Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

let's call the meeting to order welcome to the city of milpitas planning commission meeting may 27th 2026 i'd like to read the public comment instructions first oral public comments may only be provided live during the planning commission meeting in person all comments provided shall be limited to the 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 mail to planningdepartmentlmlpeters.gov. Okay, let's start with a roll call. Ms. Medina, please. Huh? Let's start with the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Awasthi will lead.

To the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, with God, visible, with liberty, justice for all.

Roll call, Ms. Medina, please.

Thank you, Chair. Good evening, Commissioners, community members, staff, and applicants. I will take attendance, starting with Commissioner Castillo. She is absent this evening. Commissioner Brown is absent. Commissioner Calkins?

Here.

Commissioner Awasthi?

Here.

Commissioner Galang is absent this evening. Vice Chair Kong? Here. And Chair Gupta?

Here.

Thank you.

to go through the conflict of interest declarations.

Thank you, Chair. I ask the Chair and each other 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 Calkins?

None.

Commissioner Wasti?

None.

Vice Chair Kong? None. And Chair Gupta?

None. Thank you. I further ask the chair and each other 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 Calkins?

None.

Commissioner Wassey?

None.

Vice Chair Kong? None. And Chair Gupta?

None. Thank you. Let the record reflect no reported conflicts. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, Attorney Creech. Next item is approval of the agenda for today. So do I have a motion to approve the agenda?

I'll make a motion to approve the agenda for May 27, 2026.

I second that.

Thank you. Commissioner Calkins?

Aye.

Commissioner Wasti? Aye. Vice Chair Kong? Aye. And Chair Gupta?

Aye.

Thank you.

Minutes for May 6, 2026 meeting. And may I have a motion to approve the minutes, please?

I'll make the motion to approve the minutes of May 6, 2026.

Second that.

Roll call, please.

Thank you. Commissioner Calkins?

Aye.

Commissioner Wasti?

Aye.

Vice Chair Kong? Aye. Chair Gupta?

Aye.

Thank you.

Okay, next is announcements. Are there any announcements from the planning commissioners?

Just hope everybody had a good Memorial Day weekend.

Good. Is there any announcement from Ms. Lillian Vanhua, who's replacing Jay Lee?

No announcements from myself, but yes, I am subbing in for the planning director tonight.

Thank you. Okay, let's start with the public forum. Members of the public are invited to speak on any item that does not appear on today's agenda. Comments are limited to three minutes or less at the chair's discretion. When called to speak, you are encouraged to state your name for the record. An item not listed on the agenda, no action can be taken. However, the Planning Commission may instruct the staff to place the item on a future meeting agenda. Ms. Medina, items from the public forum, please.

No, there are no speaker cards for public forum, Chair.

Thank you. Okay, now we come to the main item for today's agenda, public hearing. I'm going to see a presentation about Soberato Residential Townhome, 600 Valley Way. And Christina Fung from Senior Planner Planning Department will make a presentation.

