice chair. Yeah, this is just for my own information. So I
Just wanted to verify this is this is the case. So so the architect for the warehouse is that where?
where well mark um, okay, so my understanding is that they
markets and serve as specializing or the market as you know specialized data center
Constructions and I know that doesn't mean you know a lot of probably architects, you know build data centers, but they really
Have couple of questions. They really pushing service
specializing in data center construction
The
Follow-up question to that. Is there any as far as you know
Is there anything particular to this particular construction
that would indicate that they're using
that type of construction for a data center?
Yeah, so as was mentioned during the presentation,
this building is fully designed towards more warehouse
and distribution-type uses with the number of docks
that it has on the building.
And so that that's really the focus here.
So, I know where Malcolm provided.
Yes, and I can provide more information about that.
I know there was a public comment
where there was a statement made
that where Malcolm specializes in data centers,
where Malcolm is a design firm,
they have architects, engineers,
they work to create the documents
that developers need to make this happen.
They have a wide portfolio,
they do not specialize in data centers,
They are not investors in data centers.
We did receive a letter clarifying that.
We are setting it for the record.
But they are a well-known firm.
And they are on the design element of it.
They are not the developer here.
So that was not accurate in that comment.
OK.
And from what we understand, the Henry Crown Company
does have a wide portfolio of ownership
and different properties, including manufacturing,
ski resorts, it's quite a vast portfolio
throughout the country.
So it will be inaccurate to say that they openly
market specialized data centers, building
intermarketing material, that would be inaccurate?
I have not seen anything about Henry Crown Company
or CC Industries where they specialize in data centers,
and I can definitely attest to and present the letter
if you would like from Wear Malcolm,
where they clarify that they are not data center.
So I think the question,
I mean, make sure that we understand what I'm saying.
So in their marketing materials, okay,
they don't market and serve as opening markets
that specialize data center
and make sure critical design services.
They don't use that language in their marketing materials.
Right, Wear Malcolm only designs these products,
like puts them, you know,
they have drafters and designers and architects,
would not market the project at all okay so so that would be inaccurate okay
right you know thank you and I apologize that's a misunderstanding
typically when we have our application forms the applicant tends to be the
architect representative and unfortunately that ends up being there
the applicant of record and we follow that through our public notice but that's
why we also write down who the property owner is and that's where CC industry is
the subsidiary of Henry crown company that's who we've been referencing as a
Project proponent as they are the ones developing the property where Malcolm is only
Representing when they come in to submit the application
So I apologize that that's a sort of technicality bug that drives through to this point of the public hearing. Thank you
commissioner Solis
Yeah Chandler. Thank you for the presentation
Have a question and a few comments
So do you have any plans to do any type of rodent mitigation prior to demolition?
Because I know that there was a tracked home development done around the corner from my house
Years ago and all of a sudden we were overrun for about six months. So I'm wondering if there's any plan to mitigate that
That's a very good point and we're definitely willing to consider that as well kind of in conjunction with
What the chairs suggested? Yeah, I thought it was a good idea
idea he had to collaborate with that row of homes right there and have maybe
regular meetings and you know get their input and give them an opportunity to
to speak up on on things because if you leave it up to them to just speak out
maybe they don't have time but if you have like scheduled meetings every
month or something like that it'll it'll help mitigate that. A couple or a few
comments wanted to tell you that we appreciate the clarification about the
non-intent of data centers. It seems like it was a big concern. Also wanted to
applaud your efforts on the above and beyond proposal for the landscaping. As
I mentioned to you prior that it was very important to me that it was the
gateway from the residential into the industrial area and that it's important
to me that it that it's nicely landscaped. And then ultimately applaud
because this is near and dear to my heart your commitment to the local
organized labor to my brothers and sisters that will be building that
project. It's very important and again warms my heart that I'll be driving by
and happy to know that union labor will be used on this project. So thank you.
perfect thank you very much Chandler appreciate it okay at this time we will
transition to public comments for the item that just concluded two
presentations public comments in the interest of time and being efficient
given the size of the room that we have we're gonna go with two minutes for
public comments is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this item
Do we have any speaker cards?
