Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Calling meeting to order. Welcome to the City of Milpitas Planning Commission meeting, June 10th, 2026. I'd like to read the public comment instructions at this point. Oral public comments may only be provided live during the Planning Commission meeting in person. All comments provided shall be limited to three minutes or less, as determined by the chair. All public members will be limited to one comment per agenda item, and one comment for non-agenda items. Members of the public may submit written comments by email to Planning Department, elmildepeters.gov. So at this point, let's start with Pledge of Allegiance. Commissioner Galang is going to lead us. Can we have the roll call, please?

Yes, thank you, Chair. Good evening, Commissioners, staff, and community members. I'll start taking attendance with Commissioner Castillo, who is absent this evening. Commissioner Brown? Here. Commissioner Calkins?

Here.

Commissioner Awasthi is not here this evening. Commissioner Galang?

Here.

Vice Chair Kong? Here. And Chair Gupta?

Here.

Thank you.

Thank you. At this point, we'll go for conflict of interest declaration from Attorney Creech.

Thank you, Chair. I ask the Chair and each member of the Mopias Planning Commission whether he or she has any financial or personal conflict of interest related to any of the items on tonight's agenda.

Commissioner Brown?

I do not.

Commissioner Calkins.

None.

Commissioner Galang.

None.

Vice Chair Kong. None. Chair Gupta.

None.

Thank you.

I further ask the chair and each member of the Mopias Planning Commission to please disclose any campaign contributions of $100 or more received within the last 12 months from any of the parties entering into contracts with the city on tonight's agenda or contributions received from development project applicants for development projects on tonight's agenda.

Commissioner Brown? None. Commissioner Cokins?

None.

Commissioner Galang? None. Vice Chair Kong? None. Chair Gupta?

None.

Thank you.

Let the record reflect no reported conflicts. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, Danny Creech. Next item is approval of today's agenda. I'd just like to point out that item IX-3 Is not going to be done covered today. It will be postponed till the next meeting which I suppose in two weeks from today That do we have motion to approve?

approve the agenda, please I Make the portion to approve today's agenda.

I second Thank you motion by Kong second and by Brown Commissioner Brown Aye. Commissioner Culkins? Aye. Commissioner Galang? Aye. Vice Chair Kong? Aye. And Chair Gupta?

Aye.

Thank you.

And Chair, just to clarify the motion, the motion was to approve the agenda with that third item being continued, correct?

Being continued two weeks from today, yeah. Next is approval of the minutes from the May 27, 2026 meeting. I must say before we take the roll call that the minutes are really outstanding, very much detailed, and covers everything we talked about. And so with that, let's take the roll call, please.

Sorry, we need motion. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from May 27th, 2026. Is there a second?

I'll second the motion. Thank you. Motion by Commissioner Culkin, seconded by Commissioner Brown. Commissioner Brown? Oh, aye. Commissioner Culkin? Aye. Commissioner Galang?

I abstained. I was not here last May 27th.

vice chair kong aye and chair gupta hi thank you okay next is announcements are there any announcements from the planning commissioners none announcement from mr jay lee the planning director

thank you chair uh no announcements other than uh that our next planning commission meeting will be on june 24th same time same place 7 pm here in the chambers and then we have a july recess that's all thank you mr lee now we come to public forum um i've already read this statement earlier uh is there any anybody from public forum please miss

Yes, Chair, we have two speaker cards for the public forum, starting with Mr. Wilfred Kong. Oh, you have to push a button, sir. Do you see a button there? I believe so. We'll have Ms. Lillian help you.

Oh, I'm sorry. Planning Commission, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. My name is Wilfred Kong. I am a longtime Mo Peters residents living in the Pine community for over 24 years. I live on Fallen Leaf Drive, right next to the South Bay Tech Center, divided by the five-feet wall and lots of beautiful trees between our house and the South Bay Tech Center. In the last 24 years, we have been enjoying the peaceful, quiet neighborhood and the privacy of the Pine community next to the South Bay Tech Center. But last year, we were very alarmed that the Putih Group wanted to come in to cut down all the beautiful trees and build a 272-unit townhome condominium at the South Bay Tech Center location. They want to build 102 three-story townhome right along and next to the dividing wall. Those tall three-story townhomes are looking right into our yard, looking right at our window, looking through our windows and doors right inside our home. This building project does not respect the privacy of our quiet and peaceful Pine neighborhood. It would directly disturb the privacy of at least 46 homes right along the dividing wall. We did request them to reconsider keeping some trees and maybe to build a driveway or some playground area along the dividing wall and to move the townhome condominium unit farther away from the dividing wall to give us some privacy. But they refuse. The building project of 272 units will have 628 parking spaces. The Monaco and South Main intersection is already a very busy intersection all the time. The building project will add 622 cars going in and out of the South Main Street right next to the already very busy Montague and South Main intersection. And this will create a traffic nightmare and will inevitably cause accidents. We as residents of the Melpitas in the Pine community has expressed our concern with the Putih group, but they did not care.

Your time is up. I'm sorry. Thank you. We can finish in 5 to 10 seconds, if you wish. I'm done? OK, yeah. If you have 5, 10 seconds to finish up, you could.

We are coming to the Milpitas Planning Commission, the Milpitas City local leaders for help. and ask that you help us to preserve the privacy that we very much will be respecting. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

There is a second one.

Yes, we have one more speaker card for Helen Tuitt.

That are filling out cards now.

Okay.

Hi, my name is Helen Tewitt. I live on Pinewood Court. I submitted a comment for the Pulte items that is being continued to June 24th. I purposely submitted the written comment today for public forum so that the planning commissioners can read it before June 24th meeting and become familiar with the South Bay Tech Center site and the houses and streets in the Pines where residents will lose a huge amount of privacy. I asked the planning commission, please, visit the South Bay Tech Center to see all the essential services and businesses it houses and also look at the development from the perspective of the homeowners who will lose their privacy. Drive down the streets in the pines behind the South Bay Tech Center wall and you will see our current view and imagine you in three and four story buildings being placed only 20 feet from that wall. Unlike the other Pulte developments in Milpitas, this is the only one that would butt up against an existing historic residential neighborhood. It would disturb our right to peace and enjoyment of our properties. I ask that you weigh the burden and cost to the business owners that will be displaced and the cost to the community when businesses and services are lost. Please have the staff make a list of the many services and businesses that are currently at South Bay Tech Center and what role they play in our community. I also ask that they keep a list of the ones that have recently left due to Pulte. When you are at South Bay Tech Center, I hope you also notice the oak trees that are a century years old and the groves of redwoods that will be destroyed due to this development. If the planning commissions and city councils of the past really did envision the site as a residential only site, they would have zoned it as residential or high density residential. But our old leaders kept it zoned industrial park and general neighborhood commercial in the Milpitas Gateway Main Street specific plan because they knew businesses intermingled with residential is good planning and essential for thriving communities. It has only recently been changed in 2023 without notification to surrounding neighbors to mix use, which is why Pulte is trying to make a residential only development. I am not against redevelopment, but I feel we need to plan our communities purposefully and thoughtfully. On our side of Milpitas, all along South Main Street, South Abel Street, Montague, North Main Street area by the Great Mall, and on the Great Mall Parkway, we have built an absurd amount of new housing. I would like to see the South Bay Tech Center remodeled or redeveloped for businesses, or at least a hybrid of both housing and businesses. We need to keep everything in balance. There are other empty pieces of land in Milpitas zone for residential that Pulte can build on. But if they tear down the SBTC, the land reserved for our businesses and services, we will forever lose a valuable asset in our community. A lot of my neighbors think it's already a done deal and there's no point for them to speak up. I hope that is not the case and that you will still keep an open mind.

Thank you. Thank you. Are there any more speaker cards?

I haven't received any additional speaker cards. Is there anybody who'd like to come to the dais to speak in public forum?

Remember, you can only, in public forum, talk about areas we have not covered in today's agenda. No, no, you're okay. I'm saying, yeah. In that case, we move on to public hearing. The first item, first presentation is zoning text amendment for tobacco retail buffers citywide. Presentation is going to be by Lillian Van Hoa.

Good evening, chair, vice chair, commissioners, and fellow staff. My name is Lillian Van Hoa, principal planner with the city of Milpitas. Tonight, I will be presenting a zoning tax amendment for tobacco retail. Next slide, please. The application before you tonight is a city initiated zoning ordinance text amendment to modify and add regulations to limit the concentration of tobacco retailers within the city and encourage responsible tobacco retailing. The proposed amendments would specifically prohibit new tobacco retailers from locating within a certain distance from existing tobacco retailers and youth-sensitive areas, prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products, and adopt other local regulatory standards. Next slide, please. So first, some background on tobacco use. Tobacco is the number one preventable cause of death in California, nearly 40,000 deaths per year. In Santa Clara County, one in eight deaths annually is attributed to smoking-related illness. Approximately 25% of Santa Clara County high school students have used a tobacco product. E-cigarettes are the most popular tobacco product. 23% of high school students have used them. 93% of current teen tobacco users in Santa Clara County report using a flavored tobacco product. In 2019, more than 86% of tobacco retailers near schools sold flavored non-cigarette tobacco products. Next slide please. More than half of Santa Clara teens who vape reported purchasing their own vaping products. Over one in five of those teens buy directly from a store. 71% of in store purchasers bought at a tobacco shop smoke shop or vape shop and nearly 81% of youth ages 12 to 17 who use tobacco report their first product was flavored. Children are more likely to experiment with tobacco and retailers are located in your homes and schools. Next slide please. So the Santa Clara county healthy cities program seeks to address tobacco related health concerns by promoting policies and practices to provide tobacco free and smoke free communities. The Santa Clara county public health department has provided funding to cities to support these tobacco prevention strategies, known to have the highest impact on reducing tobacco related disparities and inequities. So in July of 2020, following the city council's request to explore policies to discourage tobacco use and vaping by teens, the city executed a grant agreement with the county public health department to explore these tobacco prevention policies shown to reduce youth access and exposure to tobacco products. Then in June of 2021, the city adopted an ordinance to prohibit smoking in multi-unit residences and many outdoor areas to reduce exposure to secondhand smoke. On June 21st of 2022, the city council directed staff to develop a tobacco retail permitting program with the county. However, this was ultimately not executed due to county enforcement regulations or county enforcement requirements and staffing constraints in regards to regulations. And then most recently, in March of 2024, the city was awarded another grant from the public health department, the county public health department tobacco free communities program to reduce the density of tobacco retailers and their location near sensitive areas, which is the ordinance before the planning commission this evening. Next slide, please. So next I will highlight some recent state law regarding tobacco. SB 793 prohibits the sale of most flavored tobacco products statewide, and it allows for a stricter local ordinance, meaning cities can choose to adopt a stricter ordinance. In November, 2022, the California voters upheld SB 793 at the ballot box. And then in, October of 2023, AB 935 strengthened enforcement of the flavored tobacco retail law, and it overall broadened the definition of a retail location. AB 3218, passed in September 2024, requires creation of an unflavored tobacco list by the California Attorney General, and state law prohibits the sale of tobacco to anyone under the age of 21. Next slide, please. So there are currently 38 tobacco retailers within the city. The majority of them are liquor stores, gas stations, and grocery stores. Three of these are standalone smoke slash tobacco shops. The areas of high concentration shown on the map on the screen are around North Milpitas Boulevard and Dixon Landing, West Calaveras Boulevard and IA 80. and then East Calaveras Boulevard and South Park Victoria Drive.