Thank you, principal planner Vanwa. And good evening, chair, vice chair, commissioners and fellow staff. As mentioned, the item before you is a request for a development application for the Serato townhome project. Next slide, please. The application is a request by property owner and applicant, the Sobrato Organization, for a site development permit, vesting tentative map, density bonus permit, and environmental assessment to allow the construction of 134 townhome condominiums and a one-story cliff house building at 600 Valley Way. The project will consist of 24 multifamily residential buildings, approximately 38 feet in height, up to a maximum height of 45 feet to the top of the highest architectural element, with the one-story clubhouse building, including 268 resident vehicle parking stalls, six outdoor guest parking stalls, landscaping, and associated site improvements on a 7.22-acre site within the Main Street, Milpitas Gateway Main Street's specific planned area. I'll be calling that either MVSP or Gateway Plan area throughout the rest of the presentation. The developer proposes 20 below-market-rate units for sale, which allows them to invoke the State Density Bonus Law pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 and Senate Bill 330, also known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. By invoking the State Density Bonus Law and SB 330, the developer is eligible for concessions, waivers, and parking standards that are different than the city standards. Also, the site was identified as a rezone site within the city's latest housing element update. And this picture is a rendering of the proposed project. Next slide, please. And here we see an aerial view of the project site outlined in yellow. The site is located at the end of the Valleyway cul-de-sac and is south of Heath Street. And also the Interstate Highway 880 is adjacent to the west. Next slide, please. This map demonstrates the project site zoning designation and the surrounding area. The property is located in the Main Street Gateway specific plan area and a zone gateway mixed use GW-MU represented by the dark blue color. The site is also surrounded by other GW-MU zone properties to the south and east and by an existing single family residential neighborhood to the north. Next slide, please. project will require a site development permit to develop the 134 townhome units and the clubhouse building there will be three different unit types and will either have a three bed and three bath or four bed and four bath configuration they are all three-story attached townhomes and 24 buildings around the site as shown all of these units will have their own two-car private garage in either a tandem or side-by-side style The density required of the Gateway mixed use zoning district and the MGSP is 18 to 65 dwelling units per acre. As the unit proposes 134 townhomes on 7.22 acres, the project meets the density requirement by proposing 19 dwelling units per acre. Next slide, please. The project also includes a vesting tentative map. This will allow the developer to subdivide the units into condominiums where they will be made for sale. Because the subdivision has more than five residential units, the City Council has a final decision on the project with the recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission. The project's form, content, and dedications of the proposed tentative map have been reviewed by the City's Public Works Land Development Division and have been deemed consistent with the provisions of the City's Municipal Code for tentative maps. Next slide, please. The project also includes a density bonus permit. The city's affordable housing ordinance requires developers to require at least 15% of the total units as affordable units, also known as low market rate units, or BMR. The city's office of housing has reviewed the project with the city's affordable housing ordinance, or AHO, and has issued a conditional approval for the project. The 15% requirement of the 134 units is 20.1 units. The developer has proposed to develop 20 BMR units reserved for moderate level incomes. This image here shows the proposed distribution of the 20 BMR units throughout the site and the three colors representing the different unit types and is further detailed on pages 16 and 17 of the staff report. The applicant will be required to pay for the 0.1 fractional in lieu housing fee as required in the city's AHO, which is calculated at the time of building permit issuance. The applicant will also have to execute an affordable housing agreement prior to certificate of occupancy. Next slide, please. And to encourage affordable housing production, the State Density Bonus Law, or SDBL, allows developers to receive density bonuses and other incentives, such as concessions, waivers, and parking reductions when affordable housing is incorporated within a project. Specifically, an applicant requests relief from the city's development standards through waivers and concessions in order to achieve the proposed density in exchange for including the affordable housing. The proposed project qualifies for the use of the SDBL because more than 10% of the units will be reserved for affordable at moderate level, as mentioned in the previous slide, and they can request waivers and one concession under this law. Waivers can be used for any development standard that would physically preclude or make construction of a project physically infeasible. Concessions and waivers allow a developer to deviate from design standards and or development regulations when such regulations potentially make a project economically feasible for the developer to build. The applicant has summarized its SDBL requests in attachments E and F of the staff report, which requests a total of five waivers from the MGSP, three from the citywide ODS, two from the zoning ordinance, and one concession from the citywide ODS. All reviewing departments, including building, fire, engineering and police, have reviewed the plans with the proposed request and found no public health or safety problem with the applicant's request. The city's planning department has also consulted the city attorney's office for all requests and have determined that they meet the SDBL provisions. Therefore, the city must grant the applicant's SDBL request to allow for construction of the project and its affordable units. Next slide, please. The project meets the development standards of the Gateway mixed use zoning district, including its maximum height and number of stories, floor area ratio and density requirements. Where the project is not in compliance with any of these standards as shown, the SDBL requires the city to grant the waivers for relief to the standard. Next slide, please. And here the slide continues showing where the project was consistent with development standards in the MGSP and its zoning district for common outdoor open space, private open space, and its parking requirements. Next slide, please. The project's design concept for the future residential development includes a modern Spanish architectural theme and incorporates varied roof lines, balconies, and projections to add visual interest. It will include a mix of window sizes, decorative trim, and roof overhangs, including awnings and Juliette Balik balconies to reinforce the architectural style. Overall, the earth-toned colors and materials were chosen to complement the surrounding neighborhood. Next slide, please. The MGSP was adopted in late 2025. It has its own objective design standards and the citywide ODS was adopted in 2022 in response to several new state laws regarding ODS and state housing streamlining laws. As discussed previously, the project complies with the majority of the MGSP ODS and the citywide ODS and needs a few waivers or deviations from these standards as discussed in the STBL section and as detailed in the attachments ENF. MGSP Figure 36 is the Gateway District Regulating Plan, which is a diagram shown on the bottom right. The project site area is in the top left corner of this figure and has addressed the main parameters of the design standards needed for the site. There are two I just wanted to highlight, one of which is that it will provide the greenway path requirement that's shown as the green dotted line. This is a new pathway that will illuminate a barrier between Valley Way and the dead end section of Heath Street to the north. And it will provide a new pedestrian connection between the existing residential areas as desired in the MGSP. The other one is the project will meet the project's daylight plane provision requirements, as mentioned in the ODS, to provide an adequate transition from the existing single-family residences to the north. This daylight planning concept and urban planning design helps ensure that adequate air and light is provided between the developments, helps alleviate privacy concerns as the new buildings will be set back adequately in distance and height, and protects against concerns of visual excessive bulk and height of the new project. Next slide please. A project specific transportation operation analysis report was prepared and has been included as attachment G. This was reviewed in consultation with the city's transportation and traffic engineering staff and demonstrates the project's anticipated traffic given can be accommodated by the existing street network. The city's traffic and fire department review staff have also reviewed the project plans and are requiring conditions of approval to ensure that adequate emergency vehicle access and have confirmed that the internal private streets and drive maze will be adequately serve the development. And to further improve upon the mobility goals and vision of the MGSP and the general plan, the applicant has also been conditioned to provide off-street public improvements, such as redoing and infilling sidewalks along the valleyway frontage to meet the city's latest design standards. Next slide, please. The project will require the removal of 115 ordinance size trees, which will be replaced with 341 new trees on the same site with a separate tree removal permit to be issued by the Public Works Department and will meet the required two to one replacement ratio under the city's tree removal ordinance and with species shown from the MGSP recommended list. Other landscaping improvements to complement the new trees include the installation of various native and drought-tolerant plants with a collection of shrubs, grasses, perennials, and ground covers with a new efficient irrigation system. The bottom graphic is a rendering as seen from the proposed greenway path or the open space spine as described in the staff report and will include tree line pathways and as seen from the visual purple trees along the pathway in the site plan along the middle in a diagonal line. A little dark here, sorry, but additional details of the proposed landscaping design are included as the L sheets in the project plans as attachment D to the staff report. Next slide, please. On this slide, I wanted to showcase the three proposed common open space areas that are called pocket parks in the report and are accessed off that greenway path. As shown in the development standards table before, they meet the requirements of the MGSP open space areas. These three pocket park areas will include amenities such as dining tables, benches, a plaza with accent paving, water fountain, a bocce ball court, open play lawn areas, and game areas with seating. There's also going to be a dog run park in the top left corner of the project site, but this was not included officially in the calculations towards their common open space as it did not meet the dimensional requirements of the Gateway Plan. Next slide, please. Staff has analyzed the project's parkland requirement for the MGSP that is detailed in the staff report. The city has determined that the applicant must pay for a total of 0.94 acres or approximately $2,615,664.30 to satisfy the MGSP parkland requirement in combination with the onsite common private open space just described in the last slide. Next slide, please. The applicant will have to pay for the following development impact fees. The parking loo fee, as we just discussed, a public fee and the fractional 0.1 affordable housing in loo fee. Other fees collected by other departments, such as engineering, are described in the conditions of approval within the resolution. The six reviewing departments here have also provided additional conditions of approval to the applicant to the applicant must comply with during the building permit review phase with construction level detail drawings. Next slide, please. And regarding the public outreach and noticing, an early public outreach effort was conducted by the applicant and they hosted a virtual neighborhood meeting on Zoom on November 10th, 2025. A summary is included in attachment H and no attendees came to the meeting. However, the applicant remained available for questions and kept their project website up since then. For this public hearing, a notice was published in Milpitas Post and the city's website. Two signs were also placed on the property at least 10 days before the hearing. The city also sent out 99 postcards informing residents and property owners around 300 feet of the project site. To date, two comments have been received on the project, which have been added to the packets and copies have been distributed to the commissioners. Next slide, please. As detailed in the staff report and the resolution, the project meets all of the required findings for the Planning Commission to provide a recommendation of approval for a site development permit, nesting tentative map, and density bonus permit. The project will require final approval of the proposed entitlements by the City Council at a future public hearing.