First speaker to the table is or to the podium. I should say is Alejandro Martinez
Good afternoon planning Commission as mentioned. My name is Alejandro Martinez. I'm here with the Labor's Union
I'm here on behalf of the
3354 hard-working La Juna 304 members and
who live in Alameda, and the 410 members who live in San Leandro.
I'm here to express my strong support for this project.
This project is going to represent an equitable investment in our
community by creating significant construction job opportunities
that pay livable wages with benefits. It's going to provide health care to our
entire families and a pension when we retire.
Thousands of members and their families live and work in Alameda County
and will directly benefit from this project.
The developer has been a proven partner
as it advocates for our working class
by providing livable wages with benefits.
Our commitment, their commitment is essential
as such jobs are critical in addressing challenges
our members face and enhancing the overall economic vitality.
This project will facilitate recruitment and training
for our new apprentices from all walks through life.
Apprentices through our apprenticeship program,
we actively welcome
members that have been incarcerated, new opportunities for apprentices, single
mothers, single fathers like myself, and it's gonna definitely open those
opportunities. This represents a meaningful steps to our building a
diverse workforce, rooted to equity and opportunity. We're excited about the
benefits of this project extending far beyond the construction phase. Please
support this project. Thank you. Thank you. Next to the podium, Victor de la Torre.
Good evening, Chairman and commissioners. My name is Victor de la Torre and I'm a, I've
been a member of La Juna for over 20 years. I started when I was like 18 years old. Um,
and I, uh, I'm a resident of San Leandro also. I care about this community. I share the,
the concerns that they, um, they speak of, but I believe that this project, um, this
warehouse is going to be essential for people that live in this area. So we don't have to
commute anybody that lives in the Bay Area knows that commuting could be
brutal a hundred miles each way so that will eliminate those back and forth. I
got a I've been I got the skills that the La Luna provides to make sure this
projects are done right and safe. I'm a single father of four this this project
would make sure that my career continues to make sure that I'm
able to provide for my family, for my kids.
Nowadays, it's essential to have health care.
Unfortunately, my kid was 17 years old, and he had cancer.
It wasn't for what La Yuna provides, the health care
that they provide.
I think I would have been on the street.
I want to thank the developer for bringing this project
to this community.
I love San Leandro, but we don't want to grow this,
you can't stop growing.
Growth's good for cities.
This is gonna bring a lot of goodness to this community,
I believe so.
It's gonna beautify that area where it's gonna be built.
And I wanna thank you guys for considering,
please consider approving this project, thank you.
Thank you, appreciate it.
Next up is Daniel Garcia.
Good evening, chair and commissioners.
My name is Daniel Garcia, as mentioned.
I've been a member of La Luna for over seven years,
and I'm here in full support
of the Alvarado Street Industrial Warehouse Project.
Growing up, I watched my parents struggle
to provide for me and my siblings
due to the lack of good job opportunities.
As I got older, I faced to have the same struggles,
at times having to work two jobs
just to be able to put food on the table.
Until I got an opportunity to join the labor union
where I received fair wages with benefits,
healthcare, I didn't just cover me, but my family as well,
and training to have a successful career
in the construction industry.
And that's exactly what this project represents,
opportunities.
It's opportunities for the hardworking families
of San Leandro to be able to work close to home
and not have to commute,
to be able to build long-term stable job opportunities
in the community that they know and love
for generations to come
while strengthening the economic stability for everyone.
The developer is a proven partner
and they're looking to bring these opportunities
to San Leandro, whether it's during the construction phase
or long-term operations, which is why I respectfully ask
that you move forward with this project without delay
because only you have the authority
to bring these opportunities
to the hardworking families of San Leandro.
Thanks for your time.
Thank you.
Next up is Mike McGuire.
Hi there.
Wanted 24-year resident of San Leandro.
Wanted to say to Mr. Mendoza, first of all,
I went and looked up Google for where
Holcomb and data centers.
And they boast all over the place about doing data centers,
if you look them up on Google.
There's a number of centers they boast about.
