Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. The 02/06/2025 meeting of the Planning Commission is called to order. Would everyone please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance? Will the secretary please conduct a roll call?

Yes. Chair Zuber?

Present.

Vice chair Tejada?

Present.

Commissioner Mendoza?

Present.

Commissioner Rich?

Present.

Commissioner Salis?

Present.

Commissioner Tavjulu?

Present.

Thank you.

Great. The next item on the agenda is announcements. Miss secretary, are there any announcements this evening?

Not this evening. Well, I guess one announcement is we have a new agenda format.

Yes, we do. I noticed that.

Be on your toes.

Okay. The next, item on the agenda is the consent calendar. There's one item on the consent calendar this evening, the draft minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of 12/05/2024. 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?

I move.

Second. Second.

Thank you. It has been moved by Commissioner Rich and seconded by Commissioner Solis that the consent calendar be approved. Please vote on your screens. The motion passes with five yeas, one absentee, and one abstention. The next item on the agenda is staff reports and announcements. Ms. Secretary, do we have any staff reports or announcements this evening?

We do have two announcements. We have a vacancy on the commission since Commissioner Bolt is now a city council member. And the city council will be considering boards and commission appointments at its February 18 meeting. And so at our next meeting, we should have a new member of the commission, although it is looking like we will be canceling our March meeting. So, it's likely it would be April when the new commissioner joins, at which time we will hold elections as well.

Thank you.

Thank you. The next item on the agenda is public comments. 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 in hand 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'll 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're now taking public comments. This is the time when a person may address the Board. Thank you.

I'll now call our first speaker, Sergio Barajas. Oh, I'll I'll just remind you that this is for items that are not on the agenda.

The opportunities thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Sergio Barajas, and I'm a field representative with the NorCal Carbon News Union, local seven thirteen, which covers Alameda County. I'm here to talk about the core values we represent with the Carpenter's Union. Our goal is to provide a knowledgeable apprenticeship program, providing extensive health benefits for our workers, encouraging local employment for our members, and fair wages. Our state way to statewide apprenticeship program is essential in ensuring quality of work.

It is designed to create a new generation of skilled carpenters who are trained in the latest technologies and strategies. Our apprenticeship does not only train our members, but instills a sense of pride, responsibility, and craftsmanship. By investing in our programs, we ensure our workforce is competitive and able to meet the needs of the industry's ever evolving demands. Another key point of our values is our commitment to providing health care for our workers. Carpentry is physically demanding, so it is essential for our workers to have access to these benefits for them and their family.

These benefits not only include immediate medical care, but preventative care and long term health support. A healthy workforce is a dynamic workforce, and by prioritizing our workers' health, we ensure that we can contribute tactfully and safely. Another one of our pledges is to hire locals. When we hire locals, we strengthen our communities by creating a economic growth that is reflected in local business, which will increase the prosperity of our communities. Local workers tend to be more invested in projects that are in their own neighborhood, resulting in higher quality of work and shorter commute hours.

Furthermore, local employment reduces the carbon footprint associated with commuting and contributing to our environmental sustainability googles. Labor standards isn't just a number. It represents the fair wages that tradesmen and women deserve and work hard for. These wages allow workers to support them and their families, contribute to local economy, ensure high quality work that impacts infrastructure. Without labor standards, these developers and contractors will take advantage of these workers, paying low wages without benefits, and it's only not only a disservice to the workers but to the community as well.

In conclusion, our core values include dedication to our apprenticeship training, comprehensive health benefits, and our pledge to local hire and fair wages. These values are essential in maintaining a skilled and healthy craftsman and women, creating a ripple effect into our communities and the youth. Thank you.

I see no further speakers. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is presentations. Miss secretary, are there of the presentations? Okay. Tonight's agenda has one public hearing item for consideration by the Planning Commission.

Good evening, Madam Chairman and Planning Commissioners. Thank you for coming out on such a nasty weather night. The item before you tonight is a project we have had in house for a while now. Is 880 Doolittle Drive. It is planning file 20 two-thirty nine.

And it is an administrative site plan review, conditional use permit, and administrative exception for height. On your screen you will see a vicinity map of the project. In yellow the site is outlined. It is actually two lots totaling about 14.4 acres. It is East Of Doolittle Drive, North Of Davis, and West of the Davis West neighborhood, which is just off screen to the oh shoot, didn't bring my laser pointer just off screen here.

So the Davis West neighborhood is over here. The site is zoned IG, which is industrial general, and the general plan is also industrial general. So the proposal you are considering tonight includes an approximately 245,000 square foot building, which includes within that number 15,000 square feet of office. 64 loading docks, 27 on the north side of the building, 37 on the south side. 204 passenger vehicle parking spaces to the west of the building, and of those you will see the breakdown there on the screen.

59 tractor trailer spaces to the north of the building. 12 short term and 12 long term bicycle parking spaces, two levels of outdoor employee break areas. The conditional use permit is for warehouse and storage, warehouse and retail distribution, or wholesale retail distribution. And then the administrative exception is to allow the building to be up to 50 feet in height. So here you will see a few photos of the site as it appears today.

This is the former Espresso parking structure. I think everybody around here knows Espresso parking, which has been closed now for several years. And it is, of course, a vacant multistory building. The site has very convenient access to truck routes, to the Oakland Airport, to the Port Of Oakland. So it is truly a prime spot for development of this type, highly desirable.

It also lies in airport safety zones four and six. And is just 4,300 feet from the end of the runway or about point eight miles. So the craft really do fly pretty much directly over the site. So the administrative site plan review. The project design is composed of concrete panels, metal panels, wood and glazing. This is a set of elevations. The first one is the north elevation, then the west, the south, and the east. Oh, you can read it from here. Okay, good. This is a conceptual elevation.

We expect that we will probably see something a little bit different when it comes in for a building permit. But it will be consistent with this idea. Prologis often uses, the applicant often uses green paneling and there is some of that here and also some metal paneling and wood. As for employee amenities, which I know is an issue that we like to hear a lot about here, There are two employee amenity areas. They are outdoor break areas.

You can see them here on the elevations highlighted in the red circles. They are actually at the northwestern corner of the property where the office is located. It is an upper and a lower deck, essentially. Regarding the parking, the code requires one space for every 300 square feet of office and one space for every 1,500 square feet of warehouse. It is two zero three required parking spaces and there are two zero four.

So it definitely exceeds the requirement. As I mentioned previously, are 59 tractor trailer spaces and 24 parking spaces, 12 short term and 12 long term. So on this site plan you can see again the tractor trailer space is on the north side of the building. The passenger vehicle space is on the west side, and then the bicycle parking will be towards the northwest of the building near the offices. Access and circulation is actually quite good for the site.

We are expecting to see that most of the trucks are going to be using the Hester Street approach. This site actually has two approaches, one from Doolittle and one from Hester. So they have got really nice access. Is a really excellent site. Most of the passenger vehicles are expected to enter via Doolittle Drive. So here is Hester here to the Northwest. We are expected to see mostly trucks here. And then the passenger vehicles are mostly going to be coming in through this location. But both can enter either way. We have added a condition that will limit truck movements at Doolittle Drive.

And this is the text of the revised condition 30. So if you look at your second resolution, the first one is for the EIR, the second is for the conditional use permit, the site plan, and the administrative exception. Condition number 30 there would be stricken completely and replaced with this text. And I will go ahead and read it out so anyone at home can hear it if they can't read it. The text would read, for any commercial trucks accessing the subject property, the preferred ingress egress is to access from signalized intersection of Dunlittle Drive and Adam Avenue to Hester Street.

Truck traffic is allowed at the driveway approximately 1,700 feet south of the Adams Avenue intersection with Doolittle Drive. The truck turning movements shall be restricted to ride in and ride out only at the driveway off of Doolittle Drive. Signage shall be installed indicating these restrictions to the satisfaction of the city engineer. If in the future a new traffic signal is warranted at the driveway off of Doolittle Drive by the Port of Oakland, City of San Leandro, City of Oakland, or Caltrans per traffic impact analysis, the subject property shall pay their fair share of the intersection improvements. So while we are proposing a ride in ride out access right now for that Doolittle Drive driveway, if there is a signal there, we would remove that restriction and allow left in, left out, right in, right out.

Because the signal would make it safer. Finally, landscaping, there is currently almost 42,000 square feet of landscaping proposed on the site. That is a total of about 7%, which exceeds the required 5% landscaping. It is proposed to be primarily California native shrubs and trees, which will have a lower water load or water use associated with them. And then the loading docks and the parking are going to be screened from view by other buildings and by landscaping.

This is really set back quite far from the street and has a lot of fronting buildings. So here's the landscape plan. And in the the upper left corner, you'll see what's currently on the site. And you can see that the little frontage on on the end of the Hester Cul De Sac has landscaping, and there there really isn't any anywhere else. The large color image shows you what the landscape is going to look like with proposal.

It's quite extensive. As you might imagine, there really aren't going to be any trees in the truck parking area because the trucks are too tall, But there is a lot of trees in the passenger vehicle parking area, which will make it very pleasant, to keep it cool, and it will also just generally make it look nicer and help screen the parking. Okay. So for the administrative site plan review, the following findings are required by the zoning code. The project has to comply with the minimum requirements.

These are shown on attachment four, the development regulations table. And I believe we have that included. Nope, we pulled it out. Beg your pardon. But Attachment four is in your packet. The building has adequate articulation and details to create visual interest. Landscaping complements the building design with appropriate planting elements. And the detail features are consistent with the design and minimize glare. These are summaries of the findings. The detailed findings are in the packet.

But not to belabor the point too much. So we believe these findings can be made with compliance with the recommended conditions of approval that are in the second resolution. So for the administrative exception for height, the zoning code allows up to 50 feet with an administrative exception. Without the administrative exception, building height is allowed to be 35 feet. So there is a gap there and there is this process that we follow to determine whether or not the building can in fact be built that height without any concerns.

Because this is in airport safety zones four and six, and very, very close to the airport, the staff of the Oakland Airport has offered conditions of approval that are included in the resolution. These are conditions 68 through 78. Again, that's in your second resolution. Recently, this body has approved, well, the city has approved, one of them didn't come to the Planning Commission, but several administrative exceptions for 50 foot tall buildings are at 1700 Doolittle Drive, which you heard last year 14143 Washington Avenue, which you also heard last year 1345 Doolittle Drive, which was a staff level approval and 1919 Williams, you heard a couple of years ago. Due to changes in how many industrial buildings are functioning or how industrial functions are occurring these days, we're seeing a lot of requests for 50 foot tall buildings.