Next slide, please.

As a lead agency, the city has determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15182. This section states that the projects in conformity with a specific plan that have a certified environmental impact report or EIR are exempt from CEQA, provided that the project results in none of the conditions described in CEQA guidelines section 15162. The city has prepared a project-specific environmental checklist to evaluate its consistency with the MGSP subsequent environmental impact report, state clearinghouse number 2024-070432, which demonstrates that the project would not result in any of the conditions in CEQA guidelines section 15162. This checklist and its supporting technical reports are included as attachments B and C to the staff report. Next slide, please. And planning staff in collaboration with the applicant have identified a clerical error to condition of approval number 76 and the attached resolution number 26-009, which was an engineering C of A for a photometric analysis. The condition of approval language for number 75 and 76 was duplicative and should be read as shown to be revised for what is redlined on this slide. The applicant will provide this analysis to the engineering division during the building permit review phase. This correction will be included in the following recommendation. Next slide, please. And in closing, staff recommends the Planning Commission open the public hearing to receive comments, move to close the public hearing, consider the exemptions in accordance with CEQA, and adopt resolution number 26-009 with a clerical revision to condition of approval number 76, photometric analysis, Recommending the City Council approve site development permit number SD 24-0005, testing tentative map number MT 24-0002, density bonus permit number DB 24-001, and environmental assessment number EA 24-0003, subject to the findings and conditions of approval. This concludes staff summary of the project and I'd also like to introduce Caroline Layden, Senior Development Manager for Sobrato and Tim Steele, Senior VP of Real Estate Development at Sobrato. Also Justin Huang, Principal for Studio T-Square Architecture. Their team also has a number of sub-consultants available online via Zoom. Also in person to assist with any of the SQL-related questions is George Dix from Ascent Environmental, who helped prepare the project-specific environmental checklist. The applicant team also has prepared a short presentation they would like to go through when you think is the right time. Ms. Medina, those are, I think, in the same folder. And just would really quickly thank everyone who has been involved with this project, with everything going on. This is one of the first projects or bigger redevelopment projects going to the Planning Commission in this new specific plan area. So a lot to navigate. I definitely learned why it was specific. A lot of standards. So thank you all. And happy to answer any questions later. Thank you.