So I'm all for building stuff to employ
our construction workers.
We sure as heck could use a lot of housing built down
at the marina.
That comes to mind real fast, since nothing
is not much that's going on down there.
But I see this particular project
though as perhaps finding itself,
but it's the camel's nose going under San Leandro's tent.
more of the camel will follow
in terms of building big warehouses
that are later when no one is looking
converted into data centers.
And this wouldn't be a problem if we just banned data centers,
just outright banned them in San Leandro.
We don't want them that guzzle water,
that guzzle electricity.
Corporations do not need any more data on citizens.
They don't need to be able to put it together
more efficiently than they already do.
So you know, I'd say look out down the road
if you approve this one big warehouse.
But as long as you're willing to say
it will never ever be used as a data center,
I'm all for it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next up we have Sarah Bealy.
So I wrote my comments out before I came,
and now I have to rewrite them after all of the presentation.
So forgive me for, you know, don't speak as well
I write. So I like this better than I did before I saw the presentations. I
think that's great. I do worry that we have 50 bays of, so maybe we have 50,
maybe we have 50 big trucks a day, maybe we have a hundred big trucks a day, and
those big trucks are going to travel on our roads, and who's going to pay for the
roads because the big road big trucks are going to damage the roads so I don't
see anything in the proposal that relates to that and I don't know if that
means that the tenant is supposed to come in and pay for that because there's
going to be a lot of damage to the roads we all know we have a lot of damaged
roads already I don't like that we're more and more depending on diesel trucks
I don't like that they're gonna be beeping and screeching and and you know the people who live next door and Davis Street Community Center
And they're gonna have to be listening to them all day long in
Maybe nighttime too. I don't know. I think I heard something about there being nighttime limits and
Cyclists do use Alvarado. So if there are people coming in from who want to come in on Bart
And with their bike, they can do that.
So the parking spaces could possibly
be used by a lot of cyclists.
It does seem like, well, that's a lot of cycling spaces.
Maybe they won't, but it's a popular route.
I really like that there's 177 trees.
It does sound like they need some help determining
which trees to plant.
And so I don't know.
Right at the cliffhanger.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
Next up is Jason.
Apologies again.
Gimmatato, you can correct me when you get up here.
Hi, greetings chair and commissioners.
My name is Jason Gimmatato.
While I don't live in San Leandro anymore,
I grew up on Timothy Drive for many years of my life.
Happy to see the commission taking action tonight
on the old Levitz property.
So I'm here as a member and organizer with IBW Local 595.
I'm here tonight representing hundreds of San Leandro residents,
who are members of our local, the UA locals, sheet metal, and ironworkers.
So I appreciate your service to our community.
The decisions that you all have made over the years have provided many opportunities
for the folks that live here in San Leandro.
And tonight's another opportunity to do the same thing.
So as was stated, you know, the project that is before you is, you know, right for this site.
You know, I thought, you know, I thought our developer partner did a really good job of,
you know, clarifying or answering, I guess, questions around the mitigations.
And so hopefully, it's enough for you all to make the right decision.
You know, the fact that, you know, members of our local and other locals
from San Leandro will be able to work in San Leandro,
I do think is valuable.
I hope you all find value in working and building
in the city that they live in.
And for those reasons, our local and the locals
that we stand with, we urge you to approve
the recommendation that's in front of you.
Thank you.
Thank you for that.
Next up is Brent Hogg.
Hello, everyone.
My name is Brent Haug, I'm an inside journeyman wireman with IBEW Local 595.
For those of you who aren't in the world of construction, that means I am an electrician
that works on residential, commercial and industrial projects here in Alameda County.
I'm here in favor of this project, a project like this will benefit the working class families
of the local area who have family members in the building trades.