It's mostly for high piled storage and the equipment that can achieve that stacking. These are very, very common and we do expect we'll be seeing more and perhaps all of the buildings that we're going see in the future in the industrial areas are going to be looking at administrative exceptions for height. So it's very consistent with what we have seen, what we expect to see, and what's out in the field. The the finding for administrative exception is that the proposal is not detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare and wouldn't cause undue damage, hardship, nuisance, or other detriment to persons or property in the vicinity. We believe these findings could be made, again, with compliance to the recommended conditions of approval in your packet.

So the conditional use permit is required to allow warehouse and storage warehouse wholesale retail. The concerns with these kinds of uses are typically noise and glare. You will get a lot more traffic, lot more activity at the loading docks. And oftentimes these types of businesses work later at night, and so nighttime lighting can be an issue. The conditions that you will find in your packet staff believes will reduce the concerns to an acceptable level.

It is consistent with other developments, similar developments in the area. Again, conditional use permits that this body has seen for warehouse and distribution are 1,700 and 1990 Williams. The findings for conditional use permit are that the proposed location is consistent with the zoning code and the objectives of the zoning code, that the location of the use and proposed operational conditions will not be detrimental to public health safety or welfare of persons or property in the area, that the proposed use will comply with the zoning code, and that the use will not create adverse impacts on traffic or create demands exceeding the capacity of public services and facilities that can't be mitigated. So we believe that you can make these findings with compliance to the recommended conditions of approval, including the revised condition 30 that I mentioned a few slides back, which will minimize traffic conflicts on Doolittle Drive.

So

this project actually got a full blown environmental impact report. We don't see those too often here, but this is a large scale document that takes a great deal of time to prepare, and a lot of thought goes into them. With an environmental impact report, happens is the agency evaluates a project for possible significant impacts. Fundamentally, we have to go through a few regulatory hoops to determine whether or not the project is required to go through CEQA, whether it is subject to CEQA. And then it gets us to a point where we start evaluating it, determining what we think might be some of the impacts associated with the project.

If we decide that there are going to be some significant impacts or potential significant impacts, we prepare an initial study which then determines the level of environmental review needed. There's things like a negative declaration or a mitigated negative declaration or an environmental impact report. In this case, there was an environmental impact report required because there were significant unavoidable adverse impacts. There was a particular one, I will get to that a little bit later, that we could see was going to cause a problem. So we went ahead and did the environmental impact report for it.

Following the circulation of a draft EIR for public comment, the agency then responds to the comments in what is called a final EIR. And the final EIR really comprises the draft, the comments, and the response to comments. But we usually refer to the final as being the comments and the response to comments because that's sort of the new work that's done. Once that work is completed, we prepare a set of findings similar to the findings that we do for conditional use permits or site plan reviews, and a statement of overriding considerations. With the findings, they fall into a few little categories that are similar again.

We need to look at whether or not there are changes or alterations that have been required to the project that avoid or lessen a significant impact, whether changes are within the purview of the approving agency but have been or should be adopted by different agencies. So, for example, if Oakland Airport had something that they could do that we don't have any control over, we would say this particular thing is something that the airport can do and we don't have any control over it. So we would make that finding. Finally, we can make a finding that there are specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations that make mitigation of an impact infeasible. Okay.

So if the statement of overriding considerations, this is essentially saying, yes, we understand that there are problems with this project, things that we can't mitigate, but we are going to approve it and here is why. And we have to lay out in a transparent manner the reasons that we are reaching that decision. And so that is a statement of overriding considerations. CEQA actually requires that the agency balance economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits against the project's unavoidable risks. And we have to state in writing, which you have in your packet then, the reasons for supporting the approval using evidence in the record.

So that's the environmental document and other documents that are available. And then the statement of overriding considerations must be included in the record along with the findings. That is our little thumbnail overview of CEQA. So for this project, we did in fact prepare an environmental impact report. And here is a picture of the cover for you.

You may may have seen it previously, or I know it's in your it's in your packet. It was circulated for public comment for forty five days, and the final day of the public comment was 08/05/2024. We received comments from seven organizations prior to the close of the comment period. Those comments were addressed in the final EIR. And then in your packet, you'll find the findings and statement of overriding considerations.

We received five late comments this week. One actually arrived on Saturday. It arrived at my desk on Monday. We received some on Tuesday, some on Wednesday, and then we received one just before the meeting tonight. Those were all distributed to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting, including the one tonight, which I handed out to you all individually.

So the one impact that really tripped this into an environmental impact report was the fact that the applicant wants to put in a natural gas line. Now the Bay Area Air Quality Management District has stated that when natural gas is used on-site, it's a significant impact based upon its potential to contribute to greenhouse gases. So there's really, short of actually eliminating it, there is no particular way of mitigating it to a less than significant level. However, we did provide a mitigation measure in the document to reduce the use of natural gas. In this particular, I think I have it later, but in this particular case the mitigation measure, I don't have it handy, not number four.

I didn't tag it. It is in the document.

It

is limiting the use of natural gas to industrial processes. So anything in the building for say heating and cooling for staff, the office areas, or kitchen appliances, a refrigerator, or a stove that they might have in there. All of those things are limited to electric use. So the industrial processes alone, if they get a tenant who needs that, will be provided for that. And the types of users who use that are a lot of the R and D type businesses.

I will talk a little bit more about that momentarily. But by including natural gas in the building, this will allow the building to cater to a much wider range of tenants than if it were not included. There is a lot of there is support in the general plan for research and development. Some of the policies say these are the kinds of uses we would like to see here in the city. And so natural gas is just it actually allows the applicant can tell you a little bit more about how it is used, but it really allows a more control over the application of heat.

So there are certain processes that absolutely require that sort of fine level of control. But again, because is in the building, it is proposed to be in the building, it is not possible to mitigate this to a less than significant level. It is there and so it is a significant impact. Some of the other topics that were addressed but were mitigated to a less than significant level are construction air quality, nesting bird issues, cultural resources, various types of hazardous materials. The site is actually underlain by a plume of hazardous fluid that has been headed this direction for a while.

And so there are some mitigation measures in there having to do with dewatering and how to deal with the water that comes out of there, how to address the soil that is going to be used to excavated out of the site, and then construction and operational noise. All of those topics have mitigation measures, and all those subject matters, subject items were reduced to a level of insignificance with the mitigation. The staff's recommendation is to adopt a resolution, which is Attachment one to your packet, certifying the environmental impact report and making required CEQA findings, again in your packet, a statement of overriding considerations in your packet, and a mitigation monitoring program. Those are all attachments to the first resolution. And then to adopt a resolution attachment two, approving a conditional use permit, administrative site plan review, and administrative exception for height for the construction and operation of a new 50 foot tall, approximately 244,473 square foot warehouse and distribution building at 880 Doolittle Drive with amendments to condition 30.

With that, we have some folks here who can help answer questions. Dane Rogers is here from engineering, and George Dix is our environmental consultant who I'd like to say he helped prepare the document, but he prepared the document. With that, any questions you might have, we are happy to entertain.

Commissioner Rich?

Thank you for the presentation. At the start, I would like to disclose that I did attend a Zoom meeting with the applicant on October 16 regarding this project. I met with, miss Moss, miss Tarpon, and miss Galvez. We spoke about the project. Haven't discussed it with them before since. As far as my questions go, I am interested in this site as far as hazardous materials. This site has hazardous materials in existing buildings and hazardous soil. Is that is that correct?

Yes. And the water as well as the groundwater.

I saw from I heard from the public speaker comments not about this project, but in general values of the carpenters, of the, greenhouse gas limiting effects of local hiring programs. Does this project have any local hiring programs, local hiring goals?

The applicant can speak more directly to that, but this is a speculative building. And so whoever comes in as a tenant would probably be the who wouldn't have policies for local hiring, I'm guessing.

And from a self interest standpoint, I think the carpenters might have been talking about the construction of the project?

That would be my assumption. Yes. So And the applicant could speak to that very specifically.

I'm interested in similar on greenhouse gas emissions related to it. The there's bicycle parking on the site. There's a bicycle path in the public way as I understand it.

Yes.

I'm interested in what that route is from the public way to the bicycle parking, on on-site. And I'm particularly interested because the we have a drawing in our packet similar to this one here, but it's showing turning radiuses or something for trucks that appears from both entry points. So it looks like a bicycle could be in the turning radius of of Big Rigs. And so I'm interested because in order for bicycles the the substance of my question, in order for the bicycling to work, we can't have a weak link there. We can't have the bicycle path that goes to it and the bicycle parking, and then and then it's biting the the trucks in the middle.

Right. Agreed. And I'll point out that the Doolittle Drive driveway is actually not under the control of the applicant. This is actually owned by a different property owner, but there's an easement across this. So we don't really have the ability to impose that. But the distance here from Doolittle Drive to the property line is about 300 feet. It's actually a little under 300 feet. So it's not a huge and I completely understand your point about mixing bicycles and trucks. Unfortunately, this area is very heavily used by trucks. Most of them are smaller.

There are small industrial buildings on either side of that driveway that also access the driveway, but the buildings are smaller and the trucks are smaller. The loading docks are actually at grade, not lifted to accommodate a higher floor of a truck. Nevertheless, that's going to be a little uncomfortable. However, they can certainly do one of two things. They can take that 300 foot plunge up, do a little drive, and then work their way through the passenger vehicle parking lot.

If there's trucks let me see. Let me see my I can't really see the cursor. I should have brought that pointer. But the the driveway there on the west side of the building between the the parking lot for passenger vehicles in the building, there will be trucks there. It won't be a heavy load of trucks, and we're not anticipating that, because there won't be a lot of trucks using the Doolittle Drive driveway.

Nevertheless, there could certainly be trucks there. I would suggest based upon the configuration of the driveway, you can actually see an entryway on the South East corner of that parking lot. So they could actually use the dry vial there, which would make only a small there's still a cutover to the front of the building, but it's a much shorter distance, 100 feet or so. So there's that. Additionally, they can also come in via Hester.