Thank you, Christina. Did you say there is a presentation from the developer or the applicant?

Yes.

Can we go through that now?

Hi, everyone. It's a pleasure to be with you this evening. My name is Caroline Layden, and I'm representing the Sobrato organization. I'm joined by Tim Steele, who's behind me, and Justin Huang, who will help me with this presentation once we get into the architectural details. Like Christina said, we're the first project to come through after the gateway Milpitas gateway Main Street specific plan was adopted in 2025. We've been collaborating with staff since 2022 on this project and both the housing element and the specific plan. So it's really exciting for us to come to fruition and get to present the project to you today. Next slide, please. We hired a best in class team to help us out with this project we wanted to deliver the absolute best given our history with the site and our relationship with the city, so this is the list of the consultants that are with us online or in person and next slide please. The Sobrato organization has been developing in the Bay Area for over 70 years. We're a family-owned, multi-generational firm. The family lives in the Bay Area still, and we take great pride in contributing to the Bay Area both through real estate and through our philanthropic efforts, which were formerly homed at the Sobrato Nonprofit Center on the site, which I'll give a little bit more history on. Next slide, please. So before I get into the specific project details, just some history on the site. The Sobrato family has owned this parcel since the 1970s when it was purchased by Anne Sobrato. It was donated to the Silicon Valley Community Foundation in the early 2000s and is operated as a Sobrato Center for nonprofits since 2003. It was actually the first nonprofit center in our portfolio and spurred the opening of three other centers. So there's a lot of history and pride with the site and we are excited to revitalize the center that saw some declining participation post COVID to give it a new life and bring some energy back to this part of Milpitas. With that, just a little overview of the development program, which Justin will get into in more detail. The project is on 7.22 acres, as Christina mentioned, and we're proposing 134 for sale townhomes, which are a mix of three and four bedroom units. Each townhome has a private two car garage that's either tandem or side by side, providing 268 resident spots with 60 visitor-surface parking spots scattered throughout the balance of the site. There's a clubhouse that's an amenity for the residents, but countless amounts of open space throughout the site, most of which will be publicly accessible, including the Paseo that runs from Heath Street to Valley Way and the pocket parks that Christina just highlighted. We really developed this plan to create a welcoming residential development that fits into the fabric of the existing neighborhood and really helps add character to the neighborhood by creating a walkable, connected, and vibrant community that benefits both the residents that will ultimately live in this community and the surrounding neighborhoods through connecting that Paseo and bringing in some additional green space to the neighborhood. Next slide, please. So what got us here today, as I said, we began working with the city in 2022 when they were going through their housing element process. We felt like this site would be a great candidate for housing and were candid hand with them to add the site to the housing element. We then collaborated with the city as they were developing the Milpitas Gateway specific plan. which was adopted in 2025. As Christina said, the project is compliant with the specific plan and we made some tweaks to our design as the specific plan was being developed so that we would stay compliant. And lastly, we submitted an SB 330 application As part of our project, including the state density bonus application, I'll get into this in a bit, and I have a handout to give to you all with a request from the applicant. SB 330 is really meant to streamline the review process and help us collaborate on with the city on the most important issues for the project. We both state density bonus and SB 330 would continue to govern the project, if it is approved, and provide some kind of additional pathways for the project to work through the building permit process with the city. I'll hand out a letter in a second that gives you some more information. And then we can get into that a little bit later in the presentation. As Christina mentioned, the city mailed out postcards to the surrounding neighborhood. We also sent out postcards to about 500 residents within a 1,000-foot radius in October, notifying them of our community meeting that was held on November 10th. In response to that, as well as the postcards the city sent out, we received two comments from residents and a third public comment that came in today, I believe, The comments from residents mainly commented on site features, layout, landscape elements, and generally requested more information on the project. We are collaborating with one resident who still has a couple questions that we haven't been able to resolve given the scramble to get to you all today. But we look forward to speaking with him in more detail to resolve those issues for the project to move forward prior to city council. And just a little background on the nonprofit center itself. Over the last couple years, our philanthropic arm, Sobrato Philanthropies, worked with the existing office residents on relocation plans, providing real estate trainings, one-on-one counseling, grants to each organization. We really took care in making sure that everybody felt like they were prepared to have a home. The other Sobrato nonprofit centers will remain resources for these tenants. can use the conference centers and work with staff at those centers for continued support and we continue to regularly communicate with tenants if we hear of space coming available for example we just heard of space potentially available in the innovation campus in milpitas so we continue to work with staff in the school district on finding the best non-profits to fill those spaces all tenants vacated the building at the end of 2025 so the buildings are currently vacant We're managing them until they will be demolished if the project is approved. Next slide, please. And before I hand it over to Justin, I just want to highlight a couple of the project benefits. As Christina mentioned, we will be providing 20 percent or 20 units of below market rate housing on site. Those will be inclusionary built contingent with the market rate units. We are connecting a portion of the sidewalk on Valley Way near the gas station, so that sidewalk will now be continuous from our project out to Abbott. We're replacing an old water line that ran through the site. Our Paseo is actually on top of an existing easement for a water line. We'll be rerouting the water line through the street network of our site, and the old water line will be abandoned. And then our biggest amenity and what we're most proud of is the public accessible walkway running from Heath Street to Valley Way. We really took pride in designing the Paseo to connect our site and feel like a welcoming place for the broader community of Milpitas. So with that, I'll turn it over to Justin to give some more details on the architecture.