To be able to work where you live is the lifeblood of the building trades, having to do heinous
commutes and traveling very far spending time away from your family takes away
from the families in the building trades. To be able to have a developer sign on
to using the local building trade unions not only helps keeping local people
employed it also gives these members of these unions the opportunity to
stimulate the local economy. Speaking for IBEW Local 595 it means giving a new
demographic of apprentices an opportunity to hone their skills. In my
union I serve as the youth worker caucus president. Excuse me. Our caucus is made
up of a variety of people including women, members of the LGBTQ community, and
people of ethnic backgrounds that are not typically seen in construction. When
I started in the building trades more than a decade ago, the electrical trade
was predominantly filled with your garden variety white males. For me, I
I welcome this demographic of trades people with open arms and I wish and want to see
them succeed on their journey into the trades.
I earnestly asked the planning commission to consider moving forward with this project
with the staff recommendation in mind because a project like this not only helps stimulate
the local economy, it gives an opportunity for the next generation and a new demographic
of electrical workers to hone their skills.
Thank you for your time.
Okay.
Thank you, Brent.
Next up is Daniel Greg and for the sake of preparation next two speakers after Daniel
would be Sarah marker and dath centers good evening San Leandro planning members of the
San Leandro Planning Commission thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight
my name is Daniel Greg I'm the senior organizer assigned to North Coast states carpenters
union local 713 I represent over 500 carpenters here in San Leandro 4,000
and over 4,000 Alameda County and 57,000 in the greater North Coast states it's
great to be here tonight speaking on behalf of my brothers and sister
carpenters who live in San Leandro and Alameda County and who are in full
support of CC industry is proposed development at 3199 Alvarado it's been
nearly two decades since Levitt's furniture shut down and this site
deserves a modernized facility that will bring good jobs to the community both during and after construction.
I'm not aware of previous developments proposed by CC Industries in San Leandro during my tenure
in this position in Alameda County. They were very responsive to our outreach early last year
as we believe all developers in San Leandro and beyond should do.
Made the right decision by partnering with union labor on this project. A commitment to a union
general contractor means area standard wages and benefits and opportunity for apprentices to begin
or advance their career in construction. There are plenty of local developers who are willing
unwilling to make the same commitment. In conclusion, the North Coast States Carboners
Union fully supports the proposed 3199 alparado development because it will help elevate the
quality of life for the working class as well as the community. The community as CC industry
who sets the standard for other developers who want to build in the city of San Leandro.
We ask that the commission approve this project so that our members in San Leandro can go
to work. Thank you for your time and service. I just want to say since this project seems
as full support of labor, happy Labor Day and have a good weekend. Yeah, it is good
timing. Okay, thank you. Next speaker is Sarah Marker, followed by Dath Centers and Jenny
Madsen.
Hi, I'm Sarah Markser.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, commissioners.
I live in San Leandro.
I came tonight out of concern that this project
might be a potential hyperscale AI data
center because of Wary Malcolm's association with it.
And I still am concerned about data centers.
And I'm very pleased to hear that using this,
converting this project into a hyperscale data center
would require an additional conditional use permit
and a separate hearing process.
But I stayed to make this comment
because I feel so strongly that a hyperscale AI data
center is wrong for any community, honestly.
And this is the community I live in.
And I'm very pleased also to hear about the union jobs
that this project would bring to my neighbors
including my across the street neighbor who is a member
of one of the unions that has spoken tonight.
So thanks for listening,
and thanks for taking these concerns seriously.
Thank you.
Death Centers followed by Jenny Madsen and Karen Diaz.
Maybe that's Ms. Pre...
Oh, I'm sorry.
I'm looking at the wrong line here.
Tao Li?
Tao Li?
Gotta get my glasses checked.
Thank you.
No worries.
Good evening, everyone.
Thank you so much, commissioners, for your time
and consideration in this project.
I am Tao.
I'm a resident of San Leandro.
I am also a tech worker.
I am in opposition of this project
as it will have environmental impacts,
regardless of the intention here.
There's no intention, you know,
stated by the property management firm
and the consultants for our data center.
But downstream, you know,
Like how do we actually plan for this
so that it is scalable so that we're not just bedding
on the whims of our tech community, right?
And like, are we truly utilizing AI in the manner
in which we need a scalable data center?
These are like pertinent questions
that we should ask internally
where we're dedicating resources
from a community of 84,000 people.
we're not even prepared for emergencies.