Depending upon where you're coming from, Hester might be a good opportunity. If you're coming from the North, I would think you would take Hester because taking a left hand turn across Doolittle Drive is maybe not such a great idea. I mean, you could, but luck to you. So the signal at Adams actually offers a nice protected opportunity to do that, And then you just turn down Hester. Hester is not heavily traveled. It's not a very, very wide street. It's small scale industrial buildings, mostly smaller trucks also. So it's a quieter street than Joolittle, certainly. Oh, thank you. We're talking about this driveway here.

You could actually Did I lose it already? There we go. So a rider could come up here and then go this way and then cut over and hit the parking there. That's what I had in mind. The other option would be this way, which is a shorter exposure, a smaller exposure to trucks, certainly. Depending upon which way you're going, you might choose one or the other.

Of those two, the northernmost one Hester is the primary truck route

Yes.

Absent a signal being added at Doolittle? Yes. Thank you. Mhmm. I don't wanna put anybody on the spot, but we did get a letter here at 05:50. And so I've got a question for the city attorney regarding this letter if this if the issue raised in the letter, if you could comment on this.

Yeah. So the the issue raised in the letter is that the the draft document you see is referring to the city council making certain actions and and findings, and, obviously, this is before the planning commission. Disagree that that is a typo. It it should say planning commission, but there's no need for this to all be recirculated with that minor correction in there. So, you know, if the commission desires to, you know, approve this project and approve the statement of overriding consideration, that can just be incorporated into the motion.

That document be amended to refer to the planning commission rather than, you know, the public. Notice that when out for tonight's meeting, I'll clearly refer to the planning commission as the decision maker.

I have no further questions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Tejada.

Thank you for the presentation. Appreciate it. Similar to commissioner Rich, disclosing ex parte communication with, the applicant, representatives were Bonnie Moss and Claudia Tarpen. This was on December 2 Zoom meeting. Alright.

No communication with them since. Couple of questions that I had, for the introduction of natural gas, as part of this project, you did have a slide that was showing similar projects in the category for the exception in height beyond the 50 feet. I think there were, like, four different parcels as examples that fall into that category. Do we know is there a similar listing for projects that have the exception here in the EIR to proceed with natural gas as connections?

I'm not aware of any.

So the four that are listed here, do any of these four carry the ask of wanting to introduce natural gas?

Not to my knowledge. The only one that might have, because it's the only one that got an environmental impact report, is nineteen nineteen Williams. But I don't believe that one included gas. It's a prologistix project, though, and maybe did it include gas? Remember? It did. Okay. Did include gas.

Through the chair, I just will add that the city the city has established a reach code that addressed electrified buildings, and it built in an exception for industrial processes. So similar to the mitigation measure for this item, we found that we have a significant industrial base, and it is of value to the city council to allow our industrial buildings to continue to operate with gas for industrial processes. There have been court cases that have paused application of that REACH code. So it's a newer this is a newer development within CEQUA and the air district guidelines to identify that use of gas is considered a significant unavoidable impact. So I guess I just to answer what I think is behind your question is it is very common that industrial buildings do include gas.

That is the norm here.

Yeah.

Thank you

for that. That helps. I was really just trying to establish a track record of precedence if there was already something similar to the scale and size of this development that had already been approved by the city with natural gas connections, it sounds like that is the case, that there is a precedence.

Yes. Yeah. We're we're unaware of any that do not have gas. Okay.

Got it. And I guess that that kinda leads into maybe this would be the EIR report findings where we go on to talk about the proposed project would conflict with an applicable policy or policies adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. This impact would be significant and unavoidable. The potential impact, so it details out how it's generally consistent with the city's climate action plan, however, that it would be inconsistent with the policies BE one and BE two of the city's climate action plan. Maybe my question is, how did the city go about kind of balancing between a decision on the city's climate action plan versus that of the inconsistencies with BE one and BE two.

Maybe that's what I'm just trying to draw the what I'm trying to draw a conclusion on is BE one and BE two, the amount of impact and weight that that carried against the overall climate action plan from the city. What factors drove the determination of it being significantly unavoidable and ultimately approved?

Yeah. And we can we can without having reference to those very specific policies that were identified as a potential mismatch, it's common for major documents like the climate action plan to have policies that are kind of a kitchen sink approach that cover all of the different sources of greenhouse gas emissions and seek to reduce them wherever possible. And so to that extent, my assumption here and if staff has a different understanding, please correct me is that those are policies related to desires for building electrification, which is a general goal that the city has expressed because buildings use a lot of energy. And having electrified buildings helps diversify the energy sources, and we can have more renewable energy that is provided for those buildings that are not relying upon gas, correct, right? But that doesn't mean I think interpreting a building that does include gas hookups for industrial purposes as a conflict is a bit of a conservative approach.

Because generally, we can find projects to be consistent with our guiding policy documents. And there can be some specific deviation, like in this case for the industrial processes, that support our larger economic development goals. So it's often we have policies that require some balancing. And I think we have seen that there is a priority for the city council to ensure development is feasible in San Leandro, and especially development that aligns with our economic development goals, these modern flexible buildings that can attract quality tenants and jobs and business to business tax and all of the other related benefits that come. And so you'll find in the mitigation measures and in the conditions an attempt to balance any of those perceived negatives or potential negatives so that we have the best possible project that's balanced across various policy goals.

Thank you for that. Is maybe a separate question altogether, but is it maybe something downstream for the city where it would maybe try to rightsize the approach for future developments when you compare and contrast that against the city's climate action plan so that it's not maybe in this juxtaposition of we're significant we're significantly the the impact is significantly unavoidable in in certain cases. It just seems as almost though it's it's it's blurring the line between the city's own core values that are established in the climate action plan versus, I agree, the need for future economic development and the growth within the city, if there was kind of a way of maybe linking the two or decoupling, I should say. If there was a way of decoupling those in a future revision of the climate action plan, maybe that would kinda go a long way.

Commissioner, I'll just read them right now, which may help you see that there it's there's not really a strict conflict between them. So the BE one is incentivize significant building retrofits with fewer or no natural gas appliances to reduce to reduce pollution and increase cost savings. EE two is commit to developing a reach code limiting natural gas use in new construction or as directed by state or regional agencies. So for example, the city did adopt a reach code that limited gas connections. You know?

It didn't prohibit them across the board, but it limited them for most types of construction, which is is fairly consistent with what the e two is. So

And I believe, just to add, that the the real reason the statement of overriding considerations is required is that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District set a threshold. So your point is taken, and we'll definitely work on the language around that. And I think calling it a conflict a bit it's an extreme interpretation. But I think the Air District, we don't control the thresholds that they establish. And that was the trigger in this situation more than anything else.

Got it. Perfect. I agree. Conflict just kinda drew drew my eyes in that direction. Another question here is, the signalization, so the two streets, the entry points, Doolittle and, Hester, There was a paragraph that you you brought up mentioning that that was gonna be included within the resolution.

That paragraph itself, I don't know. Maybe it's just kind of reading through the language, but it seems as though there's there's definitely some interpretation for how this could be perceived, just the wording of using preferred. And I'm just wondering, I I heard on Hester Street towards the tail end of this paragraph here, it goes on to say that, you know, in the future, signalization could be introduced. The applicant would be responsible for the improvements as part of this. I'm just paraphrasing what's what's called out on screen.

Is there a reason why instead of maybe taking a a wait and see approach, we're not moving forward with a future proofing type of solution for signalization at the area of conflict that could likely be there in the future? What went behind the rationale of not future proofing and installing signalization now as part of the development?

The reason is the traffic impact analysis that was prepared for the document for the environmental impact report actually did not show a need for a traffic signal at this point. But there are some other things at play that may ultimately cause that to be something that we want to have a look at. But as of today, we're seeing the need for it. In fact, condition number four in the second resolution also limits the kinds of uses how do I say this? That's not the right way of putting it.

Whoever goes into the project has to have a level of traffic no greater than what is in the traffic impact analysis in the environmental impact report in order to avoid having an additional problem. So we future proofed it that way. If something changes, let's say they want to bring in a last mile facility. A last mile facility would a very different traffic profile than the traffic impact analysis analyzed. And so they would have to then come back with a new traffic study and we would look at it again. And there might then be a warrant for a signal.

Okay. And so did the traffic study take into account, I forget how many trucks it was, 59 docking bays, did it take into account the truck traffic coming off of Doolittle into the property, that in conjunction with, say, just standard vehicle vehicle traffic coming in as well too?

Yes. It was considered to be fairly minimal. Okay. The distribution the traffic distribution map actually shows, and I don't remember what the figures are, but the bulk of the traffic for trucks is expected to come from the North rather than from the South. So if they came from the South, we'd see a lot more Doolittle Drive traffic.

Mhmm.

But because it's coming from the North, we're expecting it to see more Hester.

I guess that's part of my question too is why not just divert all traffic onto Hester for trucks? All truck traffic onto Hester, make the loop around parcel, avoid any sort of kind of commingling of standard vehicles and trucks with preferred truck entrance off of Doolittle?

You know, there is trucks have a freight moves in a just in time way, and so they always wanna take the shortest route possible, even shaving seconds off if they possibly can, because time is money. So in some instances, we'll see trucks go that direction, but it's a very small number. If we go the longer route, it will actually cost more money, frankly, to run them that way. That's the main reason. Okay. There's other reasons. Hester has a lot of truck traffic. It's a fairly narrow street, and sometimes there are obstructions on Hester.

Mhmm.

Occasional, but it happens if somebody's trying to back into a back into a loading dock somewhere. A truck might take up a little too much of the street, and other trucks may not be able to get by easily. So rather than having the backup, they might route around and go in that way.

Got it. Okay. And and that was a joint decision discussed with the applicant in terms of truck truck traffic and routing? Yes. Okay.

My last question is is kind of a piggyback to commissioner Rich and the letter that or the email that we received just before this meeting. Apologies if you if you did answer the question before, counsel. I just I wanted to get some clarity here with, you know, exactly what the city's position is. Maybe it's a council or planning department stance on it, but, I mean, the letter goes on to to basically state the it will be legally impermissible and in violation of CEQA for the city to attempt to adopt the CEQA findings and statement of overriding considerations as presently constituted at tonight's planning commission meeting. If I could get just a response that our position is x on that and the rationale as to why, I would feel a little bit more comfortable, you know, with the decision, with the vote that I make.