Next slide, please. Good evening, commissioners. I'm Justin Huang from Studio T-Square. It's great to be with you tonight. As we know, the project is within the Milpitas Gateway Sub-Pacific Plan. So we are really excited about the project because you're going to create a workable, well-connected, and vibrant neighborhood to the area, as well as helping address the housing shortage in the regions. Next slide, please. And we believe a good project starts with a good urban design. and the framework of the project is really about placing the right component at the right locations. So given the context here, one of the important goal for us was creating a project that is compatible in scale and character with the surrounding neighborhoods. As you can see, by organizing the site plans into multiple building clusters and pedestrian-scale block, we were able to create interconnected street network, walkway, and open space that feel very organic and compatible with the surrounding context. Next slide, please. Another important aspect of the project was creating a strong pedestrian environment for the project. As you can see, the vehicular access to the garage is at the rear of the building, while the unit entries fronting onto the sale and the walkway. And this work network link all the units to the open space as well as the clubhouse you can see is centrally located in the middle of the site. So really promoting the workability and a sense of community. And again, one of the key benefit for the project is, as you can see, there's a public accessible pedestrian walkway through the site and connecting the Heath Street to the Valley Way. This will provide direct access for the adjacent single family resident to access the neighborhood retail and nearby other community around the area. So that's one of the key benefit for the project. In addition, as Caroline mentions, you can see on the plane to the right, there's a red hatch area. That's a new sidewalk will be added in front of that vacant lot. And a street resurfacing will be done for the valley way as off-site improvement. Next slide, please. For the open space, there will be a very clear hierarchy with different types of open space. Again, there will be a main pedestrian walkway per se through the site, and along that per se, there are three major larger open space along the per se, which are also publicly accessible. providing outdoor seating area, game and long area to really activate that space. In addition to that, as you can see, we were able to create a series of courtyard for each building clusters, provide other passive recreation use for the residents. And lastly, you can see fencing will be along the north and the east property line and concrete wall with the vine along the freeway frontage to provide a better buffering and landscape screening. Next slide, please. For the architectures, one of the key concepts is to create a cohesive architectural character but at the same time introducing a level of variety to different types of buildings by using color and material change and a family of building elevation elements such as trellises, arcades, and balconies. So this approach not only add the depth and articulation to the building elevations, but also enhance the pedestrian experience along the building frontage. Next slide, please. As you can see here, the couple rendering, the top rendering show the entry drive and the clubhouse. And as you can see, the clubhouse create a very strong identity to the entry street, but also serving as a gathering space for the residents. The lower left images shows one of the courtyards where the trellises, the arcade, and the balcony that really create a very comfortable and well-defined common open space. The image to the lower right is one of the larger open space along the central Purcell. As you can see, the landscape, the building all work together to create a very vibrant carbon open space for that larger open space. Next slide, please. I will let Caroline to walk through those couple few slides with you.