We live on the Hayward fault line
and the amount of energy that this could potentially take
from the community and the fact that it can increase rates
and it could impact living standards is a concern.
I think in closing, I would ask that the commissioners
think deeply and also continue to ask the tough questions
around how this would impact the local community,
the risk of any emergencies that the community would take
and the resources that we actually need to plan
for emergencies in the future.
Thank you.
Next up is Shinnee Mattson.
And then the final speaker is Karen Diaz.
So I'm here tonight because I have been driving
by this big empty for the past 18 years.
I live in that neighborhood.
I want something to be in there,
but I was also a patient at Davis street clinic for years.
And that is on the North side.
I'm very gratified to hear the council or the commission
speak so much in support of the houses
that are on the South side.
I looked around to see if anybody from Davis street
was here because that is where all the 82 bays of trucks.
That's where the trucks are gonna be.
and there's no plan to buffer them.
It's not a bad thing that Davis Street will probably,
the back parking lot will be less hot
because it'll be in the shade all the time
because this is gonna be on the north side, right?
Or on the south side.
It's gonna block the sun
and I don't think Davis Street is worried about that.
But I also read the CEQA study.
This site, three and a half to six and a half feet
is fill, which is questionable.
It's mostly clays that are gonna swell
and get sloppy and messy.
It's gonna be a mess taking it out.
But I was also surprised to hear that the water table
is five feet down on a regular basis.
This is not sea level rise or king tide.
This is where the water table is, five feet down,
and you're building something really heavy back there,
and I think the people on the south side
are gonna feel water pressure,
and they need to be sensitive to that.
But I also think CC Industries is doing a,
they're building something that's gonna last,
and there are more parking places
than they would need for a data center,
which I find gratifying,
because it's gotta have more jobs than just construction.
thank you I think we might have one other speaker after Karen Diaz is that
yeah okay we'll call that person up right after Karen good Karen my name is
Karen Diaz and I live in San Leandro I grew up here so I'm sure growing up we
sat on a few things and places from Levitts but my point is more important
than that there's been no discussion of the Davis Street property that was just
mentioned that abuts the Bay's because part of that area I think might belong
to the CC company and we do need to look at that because we need to protect
Davis Street and what they provide to our community but more importantly
the other two points I want to make is the trees that they're planting they
should be 40 feet they should at maturity with which I would say would be
20 to 25 years, should be the height of the building
to protect those homeowners.
The 10 foot wall is insufficient.
And the third thing is this is obviously
a industrial development.
It's not residential.
When we do residential development,
we ask the developers for open spaces
to contribute to schools or to other public places
or services.
And I want to know, in terms of road use,
because like the lady said before us, they're going to be trying to put those
those trucks in and out of there three to four times a day if they can if not
it'll be at least two so there'll be a hundred large trucks using Marina
Boulevard in Alvarado and we don't I don't see any sort of accommodation or
any sort of I know we'll get increased tax revenue if there's if there's items
moving through those warehouses but I am I am concerned because our roads are in
such just repair already and there's nothing here to protect us in this long-term development.
Thank you. Good night. Thank you and our final speaker. I don't have your card so you'll just
introduce yourself when you get to the podium. Thank you. I apologize I submitted a card when
I walked in the room. My name is Douglas Spalding. I'm a District One resident.
My family's been in town since 1872. I came home early from my fishing trip with my son,
just so I could speak with you gentlemen and also the Assistant City Attorney and
clerk I don't know what I did but I was brought up to believe that if it walks
like a data center and it quacks like a data center then it's a data center and
I am not assured by anything I've heard tonight that that's not what this plan
really is you don't have to look far on the internet to notice that where Malcolm
is not merely an architectural firm,
but they also specialize in planning
and technical design of data centers.
And it's a very interesting news item from December 2025.
Key takeaways from the data center development.
I don't think I have time to go through that with you.
But look, this has the square footage, the height,
the extra electricity, the water is in the mandated report.
This is prime to go as a Dana Center.
So how do you circumnavigate the opposition
that many in the community have?
And by most accounts, that's at least 70% across the nation.