Next slide, please.

So the proposed ordinance will do the following things. No new tobacco retailer will be allowed within 1,000 feet of a school. No new tobacco retailer will be allowed within 500 feet of an existing tobacco retailer. It will also prohibit tobacco sales at pharmacies, and it will also codify the ban on flavored tobacco products, including flavored e-cigarettes, menthol cigarettes, flavored cigars, hookah, shisha, and e-liquids. And it will also require all new retailers who wish to sell tobacco as an accessory use to obtain a minor conditional use permit that is subject to staff review. And lastly, all existing retailers within the buffers will become legal non-conforming uses, meaning that the existing retailers within the city can still operate and continue to sell their tobacco products at their stores. Next slide, please. The following performance standards are also proposed for all retailers. So they must post conspicuous notice that selling tobacco to anyone under 21 is illegal, check ID for every purchaser, not cover more than 15% of windows or clear doors with advertising or signs, not allow smoking or use of electronic smoking devices on premises, not sell or distribute tobacco to persons under age of 21, not engage in mobile tobacco retailing or retailing at temporary events, maintain all required state licenses and permits in valid condition.

Next slide, please.

And so this table highlights the specific zoning code section amendments that are proposed this evening. Next slide, please. From a regional perspective, this is a high-level view of what other cities have done within Santa Clara County. The cities of Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Palo Alto, Saratoga, and unincorporated Santa Clara County have codified the 1,000-foot school buffer. The same jurisdictions above, except the city of Gilroy, have codified the 500-foot retailer separation. Los Gatos, Palo Alto, Saratoga, and unincorporated Santa Clara County have codified the pharmacy tobacco ban. And Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, Palo Alto, Saratoga, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara County have codified the flavored tobacco ban. And overall, more than 50 local governments in California restrict tobacco retailer locations in your schools. Next slide, please. The proposed zoning text amendment is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15061 , common sense exemption, and CEQA guidelines section 15183, projects consistent with general plan for which an EIR was certified. The ordinance does not affect densities or intensities of previously allowed uses. Next slide, please. So an online community survey was conducted in July to August of 2020. 125 responses were received. Most recently, staff visited all 38 tobacco retailers within the city and distributed community meeting flyers during the month of April 2026. An online community meeting was held on April 29th, 2026. No community members participated. A public hearing notice was published in the Milpitas Post on May 15th and posted at City Hall and on the City website. And to date, three comments were received prior to the hearing this evening. Next slide, please. Staff has confirmed that the project meets the findings associated with zoning text amendments for the proposed tobacco retailer ordinance as set out in the Milpitas Municipal Code. The project is consistent with the city's general plan goals and policies. It is consistent with the Metro and Gateway Main Street specific plan goals and policies. It will not be detrimental to public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare. It is in compliance with CEQA. It does not reduce residential density and will not result in a net loss of potential housing units. And it is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of Title 13. Those findings have been discussed in the staff report and are addressed in the resolution. Next slide, please. In closing, staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing to receive comments and close the public hearing and that they adopt resolution number 26-004 recommending that the City Council approve zoning text amendment ZA 26-0001, amending Milpitas Municipal Code Title 13, chapters B6, B8, C10, and E4, relating to the regulation of tobacco retailers. That concludes staff's presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Aileen. Appreciate it. Are there any comments from the planning commissioners?

Yeah, just a question about my ignorance on this. Is there any online cells that this affects or changes anything? Or this is basically just brick and mortar stores because of locations, right?

Yes, it's brick and mortar.

Anybody else? Any comments? Vice Chair Kong?

Thank you. I have a few questions. The first one is regarding the permitting. So it's recommended that there will be a minor conditional use permit. Help me understand because in your presentation, you mentioned that permitting was something that was considered a few years ago, but it was not pursued due to regulation issues. How are we going to be implementing it differently this time around? Is it going to be just a use permit, but how do you regulate and enforce? Do we have funding for it? Do we have staffing to support this?

That's a good question. So as with many of our use permits that we have within the planning departments per review, I guess to back up. Previously, the the county's permitting program required a lot of staffing to implement its, I guess permitting requirements. So it included the use of a lot of police staff time to implement decoys and things of that nature that the city was not prepared to to enter it into an agreement with the county on. And so absent any type of that program, what we can do now is for any new retailer that comes into the city that wishes to sell tobacco retail as an accessory use. So we're treating it similar to, let's say like a restaurant that wishes to sell alcohol, that's an accessory. like use to their primary use, which is, you know, a restaurant in this case, a general retailer. Um, and so they would come into the planning department. Um, they would apply for a business license. That business license application would have a, uh, check box at the bottom saying, you know, that they are planning on selling tobacco. staff would planning staff would be checking that business license application as they do with all new businesses that come into the city. And then they would inform the the customer, the resident business owner, that they would have to obtain a minor conditional use permit. And they would go through that process with us. And then on the back end, primarily our our code enforcement is run on a complaint basis primarily. So that's probably about as I guess like that's our enforcement authority. The planning director can perhaps elaborate a little bit more on that if he wants to. But that's pretty much what we have at this point.

Commissioner Kong, if I may, Chair. There are many different ways you can establish a regulatory scheme, but two of the most common is a land use permitting scheme or a licensing scheme. What was explored previously was a licensing scheme. A licensing scheme doesn't rely on the kind of land use permits that the plan commission sees and regulates and works on. and for which we have a planning department and code enforcement division to administer and to work on. A licensing scheme is a separate scheme that issues licenses and then conducts enforcement to ensure that those licenses are being operated on a day-to-day basis consistent with the terms of that license. What was proposed previously was a more comprehensive licensing scheme that the city did not have the staff internally to be able to do, that we relied upon the county staff to do it. And the terms and conditions by which the county staff could run that were not something that the city could operate on its end, which is why we did not proceed with the licensing scheme. What's being brought before consideration for the planning commission tonight for possible recommendation to the city council is a permitting scheme which would fit into our currently existing processes, enforcement corridors and other kinds of things that we already have in place.

Appreciate it. Do you want to add something?

Yes, thank you, Chair. Just adding that the minor CUP would be at staff level. So we try to find a balance. And then also with the absence of a minor CUP, it would be very difficult to enforce the minimum buffers. So it's just a mechanism and hopefully not too high of a bar for the applicant, but a mechanism to actually enforce the substance of the ordinance.

And help me understand, since it's going to be operating on a complaint basis, This will be relying on the public, right, to call in if they believe that there are businesses and retailers that are operating without the proper use permits. Is that correct? Yes. And do they call to the, which number do they call into? Is it a general city number?

I can answer that. We have the My Milpitas app where complaints can be submitted through that way. We have our code enforcement officers and then there's a general code enforcement number and our officers can go inspect. But we would also want to be a little proactive as well as a city and not just rely completely on enforcement after. For example, If we do see a new retailer that may typically have tobacco sales, then this is something we would communicate up front and share this requirement. So our staff will just, you know, we will be trained to ask the right questions. So hopefully not just relying completely on enforcement, but a combination.

Thank you. And I forgot to mention, too, that as part of the grant, we will be doing like a post- implementation effort. So we'll be doing more community outreach, even after the ordinance has passed and generating like outreach flyers and information for the public.

And since you touched on the outreach portion, I do have follow up question about it. You do mention that in your presentation, you guys had gone out to all 38 retailers in the city to hand out flyers, but none of them actually showed up to the online meeting. Did you guys hear outside of the online meeting any feedback when you guys were visiting the retailers? Were they concerned about the buffer or the separation? Are there any perhaps non-official feedback from the retailers?

When I spoke with the retailer, it was usually the staff that was at at the convenience stores and read and things like that. So they might not have been the owner, the business owners. But I had communicated with them that that this new ordinance would not affect these existing retailers. And it's specifically for new retailers who are coming into the city, and that they would be grandfathered in. So that effectively the They didn't have any issues with that and they took my business card and said, thank you.

And to follow up on that, since it's going to be a legal non-conforming use, you know, considering that they're grandfathered in, will there be any circumstances whereby it becomes something that they require an evaluation? Like, for example, if they're expanding their business, they're changing the footprint of their stores, things like that, does it get revisited or do they get to keep that non-conforming use status for as long as they own it?

So we have or in the ordinance itself it references our general legal non-conforming section and in it we limit the percentage of like what is considered an expansion of use and and so they wouldn't be able to they would lose that status if they were to expand their business. Like, for example, if they turned into a smoke shop, that wouldn't be permitted under this status.

Commissioner Cronin, if I may, Chair. Yeah, please. Correct. So we do have it by reference as a legal nonconforming use. We do have nonconforming use standards already in the zoning code. Specifically, this ordinance includes provisions that state that the nonconforming use cannot be expanded. And if it is abandoned, it cannot be reestablished. And we do have a process already in the code for what constitutes abandonment. That is how long the use can be discontinued before it is deemed abandoned. At that juncture, the legal non-conforming use goes away, and compliance must occur with all of our current laws.

Thank you. I have one last question. So this is with regard to the comments that we did receive from the public. There was one question regarding the language that is being used to check the age ID or at least age verification for every purchaser. And based on the comment, I think they are asking for it to be relaxed to only check for based on appearance. under 30 years old. Is this something that perhaps Attorney Critch can comment if that language can be relaxed so that it doesn't become a burden on the retailer to check every single person?