Yeah. Our position is that correcting that typo in the document does not require recirculation of the documents and that the city can adopt them tonight. The planning commission can adopt them tonight and that those that correction is not so significant to require recirculation because it's not you know, we are in substantial compliance with the requirements of SQA. Web the content is not changing. Reference to who the decision making body is is what's changing, and that was available through other means for any party interested in tonight's decision.

And then for the typo that you're saying needs to be corrected, can you can you state that once more, the typo itself?

There are a few places in the CEQA findings and statement of overriding consideration that refer to the city council taking action and adopting various documents. And, obviously, tonight, it's the planning commission that will be taking those actions. And and Cindy mentioned earlier, it's unusual to have an EIR. And, normally, when we have an EIR, it's for, like, a general plan or something that is going to the city council for approval. Okay.

Thank you.

Appreciate it. That's it for me. Thank you.

Mister Tabjulu.

Thank you for the presentation. I noticed that of the two zero four parking spaces, like, only six are dedicated as accessible parking. Is that consistent with the requirements?

It is.

About 3%? Yes. Thank you. And will the development have, like, any TDM measures, like, in place, or is that something that'll come for the tenant in the future?

Imagine that would be more related to the tenant. Tenant.

And are there any requirements for having dedicated spots for carpools?

No. There are clean air spots that are available, but none that are specific to carpools.

Thank you. I had some questions on the traffic impact analysis, but I did get answers for Commissioner Tadde's questions.

Anything beyond what I gave you, we have people who can answer that.

Thank you.

Commissioner Solis?

Yeah. I just wanted to bring up that I had engaged in ex parte communications with the representatives from the applicant via Zoom, a couple months ago. I think so far all my questions have been answered by by questions by the other commissioners. That's it. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. I I do have a few questions. Thank you very much for the report. Very thorough.

So as I understand it, there's so there's no prospective tenant at this time?

That's correct. Okay.

I I would like to recommend that in the future when we're talking about traffic, perhaps an exhibit can be included that broadens the expanse so that people can under because with the exhibits that are provided, we're just trying to follow along. I actually had to Google on my phone to understand the surroundings. But I do have a question. So there's a signal at the intersection of Doolittle And Adams. Yes.

Right? And so will that or did the traffic study determine that the timing on that traffic signal will need to be adjusted for the amount of trucks that will be coming through?

I don't know the answer to that question. There would be some adjustment, but the applicant can speak to that.

Okay. Great. I will wait for that. You mentioned that in the future, so kind of the precedent or reasoning for needing natural gas was for possible future R and D. Am I correct in that statement? Yes. Okay. And so in order to have R and D in this building, would we need a change of use for the building?

No. No. That would be included under the original IG zone.

Under the original IG zone. Okay. Was any thought ever given to complete I mean, I will say maybe this is for the applicant, but do they know of a precedent of R and D that is completely electrified buildings?

Definitely a question for the applicant.

Okay. I want to kind of train off of Mr. Tabjula's comment on the photovoltaics as well. I think you mentioned PVs. Yes? Did you say PVs? Photovoltaics? No. Okay. So that is a question I have. Will there be any type of PVs for this very large building?

That's a very good question and I do not have the answer to it. The applicant I'm sure can respond to that one. Okay.

Thank you. I have no further questions, for the staff. Thank you so much. K. Is the applicant present?

Good evening, chair Super, vice chair Tejada, and members of the planning commission. My name is Claudia Tarping, and I'm here today on behalf of ProLogis to present on this eight thirty two LEO project and our vision for it. Also with me, I have Chana Galves. She's officer capital deployment officer for Prologis in the Bay Area Bill Rose, VP of Entirement in California and Matt Sims, development officer in Northern California, to help answer some questions if needed. Let me start with my involvement here on this project.

Over the past few years, I had the opportunity to collaborate very closely with the city staff and many of the city members on several and development projects across San San Leandro. I also had the privilege the privilege of participating in some community events. In the process, I got to know this community, and I got to know this city. One of the things I admire most about this community is its pride and their commitment to its city. I witnessed several times in this same room during the city awards ceremonies that recognizes several of the community members and business local businesses for their contributions.

And I had to say I had the opportunity to be part of the ceremonies, listen to each of the stories, and I left this room truly, truly impressed and inspired. So it's my honor today to present on A. D. E. Doolittle that I think is a project that aligns with the values and the priorities of San Leandro.

Let me tell you also who we are. Any of you might know ProLogix as a real estate development company, and it's true. That's who we are. But we are not just that. We are a company that cares about doing the right thing and about moving the industry forward. We have a net zero goals. We have our goals for net zeroes in operations is to achieve that by 02/1940. That's ten years earlier than the Paris Agreement. And we are really serious about it. It's not just one more slogan out there.

We have all those business units that were launched over the past few years to support our customers, to support our community achieve those net zero goals. And I won't talk about each of those because I won't have enough time, but I'm going to highlight a few of them. We have our mobility group. Our mobility group basically helps electrify truck trips and passenger vehicles trips across our communities and also expand those EV capabilities in all our portfolio. We also have the solar team.

The Solar team has been focused in expanding our solar footprint across the entire portfolio. And right now, ProLotis is the second largest producer of solar power in the country, and we are very, very close to being their largest, and we expect that to happen within this year. We also have a group within the company that, basically all they do is research innovation and measure our progress on sustainability. We, all these units and many more, help us, help our customer, and help our community reach the net zero goals we are really, really committed to. But we are also very much part of this community.

Over the years, we cultivated a lot of partnerships with several nonprofits in the city of San Leandro to support economic and social initiatives. Some of those include the SLAD, includes Building Futures, which was actually was came as a recommendation from from the city. We dedicated our toy drive during Christmas season to to this organization. They do amazing work. We also, in constant conversations with them, another organization, have we can contribute to their good work in a meaningful way.

We also been part of the San Leandro Unified District. Janet and I, we had the opportunity to present on career fairs and career orientations to all your students. And we have to say they're very bright students. Now this city is important to us. You can see on this slide.

We've been here for many, many years. ProLogic has been supporting 4,000 jobs across 115 businesses in 38 buildings here in the city of San Leandro. These businesses include a wide range of industry and sizes. They go from the large manufacturer to the small start up. And that's possible because there is just buildings.

Currently, we had three developments that we've been working very closely with the city and also other customers. There are two of them, nineteen eighteen Williams, I think we heard in the presentation. That's on the southern end, the little square. So 1910, nineteen Williams by the way, all these projects have a high focus in people centricity and sustainability. 1918 Williams enabled Turani, a local company to San Leandro, to expand their business.

When San Leandro when Turani needed to to grow, they saw themselves in a huge need of a Class A building near their headquarters. That's for 1918 Williams, and thank you for thanks to your support on developing this building. Taurani was able to expand their business here in San Leandro. We also have thirteen forty five Dulleo, Opera Laches Nexus. This project is a showcase project in terms of innovation and in terms of sustainability.

It's the first lead platinum industrial building in the Bay Area. This building has been has received several recognitions by the industry for its innovation and sustainability achievements, but it's also received a lot of attention on the national spectrum as where it was presented on several conferences. And the best part is that we may be talking about this project in Texas, but the project is in San Leandro, And I'm proud of that. And we also have a 32 level, which is the one up north. Here is a little bit of a you can tell that this project none of these projects are the typical cookie cutter industrial buildings that most people are used to seeing.

These buildings have people centricity focused, beautiful facade, and high highly class a type of finishes. And here, have an aerial that I think Cindy also showed. You can see the the existing building. This is existing conditions. There is no landscape, basically a large, impervious area.

There are several buildings that were built at different time in point. That's what the different colors of roof represent. Those are different buildings. Those buildings, some of those are metals, some of those are concrete, some of those are masonry. But there is one thing that they all have in common.

They're in pretty bad shape, and they're pretty much tear down structures. Now we are looking at transforming this site. They're saying that we trans we we and continue to transform the industrial landscape of San Leandro into a modern industrial hub. And to do that, when we started working on this project, we decided to set three fundamental pillars that were going to drive this project. One is a Class A facility.

Class A facility aligns with San Leandro economic goals. It's gonna attract the type of tenant and the type of businesses that this city really wants. Sustainability is the second pillar. This pillar is not only aligned with our net zero goals, but it's also aligned with San Leandro environmental sustainability goals. And the people centric design focus, which is also aligned with the values of San Leandro.

On the environmental and sustainability front, there is too many features to highlight, but I'm going to just focus on the main ones. We are really confident that we are going to achieve lead goals on this project. There was a question, I believe, by chair Suber about the the solar. We are gonna be installing solar panels on day one that are gonna power the office area. We're also gonna have the infrastructure to expand on that solar footprint on the roof.

Unfortunately, PT and E doesn't allow to do the things on on a spec basis, so we had to wait until we have a tenant, and they go through a billing cycle before we can expand on that. But we're gonna have the infrastructure in place. We also have EV chargers. We had 13 EV chargers on day one for passenger vehicles. We're also installing the infrastructure for future EV chargers for the fleet.

So when a customer wants to electrify their fee their fleet, they can do that very quickly with minimum capital upfront. We also have LED lighting, a CLT mezzanine, and a low concrete low carbon concrete, which is also going to help us reduce the carbon footprint. And lastly, but not least, I mean, we are working, as Cindy mentioned, there is a lot of environmental issues that were caused by previous ownership and previous tenant activities back in the seventies. And we are working with DTSC on the active remediation of those. And as part of that remediation, we are also installing a VIM system, which is basically a vapor barrier that's gonna keep our workers safe.

No no need to mention that the existing building doesn't have that. And lastly, on the people centricity pillar, we're gonna have a class a office with a CLT mezzanine. We want the people that come and work in this building to have pride, to feel proud of coming and working here, to have also a good sense of well-being. That's the reason that we are really investing and making sure to to have good natural lighting, to have organic finishes throughout. We add in two levels, not just one level of outdoor area brick area, but also two levels.