You go with the Hayward playbook.
You go to the Planning Commission,
and you get rezoned as an office space.
I don't think that's in play here.
And then the Planning Commission approves it,
and it never goes to the City Council.
Is that what's gonna happen here?
at City Hall from the mayor on down. There's nobody talking about this.
Does that mean that there's an NDA that's already been signed? How,
how would we know? So please don't be fooled by the rhetoric.
This is just a routine, uh, conditional use permit.
That is my friends, a red herring. This is all I've caught this week, by the way.
Um, this CUP should be conditioned.
Okay, thank you that is our final speaker. I will now close the public hearing and bring the item back for discussion by the Commission.
Do any other commissioners wish to discuss the item by Chairman dozer.
So, giving everything that we listened to tonight, I myself am not convinced that this
eventually is not going to turn into a data center.
There is, you know, some of the speakers I mentioned this, but I've seen a pattern throughout
the country of NDAs, misleading action by many developers,
manipulation of city councils, and planning commissions.
So having settled that, I'm not saying
that this is the case in this particular situation,
but I will be more comfortable, especially
since there is no plans to do a ban on data centers
by the city council, I'll be more
comfortable even considering this if we were to put up some kind of condition
specifically saying that this location will not be used as a data center so
does it come and have that any other commissioners with comments or any sort
of discussion here during this forum commissioner rich I'm in support of this
This project, it's consistent with the general plan
and the zoning.
It's a continuation and improvement
of what's currently there.
It's a green building all electric
with stormwater pollution prevention,
EV charging by parking photovoltaics,
outlets in the loading bays that is gonna prevent
the diesels from idling while at site.
It presents a major investment.
It has agreements with the construction trades
and the carpenters.
But people are rightfully concerned.
There's horror stories out there,
right next door in Hayward.
I rely on staff, I trust staff.
I appreciate staff's professionalism in this
and helping us understand.
I support the proposed condition for authorized use
that clarifies, perhaps belts and suspenders,
that clarifies that this is not being applied
for as a data center.
And if, in the future, this owner or a subsequent owner
elects to try to put a data center in there,
they need to come back to the planning commission
for a separate conditional use permit.
I wanna thank the members of the public
who have commented on this in person
and who have submitted comments.
Your interest, your concern,
and your vigilance is appreciated.
I thank staff, I thank the applicant
for trying to replace an old warehouse
with a new much greener one and for listening.
Thank my fellow commissioners.
And finally, I'm thankful that the state legislature
has begun tackling the issue of data centers.
I'm hopeful the governor will sign the legislation
on his desk.
I have my fingers crossed that our city council
will soon be addressing this critical issue
and the sooner, the better.
Thank you, Commissioner Rich.
Any other commissioners during discussion?
Yeah, and just on my end here,
echoing your sentiments, Commissioner Rich,
Really wanted to thank the community for coming out
and voicing your opinion.
There's two sides to how it can be viewed
and this definitely had the prospects
of turning into a hotly debated topic,
but I'm pleased to hear and learn that through the course
of presentations by staff and by the developer,
by the applicant, even some of those
were on one spectrum of the conversation had clear eyes and came kind of full circle to
maybe a middle ground to what this development truly is.
So I am also in support of this development.
I feel as though it checks all the minimum requirements that need to be put in place
and goes above and beyond that for certain metrics.
I heard a lot of positive feedback from the applicant with respect to continued collaboration,
continued engagement with the 16 houses on the south side that are but closest to this
property line.
And I would want to see that continue as it moves into construction.
Always keeping those houses and those property owners in mind.
I do have some sensitivity as well with the road condition.
That was something that was brought up by the public.
Just given the PCI pavement condition index
of what we have going on in San Leandro,
that's always top of mind.
I don't know, maybe this could be a question to staff
if it's possible at this point in time.
But in terms of the mitigated negative declaration
and I think there were some metrics in there
of VMT vehicle miles traveled.
Did the VMT do a study on bus flow,
in and out, projected bus flow?