Okay, so we're distributing a letter right now that reiterates what's on the slide. Apologies that you didn't receive it before. As you can imagine, it's always a bit of a scramble to get in front of you all. We received our final conditions of approval over the weekend, and there were a couple items that we felt we would like to as an applicant would like to be included. And I'll go through those. Again, they're outlined in your letter. The intent of these amendments are really clarifications and or reiterating laws that would apply to the project regardless of whether this condition is in our conditions of approval. It's really just to provide consistency and clarity to staff as the project goes through reviews. It does not burden the city in any way. We've seen these conditions be recommended in many other cities and we felt like it was a best practice for us to have this condition clarifying SB 330 in particular included. So as Christina mentioned and we mentioned earlier in the presentation, the project is an SB 330 project. That law comes with certain policies and standards both from the applicant side and the city side that are intended to streamline housing projects through the review process. Those policies and standards are reiterated in the condition that's on the slide and in the letter. Mainly that mandatory and objective reviews can only be imposed, or mandatory and objective requirements can only be imposed on the project, which governs the building permit process as well. There are certain fees that are locked in at the time of the application, which were included in the staff report. And SB 330 includes some different extension provisions than are included in our current conditions of approval. Since there are some provisions of SB 330 that could potentially be in conflict with certain conditions or city review moving forward, We feel like including this condition really just helps everybody who is reviewing the project, whether they are part of this team now or someone in the future, feel like there is a consistent understanding between the city and the applicant on how the project will be reviewed and move forward. So that is this slide number one. And then if you wouldn't mind going to the next slide. Kind of a little bit less importantly, when we were reviewing the conditions, we noticed that the indemnification included as condition number 12 is slightly different than the indemnification that we agreed to as part of our planning application. The executed indemnification from the planning application is on this slide. So we're just proposing that the indemnification from our planning application matches the indemnification in the conditions of approval. so that they're not competing and there's consistency in between what we had previously agreed to and what we're agreeing to now. Again, just kind of a consistency cleanup item that we felt we needed to share as part of our presentation after reviewing the conditions over the weekend. And then next slide, please. Lastly, we noticed two clerical corrections. One was the clerical correction that Christina mentioned during her presentation, which I think is relatively straightforward. The second is a sentence that we had coordinated adding with the engineering department, and when we received the conditions, we noticed that that was missing. Again, this does not burden the city in any way. We had previously spoken to the engineering department about adding this condition. So we're simply just asking that our communication over email is included in our new conditions. And with that, I think that concludes our presentation. So I will be available for questions if anything comes up. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, so first of all, are there any questions or comments from the planning commissioners?

I just have one about, you know, the last pages that she went over to make sure, you know, the city has reviewed that as well and they're in compliance with it.

Thank you, Commissioner Calkins. The staff is not recommending, there are four proposed changes by the applicant to the conditions of approval. The only condition of approval change that staff is recommending is the one noted in staff's presentation, which was that clerical error that happened. In terms of substantively what you're looking at, the condition related to state housing law doesn't necessarily accurately state that housing law. For instance, it states that all fees are frozen. That's not accurate. It also states that all standards are frozen, and there are exceptions to that. So we don't believe that the condition as stated is accurate to the law. And moreover, conditions of approval generally are affirmative obligations put on the applicants as a condition of their permit, reflecting practices of how we implement the housing laws. And we already fully have policies and procedures and guidelines and things that go to staff to make sure that we're complying with those. So staff is not recommending approval of that condition, both because it's substantively not accurate and because procedurally that's not what a condition of approval is necessary for. To the one for the indemnification language, there's a difference between indemnity that's provided for as a matter of the applicant And then the one imposed as a condition, the approvals run with the land, as does the conditions of indemnity. So they're binding upon successors and interest to the property. And that can account for differences in the language that's said. In terms of the question to the applicant that I didn't hear from their presentation was if there was any kind of a substantive disagreement with the indemnity being provided or any functional disagreement inconsistency between the indemnity. But in terms of the actual language proposed, we believe it is in form an appropriate condition as stated. And then to the final condition, there is a condition that appears in lots of our conditions that says In the event of emergency, the city may have to suspend the issuance of building permits because in the event of a water emergency, we cannot give water, which is a basic necessity, to the property and therefore need to suspend building permits. The applicant has proposed adding to that that their approvals would be automatically extended. There are a few issues with that one. One, the letter states that that was accepted by the city. It was not the engineering department recommended against approval on that. Secondly, as a matter of how that condition works is the power of the city council at the time they declare that emergency to determine the conditions and relief given and what they want to do and binding the city council in ways with a condition of approval, particularly in a time of emergency. I don't think it's thoughtful. That may very well be the kind of relief that the city council would give in the event of an emergency, but that determination should be made on a case-by-case specific basis, not in conditions of approval. So those are the reasons why staff, among others, does not recommend that the Planning Commission approve those three other changes. The clerical correction, absolutely, staff is recommending approval for. Thank you.

I have a question. We got a, at least for the applicant, we got an email from one of the residents. They have a few concerns. There are about four of them and they have attached some pictures. Have you seen those concerns and are you going to address them?

yes we've exchanged a couple emails with the resident we have addressed two of their concerns i believe the concern about the trees on their property line and the concern about the trash enclosure are still outstanding and as you can imagine we had a lot of priorities getting to this meeting and vetting those design decisions takes time given we have a number of trees that we are replacing based on the city's tree ordinance and we are constrained with our site plan on where those trees can be relocated as well as the trash enclosure around other site considerations like parking and bioretention. So we just haven't had time to bring our design team together to further vet those. I will say for the trash enclosure, we did look at this in detail with staff during the design phase. We evaluated a couple options, and with staff, we... determined that there really was no other location that didn't result in a loss of units as the project is designed, which is why the trash enclosure continues to sit where it's designed. But again, we will continue to evaluate this. We just ran out of time to look at the trees in the trash enclosure. But we did address the concern about the vines. And I'm sorry, I can't remember the other one. But I believe we had narrowed it down to just those two.