And on the I know that there have been some questions about the jobs, and there's gonna be a significant percentage of union jobs on this project. We have an agreement right now with the MEP, Shimmetal, iron workers, and also with Launa. And at minimum, those trades are gonna be represented. Carpenters are also represented on our panelized roof, which is a big component of of this building. And during the operational needs of the operationals of this building, we estimate that we're gonna be creating up to 200 jobs.

And in closing, we are excited. We are really excited. I'm personally excited because I spent so much time. Getting San Leandro. I'm personally excited because I spent so much time in all putting so much thought in all these projects to do the best we can.

We are excited about the future of 830 Dulillo and our ongoing partnership with San Leandro and its community. We appreciate the opportunity to present this vision and look forward to collaborating the planning commission, city staff, and the community to bring this project to life. I want to thank also city staff, been great to work with, and it's been always, and we can we look forward to continuing that relationship. We have carefully reviewed the staff report. We agree with the findings, proposed mitigations, and conditions of approvals, which we have thoroughly evaluated and are fully prepared to implement.

Additionally, we find that CEQA analysis is fully adequate, ensuring that this project meets all environmental review requirements. We welcome any questions or feedback. We thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much. Commissioner Mendoza, you have a question?

Yeah. Thanks for for the presentation, and, I'll I'll start by saying that I'm aware that Prologis is a is a very important, company business in in San Leandro as a, and and also, it was really nice to see your presentation about embracing the values of Alejandro, solar power, working with unions. It was very, you know, really nice to see that. I I am curious, though, about one thing. I was hoping that you might be able to to answer this. Why would the union be outside with a protest sign against ProLogistix?

Sorry. Why the union

as well?

Why would the union would be outside the city city hall right now with the protest sign against apologies. I'm I'm sure that you probably have some, you know, knowledge about why why that's happening. So that would be

Actually, I haven't been outside. I came here very early, so I didn't get to see that. So I'm just learning that. I gotta tell you one thing. We we do have agreements with the trades I mentioned earlier, MEP, Chimera, Iron Workers, La Yuna.

And we do strive to do the right thing. We do strive to do the right thing on every project. And I went back to historical projects and see because when we hire a GC or we hire subcontractors, that is based on the relationship we have with them, their qualification for that specific work. For this project to be successful, we need to hire the right people. Right?

So the fact that we do have an agreement with certain trade doesn't stop us, oftentimes, to going beyond that and hiring a lot of other trades. In the case of 1918 Williams, about 95% of that job was done with unions. We had the same agreement that we have here. However, the GC that bid on that project or the multiple TCs that we bid on the project, we have all kind of TCs and and subcontractors. The most qualified TC was union signatory.

That that was not a factor on us to say, we're gonna hire this or not. We hire the most qualified GCs and the most qualified subcontractors. Eight day nineteen eighteen Williams, about same agreement, 88% of the of the high of the construction cost went to unions. That also includes the carpenters. Ari Mayer did all the side side work on nineteen eighteen Williams, also 1345 Dulles.

We have right now a trailer yard being in construction in Fremont. There is no agreement there. However, a big percentage of the construction cost is going to unions. At the end of the day, we do hire the the TCs and the and the subcontractor that are the most qualified, And we're gonna continue to do so. And as we continue to develop relationship with other subcontractors and contractors, we're gonna continue to to to invite them to bid. So I don't know why they're outside, to be honest with you. But

On this on this particular project, how how much how percentage of the of the labor are union for this particular project?

Anna Galves. I'm vice president investment officer for Prologis. I work really closely with Claudia on all our San Leandro projects. I I can help answer that question. I did walk in a little bit later, and I was I was a little disappointed by the sign being out there, particularly because we have partnered with the carpenters on several projects in our portfolio.

Thirteen forty five Doolittle is one of them, where we are using carpenters' labor. We also have a very big project in Oakland, not the city not the city of San Leandro, but Oakland, where we are also using the carpenters. This is a speculative project that's not approved yet, so we're not under construction like we are at 1345 or our Oakland project. So we haven't identified a GC. So there is no agreement in place yet where we're able to identify who our partners are gonna be on the project.

Without approval of the project, we can advance to reaching out to the GCs and, you know, starting to think about who our GC partner is gonna be. So, therefore, there's no agreement in place yet. But, again, we have used Carpenters in the past.

And then one final question. So I'm I'm aware that as as a business, in development, I hear I keep hearing this this term that, you know, the numbers, you know, it has to pencil in. And sometimes there is a pressure between following, you know, living wage, ordinances or or just wanting to, you know, to follow that versus the business realities. You know? So I I totally understand that. In your case, what is your policy when it comes to, you know, living wage and and hiring which I think you, you know, answered that, but, you know, I just wanted to, you know, ask again. What is your policy overall on the living wages for, you know, and hiring local people?

Yeah. You know, I I am a child of immigrant parents, so I'm for all ages. Right? My parents provided for me and my siblings working out of similar warehouses like the ones that Prologis develops in. So I'm for all wages. The way we operate is we we hire the most qualified GC for the job. So we go through a formal bidding process. We have several GC partners that we collaborate with. So we ultimately who whoever is the most qualified for the job after bid bidding out, you know, our job. It will it won't go to just one GC.

It will go to several. They'll all get our drawings. It's based on schedule and cost, and also the complexity of the project that we're dealing with.

And for my own from for my own education, so if a a general contractor, puts in a a bid, and they happen to be nonunion, right, and the bid is is lower and another one is highly unionized, you're still looking at the most qualified contractor and and not necessarily looking at whether they're union or not. That's what I have.

Thank you, China.

Thank you for your presentation. And I do want to appreciate the Paralogies' commitment and investments in San Leandro. Just curious as to like what is the time line of the project? When do you see that the groundbreaking happening and the completion of the construction? And the second part is like, I mean, do you have any tenants like already lined up for this particular project? And what kind of jobs would they be bringing in?

Yeah. I'm going invite Chaya to respond part of that question since she's doing much of the leasing of this. But for your first part of the first part of your question about the timing of this project, first, we gotta go through the the building approval process. So I don't know how long that's gonna take. Right now, we we don't have a firm date on when we're start construction, when this is gonna ground be a ground record. But on the second part of your questions, we do not have we don't have a we do not have a tenant yet. Any type of tenant could make this their home, but we do hope to find a really good one.

Yeah. I guess, I mean, the location is, like, pretty ideal for this. It's close to the airport, and it's close to the Oakland Ports. I think it's definitely an ideal location for a lot of tenants, I guess. Yeah.

And I'm happy to elaborate. As as Claudia mentioned, it's we it's a spec development. Typically, when we see a customer come into our buildings, it's because we have approval. We have our construction schedule, and we can commit to a delivery date. At that point, they know they can start operations, and that's usually what, dictates what tenants we get to see.

What we're seeing in the Bay Area is pretty remarkable. I think San Leandro has transitioned into what used to be a traditional warehouse through PL logistics market into what we're calling advanced manufacturing, and that's why part of the reasons why we want that natural gas line. If we were just thinking this was gonna be a warehouse logistics 3PL building, we would not request the gas line. But in order to be flexible and cast a wide net of possible tenants, we wanted to include the natural gas line. Right now, what we're seeing is a lot of manufacturing part particularly supporting Silicon Valley.

So there's a lot of tech companies that have ancillary, supporters that need the space to store material once it comes from the port or to assemble it before it makes it to its final destination. So we're really seeing the Bay Area evolve into a unique kind of tech ecosystem. It's all interrelated.

Thank you. Appreciate that.

Mister Tahara.

Yeah. Okay. So like everyone has said, thank you, for the presentation. Appreciate all the information. It's a wealth of of good stuff there. So I understand this as a not necessarily a a built to suit development. It's more of a spec build out right now because there isn't a tenant that's selected at this point in time. So you're wanting to keep those features open. If it's the case where, as an example, with natural gas, natural gas is included as a design feature right now, it ultimately makes it into the construction documents somewhere along the road of coming to terms and identifying a tenant. That tenant has relayed back to Prologis, hey.

We don't really have a need for natural gas. Is it the case where that feature can simply be removed, omitted, and no longer entail entertain?

Yeah. And let me clarify that because we are installing the infrastructure for future gas, but we are not doing the gas connection unless we have a tenant that needs it. All the the appliances, HVAC equipment, and any appliance in the in the office area, that's all electrified.

Okay. So you're doing all the infrastructure leading up to it. So then maybe taking it even one step further, for the infrastructure, if you identify a tenant early enough, because you're casting a wide net going with the infrastructure for gas, If that tenant really has no need and that's a long term tenant that's gonna be there ultimately, could the infrastructure itself leading into kind of right away point of connection into the building, all of the infrastructure for natural gas, could that be removed?

It would not. It would not be. The reason that we're installing the the infrastructure right now is so we don't have to break the new asphalt and the new concrete again and all the interrupt all the the parking areas, islands. There is a lot there is a pretty good stretch that that infrastructure is gonna cross. It's gonna span over from the property line all the way to the to the to the building.

So removing that, that would be pretty disrupting, and, really, it would not be much of an benefit, to be honest. As long as that is is not connected to the gas line, the main one, and there is no meter that just just a pipe in the ground. Yeah. It would be a stop.

Okay. I think just to elaborate on that, there won't be even though the infrastructure will be there, the actual gas coming into the property won't exist unless we turn it on for a specific customer. It's capped at the street on the infrastructure that already exists. So even though there'll be infrastructure below our property, it won't actually have any natural glass flowing through it. It'll be capped at the infrastructure.

Not connected to the each and each mainline.

Okay. So you'll have a bare infrastructure from point of connection.

Conduit from the property line to the building. That's And then if in the future that becomes a need for a tenant for their manufacturing activities or r and d, whatever activity that really need that, then we will have to go through a process with PG and E to finalize that connection and and request a meter.

Okay. And then curious here that that LEED Platinum building, did that also have natural gas connections?

So that building was an existing building that basically we we renovated or reused much of the existing structure. There is an existing gas line to the building that was left in place. Again, pretty much I mean, that one is connected, but we removed the meter, and it's it's basically capped at right outside the building. It's only gonna be used if a customer needs it. And at that point, also, we're gonna have to request a meter. So right now, no one could use it day one.

Okay. So same sort of situation then. Okay. And then for the EV chargers, you said there'll be 13 EV chargers and then ultimately 63 EV capable stalls in the future. So same sort of scenario where you're gonna be putting in all of the infrastructure to support those 63 capable stalls for EV. Is that the case?