I know it's hypothetical with the tenant,
but was there any sort of study done for bus flow
and the relation of increased bus flow,
potentially eroding existing roads
before an anticipated lifespan?
No, so basically because it's in this specific low VMT area,
the guidelines per CEQA don't require any additional study.
So regarding damage to roads, there are impact fees
that the developer will be subject to paying.
Those are based, I believe, on square footage.
There are actually two traffic-related impact fees.
One of them is the standard development fee
for street improvements.
So they'd be paying into that.
And also for the Marina Boulevard I-880 traffic impact fee,
which we're still properties contribute to
whenever they develop.
Okay.
So we have provisions and we have fees in place
that hold the standard of the road condition
to being maintained.
Right. Fair share contributions for their impact
and based and assessed with developments.
Thank you for that.
Okay, seeing no further discussion items,
maybe I'll pause there because I do know
that Mr. Secretary, there's a couple of drafts
that you've been taking here as it relates
to picking up on comments from the commission
and conditions of approval that are being brought in.
So if appropriate now, we can pose to see
if there's a motion to adopt the resolution
and then I'll ping to you for the appropriate time
for the conditions of approval to be brought in.
So do I hear a motion?
Yes.
Yes, so I make a motion that PLN24-0030 be approved,
but with the condition that there would not be
a data center built in that location.
Vice-Chair Mendoza, thank you for your motion.
Just to clarify, we had discussed earlier
proposed language for a condition of approval which states the use that this
is being applied for and if it's going to be a data center they have to return
to the Planning Commission in order to get a CUP for that use does that
adequately satisfy your concerns or no and so are you proposing that it just be
banned as a data center indefinitely. Yes. So I appreciate the feedback however I
will note that the Planning Commission is the jurisdiction is the zoning code,
the zoning code does allow it with a use permit so at this point in time we
cannot ban it indefinitely for the property that would be in sort of the
city council's wheelhouse in order to make that change to the zoning code. So
So my recommendation would not be to include that language at this time.
Okay, so just to clarify, so my understanding is that I've seen these type of exemptions
before where one moves to make a motion but with a condition.
So are you saying that I'm not allowed to do that, like to be boarded up or down?
certainly are allowed to make a motion for whatever you please however as the
city's legal advisor my recommendation is not to include that condition because
it's not appropriate for in the use permit setting to ban a use we're
simply authorizing one use which is the warehouse okay so I know I'm pushing a
little bit I don't I don't like it in total but does your recommendation but
it's not I'm not forbidden from doing that you can make the motion however it
would be against my advice to include that prohibition so I'm just providing
you the analysis that it does exceed the scope of the use permit to ban an
an entire use that's not proposed at this time.
And then since you're the city lawyer,
does that puts me in any kind of legal jeopardy?
You personally, I'm not aware of any legal jeopardy
that would put you individually.
It could expose the city in the future to a lawsuit
if someone wants to build a data center there.
Again, just based on my analysis
that right now we are approving a use.
We are not working on banning uses.
It's really through the zoning code
that we would make those changes.
Okay.
I don't wanna seem obstinate, but yeah.
No, and I understand your sentiment.
But if it's my prerogative as a commissioner,
I would stick to putting that condition
that he data center his name.
OK, well, we have a motion on the floor.
The motion has been posed by Vice Chair Mendoza
to adopt the resolution as it currently
reads with the addition to the motion of banning it entirely
from being a data center in the future.
Yes.
Okay let's proceed with the vote then against that motion.
Well just as a point there hasn't been a second.
Oh I'm sorry.
And I also wanted to just clarify
if we're proposing to add additional conditions
through the clerk it may be for the benefit
of the commission to hear those before taking any action.
Okay short of having a second I'll take a step back
To the motion on the floor, do we have a second?
Okay, seeing no second, the motion on the floor dies.
There is no second.
So we go back to an originating motion
that can be proposed by the commission
with potentially, as legal and Mr. Secretary have said,
some draft conditions of approval
that may address some of the concerns.
Commissioner Ridge.
I move to approve, including the condition
for authorized use that was presented to us.
And I'm also interested in the,
it sounded like a condition suggested
about vibration monitoring
and rodent control during demolition.
