Milpitas Planning Commission approves 487,000‑square‑foot Amazon distribution center at 1000 Gibraltar Drive

The Milpitas Planning Commission voted to approve a site development permit, environmental assessment addendum and tree‑removal permit for a new industrial building at 1000 Gibraltar Drive (also referenced as 1001 South Milpitas Boulevard) designed for warehousing and same‑day distribution.

The decision, adopted by unanimous vote, approves resolution number 25‑012 and the related entitlements: Site Development Permit SD24‑0006, Environmental Assessment EA24‑0002 and Tree Removal Permit TR25‑0021, subject to the findings and the conditions of approval included in the staff report.

City staff said the project, proposed by Panattoni Development Group and expected to be operated by Amazon, would demolish existing onsite buildings on the 28.96‑acre site and build a one‑story, tilt‑up concrete building totaling about 487,564 square feet (approximately 476,864 sf of warehouse space plus 10,700 sf of office). The building height is listed at approximately 46.5 feet to 49.5 feet to the top of the parapet. The plan calls for 781 vehicle parking stalls (318 minimum required), 50 oversized trailer parking stalls, 27 loading dock doors, and 24 bicycle parking stalls (12 short‑term, 12 long‑term). The project would remove 25 ordinance‑sized trees and plant 234 new trees for a net total of about 292 trees on the site.

Staff said the use — warehousing and distribution — is permitted in the M‑2 Heavy Industrial zoning district. Christina Fung, senior planner for the city, summarized project background, noting a prior, similar approval in 2021 (resolutions 21‑006 and 21‑007) whose entitlements expired in March 2024, and said the current application includes an addendum to the previously certified final environmental impact report (state Clearinghouse number 2020069024). The addendum and an adapted mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) were included as exhibits to the staff resolution. The city’s CEQA consultant and the applicant’s team were available online and in person to answer technical questions.

Commissioners and staff discussed project circulation, truck routes, vehicle counts and hours. The applicant described a circulation plan with four driveways (30–50 feet wide) and a one‑way internal truck route so semi‑trailers enter near South Milpitas Boulevard/Ames Avenue and exit onto Gibraltar Drive. The applicant said oversized truck movements to the site are limited compared with other designs: roughly 30 oversized truck trips per day (about 15 inbound and 15 outbound) spread across the day in multi‑hour windows; by contrast, the earlier cross‑docking scheme would have had substantially more heavy‑truck activity. The project provides 50 trailer stalls for staging and 27 loading docks; some trailers may be staged on site for short periods, the applicant said.

Electric vehicle charging and preparation were addressed: the proposal includes 20 charging stations installed at opening and about 90 parking stalls prewired for future chargers, and California code requires at least initial truck‑charging preparations; the applicant said additional truck‑charging equipment would depend on tenant needs and evolving technology.

Economic development staff and an Amazon representative described the facility as a hybrid same‑day delivery and mini‑fulfillment operation intended to speed deliveries in the South Bay. The city’s office of economic development said the project is expected to create about 363 on‑site jobs (not including delivery drivers) and estimated total investment at roughly $200 million (approximately $120 million acquisition plus $80 million development costs), figures presented by the applicant and staff during the hearing. Office of Economic Development staff said the city is working with its sales‑tax consultant to determine any direct sales‑tax benefit from the hybrid facility; the commission was told that sales‑tax allocation for these hybrid models is still being researched with the tenant and consultants.

Public comment included two unions’ field representatives from Carpenters Local 405 who urged a continuance to allow more time to review the addendum and sought binding local‑hire, apprenticeship and contractor accountability commitments. The union speakers asked the commission to delay action because the addendum was published only days before the hearing and because local conditions — including rail and BART access changes since 2021 — have changed. The city’s CEQA consultant, Jana Walgorski of First Curban Solutions, stated the addendum included updated traffic analysis and concluded that no additional environmental review beyond an addendum was required under CEQA guidelines (sections 15162 and 15164). City staff said the city had complied with notice requirements (newspaper, mailed postcards within 300 feet and posted signs) and that the public comment period and hearing procedures were followed.

The commission’s legal counsel advised commissioners to base their decision on the three required findings for the site development permit: general plan consistency, zoning consistency and neighborhood compatibility (whether proposed development would be detrimental to light, air or privacy of surrounding uses), and on the evidentiary record in the staff report, attachments and the CEQA addendum. Commissioners asked clarifying questions about truck routing, hours, the project’s height (and the required special finding because proposed height exceeds customary limits), parking counts, tree removal and replacement ratios, and job and sales‑tax estimates.

A motion to adopt resolution 25‑012 recommending approval of SD24‑0006, EA24‑0002 and TR25‑0021 passed with the following roll call: Commissioner Kong — yes; Commissioner Awasthi — yes; Commissioner Medina Ashby — yes; Commissioner Galang — yes; Vice Chair Calkins — yes; Chair Gupta — yes. The recorded tally was unanimous in favor of approval of the entitlements as conditioned. The resolution includes approximately 104 conditions of approval and several off‑site public‑improvement requirements negotiated with the city engineering and transportation teams (sidewalk and curb ramp replacement, pavement restoration and signal/intersection equipment upgrades) to mitigate project impacts on nearby rights‑of‑way.

The commission closed the public hearing and approved the entitlements. The project remains subject to the conditions included in resolution 25‑012, to subsequent permit review and to any appeals to the City Council filed within the city’s 12‑calendar‑day appeal period.

Ending note: city staff and the applicant indicated additional technical details (traffic, CEQA consultant responses, engineering drawings) are available in the staff report attachments and in the project plan set for follow‑up questions; economic and labor‑standards concerns raised during public comment were noted in the hearing record but were not conditions imposed by the commission at the time of approval.