Another question was that they just have three or four items on the email, and you said that you have addressed two of them. Out of the 599, I don't know which one is correct, postcards sent to the neighbors, only one has raised an objection, and that too they are the immediate neighbors. So my request is that since we are in the middle of the discussion, if they can be addressed and accommodated as residents, we'll feel very good about it. This is a request from my side.

Yeah, we'll of course try to do our best. We just need a little bit of time to figure it out.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. I mean, I really appreciate that the Sobrato organization has been a longtime community partner with the city of Milpitas. But I do have quite a few questions. So I'm not sure if Christina or Caroline, either one of you can help me out here. So the first one is a follow on on the trash enclosure, because I understand that it does require two waivers to be approved. And just looking at the site plan, that trash enclosure is all the way butting up to the single family homes, right? At the edge of the north side of the property. So I'm curious, like you said, design team has not found any other location, but why not back to the freeway? The freeway itself is a long stretch on the western edge of the property. Could not one of the parking lot be used as a trash enclosure rather than choosing a location right up to the single family property line? I'm not sure who can help me answer that.

So a couple comments. As you can see along the freeway, there's a fair amount of parking. We're required to meet a minimum amount of parking. So it becomes quite a puzzle trying to fit the trash enclosure with the required amount of parking. There are also high voltage transmission lines that have a height requirement of how high something can be under them that run along the freeway that we were battling with a bit. We have a fair amount of buyer retention requirements on the site. So the trash enclosure had to be planned around site drainage and where those bioretention areas needed to be for drainage. And there are a few other constraints. I will note we are meeting, we have a six-foot setback from the property line, which I believe meets engineering code. And we worked with the city to kind of make sure we were within an acceptable setback, even with the use of the waiver. The trash enclosure is covered. And we are hiring a valley trash service that will work with the HOA to do regular pickups and maintain the trash enclosure at a higher level of service than you might typically see in a residential community. the way the valet trash service works is residents would put their trash outside their door at certain times of day that are agreed upon by the HOA so there's not trash sitting around all night it's like When you get your bins picked up, where you bring them out at a certain time, and then you bring them back in, it's similar with valet trash. And then the service comes around, picks up the residents' trash and deposits in the trash enclosure around a coordinated time when the service comes and picks it up. So the trash is actually rarely sitting in the enclosure for that long, and the service will maintain the enclosure, make sure it's clean, and like a much more acceptable standard than a typical trash enclosure that you might see. So we really tried to be conscious of the attention to detail that we placed around the trash enclosure. We also included some trees to screen the enclosure from the adjacent neighborhood. And lastly, I would say it's not an 100% ideal location for us either. There's a residential building where our own residents would be living next to it. We were just very constrained on the site location. Like I said, we'll continue to study it with staff. We've been through the exercise once, and we will certainly look at it again, but just sharing kind of the constraints that we're operating under.

And then help me to understand, Christina, in the event that, let's say, We have to choose a parking space to be converted to trash enclosure not on the not next to the adjacent to the highway but adding to the south side of the property I still see a lot of parking spaces. Would reducing one parking space to allow a trash enclosure to be in that position reduce them below the required number minimum number of parking? Thank you Commissioner Kong.

These are very great questions, and everything with the trash enclosure was something that I was highly pushing for since early in the process of trying to relocate. But I think it was very, very hard. I could tell that Sobrato really tried hard through all the submittal rounds to really try to look into this. They put a lot of quality effort into responding and really listening to our directions. you know, even they were the ones to request an in-person meeting with all of our various departments. And it was not easy getting over 20 people in person, you know, meeting time to really go through each comment. You know, and I did actually really work with our city's solid waste team within the public works department to see if there's something you know within their code of regulations to try to get this trash and closure removed and i understand the issue with the parking i was suggesting that too but i think there's many considerations um i don't think it was an sb 12 14 plan set for various reasons but i think Like some of them have said, there's a certain angle that the trash company has to go to pick up the trash and that has to be reviewed also by these companies that already got preliminary clearance for this area. I think also it impacts the stormwater areas and the areas to the south wouldn't really be fitting that and it might impact the safety of other parked cars. and just other access ways. All the streets were, you know, had to meet these minimum size and dimensions by the Public Works and Fire Department. So I think just the way that they had designed it now was not able to accommodate if it was relocated. then also i could see how they maybe like if you were to go on site yourself or just look at a google maps aerial you would see that there's already an attraction closure there it's even closer than what they're proposing it looks like it's almost right there and this design is much more you know modern up to different standards to help with some of these concerns um the existing site also has three trash enclosures around this north property line and they're reducing it to one so But overall, staff could not find a public health or safety constraint under the state density bonus law that would prohibit us from, you know, denying that request without a high evidentiary burden. So that could be subject, that the city could be subject to, you know, potential legal issues and noncompliance with their housing element.

Appreciate that. And then just to follow on, on the valet service that you mentioned, Caroline, So these are going to be, I didn't quite get it. So the residents would put it outside their home? And then do they have like a container that is, at least it's going to be sanitary and, okay.