So it's ultimately a policy choice, right? Every law reflects different policy choices. I would point out a few kinds of points on that. I'm first under the business and professions code section to to 956 all tobacco retailers already are required to check identifications for anyone appearing to be to under 21 years of age or or less, so this idea of having. A higher buffer and cementing that into law is not currently what's required under the Business and Professions Code for when an identification check is mandatory. Obviously, all tobacco sales are prohibited to persons under 21 years of age and that retailers are required to ensure that they are not selling to people under 21 years of age, regardless of whether or not they are also required to specifically check identification. Things that I point out in terms of considerations for how to frame that scheme is the standard being proposed is a necessarily subjective standard and then therefore difficult to enforce. So if you have a question of does the person appear to be under 30 years of age, What does that mean? And does that provide both clear guidance to enforcement officials who are tasked with enforcing the law that's ultimately adopted? And does that provide clear direction to the businesses who are tasked with deciding how to train their employees so that they can perform the law and not subject the business to greater liability? So with leniency on that one can also come a lack of clarity on both sides of the equation. that can have secondary effects all of that is a policy level decision for the plan commission in deciding what to recommend to the city council and ultimately for the city council thank you oh thank you commissioner yes um yeah i'd like i'd like to know about

Regarding about the flavored tobacco products, and you said there's a prohibition of selling e-cigarettes, e-liquid flavored cigars, flavored hookah and shisha products. Compared to regular tobacco, what's made why the youth are very attractive on this flavored cigarettes, e-cigarettes? What's the difference between the regular cigarettes and the e-cigarettes and e-liquid? We can try to answer.

It's a difficult question to answer.

What I'm saying is, compared to the regular cigarettes, right, there's a prohibition selling the e-cigarettes and e-liquids. Why this is very attractive of this e-cigarettes and liquid cigarettes to the ages of 12 to 17 years old compared to the regular cigarettes?

i would say we can't answer why we can only guess but the numbers the data shows that it's more attractive we just i don't think we'll be able to answer that question we can guess that flavor the flavor is probably more appealing but i can't say much beyond that okay okay thank you sir sure caulkins

Yeah, thanks again for this presentation. It's pretty interesting. Just trying to help staff, you know, for the new ordinance. I get it, you know, for the geofencing, so to speak, around the schools and those kind of things. But with the new ordinance, is staff trying to, do they have an idea of what they want to do? Like, a percent of sales or percent of square space inside, you know, of a retail shop, how much can be tobacco, because I know we've done that with alcohol sales in certain places to say you can only have 50 square feet devoted to that is the thought to try to make it easier for staff to say if a new establishment wants to open, they can only have a certain percentage devoted to tobacco sales or anything like that, or just to try to make it easier for you guys in the future.

That is a good question, and I'm looking for it in our ordinance, because I believe we did specify... You're talking about the distinction between what constitutes a tobacco shop? Yes, versus, yeah. Taylor?

So there is an existing definition for when a business constitutes a tobacco shop, and I believe it's when 30%... Yes, 30%. their business so it's not done on a square footage basis it's done as a percentage of business use and operation but that is distinguishing between the categories of regulation between a tobacco shop and then just a regular tobacco retailer thanks yeah just trying to make it easier for staff for you know objective versus subjective decisions on that okay i'm going to ask oh

I do have just a quick question, and that is how are we kind of checking in to find out how people are actually implementing this ordinance? And I think you said that we're relying on the public, and I think there are staff that might check stop by a business. How often is that? Is that something that's done like on a regular basis, or is it done based on a complaint? Is it that somebody might notice that a particular establishment is selling to people under the age of 21 or 18, you know, that they are selling to young folks and then you all go out? Or is it just a proactive effort to, how do we know that they're in compliance on a regular basis?

If you're speaking to just the selling to minors, so that would be obviously like the police because that's under their, their purview. So if you report that in, the police would be doing that.

Again, we're relying on the public to report. Yeah. Okay. That's what I'm asking. So it's the public reporting as opposed to staff stopping by to, okay.

Correct.

Okay.

All right. So I'm going to ask some additional questions. So first of all, what's the definition when you talk about school? Does it include all types of schools, private schools, charter schools, preschools, daycare centers? All of them are included, daycare centers also?

Yeah, so if you pull up the slide. Slide seven. So apologies that that doesn't have a legend on it, but it's in your agenda packet as the attachment B, if you want to take a look at it. But we did all public schools. which that's the choice that staff made. But if there are other recommendations, that could be considered as well.

Right now only public schools are considered, not all the other things I mentioned? No private schools, charter schools, preschools, daycare centers?

Correct.

I wonder why you made that distinction. What was the rationale behind only saying public schools is my question.

As a data point, it was the easiest data point to map out. So if you look at the map there, those are all the public facilities that are within the city. We could explore... including all of the other classifications that you had mentioned, it would be like greatly expanding those buffers.

It seems that the rationale is that you don't want school children to be exposed and have access to tobacco. All kinds of schools should be included. Whenever there are children, it should be included, right? So I think that probably is an oversight more than anything else.

Yeah. And other jurisdictions have primarily done like public schools as well. They weren't as expansive as that, but we could be.

Chair, if I may, the definitions within the ordinance utilize the use definitions in Chapter E4 of the code. Chapter E4 of the code contains a definition for schools, both for public schools and for private schools. To clarify that the ordinance applies to both public and private schools, there could be a simple change to say that you have the term read public and private schools. To clarify that applies to both types of institutions.

Yeah, that'll help, but I think it should also include daycare centers, preschools, wherever there are school children, it should be added to the list, right? I don't really intend to make it more strict, but then if it makes sense for one type of school, it makes sense for any kind of school.

I think the mapping was an oversight because it should have included private schools, and when I'm looking at the map, It should have included like the Stratford School, for example, and I noticed that it's not on there. So apologies for that.

You might recommend that as part of a recommendation.

If I may, the ordinance does say any school. So I would read that as including private and public. But for the purposes of mapping, we should include both. But I want to clarify that for schools, even for a private school, it doesn't go as early as preschool. goes as young as kindergarten so that would be then perhaps because it's categorized as a different use and we really just like following just what everyone else is doing we just stuck to the definition of schools um but if desired we could also include preschools but it's a different use category so that's the change we'd have to make we could also be a little more specific in clarifying what we mean like say private and public but it does say any school at the moment any school that that will help but then that

may still be vague in terms of daycare centers? Is daycare center considered a school?

It is not.

Yeah, so I think that's important too, right? Because that's where children are also there. Anyway, let me come back to the next question. Have you... Have you tried to map all existing tobacco retailers and schools and buffer areas so that we understand how many more retailers are possible when you try to comply with this regulation? Have you done any study to see, I mean, No more retailers of any kind, because they all fall within these limits. Or there are some areas in the city where you can still add some tobacco retailers.

So if you pull up the same slide that we just had up on the screen, slide seven. So again, disclaimer that this map does not include the private schools on here. Any area that's not covered by either the pink circle, which is the buffer around existing retailers, other tobacco retailers, and then the yellow buffers around the existing schools, a retailer could open in areas that are zoned for general retail sales.

I mean, it's not very clear to me, but you're saying there are still possibilities of many more tobacco retailers with this new regulation?

Yeah, if I may. And part of the reason why the mapping probably didn't include private schools is they're much harder to find. We'd have to search through all of our databases and map where they all are. So you would probably imagine more uh pinkish purple looking circles on that map but even if you were to add a lot of those it it's not the buffers aren't great enough and there aren't enough schools and retailers where it would make it impossible for a retailer um to locate in Milpitas I mean if we wanted to the next step would be well then where are the retailers allowed for our zoning and I think that would tell the true story but that's additional analysis that we could do um ahead of Council

More work, but I think it'll be worth doing it. So how did you come up with this 1,000-foot and 500-foot regulation? Why not start 1,000 feet, maybe 750 feet? How did you come up with these numbers, based on what other cities have done? I guess I'm trying to answer my own question.

yes it's best considered best practice and we do have someone from the county available virtually her name is leslie zellers if you have specific questions on sort of like the the county's like studies that they've done and and how we got here or how we got to that number okay um

So what's the cost of the minor conditional use permit? What's the permit fee?

I'm actually not sure because we just updated the fee amount directly. If you could look that up.

It's pretty nominal considering.

Yeah.

I'm just confirming because recently we had a fee update, but then not all the fees were approved by council. So I'm just making sure that this was increased or not. I have to check.

I mean, is it hundreds of dollars or is it thousands of dollars? I mean, just kind of get a rough idea. Because if it's expensive, then all the retailers will complain about that, right?

True.

one thousand five hundred and twenty six i don't know what to say seems seems a little high but that's okay anybody else has any comments yes uh uh when you gave the presentation and it was uh we came to know that one in three teens, they purchase their products locally within Milpitas. And that's a pretty high number. And recently, with community complaint, two tobacco shops in Milpitas were raided, probably you know about it, it was in the news, including NBC News and everywhere. And they hauled two pounds of marijuana, Kratom, and about $12,000 in cash from only those two shops. this is a very dangerous trend so what are we going to do in future are we going to have instead of the public there were numerous complaints by the public and then only the city acted and now a lot of people want to go anonymous they don't want somebody to come and you know come after them you know and so there is no way that either we should have our own enforcement or there should be some way that we should be able to catch them before such a thing they are

doing things on such a massive scale going undetected i could answer that a little bit it's a fair question i think for planning our regulatory enforcement abilities really stick to land use so some of the violations when it's land use we can enforce on it but again it is complaint basis only due to staff constraints we only have three code enforcement officers for the entire city so it's very difficult to proactively go out and constantly check to see that businesses are operating the way they should i think the examples that you brought up the challenges that that involves a criminal element where that's kind of getting into the realm of what the police department should be also helping with enforcement so it's a little bit of a complicated situation i think for those two in particular but just to answer to answer the general comment about being more proactive. I think it's just staff resources. Given our current situation, it's very difficult to go out and do things beyond complaint basis. Some ideas could be like an annual inspection or something, but that's probably the most that we could do. It's just difficult to do anything beyond that. And this is pretty common throughout all cities. Code enforcement operates on a complaint basis only. It's just that we wish we could like it'd be great to to be a little more proactive, but it's just difficult with the city population increasing in size.