Correct. But that one goes a little bit, I mean, slowly capable. Right? That means that we have all the conduits go all the way to the panel. And all the a customer or us in the future, all we're gonna have to do is basically wire that and install the charger.

Okay. So you'll have connections from a pool box leading up to the solar panels. But from that pool box to get to those 63 stalls, there's still gonna be some infrastructure work

needs to happen. Electrical panel. So they're gonna go to it from the electrical room. The conduit is gonna go all the way to the future EV stall. Okay. And that conduit is in there in place, and everything is designed to to be able that that switchgear and everything is designed to be able to to take on the additional load. At the point when we decide to install those chargers, all we had to do is install the wires and the actual charger

Okay.

Which is minimal work.

Okay. That's good. And then just curious with those EV chargers, is that kind of a proprietary tenant use only, or is this an effort where there's potentially even public accessibility for charging infrastructure to to kind of meet what the city's goal is ultimately for, citywide, charging?

Unfortunately, when we lease our properties, most of our customers want the facility to be secure, so it's only for the employee's site

Okay.

Time.

K. Alright. And just going through my notes here. I guess maybe to hit on what we were talking about earlier with the PLA, you had a slide up that said there's a significant percent of construction costs that's being performed by local unions. Do do we know what that percent is, like, actual percent that's being performed by construction unions?

Based on the p l I p PLA that we have in place, we had to run the numbers. We did some preliminary numbers with HEC, and they were expecting that to be on the 50 plus percent, but we need to run those numbers. But, again, once we go through the bidding process, those numbers can can change or increase.

Okay. So

Yeah. So I'd say that the 50% is on average. Again, there's some projects that are outweighed, like, 45. 1919 Williams was on the lower range, which is our second development in San Leandro, where it was, again, closer to 50. So it just really depends on, again, what project we're doing and what skill set we need for that project.

K. And then the PLA that's in place, I think you had mentioned sheet metal, pipe fitters. Is that right?

Yes. Sheem sheet metal, pipe fitters, ironworkers, and MEP.

Iron workers and MEP.

At Launa. We had a handshake with Launa.

So that's mechanical, electrical, plumbing Mhmm. Sprinkler fitters

Mhmm.

Iron workers, and laborers.

Alright. So between that grouping, you're at roughly 50%. So is it safe to say that the larger delta is the union that we heard from earlier today, the carpenter's union, that's maybe not accounted for? Is that safe to say?

They're they're they have a percentage there with the finalized roofing. I would have to really write write the write the numbers, but we have, like, for example, the the most of the subs that we use for earthwork, those are also union. Subs that you we use for site utilities are also union. There is a lot of other union subcontractors that we use and probably they're not on that list, but we do have a long standing relationship with. And they they have really performed really well in our past projects, and we have a preference of working with some of them.

K. So the extent of Carpenters Union's involvement right now as it stands is for, you said, the panelized roof system. Is that right? That's that's the extent of what the Carpenters Union is being. And then how much of the project scope does the panelized roof system equate to in terms of dollar value?

I would need to get back to you on that. I don't have right now the answer to know exactly how much that equate to.

I'm Matt Sims with the applicant, vice president of development, Northern California. To provide a little bit more color, you know, at the 50% to 60%, like, level for union participation of the project is fairly accurate, Panelized roof system might account for another eight to 10%. We don't generally think of our projects in terms of these percentages because we, again, we look at best value, we look at the best performance, and we look at every project individually. We have made some standardized agreements, with select trades, as we've seen value, and that's what we're prepared to provide for this project. And then we do remain open, and we do keep optionality as we go into the bidding process to to be, you know, pleasantly surprised or to find another contractor that has those capabilities that we think is best fit for every individual project.

K. And is it the case where the PLA that's in place for, you know, the several other trades that were mentioned, carpenters union not being included in that PLA. What's what's maybe, like, the rationale behind that as to why the carpenters union is not part of the PLA?

I think that would probably be a better question for the carpenters themselves. We business agents that we work with represent the trades that they select, and the carpenters are not part of that agreement. Not from our doing, but from the business agents that are in place.

Okay. And then, we started talking about GC selection earlier. So GC selection, there was, I think, a reference to prior developments and selections that ran its course where the GC selected was ultimately a signatory to the carpenter's union, and that happened to, by happenstance, be the case that worked out. Knowing that you guys haven't gone out, I don't think you haven't gone out just yet for any sort of soft solicitations to GCs to to prep them on what's to come, is there an opportunity once you're at a point of approving the project where selection of GCs could be strategically outsourced, where you're rolling in kind of a a waiting factor or waiting system. I know you wanna go for best value.

You wanna go with, you know, most qualified, most competent bidder. Everyone wants that. But in the same token, you may be also to you may also be able to, you know, add additional points, add additional incentives for GCs that do carry a signatory to the carpenter's union. Maybe there's a plus five point marker in their overall 100% total that could be the differentiator in in that sense.

We we do go out of our way to include other items, safety being one that comes top of mind, but there are there is room on the scorecard to add other other factors. Yes. Generally not, encountered at this stage of a project, but yes.

Okay.

Commissioner Donna, do you do you mind if we make time for some more speakers? Yeah. If if if you're unless you have other questions That was just outside of

That was just about it. Yeah. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Commissioner Rich?

Thank you very much. I, I was making a list of the environmental pluses of the project before I started, before we came to this meeting and and, mentioned the the dirty dirt and the dirty buildings. I learned tonight that it's you're going for lead gold. Maybe that was in the application. I didn't notice it. I think that's called burying the lead. Opportunities for local hire. I I asked this question earlier and is more appropriately directed towards you. So can you can you speak to the local hire that you do both in terms of the construction of the building and the op and the operations of the building to the extent that

you have

any influence or knowledge of that?

Can we invite Matt for that question as well? I mean, I think most of our unions are local. Is that right?

Yeah. We do participate depending on different municipalities or jurisdictions in local hire requirements. There hasn't been one imposed on the project, so I can't necessarily speak to the percentage of local hire that we see on a typical project in San Leandro other than a generalized statement that it's, you know, pretty high.

Just as a reminder, as Janet mentioned earlier, we are just on the entitlement phase of this building. We have yet to go through a building permit. So a lot of these questions are pretty much way ahead of us. I mean, we are at least a year or more out from getting to that point. So lot of things could change and and things evolve. But yeah. So a lot of things we have probably had to answer at this hearing.

That that makes perfect sense to me. The and the reason I'm I'm bringing it up here in the in this format is because of the significant impact, that's unavoidable to the greenhouse gases and the connection, between local residents working and the reduction in greenhouse gases compared to, when I was working in construction, for example, many of the of the construction workers were were commuting in from the Central Valley and and so driving in for two hours maybe in the morning. And we're looking at people centric design as a value. That's it's better if we can do it here if the more workers can be in town, and there's an advantage with the unions. The unions bring this advantage, though I think there are opportunities.

And I have worked on projects, where there was a local hire participation by nonunion as well. So, I understand that you're relatively early in the process. You've been working on the EIR, which this is the first meeting I've been in with 3,000 pages of a a packet. So I would request I would urge you to look to ways to maximize local hire both in terms to further the your values and to lower the greenhouse gas impact of the project. I think one of the partners of the nonprofit community that you listed, SLED, is is an is an excellent potential partner for that.

And I think also city council member Bolt, former commissioner, is on the board of a organization construction trades workforce initiative, which I think is another one that and I'm not I I mentioned them as examples, not as as as as anything more as than as a brainstorming. Second question that I'd asked earlier had had to do with separated bike lane or protected bike lane on-site, and it goes and it it goes back to the same greenhouse gas issue. Because if we can encourage bicycling to the site, we can offset some of that car use, and we can well, it's not a greenhouse gas emission from the same natural gas source. Overall, if we look at the project holistically, it results in some mitigation of greenhouse gases that are unavoidable, maybe mitigatable. So I understand that the plans right now aren't at the level of detail that show that.

From my cursor review review of a of a small diagram, it looks like there's a challenge there, and that there's a couple of pinch points where there's a challenge. And urge you to to look at that thoughtfully for the staff and visitors that are gonna be there to encourage the use because it's those the bike parking looks a lot better when there's bicycles in it as opposed to

Absolutely. We we taken notes, commissioner Rich, and we definitely gonna evaluate that.

Yeah. And the bicycle component is an easy one for us to look at. I wasn't aware that there was a master bike program at the city of San Leandro that we can tie ourselves into. But with the help of staff, we can take a look at it and figure out a way to tie our project into that master bike program.

I'm I'm happy to see the number of bike spots that you've got there. Often, I'm trying to encourage people to to add some bike parking because we have bike paths and no place to park a bike. Those are my questions and comments. Thank you.

Commissioner Solis?

Yeah. Thank you again to the applicant for that explanation of the project. So the term PLA has been mentioned a few times tonight. Can you tell me, is that the title of this agreement that you have with certain labor unions?

Sorry. No. It's a, memorandum of understanding, between us and these specific identified trades, and it outlines, projects that have entitlements and projects that don't, in the areas where we can partner together on future work.

Okay. So the I think the question's already been asked, but I'm not sure I don't remember or I wasn't satisfied with the answer. The reasoning why you entered in a into a memorandum agreement with certain labor unions and not others. So I do applaud you for for understanding the importance of union labor, and I think I don't speak for my other fellow commissioners, but I think the sentiment is standard across the board that that it's a passion for us. You, at ProLogis, as a applicant coming to ask us for permission to build your project in our city, and not that it's a quid pro quo, but at the same time, what are we getting? So you guys

are

parading SLED, the school district, and the Cherry Festival, and this and that, and I think the broad swath statement of utilizing union labor. And I think, Claudia, you just mentioned that that we're in the entitlement phase, and and we're not quite there yet. So I don't know if you guys felt pummeled by the union questions. But, again, as we as I mentioned in our Zoom meeting, you're trying to justify to us that you utilize union labor. But from what I understand, that's not necessarily the case.

It's actually, as far as general contractors, very, very, very few times you guys utilize signatory general contractors. And I could tell you right now that the MEP trades do not equal 50% or even close to 50% of the work on a construction project such as that. Again, no no bash against the iron workers, but you're gonna utilize cross laminated timber on this project. You guys happen to know which trade performs the installation of that?