I'll take a shot at reading a proposed conditional
or approval related to vibration for the record.
The proposal would be prior to the issuance
of building permits, a vibration study
shall be prepared by qualified professional,
identifying measures and best practices
to minimize vibration impacts
on Jason residential properties during construction
to the extent feasible.
The applicant slash property owner
shall bear the cost of preparation of the study.
The study shall be subject to the review
and approval of the zoning enforcement official.
And the applicant slash owner shall incorporate
the vibration reduction measures identified
in the study during construction.
Vibration levels of the property line
boarding the residential properties
shall be monitored during construction and the zoning enforcement official may
require additional vibration control measures if levels are determined to be
disruptive to occupants of the adjacent residential properties. That would be
staff's proposal for a conditional approval related vibration. Yeah with
respect to that condition of approval I take no exception to the draft language.
I think he covered it. I guess my only other suggestion was part of the means
and methods to construction and working out the sequencing of constructing that masonry
wall so that it goes in first on the south side and serves as kind of a belt and suspenders
approach for vibration control and noise deterrence. So if that can be incorporated within the
condition of approval then I would take no exception.
We can capture that in the final resolution.
We did also refer to a draft condition of approval that legal counsel was mentioning
previously here.
Is that something that we're prepared to share in terms of how it reads and what the content
of that is related to future plans of this development, having any sort of hypothetical
of a data center being constructed needing to come back to the planning commission for
full-on review and approval process before anything transpires. I can read a
read proposal into the record and the planning commission can choose to to
incorporate in the motion if they desire so the proposal from staff would be to
amend condition for approval number two to add a section title authorized use
this conditional use permit authorizes warehouse storage facilities and or
warehouse slash wholesale retail distribution facilities uses as
currently defined in chapter 1.12.108 of the zoning code. The authorization does
not permit a major utilities use including a data center use. Any future
requests to establish a major utilities or data center use on the site shall
require a new conditional use permit subject to all applicable noticing and
hearing requirements. Violation of this condition shall be subject to
enforcement pursuant to chapter
5.24 of the zone code
Still in that still in the discussion forum right now
Leaving it open for the commissioners
We have the two conditions of approval that have been read off by mr. Secretary thoughts comments
commissioner rich I
Support him and I'm surprised how quickly secretary Lee can come up with that one on the spot
Yeah, you and I both that's amazing
Okay let's let's pause to where we were we had a motion that was on the table by
Commissioner Rich. We had conditions of approval that were read off by Mr.
Secretary. I think part of Commissioner Rich's approval or part of Commissioner
Rich's motion was the resolution as it reads with the condition of approvals
being adopted. The one vibration comment there on the masonry wall would be
incorporated into the final language the secondary one there about the item
needing to come back to the Commission read as no exceptions from the
Commission so with that do we have a second oh one comment before go ahead
Commissioner rich Commissioner Solis had a comment regarding rodent control
during demolition I have firsthand experience with that so if that's
something that we could incorporate or if that he would like to incorporate I
would support that but I'll defer to Commissioner Solis on that. Is there
within the I think you called it the pre demolition report which leads into the
vibration study is there kind of a carve-out section there where we can
include rodent and pest survey mitigation survey before demolition
activity start any now working that section yes okay perfect so with that
incorporated into the final language we have the motion on the floor do we have
a second I'll second that motion okay we have a second from Commissioner Solis I
am going to spare the read back of everything that we just agreed on in
terms of motion and second I think we're all clear on where we stand so let's go
ahead and cast our votes okay the motion passes with four yeses one no motion
passes okay decisions of the Planning Commission are final unless appeal to
the City Council by filing a form to the city clerk within 15 days of the date of
this action the form shall specifically state the reason for the appeal and an
appeal fee is required. Thank you everyone for your collaboration on that.
Next item on the agenda is commission report and announcements. Does staff have
any updates under this item? We do not have a staff update this evening. Okay. Are there any
announcements from the commission that you all would like to make tonight? No
announcements okay seeing no announcements the time is now 9 11 this
meeting is adjourned