And so are the schools. And with three or four schools, Stratford being one having been added and there are more kids coming up, more teens coming up. I was at a mall strip mall and there were kids who were smoking vapes and I knew they were 15, 16 years old and they did not have the tobacco smell. They had a flavored smell and they might have purchased from here or somebody might have got them. So there should be some places where especially the markets and strip malls where we should have some kind of, because there are the places where kids like to hang out and we should have, like San Jose has 50 feet from any store that you cannot smoke. So we should have some kind of local ordinance so that at least in a shopping complex, they should not smoke. And coming to the enforcement, we got to get serious on this and maybe talk to the police or We can have a recommendation to the council that we need money to go in this. There is a lot of money spent on a lot of things, but here when the kids are concerned, teens are concerned, and their health is concerned, if they can buy something illegally now at the age of 12, 13, 14, They are going to go do more illegal things going forward. We should spend our money over there. We can start it as a recommendation and have more close cooperation with the police and enforce as much as we can. That's my...

If I may, the second question I won't answer because I think ultimately that's a policy call from the council, but those are comments that could be passed along. I could answer the first question. We do actually have a no smoking or smoke-free ordinance that doesn't allow smoking within, I believe it's 25 feet of any entrance or exit to a public business. In the other areas as well like parks and trails so we did do this ordinance a few years ago that I think really Limits or prohibits smoking in a lot of these public and common areas due to secondhand smoke the negative effects of that That's that's very good.

So the info we can like just we have some handicap signs so we can ask them to enforce or every store can have a sign that smoking in 25 feet or whatever has been recommended is the law and they should enforce it put a sign so people can see the sign when there is no sign people don't give any attention, the kids will get scared too that, oh, there is a law, it will be punishable. Like loitering, you know, you can just say if you're loitering, you can define this much under section so and so, so and so. So the businesses should be requested to put some kind of sign or maybe a bigger sign at the entrance of the businesses that This is a no smoking zone. This area is a no smoking zone. It doesn't cost much, but it will have the desired effect with the clauses and you can be fined this much or imprisonment and all those things. That scares a lot of, especially the kids.

I love these comments because it shows that we are all on the same page. We actually did pass out signs to businesses, but we had a limited number. The county provided signs to the city and also, I believe, some stickers as well. So I like the way you're thinking because we were thinking the same way.

Thank you. And also, another comment I have is that maybe to deter teen smoke, because they have limited money, Fremont did something like they do not sell single cigars, or even if they sell, they sell in packs, and they have limited that there will be no cigar which will be sold which will be less than $5 a pack. So even if it is one cigar in a pack, not individual, just like cigarettes come in a pack, so it will be $5. At least the minimum will be $5 for a pack like they come in singles or two. So we have to have something like a minimum. And then there is a pack size is $8 or $12. I don't remember on top of my head. So we must have some price regulations so that the teens which go and buy cigars, they should be able to, there should be some restriction on them.

So we did consider the those performance standards in regards to like the pricing and minimum pack size. But ultimately, we, we as staff, we chose to not include that in our ordinance, due to the enforcement ability on staff's end. But it that could be something that could be put back in if the Planning Commission wishes to recommend that to the City Council.

I think we should. Commissioner Wasi, if I may? Chair, if I may? Please. A couple of very quick points. To your point about the requirement for signs, while signage is part of the current ordinance, it is also, as Director Lee pointed out, already part of our general regulations on smoking. So all businesses in Milpitas, as well as multifamily housing projects and other places where smoking is prohibited under the law, are required to post signs. That's under Municipal Code Title 5, Chapter 251, Section 1.35. To your point about other kinds of regulatory standards that go beyond kind of the basic level standards that we have here, those kinds of, and we talked previously about two different regulatory schemes, a licensing scheme and a permitting scheme. Those kinds of standards that go into specific products and different kinds of things that could change over time, whereby the determination of enforcement would require going in and seeing where product is changing and where it's going, requires a more active kind of an enforcement cycle, are the kinds of things that are more typical to a licensing scheme that dedicates additional resources outside of the traditional land use process. So the one point I'd point out to you is those kinds of systems, while part of many different kinds of regulatory systems, usually fall into those jurisdictions that have chosen to adopt a licensing scheme because of the level of resources required.

Yes, but we could always have, besides this, we could have the decoys with the police and at least dedicate seven days in a year or ten days in a year to go. We just have 38 retailers and we could dedicate ten days in a year with the police and send decoys and have every person checked at least once or twice a year so that they know that we are proactive. And it doesn't come to a situation that it needs complaints from the community. And that complaints, not one complaint. One complaint should have been enough. Complaints from the community and then they go and they check it out and they have two pounds of marijuana, they have cash, they have Kratom, they have a lot of other paraphernalia. So I was very upset to read that, that it should not, we should have a system where it should not happen. We should be proactive. And one complaint should have been enough. So we can, there is something to, when this has come up, this is something we have to think very seriously for our kids, for our grandkids, for the next generation. Otherwise we are not doing a good job if we are not thinking about them. Yeah, that's my time. Thanks.

Thank you, Commissioner Vasi. I have one additional quick question. We have 38 tobacco retailers in Milpitas. How does that compare with, on a per capita basis, how does it compare with other surrounding cities, since you have looked at the surrounding cities in California or Northern California, and see where do we compare? Per capita basis, do we have too many retailers, too few retailers? Do we know? Do we have the data?

not on a per capita basis the county may have done some analysis with that so that might be a question better for the county but there is a website where you can look up how many retailers are in each city my recollection is that it was on the high end because prior to i mean we we haven't actually even adopted this ordinance so i'm in absence of that um It's Milpitas and Milpitas. There have been more retailers coming in all this time, whereas some cities have adopted ordinances further back and may have kind of curbed that the number and the concentration of retailers. But we we the city, we haven't done a per capita analysis.

OK, thank you. So at this point, are there any comments from the public? Then are there any speaker cards?

Yes, Chair, we have one speaker card from Brian Lam.

Hello. Oh, sorry. I got caught off guard by the mic. Good evening, Milpitas Planning Commission and city staff. My name is Brian Lam, and I'm here on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance. We represent independent gas station and convenience store owners throughout the state, including in Milpitas. I'm just here to speak on the zoning text amendments that are being discussed tonight. But first and foremost, I would just like to commend the the commission on your direction to regulate safe and responsible tobacco sales, and particularly curbing the underage tobacco use issue. Because I'm sure I speak for everyone in the room here when I say that tobacco does not belong in the hands of our youth, unequivocally, I guess. However, unfortunately, we still do have our concerns with the ordinance. and just mainly about pushing regulated or responsible retailers out of the space. And I can illustrate my point by, I guess if you imagine like your classic neighborhood gas station or a corner store, and I know I have a couple in mind where these are, you know, neighborhood establishments where the operators, owner operators have invested, not just, you know, their financial aspect into it, but years of, hard work creating those relationships servicing the the community and then if they decide to for example retire but they fall within one of these buffer zones sure there is the the conditional use permit however it's non-guaranteed and that non-guarantee factor unfortunately is a prohibitor when trying to find a seller to sell it to and for a lot of these people that's their retirement and that does introduce three main consequences that I do want to speak about first is like I said undermining that investment into their businesses by these business owners to is a loss of sales and tax revenue a lot of it going towards enforcement or just making the city a better community and third is the you know the an inadvertent stimulus for the illicit market. Like Commissioner Awasthi, I hope I'm saying that correctly, said, you know, flavored tobacco is already banned statewide, but these teenagers somehow got it. And if you push more responsible retailers out of the regulated marketplace, you're just, you know, you're lessening the competition for these people. And I just wanted to ask respectfully that the commission consider exempting gas station and convenience stores from the proximity requirements. Because these are, like I said, responsible, compliant, highly regulated retailers. And they're not the bad actors of the community. And I would like to make that formal request. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Brian. Are there any more speaking cards?

Not for this item, sir.

No?

Yeah.

Are there any additional comments from the commissioners?

I have one comment. The 15% ad signs that we talked about, I don't think, does it cover tobacco sales also? I don't think I've seen any city where it is allowed that they can put, we have to be very clear on this, where they allow to put vape signs or cigarette signs The 15% might be for any other general merchandise which they sell.

You're referring to the covering of the windows?

Yeah, the glass windows. Sorry, the shelf I said.

Can you repeat your question again in regards to that regulation?

15% ad signs which they put outside, which any store can put outside on the glass windows. So does it cover the cigarette sales also? Because no other city allows cigarette to be prominently displayed as an ad on the front of the store.

May I respond, Chair? I'm not familiar with the exact regulations that you're talking about. Tobacco advertisements are highly regulated, limiting what can be displayed and how it can be displayed. But I'm not familiar with jurisdictions, either locally or at the state level, having a ban on advertising products for sale. They're regulated in the manner in which they can be advertised. And this would be a further local regulation that at least in general, I haven't seen, or I've seen local jurisdictions adopt, but I do not believe currently exists at the state level.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, but no more questions. Oh, Michelle Brown.

I don't know if there's a question, a question, but more of a comment. I think as I listen more to this topic, I feel like I also want more information. I have to be honest. I think that when I think about flavored tobacco, especially in the hands of young people, it is It is a crisis, honestly. It's an issue. And with 38 retailers in the city and us really, I really want us to get this right because I'm a long-term resident. I grew up here, born here in Milpitas. You know, my daughter went to school through the systems here. And I do think to my colleague's point, we really owe it to ourselves to make sure that we are doing this right. I think you've said that and many of my planning commissioners My fellow commissioners have said the same thing. So I know we have to make a decision, and I'm wondering the best path forward, because I do feel like I want or need, I don't know if you all feel the same way, a bit more information in terms of, A, how we're regulating it, B, how to add the language to include private and public, and just really understanding more the landscape. So I just wanted to put those thoughts on record. Because I'm not sure if that impacts our decision, but I definitely feel like there could be more information added as well. And I really think that I'm really interested, honestly, in the oversight too. Like, I just really want to find out how we can not just rely on the public. And I know it's a staffing issue, but how do we address that? Because I think that that is a challenge. I'd really like us to get in front of something like that. And we don't have enough. You've said that.

so those are my two cents for right now maybe we shouldn't ask that many questions that means continuously we need more information chair if i may provide some comments on that i do appreciate the clarification on what kind of information is desired i'm hearing that there might be a desire for some greater enforcement ability but i just want to caution that that takes staff time and that requires budget and the council to make these kinds of decisions. We already did consider a licensing program that included youth decoys. And it was very we talked to all our staff and figured out what that would mean and how much more staff we'd need or and things like that and we actually like got down to the the number you know so we did go down that route several years ago but i understand because i did i didn't we didn't share extensively about all that history um but looking at the timeline like this has been an effort that we've been kind of working on for like years now and we did try to go that route but for staffing and budget reasons it was not feasible at least at the time so then we kind of settled back to this this route and also I would say like we got a grant so I mean we could always extend the terms of the the contract but there is a timeline in terms of like when we want to finish this by but just want to yeah and so we're happy to share more information about more enforcement like within you know that we could feasibly do we could consider those kinds of things Yeah. But I do think for the school issue, you know, we could add clarifying language that we think could help with that. So I would at least my preference as a director would be to try to fix any, you know, make any minor tweaks right now. But just sharing that as well. But thank you.