Yes. We do. Carpenters.

Okay.

Will that be a union trade I mean, a union contractor performing that?

The optionality for that is open. And but yeah. You're correct. The current MOUs in place would not cover that work.

So what would you say is the biggest scope of work on the project?

I think the 50 to 60% estimate estimate is really just based off the MEP SI trades as well as knowing that a lot of our large grading and civil contractors are signatory just by the nature of the market. And then when you add the incremental pickup for carpenter's presentation on the panelized roof system, you do get to a blended 50 to 60%. I'm fairly confident.

Okay. So what would you say is the biggest scope other than the mechanical trades?

I would say that's the carpenter's.

Okay.

So I had mentioned heard you guys mention a few times as well as in the Zoom meeting that Prologis intends to do the right thing. So I like I said, it's it seems like it's it's unanimous across our board here that that union labor is a passion of ours. And if you're gonna try to justify to us that you utilize union labor, I mean, it's gotta really mean something. You can't just make this broad swath statement. And as I mentioned, Claudia said you were disappointed in seeing the banner outside.

Frankly, I'm a little bit disappointed that I asked you to provide further demonstration on some more data. I said not just the statement that you use union, but some data. And you said you would get back to me. And I said, I don't need you to get back to me. I need you to bring it to the board to present it to all of us, and I didn't see a thing.

And, commissioner Solis, we appreciate those comments, and we're here being transparent and sharing the data that we currently have. You know, I I do oversee our new investments and development throughout the Bay Area. So I I named two visible projects where we do have carpenters on-site. Two big projects. Projects? Right now, we have three going. So 13453600, Rue Ferrari in South San Jose. Two of those right now are we're using signatory GCs for that work. Thirteen forty five did not go in front of the planning commission, and we still decided to do the right thing.

We And who were those signatory GCs?

On 1345, we're using Whiting Turner.

Is the the. Just to clarify on the data, I think we did bring the data within display it on the board, but I didn't mention it. So 88% of carpenter of union representation in 1918 Williams, that came from actual data. That came from the GCA, have them run exactly which which subject No.

I appreciate that. But I I expected like a visual, not just statements.

And, traditionally, you know, we we do this a lot. I've actually been in front of this planning commission since 2020, I think, was 1919 Williams. This is the first time I've spent this much time talking about labor. And when you ask, what do we do for the city? You know, we we have a really great relationship with mayor Gonzales. Every time he has a new ballot that he wants us to support, he calls me and Claudia directly, and I show up to his office, and I support that ballot for the community. Anytime this community or council members or the city have a suggestion as to who we need to get more involved with, we listen and we get more involved. So, we I and then providing this project

to listen to the carpenter's union.

Commissioners, we're getting a little off base here tonight.

I'm I I don't think so because they're trying to justify it to

this commission. Code justifies what our basis for approving or denying the projects are, and we've spent quite a lot of time. I know this is an important issue for the commission, so we've given some leeway here, but the code very clearly specifies what the findings are Understood. That the commission should be make taking into consideration.

I I understand that, and I will make my my vote dependent upon that. However, if again, like I mentioned to them in the Zoom meeting that if you're gonna put that up on your PowerPoint and you're gonna try to justify to us that you utilize union labor, but it's just a statement without data. That's that's that's not good for me. So, it seems disingenuous. But talking about, apprenticeship and qualifications for general contractors, you stated that the choice of a general contractor is based on who is the most qualified.

Yet here in San Leandro, I forget the address, over, behind the Home Depot and Walmart, used a non signatory general contractor that you stated to me that you had to bring or to imp teach them how to implement Dusty Robotics' layout on their project. Is that correct? That's what you guys mentioned at that meeting.

Yeah. We

So you had to you had to bring Dusty Robotics to them, train them how to how to do layout on that project. And I explained to you that Carpenter's Union general contractors actually train for that in their apprenticeship programs.

Thank you, commissioner. I'd like to just say that Dusty Robotics is an innovation that our corporate team is tracking, to aid and facilitate high levels of quality on the layout tasks. It wasn't brought into the project to solve a problem. It was brought in as part of a national trial campaign to see if at a corporate level just to clarify, it was brought in at a corporate level to see if it was a partnership we wanted to maintain as a company, as a corporate across all of our active projects in The US. It has had very little to do with that specific job other than an opportunistic timing to test.

Okay. So what are you guys doing to promote apprenticeship and labor that, like, skilled a skilled labor force? Because every time we sit up here and a developer comes up and mentions a workforce shortage. I mean, it's it's comical that these developers and applicants don't actually do anything to help promote that. They just complain about the shortage. So I'm just wondering what you guys are doing to help promote that.

You know,

some of from the small percentage of unions that you've partnered with.

The relationships that we have do also have their own joint apprenticeship programs. And, you know, through our engagement with those contractors on our projects and their their fringe package, those those programs are supported.

Okay.

So I just I'll make one more statement about this. When it comes to who's most qualified as a general contractor, it's lack of a better better word. It's comical to me to insinuate that there are non signatory general contractors out there that that can beat a signatory contractor as far as training. But, anyway, I'll I'll end my comments on that. But, I did have one concern with the demolition of the current structures. What so that's gonna be dismantled. Obviously, they're concrete structures. What is gonna be the process for for eliminating that in air quality mitigations?

Yeah. We follow we follow all of the Alameda County requirements for demolition. We're doing this on a number of projects right now. The the mitigation and the the treatments vary, but it's, you know, bringing down dust control via via water and and cloud formation in the local area. And we follow all Alameda County and air air district requirements.

Okay. Would will it be done on-site, or would it be shipped away, done somewhere else?

Removal and bringing down of the building? Yeah. On-site. If you're talking about crushing and

removal of the concrete of the Yeah.

Field. We would we would bridge that gap when we get there.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. That's all I have. I would just encourage you guys to reach out to the carpenters union and kind of bridge that gap instead of just being inclusive of a small percentage of the work, which I do applaud you guys for using them because they're our brothers and sisters in the labor movement. But, I think bridging that gap so you can be across the board union labor would be great, and I encourage that. Thank you.

Mister Mendoza.

And I'll be I'll be brief on this. I think this is a question for the city attorney. I I might have this question before. So San Leandro is not a living wage city. Right? Is that is that correct? Or or, like, a ordinance that, you know

San Leandro has a living wage ordinance. Mhmm. The wages that are paid here will all have to comply with that.

I I

that's separate from using union wages. San Leandro doesn't have, you know, a requirement that projects in the city use that private projects in the city have a PLA. The city for its projects does have that type of requirement, but there's no similar requirement. Right.

Now and there there there there are cities that do have that. Right? Like like a requirement that you hire union labor or something like that?

I don't know that there are cities that have requirements for union labor. There there may be. There I know there are cities that have some require you know, may have certain requirements about outreach for local hire and certifications about training programs and things like that. I'm not aware if any have a requirement to use explicitly a requirement to use union labor, or that's not something I know. Look into it for the commission. So thank you.

I just wanna go back to a few questions that I had and maybe some new ones. Okay. Back to the signal timing on the intersection. Can you give us an understanding of how that's gonna change?

Yeah. We're have to work with Catrans on that. There is a single timing. I think I I I misspoke when I said on Adam. I'm sorry. I need to double check, but I'm I'm actually I think it's the one on David And Doolittle. It's on the on the traffic report, all that that information, and it's just a small adjustment of couple seconds. It's not much.

Okay. And what about Doolittle And Adams? Because that's where the trucks will be coming and turning. Right?

I would need to get back to you on that one and and see if I remember the one on Doolittle And David's. We did this traffic report a few years ago, so I I need to go back and double check that.

Okay. I think that's just extra emphasis, that one word. We are presenting to the commission that you know, because the traffic was one of the issues. Right? And and so let's present the data so that we can all understand.

Thank you. I do wanna say, I I think as a San Leandran, I'm I'm very thankful that, that you developed the LEED Platinum building here in San Leandro, that you made that decision. I'm not sure what led to that decision, but I it's it's great that it's here in San Leandro. I I have a few questions, though, about the other thirty eight thirty eight buildings that you have here in San Leandro. How many how many of those buildings are do they have the infrastructure for PVs?

Wanna answer that one? But we do have so many of those buildings are older buildings, so we are as we continue to expand the footprint and across the country, We are doing that also in some buildings in San Leandro. All the new buildings, everything we have developed on the past few years, they all have the infrastructure for future solar. I can tell you, for example, Lavages Nexus is ready to to get the solar panels as soon as we have a a tenant. It's in the queue. Nineteen eighteen Williams does have the the infrastructure. Basically, every building that we built over the past five years or more, it will have some infrastructure in place.

So as as far as the existing buildings that we have, most of them are older, which is why we're recycling some of our properties. Like, 1345 was, I think, over 40 years old, which we decided to renovate and bring into this LEED Platinum standard. So because our older buildings were up against evaluating whether it makes sense to put more infrastructure or your or just redevelop altogether. For the buildings that are not, you know, thirty, forty years old, we do put in when we replace the roof, we put in the infrastructure to allow for it. So we're we're slowly growing that presence on our existing buildings.

On one of the slides that Claudia had is we're very focused on increasing our solar panels on the roof. So there's a team out there working with, AIVA Communities, which is the renewable energy program that offsets, you know, cost for renewable energies to, local communities. So with our partnership, we evaluate our portfolio on a quarterly basis. Where does it make sense to deploy those dollars or redevelop into a brand new building?

Okay. So when you say that the infrastructure is going to be in this building, you're talking about the actual weight and structure of future PVs as well?

Correct.

Okay. And so do you have any requirement that your future tenants install PVs? I I assume you're passing the cost of PVs onto the tenant.

Correct. So there's no requirement on our tenants. For example, some of them elect to do it anyways, like on our nineteen nineteen nineteen Williams Taurani building that we're building here. We provided the infrastructure. As soon as we signed the lease with them, they said they wanted to see a full solar panel, you know, fit out on the roof. And so we provide the infrastructure and essentially pass through the cost of the electricity in in lieu of the PG and E fee. So instead of them paying a bill to PG and E, they pay it to ProLogistix because we that's our payback on the infrastructure. Right.