Commissioner Abbasi? Yes. We just got a comment about the people who are already in the store and when they sell it and whether they'll be able to sell it and they will not have any problem. I don't think the 38 retailers, the same question when I read the comment, there was a public comment and we received this letter also. And I wrote to Lillian and she was very kind enough to send me the clarification that the people who already, the store owners who are already having the licenses will be grandfathered and they will not have any problem when they sell their stores. I think that cares of, takes care of everything. Thank you.

Okay, so I think we can move forward. I just want to, I think a couple of things stood out. One, of course, definition of the school. We're going to expand that to include any time there are a lot of children involved, so that becomes a school. So that's one definition. So it should be expanded. And second thing is, second thing that stood out was some kind of enforcement mechanism. perhaps like Commissioner Rusty mentioned, maybe through through the police, maybe some proactive approach because it is this very serious problem, serious issue that we are trying to address. Considering that it may not require any more staff time in terms of planning department, but maybe getting the police involved might be the right approach. Those are the two things we want to add as recommendations. I need anybody else wants to add another recommendation.

Well, I just kind of had a question about if we're getting the grant from the county, is the county helping at all with policing this or, you know, doing the spot checks on facilities? Is the county involved in any way, shape, or form with those, you know, spot checks on them?

The way that the county works is that if you have opted into their licensing program so that they run the program, then they provide enforcement resources. which we have not done. And then if if the and then the county does provide grants and other kinds of informational stuff that we've taken advantage of, but not direct enforcement resources. There are state level agencies that we partner with with tobacco retail enforcement, who regulate tobacco licenses on a state level.

And I would also just add a little bit. So if we were to opt into that program, which is what we explored back then, the county would have provided code enforcement support, but not police support. So the responsibility would have still fell on our police department for certain enforcement actions. One of them was youth decoys, but the requirement was like two per establishment per year so it would be a given that we have 38 it would have been a good amount of youth decoy operations and there's a lot of planning and time that goes into that um so that just to clarify it would have been some support but not the police aspect i have one question are we charging the retailers uh any separate license fee for tobacco

cigarettes and tobacco because every city does charge and that is the money they use for enforcement. So I, to the best of my knowledge, I don't think we are charging any money, separate money for license. It's a separate license besides the business license. And so we must actively try to, this is one of the resources, the money we can use on the resources And we'll be at par with any other city. San Jose charges, I think, $800 or $50 per year. So maybe if we charge $500 or something like that, the retailers will be paying. They will easily pay. Everybody else is paying.

so you're speaking of the licensing program which um chris was talking about uh so that that is what we explored and we looked at what the fees might be for us depending on the cost but the hard part was the staffing and the additional staff which is difficult to pay through a licensing fee for additional staff it could pay for like some of the staff time put in but we just didn't have the staffing to do all these enforcement activities but i i believe you're referring to the licensing program so any city that has a licensing program does collect an additional fee because it's a separate local license in addition to the state license um but that's we did explore that but we just decided not to yeah mcup i mean minor conditional use permit is the same thing essentially you're getting 1500 plus dollars

That is one time. This is this is paid every month, just like your business license. You have to renew every year, every year. So this is paid every year. This is a separate fees and they have to take and they come and they enforce. So that money goes primarily for enforcement. And if we have some ordinance or something like that, we can recommend to the city council that this money can be used exclusively for enforcement. Maybe something good can come out of it.

Chair, if I may?

Yes. Yeah, please.

So those kinds of charges, particularly the annualized ones, are done with a licensing scheme. State law limits what kinds of fees you can charge. The fees you can charge for a licensing scheme are different than what you can charge for a permitting scheme, particularly a land use permitting scheme. Land use permits generally are limited by state law to be the cost of processing the permit. There's more nuance to that, but in general what you're talking about of adding on surcharges to expand enforcement activities above and beyond the operation that we're talking about with the present proposal before the Commission, that's not necessarily part of the process. So the fee would be aimed at the actual cost for the permit.

And if I may add, Chair, Everything I think that's being brought up are good points, which is why we pursued this route. Pretty much everything that's being discussed a few years ago, we even went to the council, but we presented all the impacts and staff was willing to do that, but we just needed more resources to do it. And then the council decided that we wouldn't want to pursue that. So it feels like we would be going back to something that we already tried and didn't go through. So just want to mention, we definitely did try pretty much everything that you're already mentioning.

Okay, I think, oh, Vice-Chair Kong.

Yeah, I wanted to follow up a little bit about the definition of the schools. Since we mentioned we wanted to please the clarification that we want to include private schools. But let's go back to the definition whereby Director J. Lee, you mentioned that it includes kindergarten all the way through 12th grade, right? And we do have some private schools, just like the Stratford School that's right across from City Hall, that is two years old to kindergarten. So how do you classify that? Would that be considered falling under this classification of school because it includes kindergarten?

Yes, for a school that includes even if it includes preschool, but it also includes other age children, older children, essentially that fall in the definition of school, that would be a school. I guess one question would be whether the commission wants to add in addition to schools, private and public, want to add like childcare center. That would be that would cover the preschool age.

I think we should add that. Yeah. So how do we make this happen expand the definition of a school. Do we need to make a recommendation or how do we how do we make it happen before we go to the city council.

So you could adopt the proposed recommendation with a recommendation to. expand the application of the school buffer to include both schools, public and private, and child care centers as defined in Chapter E4. And if that was the, if the motion was adopt the recommendation with those proposed changes, you could do that. Okay.

I do have a concern. We do have a lot of home day cares in the city. Do we want to perhaps clarify a certain size so that way it doesn't create buffers all over the city just because we have home daycares that might have three or four students?

That's a great point, and that's actually where my mind was going, whether to start talking about all these like kind of home-based childcare centers. Well, they're classified differently. The commission of course could consider that, but I think the issue with that is most of these are like within residential neighborhoods. So if you take a thousand feet, I mean, it could go beyond the existing neighborhood, but a lot of these are in like residential neighborhoods. So it wouldn't be as effective, but it's a great question. But they are defined differently. So a childcare center is one that is not in a home. it's in a commercial area. And then for the home-based ones, there are like limits for, there's like a small one and then a larger one. So there are numbers for those, but I don't, it seems like we don't need to get to the numbers because that's really relevant to the home care ones, whereas the commercial ones, it's a childcare center no matter how many children you have if it's in a commercial space.

I think we can stick with the commercial ones, not go to the home care level, you know, that'll, yeah.

Chair, if I may. So yeah, in our definitions, we specifically define childcare center as establishments providing non medical care for children on a less than 24 hour basis, other than large or small family childcare homes. So our definitions already excludes that.

Okay, with that... A very quick question.

Is it possible, you know, we have the same problem with our liquor policy when we had an applicant come here and that applicant was right in front of a commercial daycare center and we had a lot of discussion on that. Eventually, they were approved with some kind of restrictions. But while we are doing this, can we also add liquor and beer to this? It's the same thing. Otherwise, we come back again. If there is a child care center again, a commercial child care center right in front, and somebody wants to open a liquor store, and then we are again back to the square one. Just my thought.

I think that will be going a little too far. I think we need to stick with tobacco, this particular application, rather than expanding it beyond. That's my opinion, but I'm dictating. So let other people talk.

I was just asking if it can be done. I know it's not part of the agenda or not part of this, but they go hand in hand.

I personally think that maybe that could be something we can look at in the future because the resolution today is specific to tobacco.

I was not sure, but I asked. This goes hand in hand.

And while I am speaking, I wanted to get clarification from the planner, Lillian. Do you think it's also possible to look into grants that are available from the public health department that can be made available to our school district? Because a lot of these concerns go back to access of tobacco by youth. And I know our city got over $20,000 for this. Does the school district have the ability to apply for similar grants so that they can run campaigns and programs to reduce the use of tobacco among students?

I'm not sure if this particular program would go beyond just like jurisdictions. But that's certainly something that we can communicate with the county public health department.

Yeah, because I personally think that a lot of the education about not doing, you know, like smoking and all those stuff need to start in school as well. So if there can be grants available, you can maybe even reach out to the school district to ask them to, you know, like we are doing this on a city level, but definitely this needs to come in collaboration with the school district to also, you know, get campaigns together. They can get, If they can get funding, reach out to the public health department. So that way, we're not relying on complaints and enforcement within the city. The school district can be the eyes to also help to reduce the reliance on tobacco products or the use of tobacco products. I appreciate you mentioning that you reach out and then maybe circle that with the city, the school district. Thank you.

If I may, Chair, that's a great suggestion for the MUSD. But also to follow up on the alcohol, we actually do have current separation requirements of 500 feet from and here in our competent zoning owners we do specify public schools private schools and child care centers and other sensitive uses as well so it's there i think you're probably thinking of recent examples that either was prior to this adoption or just outside the 500 feet but we do have a very similar type of separation requirement currently okay i think i think we have covered this topic fully

uh so now i'd like to see if anybody is ready to make a motion with that recommendation about expanding the definition of a school that we talked about i think it's pretty clear now what that definition is so is there a motion please i'll make a motion to adopt resolution number 26-004 recommending that the city council approve zoning text amendment number

ZA26-0001, amending the Milpitas Municipal Code Title 13, Chapters B6, B8, C10, and E4 relating to the regulation of tobacco retailers to include the public and private schools and childcare centers.

No second.

Thank you. We have a motion by Commissioner Calkins A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GALONG. VOTE STARTING WITH COMMISSIONER BROWN. AYE. COMMISSIONER KOLKINS.

AYE.

COMMISSIONER WASTE.

AYE.

COMMISSIONER GALONG.

AYE.

VICE CHAIR KONG. AYE. AND CHAIR GUPTA.

AYE.

THANK YOU.

SO WE MOVE FORWARD AND TAKE THIS TO THE CITY COUNCIL. We are recommending to city council to approve this. Next. To item number two, which a lot of people here looks like have been waiting for. This is the new business park research and development buildings and the three different buildings coming up to to replace this area which has been sitting there for a long time. So we have a presentation from Sean Manalo, associate planner.

Good evening, commissioners. Hope the start of the summer has been treating everyone well. For this final item before you this evening, we are discussing new business park research and development buildings at 710-790 Sycamore Drive, 1511 Buckeye Drive, and 1610-1630 McCarthy Boulevard. And we'll move to the next slide, please. The applicant, Goodman, North America, requests Planning Commission approval of the following planning entitlements to be able to apply for building permits to demolish all the existing on-site buildings, parking lots, and associated structures and construct the proposed project. Site development permit number SD25007 for the development of three new two-space store a speculative industrial buildings with ancillary office space totaling approximately 330,000 square feet including 290 square feet of industrial warehouse space and 37,500 square feet of office space consistent with the BPRD or Business Park Research and Development land use designation the maximum building height would be approximately 40 feet to the top of parapet Site improvements include new internal roadways, landscaping, off-site public improvements, seven driveway access points, and the project would provide a surface parking lot with 432 vehicle parking spaces, six drive-in doors, and 39 loading docks. Also part of the project is a master sign program as SD 25009. for the installation of 22 signs consisting of five primary building identification signs, two monument signs, seven wayfinding totem signs or directional signs, three building address signs, and five tenant identification signs pursuant to the municipal code. Consistent with the municipal code, projects involving multiple applications may be considered or consolidated for final action and heard by the highest review authority required for any of the applications. And here that review authority is the Planning Commission. To support the proposed project, the following staff level project permits are also required. A lot line adjustment and lot merger combination as well as a tree removal permit to remove 148 ordinance size protected trees to be replaced with 302 trees pursuant to the municipal code. This slide shows the project location and zoning map for the site near the southwest corner of the city. The project site is outlined in yellow and is located in the BPRD zoning district. On the left map, we can see the site is surrounded by other BPRD zone properties shown in teal blue. And the aerial map on the right shows the site's consistency with other BPRD related uses, including offices, line industrial and research and development facilities. In total, the project site is approximately 16.79 acres. across all parcels. And for scale and in celebration of the World Cup coming just around to our backyard, that is roughly equivalent to eight and a half professionally sized soccer fields. The site is also strategically located with three frontages onto public streets, Sycamore Drive, Buckeye Drive, and McCarthy Boulevard. These frontages provide more opportunities for site access and circulation with convenient access to Montague Expressway and Interstate 880. The subject site was formerly a corporate campus with five office and research development buildings. Oh, sorry, next slide. Thank you. And development buildings totaling about 320,000 square feet, first constructed in the 1980s. The site was formerly the headquarters for Atari Inc's operated game division and it was most recently occupied by analog devices which ceased operations in 2021 after acquiring the campus in 2017. Since then, city records show only limited short-term activity and the site has remained effectively vacant since the most recent tenant's departure. Next slide, please. Here we see a collage of images of the vacant buildings across the project site. And next slide perfect and the image here provides a better aerial view of the project is previously described access to the site is provided from McCarthy boulevard to the West sycamore drive to the north and buckeye drive to the east. Here we have a site plan of the proposed project described as the Goodman Innovation Center of Milpitas. The application for a site development permit is required because the project exceeds the threshold of new non-residential development in an industrial zone. And the sign program is also required because the project is a new industrial complex It is over four acres, has more than 40,000 square feet of floor area, and includes multi-tenant buildings. The project includes three new lots and three new two-story speculative industrial buildings with ancillary office space. The project totals approximately 330,000 square feet, including 293,000 square feet of industrial warehouse space and 37,000 square feet of office space. The maximum building height for each near identical building would be about 40 feet from the top of parapet. Site improvements include new internal roadways, landscaping, off-site public improvements, and those seven driveway access points. The project would also provide 432 surface parking spaces. While reduced to three buildings on three parcels, the total new square footage across the project site only represents less than 11,000 square feet of the new BPRD uses to the site. Even more, the applicant has not yet identified a tenant or tenants for the proposed space the future tenant or tenants, activities must be consistent with the uses allowed in the BPRD zoning district. So the city's BPRD zoning district is intended to accommodate business parks, office uses, advanced manufacturing, and other light industrial uses. It's also designed to support the growth of research and development, warehouse, and light manufacturing. The following slide outlines the development standards for the zoning district as it applies to this project. And as you can see here, the project is consistent with the development standards for the zoning district, as shown in Table 3 of your staff memorandums, including setbacks, floor area ratio, height, and parking requirements. the proposed parking of the proposed building is two stories and again approximately 40 feet and furthermore the city's newly adopted zoning ordinance from 2025 provides a set of supplemental development standards unique to development in the bprd zoning district and again As described in Table 4 within your staff memorandums, the proposed project meets all of the supplemental development standards related to building entrances, facade design, pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and site design for large projects. Here we have the images of the proposed development. The applicant proposes a modern contemporary design that improves the look of the site. The project includes those three two-story buildings with prominent main entries facing public streets. Wood and block panel accents along with varied paint colors help break up the building's mass. And the facade uses a restrained modern palette with five paint colors and two glass materials for added visual interest. The project also includes outdoor eating areas for employees, EV charging stations, and planned vehicle circulation. Overall, the project meets the intent of the general plan and the zoning district standards. On to landscaping, the landscaping plan is consistent with the project standards and emphasizes a strong street frontage with new and existing trees. Existing perimeter ground cover will be retained and landscaping improvements will be added at the driveway and pedestrian entries. Under the city's tree protection requirements, The project must also replace each ordinance-sized tree with two new trees. That comes to about 302 total trees proposed on site, where 152 trees, including 148 protected trees, will be removed. Stormwater detention basins will also be incorporated into the landscaping and open space with larger basins located along the project boundaries near the public streets. Perfect. So the project's access and circulation design ensures safe and efficient movement of both cars and trucks across the site. There are seven driveways providing access with widths ranging from 26 feet to 40 feet, three on Sycamore Drive, three on McCarthy Boulevard, and one on Buckeye Drive. Truck loading and dock doors are positioned at the rear of each building, concentrated near the center of the site. These loading areas are separated from employee and visitor parking and accessed through two 40-foot wide gates on each lot. No other internal driveways are gated. On-site circulation follows city standards and includes a network of six driveway aisles, three north to south and three east to west. These serve all three buildings and accommodate both passenger vehicles and trucks. The city's transportation and traffic engineering division and fire prevention divisions reviewed the proposed site plan including circulation and ingress and egress for compliance with minimum requirements and incorporation of recommendations from the associated transportation analysis report and have provided conditions of approval for the project. Yes, related to off-site public improvements, speaking of pedestrian access, the project includes comprehensive public infrastructure improvements that meet city standards. The project includes full utility upgrades, water, fire service, sewer, and storm drainage, plus the reallocating of a 36-inch storm drain, front-inch improvements along McCarthy Boulevard, Sycamore Drive, and Buckeye Drive. to include a newer constructed sidewalks, curb and gutter and driveways, all designed to meet ADA requirements. Pedestrian facilities are also to be upgraded with new curb ramps and updated push buttons at key intersections, and all work includes utility coordination, abandonment or reallocation of existing facilities as needed, and installation of new service connections and metering. All public improvements will be designed and constructed in compliance with city standards and subject to engineering review and encroachment permit approval. And this rounds out the analysis for the site development permit. The second part of the project is an application for a sign program. And... The applicant is requesting a sign program to install the following 22 signs across the project site. Two freestanding monument signs as M1 in orange on this figure. Five main logo building wall signs as G1 in green. Five tenant customer wall signs as C1 in red. And seven wayfinding totem signs or directional signs as S3 in purple. The image to the right provides a visual of the proposed address signs with dimensions, which are actually exempt as government signs for the purposes of identifying an address from the street to facilitate emergency response. And the images here allow us to visualize the four other types of signs associated with this program. Moving clockwise, these signs include a monument sign, a wayfinding totem, and two wall signs of varying sizes representing the applicant's main logo and logo for future tenants. Also shared with the staff memorandum as table five and copied here, overall the project's Stein program meets the sign requirements associated with each of the five types of sign types. The applicant will also need to pay the following impact fees collected at various stages of the building permit process. Planning helps collect on behalf of Recreation and Parks Department, the public art fee, which equals to one and a half percent of the building development costs. Office of Housing collects the non-residential affordable housing fee. The Engineering Division collects fees such as utilities, including water, sewer, and wastewater treatment fees. And the main reviewing departments also provided conditions for approval of the project, which were reviewed thoroughly in the building permit process and applied to the life of the project. Altogether, there are about 110 conditions of approval for the project. Moving on to CEQA, CEQA guidelines section 15183 project consistency checklist was prepared by First Carbon Solutions and reviewed by city staff and this checklist and its supplemental technical reports are included as exhibits two and three of attachment A to the staff report and provides substantial evidence for relying and confirming this project's exemption under CEQA section 15183 related to projects consistent with a community plan, general plan or zoning. This development is consistent with surrounding land uses, zoning, and general plant designations. In other words, this is development that was anticipated and evaluated at a programmatic level in the 2040 General Plan FEIR. The checklist analysis further confirms the project won't introduce unusual or incompatible land uses and won't create site-specific impacts that are peculiar or more severe than previously analyzed. So therefore, No additional mitigation measures are required for the project. Related to public notice, notice was published in the Milpitas Post in City Hall and on the city's website. Postcards were mailed to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the project site. Two signs were posted at the project site as well. The staff has received two public inquiries about the project. along with 20, roughly 20 letters of support from residents and business owners. Those letters include support from the Milpitas Chamber of Commerce, the city's Economic Development Department, as well as letters from the Milpitas Police Department and Fire Department thanking the applicant for recently hosting a live, a public safety live training exercises ahead of demolition and development of the site. Staff has confirmed that the project meets the findings associated with a site development permit for developments of the lot, as well as the findings associated with a signed program permit. Those findings have been discussed in the staff report and are addressed in the resolution. And in closing, staff recommends the Planning Commission open the public hearing to receive comments, and move to close the public hearing, consider the exemptions in accordance with CEQA, and adopt the resolution approving site development permit number SD25 number seven, Environmental Assessment Number EA26002 and Master Sign Program SD25009, subject to the conditions of approval. This concludes staff summary of the project. Joining us today, the project applicant team and consultants led by Will Parker and Ward Mace with Goodman are here in person or are available on Zoom to assist. with questions including the secret consultant from First Carbon Solutions. Additionally, the applicant team has a separate slide deck presentation to share with you about more about the project. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

So can we get the presentation from the applicant, please?