We do the upfront cost for the most part. So we we we try to

hear you.

We we try to format all these these business units or all these offerings with our customers in a way that they had to put a minimum capital upfront to make it easier and to incentivize our customers to move forward to the that note.

So you're giving them a a decent allowance so that they can install?

We we fund it a 100%. So it's not an allowance. We will just do it because, again, it it just offset the cost of PG and E. Okay. We get paid over time on that cost upfront.

So we we fully fund it. You fully fund the installation of the PBs. Okay. That's good to know. And do you provide an analysis to incentivize them? So so here, future tenant, here's here's the benefit of putting of the installation of PVs. Right? There's you're you know, there's this much savings and this much

Yeah. We have and it's our solar team does that because they're trying to win business. It's a business that we have internally too, so they're actively doing that. A lot of our Fortune 100 companies have the same initiative, so they already know the benefits. So they're proactively reaching out to us to conduct that work.

Okay. Great. Let's see here. Yeah. I think that's my last question. Thank you. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak?

I

will call my first speaker, Oscar Masaryagos. Sorry.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Oscar Masariego. So I am a field representative for the Carpenters Union out of local seven thirteen representing Alameda County. I represent about 37,000 members across Northern California or, more specifically, the five hundred and fifth approximately 550 members here in San Leandro. I came here thinking of something else to say.

And after the little comments of everything else that was going on while we're here, I'm kind of saying something else. So so about 70% of a job site is done by carpenter cover work. From the foundation formwork of a of a building, do the formwork of the tilt up jobs and these jobs, panelized roofing, cross laminated timber. Going to the inside of the building, you got, metal stud framing, insulation, drywall, acoustical ceilings, doors and hardware. There might be a couple other things that I can't think of off the top of my head, but these are all 70% of them from when you break ground all the way to when you turn over the keys over to the owner of the building.

We've, tried to make contact with the developer and haven't got a response yet. That's one of the reasons why we're outside, at the moment. But, we do have active labor disputes against general contractors that are incurring projects right now at the William Street general contractor on that job site or a project. We have an active labor dispute because they do not require their con or their subcontractors to pay area standard wages. We fight for all labor wages, not just carpenters, but everybody to be treated fairly and get, fair wages.

You know? And, yeah, sorry. Just kinda thinking everything off the top of my head, but, hope that answers a lot of the questions that you guys might have had, and I appreciate your time.

Thank you. Jason Gumetaudal.

Greetings, chair and commission. Folks don't often get my name right, but a a Zuber, fellow San Leandran. Greetings, commission. My name is Jason Gummetautau. I'm a member and organizer with IBW Local five nine five, product of San Leandro Unified, class of '95, product of the Inside Wireman Apprenticeship, class of 02/2006.

And I'm here speaking on behalf of hundreds of San Leandro residents who earn their living as electricians, as plumbers, sprinkler fitters, sheet metal workers, and iron workers. Excuse me. I'm here to advocate for quality unit construction projects that are built by San Leandro's construction workforce and the opportunity to continue to earn family supporting wages. So our unit our our local unit leadership is entrusted to support the general welfare of our members who live and raise their families here. And our locals stand in strong support of our partners, ProLogis, in this industrial project at 880 Doolittle.

I'd like to share or reiterate some of the assurances that we'll share with you tonight. Right? The the easy one, right, is it'll generate substantial tax revenue for the city. We all know that our city leaders will invest in in essential services that San Leandro residents rely on. The developer understands the importance of protecting our environment, and this project also aligns with those goals.

Prologis is already working with DTSC supervision actively addressing groundwater contamination that the previous owner and the tenants activities sort of contributed to. In addition, Prologis has committed to sustainable building practices as I mentioned. They're going for gold lead. They're gonna be using strategies that incorporate low carbon concrete, numerous EV charging stations. Right?

You asked about the PV system, right, the infrastructure that'll be built for future expansion. So all that to say this, you know, this is gonna be a state of the art facility that'll contribute to more efficient and sustainable spaces in San Leandro in an effort to offset some of San Leandro's aging industrial sites, again, demonstrating how San Leandro can help lead our region into the future. So I just wanna thank you for your time. Thank you for listening to me, and, all of the all the San Leandro construction workers urge you to adopt the resolution that is before you. Thank you.

Thank you. Joe Maraspini?

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Joe Marispini. I am a field representative for the, Carpenters, Local seven thirteen. I represent 37,000 members over the northern excuse me, Northern California, but more specifically, 500 members that live in San Leandro. I urge the commission to ensure that this project benefits local residents and mitigates negative environmental impacts.

The city should require the project to build by contractors who participate in the Joint Labor Management Apprenticeship Program approved by the state of California. And these contractors should make a commitment to hiring a local workforce. Local hire provisions on this project are a key part of reducing the negative environmental impacts of this project. The closer workers live to where they work, the less greenhouse gas emissions this project creates with long commutes. Additionally, the resources that go into this project should benefit local residents.

By ensuring the people who build and benefit from this project live in the community, as it stands, this project does not properly account for the potentially negative impacts that this project will have on the environment, particularly regarding energy usage, greenhouse gases emissions during the construction and operations. We respectfully urge the Commission to refer to Local seven thirteen's submitted comment letter for more information regarding the unmitigated environmental impacts. Carpenter's Local seven thirteen urges the commission to ensure that this project mitigates potential environmental harms and benefits the workers, men and women of San Leandro. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on the matter? Okay. I'll now close the public hearing and bring the item back for discussion by the commission. Do I hear a motion to adopt a resolution?

May I have a second?

I'll second it.

Okay.

Yeah. And and just to clarify what that red recommend excuse me. That motion is, assume that recommendation is to adopt the two resolutions, and that to make a change to the CEQA findings and, statement of overriding consideration to substitute planning commission where it says city council.

And the the substitution of the item 30 that staff mentioned.

The maker of the motion that confirm that reflects your intent.

Certifying. Make a motion for resolution certifying the environmental impact report for the construction and operation of an approximately two hundred forty four thousand five seventy three square foot, industrial development at 880 Doolittle Drive, PLN 220039, and adopting required California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA findings, a statement of overriding considerations and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, 880 Doolittle Drive, PLN 220039, along with the amendments, that were mentioned earlier.

Great. It

has been moved by Commissioner Tabjulu and seconded by Commissioner Rich to adopt this resolution. Please cast your vote. The motion passes. Four yeas, two nays, and one absentee. Decisions of the Planning Commission are final unless appealed to the city council by filing a form to the city clerk within fifteen days of the date of this action.

The form shall specifically state the reason for the appeal, and the appeal and an appeal fee is required. The next item on the agenda is commission reports and announcements. Do any commissioners have reports or announcements this evening? Commissioner Tada?

Chair, before we before we move on, I've I've got a question of whether we're supposed to have another resolution for the conditional use permit. There's a there's two resolutions in the packet?

I thought you read both of them.

You only read why I thought you used to verify that. That conditions, the intent was to adopt both resolutions. Correct? Yeah.

But just seeking clarification on that.

Okay. Well

and I heard him read them both.

To make sure we can go back and adopt that second resolution by motion, there may have been confusion. When I said that I mentioned both resolute two resolutions, but and so I thought you were just clarifying what the one was. But for the record, the second resolution would be a resolution of the planning commission approving a conditional use permit, administrative site plan review, and administrative exception. I 880 Dulill Drive, PLN 22 Dash 0039 with the modification of condition 36. So if if that's what you want, you could just say so moved.

So moved. Yeah.

And then yeah.

I think we understand the intent was for both. So

Are we voting against

To be perfectly clear, let's just put the vote on. So if someone wants to second that motion

Could could I maybe just interject? I had my name in the queue from the last voting cycle. I thought before we moved into a vote, there would be some sort of discussion before that occurred, but we kind of just automatically went into a vote at the fear of not wanting to be long winded again. I didn't interject. But

You mean you you wanted to comment after public comment?

I wanted to comment before we casted our vote the last time around. My name was in the queue during that cycle, but I guess the ship has sailed on

not see your name in the queue.

What I was getting at, what I was gonna make was, I was just gonna make a point on the fact that the conditional use permit, the exception, if we're looking at just what we have on paper and even the EIR with staff finding that there there is no concern with the EIR as presented. We're deferring to the subject matter experts on that. So just on paper with what we're looking at, there doesn't seem to be kind of an issue. But I think the underlying issue that's been discussed throughout this entire, you know, matter is the fact that local hires, unions is something that should be kind of top of mind. And I know you said legal counsel that we don't have any specific criteria that the city's adopted or implemented for outreach or good faith efforts.

I think that could be something ultimately that the city explores and and tries to find a way so that we're implementing measures that can really be in a partnering and collaborative centric measure for developers coming on board and looking to strategically source towards local hires to bring in unions that need to be brought in under business agents from an agreement to a PLA. And, I mean, I would hope that Prologis in this effort can take what was said and can take the fact that as they move forward with their GC selection, selection, that it's not just gonna be a low bid selection versus most qualified and competent, but we're looking at potential signatory GCs that have a signatory agreement with the carpenters union as receiving maybe an additional criteria metric for that so that we're building and we're getting to that 70% marker that was mentioned from the carpenter's trade that makes up the bulk of a building. So, if I'm just casting my vote, which I did, on the metrics and on what's here on paper, That was the rationale behind my vote, but I felt as though I needed to say that so that it was clear across the board as to why, you know, my vote went the way it did and this being supplemental for consideration to the developer.

Can I have a second?

We're voting on that second resolution?

Yes.

And I second that.

Thank you. So the second resolution has been moved by Commissioner Tubbjulu and seconded by Commissioner Rich. Please cast your vote. Second resolution passes. Four yeas, two nays.

The next item on the agenda is the Commission Reports and Announcements. Do any of the Commissioners? Mister Mendoza.

I just wanted to, to mention that I I was reappointed to the board by, council member Brian Acevedo, and, my swearing and ceremony is gonna be on February 18. So I'm very honored and looking forward to serving again.

Thank you, commissioner Mendoza. We're happy you're staying. Commissioner Tada.

Congratulations, commissioner Mendoza. With that announcement, same holds true for me, so I'll be back for another four years as well. Looking forward to working with everyone.

Any other comments? Okay. The time is now 09:20, and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.