Okay. Thank you. Thanks for having us. Thanks for the presentation, Sean. Really well done. Appreciate the World Cup reference in particular. Thank you to the Planning Commission. I'm Will Parker. I serve as Senior Vice President with Goodman North America. We're investors and owners in the city of Milpitas, as you know. On this slide, essential infrastructure is how we describe the product that we deliver. It's a business that we are in globally with advanced manufacturing, logistics, and data centers around the world. I'm joined by our local team seated behind me. There are a few folks, as Sean mentioned, that have dialed in from afar. So we have a couple of slides to quickly tick through if we can go to the next one. So on the company, we operate globally. The business is headquartered in Sydney, Australia. We started in the late 1980s with one project that has grown in the subsequent years to 445 properties across 13 countries. Next slide, please. We develop, manage, and own for the long term. This is a long term partnership that we envision with the city of Milpitas. We are not merchant builders. We typically do not build and then sell projects. We're here for the long term and very much look forward to that. Next slide. The Milpitas project fits squarely within our investment thesis. Advanced manufacturing, which is what this project is, is a key focus for us. And the top market for that in the country is Silicon Valley. We seek infill locations, adjacency to good companies, working with good cities, customers, and importantly, access to employees. This project, as Sean mentioned, aligns with the general plan, the uses, and the area surrounding it. It's an opportunity to exceed design and environmental standards. This is our site. It's located west of 880, east of the Coyote Creek, and just south of Tasman. Next slide, please. This is the same slide that Sean showed related to the building. I just highlight from a design standpoint the articulation along the exterior panels, the amount of glass, the different color, also just the extensive landscaping throughout the campus. Next slide, please. These are the advanced manufacturing buildings shown top down. This will be a newly constructed project. If we can start, construction prior to year end. This will deliver it near the end of 2027. I think something to note about how this is designed, there is no standalone trailer parking. So this is a very different design that you might see for a high throughput logistics facility. This is truly designed as an advanced manufacturing campus for Silicon Valley companies. And the focus is really on parking for employees around the exterior. And you can see that as we're trying to fit the high number of employees that are anticipated on the site. There are three different environmental standards that are very cognizant for us on the project. We're targeting LEED Gold certification, which is a very high standard. That is a standard for Goodman around the world. We will meet or exceed the Cal Green standards on the project and the Milpitas environmental checklist. Some of the aspects of the project, there's a lot of EV charging. There's conduits for plus or minus 90 electric cars on-site, low-flow fixtures, as well as solar on the project. Next slide, please. These are the existing buildings today. This was taken just a couple days ago by our teammate, Aaron. I think they look a little worse than the pictures that Sean showed. But if you flip to the next slide, we wanted to give you a sense for where this is going. This is an example of what we are building right now. This is a delivered project that just finished outside of Los Angeles. We're using this same aesthetic in each of the Milpitas buildings. So this is the design standard for the office areas. The elements of this that you'll see on our site are second-story mezzanines, floating staircases, a strong contrast between light and dark coloring, higher ceiling heights than you typically see in the market, which allows more light to come in. Glass at the conference rooms is something that not many people do, but we're trying to create a world-class environment because those are the companies that we're targeting.

Next slide, please.

There's a lot here. Sean mentioned some of these, but we're reusing an existing infill site. That second bullet point highlights many of the things that Sean talked about. But there's a lot going on around the site and in the neighborhood that this project sponsors. The public storm drain, improving fronted sidewalks, curb and gutter, public streets, sewer laterals, new driveways, ADA ramping, improvements to the intersection at Sycamore and McCarthy. Really exciting to talk about, I think, is the job creation on this site. We actually worked with a group called Economic and Planning Systems that we feel is the gold standard for analyzing impacts on sites from an economic standpoint. This is the data that they came back with. So from a construction standpoint, the number of job years on the project is approximately 163. Good compensation with benefits for those roles. The project one-time development, the economic impact that ties heavily to the construction costs and multiplier effects is $62 million. Once delivered, the project could support an estimated 600 jobs in Milpitas with the multiplier effect of 1,000 countywide. That's a really significant input. It's the companies in the line above that that do things like this. We're trying to attract high-tech tenants, healthcare tenants, automotive tech tenants. If you ask brokers in the market who's out there right now, these are the names that come up. So those groups are out there signing leases. They're actively looking for space like this. That space is going away very quickly. The vacancy rates in Milpitas right now are 4.9%. That does not count the leasing that's happening right now in this quarter. So I really think you need projects like this. Strong compensation, the city fees that Sean mentioned add up to roughly $2.2 million. Next slide. I think it's important just briefly to touch on our neighbor to the north in Fremont. Fremont has done a very good job the last several years of facilitating new development and attracting companies. The companies on the left here are ones that have actually transacted, lease assigned, those groups in Fremont. Vacancy rate in Fremont is also very low. A lot of the new product has now been leased. We look at our position here and our neighbor to the north. I think that this is a tremendous opportunity for the city.

Next slide.

On the community engagement front, we spent a lot of time with the fire department, with the police department, with Ken and Clint. They've had access to our site for a number of months, training, doing things out there that I think are a unique experience. We thought that that would be a good opportunity and help with public safety. We've had touch points with city, local outreach, chamber, Rotary Club, presentations. We hope that comes across in some of the letters that we share with you. And so that's it. Thanks for listening to us. Thanks for considering the project. We'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Appreciate the presentations. Actually, I'd like to start off with questions for this one. Sure. Kind of reverse the process. So as we received this letter from Interim Director of Economic Development, And it mentioned that this project will generate over 1,000 middle-class jobs, over 500 million annual economic activity, and over 62 million construction impact. And you mentioned similar numbers. And your entire infrastructure that you're building here is really designed for advanced manufacturing facility, right? But the project report talks about that you can still have research and development, warehousing, logistics, data centers, and those uses have significantly different impact. And so a research campus and logistics facility are not the same thing. So we want to be absolutely sure that this is going to be only advanced manufacturing facility. Can you?

Certainly I can speak to that. And I think if you go back to the slide with the tenants in the market right now, I think it speaks to who's out there. The new projects that have been designed in the market, those are the tenants that have shown up. Those are the tenants that pay the rents that justify the project, not groups that are doing basic warehousing needs. Projects get financed. because they have broad uses and the ability to do that. So I can't tell you with 100 percent certainty, but I can tell you that personally, I've worked on a lot of projects in Silicon Valley over the past 20, 19 years, and most of it has been advanced manufacturing. Most of the projects that have been built after 2010 that are similar to this design and standard, this is a cut above, I think, have gone the advanced manufacturing route. And so the uses in the buildings They'll be an office area like we've designed with the two stories. And then there will be an area that gets defined by the tenant in terms of how they operate. And so our expectation is a percentage of that remainder of the building becomes typically it's a value add process in the walls. They're making something. They're assembling something. Something value add is happening there. And there is a component that is a warehousing component or how they move things in and out of the building because they're making things. So I can't guarantee it, but I can tell you that it's an advanced manufacturing market. We're next to the top advanced manufacturing market in the country with Fremont, and that's likely the way that this goes.

Yeah, but any other types of usage that it may end up being, that can defeat the whole purpose of the claims that everybody's making. You know, it could create 1,000 plus jobs. It could create a lot of revenue for the city. So I think maybe there can be a limitation as to what percentage can be other than advanced manufacturing. But if you keep it open-ended, then, I mean, the whole facility is designed for advanced manufacturing. I mean, you have so many docking stations, no trailer, you said trailers, and 400-plus parking spots. So all of these things point to advanced manufacturing. That's where we can have maximum impact on the city in terms of revenue generation. In fact, I'd like to understand with these different scenarios, different types of tenants, what kind of revenue the city can generate. I mean, that's a question for the city staff. Can you elaborate on what will be the different types of revenue and with certain assumptions and what kind of revenue can we expect on a city can expect on a continuous basis?

You know, I can refer to the letter provided by the economic development department. They cited some numbers here that I can share. The letter cites support over 1,000 middle income jobs and generates $500 million in recurring annual economic activity. Construction itself is expected to generate one-time economic impact of $62 million, as well as 110 construction jobs in Milpitas. I think those were the numbers that I...

I'm talking about something different now. Those numbers I understand.

Sure.

I'm talking about what is the recurring revenue for the city in terms of property tax, in terms of sales tax, or any other kind of revenue. That's my question. Some kind of estimate.

Sure. Chair, yeah, if I may, we don't have that information and we don't typically do that level of analysis for, you know, a land use decision. I do want to just say a few things in reminder. I think you bring up good points, though, that a lot of these benefits are with an assumption that it will be advanced manufacturing. But I think staff's take is that regardless of whether it's advanced manufacturing or warehousing, What's before you today is a site development permit, so it's really about the building. I think these are probably the, it's the maximum potential or like the hopeful view, right, of all the benefits, which, you know, I think the applicant expects to happen given the investment that they've put in, the quality of the building. and the higher rents that the advanced manufacturing businesses would bring, they are heavily incentivized to find that kind of a tenant rather than a warehousing tenant. And a warehousing tenant probably will be priced out of these rents anyways. The applicant could probably speak more to that. But I just want to remind the Commission that this is a site development permit. If it was a use permit, before you perhaps we would go more into the discussion about the uses but we're really focusing on the building but i think you are right to kind of raise that that the issue that there is an assumption here but um just want to caution this is a site development permit uh it is allowed you know as a use by right and um a little bit of history with the bprd is that there was a lot of back and forth for the comprehensive zoning ordinance update. We did phase one, phase two. Phase two was more recently. Phase one, there was a lot of discussion about this warehousing question, and the council ultimately decided to allow for a larger scale warehouse in this BPRD area anyways. So just wanted to point a little bit to that context.

If I may, as part of our process, once a tenant is identified, that they'll apply for, I assume, building permits, but also an occupancy permit. And part of our process would be to check that their intended use and operation of that tenant aligns with the standards for the BPRD zoning district. So hopefully that alleviates some concerns to make sure that an ideal tenant who occupies the space is consistent with the code.

So I'm assuming you're going to have multiple tenants, not just one tenant. Is that correct?

I think that's a fair assumption. Each of the buildings is designed to have, you know, there's two grade level doors in each building. There's two very nice office entries, you know, with glass. So they're meant to break in half if you need to. So there could be six tenants. We don't know. We're putting in the infrastructure ahead of time, which is what you need to do in Silicon Valley to have a chance at pulling in the right companies.

Do you have any interest from any prospective tenants?

At this stage, even though it's a couple of years away in terms of... No, the picture I showed you in one of the slides that had the... It was the cover of a leasing brochure. We have not sent that to the market. So typically, once we're through an approval process, then we would consider marketing the site. In reality, in Silicon Valley, tenants like to see the project underway. They want to see the walls going up. They want to be able to visualize it a bit. And we'll build videos. We'll do things to help them. But typically, leasing would happen during construction, not prior.

Yeah. Okay, I'll stop here. So are there any other questions from other commissioners?

Yeah. Yeah, this is a great project. No doubt about it. You mentioned Fremont. I'm very happy about it. And it has been recommended by our economic development and Milpitas Chamber of Commerce and we have a lot of businesses and Milpitas residents who have come out in favor of the business of, and it will be adding businesses and there's no doubt that this is one of the best we have seen in a long time. And the only thing is, are you going to, when you referred Fremont, have you done some research how Fremont got there? Because I know recently, The Fremont City said that they are number one according to their size. They are the number one manufacturing hub. And I think with projects like this, we can also be, we have some buildings we can identify and we can also go there and become one of the good manufacturing or bigger manufacturing hubs. We have been missing that very greatly. And thank you for doing that. Will it be, as far as energy is concerned, when you said data centers and all those things, this requires heavy energy. Are you going to be solar? Is there going to be solar powered?

Solar is a requirement in CalGreen because we're putting in the offices as an investment up front. So there is a solar component to it right off the bat. So that's there. On the Fremont question, it's interesting. what I was really referring to are conversations with investors. And, you know, for us, we are fortunate to come into projects usually funding it all ourselves. And so we don't necessarily have that constraint. But it's valuable to talk to investors. We do that often. I like getting their perspective on things. And so that's the group that has surfaced. You know, that was conversations with me talking to them. What do you think about markets? Fremont is probably the strongest in the country right now. It's investors there that are building that are saying that. But I give them, that means something to me. I like that they have that conviction. I'm excited about what we can do here in Milpitas.

Thank you. It's a great project. Thank you for bringing it in Milpitas and considering Milpitas.

Any other questions?

I definitely echo the sentiment from Commissioner Awasthi. This is definitely the most exciting commercial industrial project that we've had in a very long time. And I really am grateful that your company is investing in Milpitas. My concern is mostly with the duration of the construction that you're planning. You're saying that you're going to start end of this year and it's going to take a year to complete. And this is a very busy location. There's currently a lot of traffic going through, especially McCarty Boulevard. What are your plans to ensure that the construction of these buildings will not create heavy traffic that might bring detriment to the current circulation in the city? Because I know that there is a traffic study done as far as once it is tenanted, but what about during the construction?

Right. A couple points. One, overall, it's a less intense project than what was there before. And so from that perspective, I think you see that come through with the CEQA exemption, et cetera. There is a condition that's been proposed that addresses making sure that doesn't happen. We'll also work with our contractors to keep activity on site and to lessen any potential issue from happening. So that's something we take seriously. Our guys know how to manage that. So I appreciate you surfacing that. It's something that's been discussed.

I just want to make sure that all the big trucks that's carrying the heavy loads are not arranged during peak commute hours, because that's where the traffic, especially on McCarty to Montague Expressway, is extremely congested. So please work with staff, and I appreciate your consideration.

Thank you. Another question I had was, are you giving the tenants the space in vanilla finish or you finish the building according to the requirement of the manufacturing facility?

Because we don't have a tenant, it doesn't make sense to finish out. I mean, one of the good things about the space is that tenants or customers as we refer to them as often put a lot of capital into the space and it's custom. And so our job is to provide the infrastructure and to provide a platform that they can use and do great things with. And so by putting the, no one used to put speculative offices in upfront, so that's a big investment on our end. You know, it's roughly 8,500 square feet, two levels in every building. They'll have an occupancy standard day one. So a customer shows up, they don't have to wait to go build that. But inside the remainder of the building, we really need their feedback to design it and understand what their operation is.

Yeah, I have a question, Mr. Manalo. You said you have 432 vehicle parking spaces. It is the entire, all three buildings, there's 432 parking spaces?

That is the total amount across the three buildings. So pulling up my memo on page, Here we are. If it's page 10, table three. At the bottom, there's a parking calculation. The second column is building ones, two, and three total broken up by building. And the total, 225 stalls with building one and 77 stalls. building 282 stalls and building 366 stalls and the calculation says that for the proposed in column three building one is providing 154 stalls building 240 stalls building 338 stalls totaling 432. you mentioned about the ev charging where is that located on the ev charging oh uh well would you like to take that one

Yeah, I don't think we have a good plan that shows it. Hey, Kuhn, I think Kuhn Tsang, our architect, is on the line. He might be able to describe or show that. If he has access, I think he had the right link. But it's throughout. There's like 90. What do we have now, Kuhn? About 90 charts.

So 91 would be the total number for the EV stalls across all the buildings. And all the EV parkings will be next to the transformer. So if someone can pull up the site plan. So for the building one, all the EV chargers are along the north side. And also same for the building two. for the building three. So all the EV stalls will be on the south side. So we try to put the EV stalls close to the transformer to shorten the conduit. And also we try to keep the EV stalls close to the office.

So the EV parking is included in the 432 parking spaces?

That would be correct.

Yeah, that's correct.

Okay. With regards to demolition, what kind of demolition are you going to? I know you're going to remove the old building, right? You should buy detonating. How do you handle it? This is where I pull up our head of construction.

Yaron, do you want to describe the demo?

Yeah.

It's fun.

It's fun.

I've seen on YouTube about demolitions, but demolitions, yeah.

It's fairly traditional. First, you block the utilities. You make sure that everything is safe off. Then you clean up the interior, remove all the chairs or tables, doors, all the soft stuff. And then you continue to the windows. And at some point you start from the roof down and you bring heavy equipment and you just take it down. And we plan to grind the concrete and reuse it on site as well, as well as the asphalt. So that's a typical, very conservative demolition.

Do you do the three buildings at the same time?

We're going to start with building four. then move on to building five, and then go back to building three, one, and two. But essentially, once we start, there's going to be about two weeks of lag from the first one. And then at some point, three buildings at the time will go.

Yes. What specific time do you normally do that demolition? Do you have any specific time?

It will be in accordance with the building, with the demo permit. It's not going to be at nighttime. It's going to be during regular hours in accordance with the permit. OK.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? I'm sure there must be. Yeah. There are no questions for now. Any public comments, please?

Chair, we have six speaker cards. First one is Mr. Albert Alcorn.

Hi, Albert Alcorn, Vice President of Milpitas Chamber of Commerce. First of all, I'd like to come out and say that the Chamber of Commerce strongly supports this project. The low vacancy rates, the opportunity to add all this new space for manufacturing, modern manufacturing, the jobs it's creating, we couldn't be happier with this project. So we definitely strongly support it. Thank you.

Next I have Ms. Allison Soper.

Good evening. My name is Alison Soper. I'm here to express my support for the Goodman Innovation Center project. I believe this project represents a positive investment in the future of Milpitas. The redevelopment of a long vacant site into a modern industrial and advanced manufacturing facility is an opportunity to bring productive use back to a property that has remained underutilized for many years. In addition to revitalizing the site, the project has the potential to create quality jobs and strengthen the local economy. Expanding opportunities for advanced manufacturing in Milpitas is important, especially given the limited availability of modern industrial space in the area. Projects like this help ensure that businesses can continue to grow and invest in our community. I also appreciate that the proposal is consistent with the city's general plan and will generate development fees and tax revenue that can help support essential city services and community improvements. For these reasons, I respectfully encourage the city to approve the Goodman Innovation Center project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Eli Robles. No. No, Eli. OK. Rudy Downing. Amanda Leo. And lastly, Leticia Samame.

Hi, good evening. My name is Leticia Samame and I'm here to express my strong support for the Goodman Innovation Center project, specifically because of the vital job opportunities it'll bring to our community. Right now, the old analog devices property is sitting completely idle and vacant. Converting this site into an advanced manufacturing facility will bring a wealth of stable and high quality employment options directly to our city. By expanding our local job market, this facility will give many residents the opportunity to build careers close to home. Cutting out long freeway commutes means less traffic on our roads and more time and money spent supporting our local economy here in Milpitas. I urge the planning commission to approve the proposal so we can secure these essential career opportunities for our workforce.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Those are all our speaker cards chair.

OK, so any. Any more questions from the commissioners? I will ask one question, though. So is this facility the ways the infrastructure is being built suitable for a data center? I mean, especially not an AI data center, for sure.

I'm not familiar what the specific requirements are for a data center. I know that within the BPRD zoning district here, let's take a look, the new comprehensive zoning ordinance has a list of uses that are acceptable within the zone. And a data center, it would be, is a permitted use within the BPR design.

It's a permitted use, whether there's enough infrastructure there for the data center. Maybe applicant can answer the question.

Yeah, I think in our view, no, it's not set up for a data center. We do build data centers, but they look a little bit different. And the big difference is the power. It's a lot more power than what this facility will have. But this facility will have a good amount of power, but not data center power.

All right, so with that, I think we're ready to move on. If there are no more questions, do I have a motion to approve this project, please?

I can make a motion to approve the project. Adopt resolution number 26-012, approving site development permit number SD25-0007, environmental assessment number EA26-0002, and master sign program SD25-0009, subject to the finding and attached conditions of approval.

I second. Thank you.

I have a motion by Commissioner Awasthi, a second by Commissioner Brown. We'll take vote. Commissioner Brown? Aye. Commissioner Culkins? Aye. Commissioner Awasthi? Aye. Commissioner Galang? Aye. Vice Chair Kong? Aye. And Chair Gupta?

Aye.

Thank you.

Congratulations. It's approved. So the resolution is approved. Congratulations. I was expecting Armando to say something, but I guess you're keeping quiet. all right we move on um so i think uh next one has been postponed the item number three um so so the public hearing is closed and now we go into new business are there any new business from anybody i was just wondering if there was any follow-up on the email conversations we had at the last meeting

Yes. So I spoke with our IT director and it still stands that the city issued emails are used for calendaring purposes. It does come with a license. He mentioned that it does come with expenses with having our IT personnel having to create the account and monitor it and also that Planning commissioners' tenors are very short. So it's like it would take a lot of time and effort and resources to do so. So it's calendar for now, and you would use your personal email. It stands at that.

Understood. Thanks.

Thank you.

Okay, so no more new business items. I'm supposed to read this statement. Any person agreed by any final decision of any board, commission, or department head to the city of Milpitas may appeal the decision to the city council by filing written notice of the appeal with the city clerk within 12 calendar days of the date of said decision and paying the required fee. This time limit shall be strictly enforced. With that, this meeting is adjourned.