Yes, thank you. The service provides bins that each resident will be provided when they move in. And again, helps maintain these bins. So each resident basically is given a protocol on how to handle their trash. It is put in a bin. It's just a bit smaller than your standard trash bin because there's not as much storage. And we found that residents really like the service, follow the guidelines of the service, and it actually reduces some of the waste around the site because residents aren't taking their own trash to a trash enclosure. The service brings it so the site ends up being much more tidy and well-cared because people aren't taking their trash from one end of the site to the other to get to the enclosure. Okay. Appreciate that.

Okay, so now I understand that. So I'm going to move on to a different question. This is going to be the emergency vehicle access on the north side of the property towards Valley Way on the north. So I understand that there will be bollards, right? That's going to be there. So in other words, on the regular day, it will not be accessible, right?

It won't be accessible to cars, but it'll be accessible by foot traffic. Okay.

Is there any reason why it cannot be opened up to allow regular traffic? I mean, I looked at the visual. I mean, the size of the valley way on the north side looks pretty wide for vehicular access. Is there any reason for not considering including that as kind of opening up for regular use?

Justin, do you want to take this?

I guess the first thing that I would say is that he street entrance is already closed off right now. It didn't quite work with our circulation and that we prepared a traffic report. And the traffic report advised that the current three entrances off of the Valley Way cul-de-sac handle the flow of traffic through the site accordingly. We were also trying to minimize traffic driving through the existing neighborhood and then turning into the site. Valley Way is right off of Abbott, so the traffic's coming off a more commercial street straight into Valley Way and in the site. So overall, we felt like it reduced the traffic impact on the surrounding neighborhood.

And also just add it's, you know, it's not a gated community or anything. But you know, the alleyways are considered to be private that will be managed and, you know, maintained by the HOA. It's not a public city street, right? It'd be different if, for example, alley one was somehow still a valleyway. And it would require some dedicated easements to the city. So I think that's overall why and I think also the fire department also just prefer the ballers. So Okay.

And I also read in the site map, there are also additional bollards in the center of the property where the Paseo is. Is that still going to be constructed? I'm not sure if you could see but it's right between building 12, 14, 5 and 7. There are also removable bollards.

Yes, so those are there to provide continuity between alley two across the Paseo. So those are required by FHIR and I actually believe FHIR has a condition that we have to remove those couple of tables from the design so that that little connection between the two alleys is always accessible as a FHIR EVA.

Okay, but during regular hours, there will not be any true traffic, they have to, it's just reserved for pedestrian.

Correct. Correct. Yes. The Paseo is just reserved for pedestrians. So the traffic driving into buildings 12, 13, 14 and 15 would come down alley two from alley one and then turn left into their garages. The residents living in building six and seven would go down alley one to the south around and then through alley to the other way. So no cars would be driving over the Paseo, which for safety reasons.

Okay, thank you for the clarification. Now I have a separate question. This is regarding the waiver for the double trees, double rows of trees. You mentioned that in place of that there will be a concrete wall with vines. Can you help me understand how that helps? Like the vines?

So the double row of trees is not allowed by PG&E because the trees would run right under the high voltage power lines. I would need to look at the site plan again to see exactly where that wall lays out, but it's my understanding that the wall does not interfere with the power lines. Like trees grow, so eventually could grow up to the power lines, but the wall is a fixed height that is designed at a height to... meet PG&E's requirements.

So these walls are meant to serve as noise barriers, right?

So how high would it be? Aesthetic and noise. We conducted a noise study with our acoustic consultant And most of the noise mitigation would actually be through the design of the walls in the buildings. So you can build thicker walls and then have higher acoustic rated windows to protect against the noise. And that's how we're planning on accommodating most of the noise mitigation. The wall would mainly be a aesthetic barrier with some acoustic benefit. Okay.

And then the vines that you mentioned,

Is also for aesthetic reasons, or is that? Yes, the vines are for aesthetic reasons. I believe we had an image in the plan that showed what the wall could look like. Again, we're open to any suggestions if you all like vines, don't like vines. This is more of a design choice than a mandatory project requirement. I think we collaborated with the city on the look of this wall, but if you all feel that there's another option that we can accommodate, understanding that we can't really plant anything higher than two feet or so, we're happy to take those into consideration.

And what about the separation between this project and the single-family homes? What would be the separation? Is that going to be another set of walls there?

We're building a fence. So there's currently a fence, and we would replace the fence that's there with a new fence.

Is that a metal fence or a wooden fence?

We're proposing a wooden fence right now.

And there won't be new vines in that area, right?

So that was a comment from one of the residents. I guess there are vines on the fence now, and they've grown to be a bit invasive. So we took his comment into account. We're not planting vines on that fence. That was his third comment was the fence and making sure that we were, yeah, making sure we were replacing it, which we are.

Yeah, I think that's definitely something that would be very helpful because even for me, I have a concrete wall behind my home and the vines just overgrow. So yeah, definitely if there's invasive vines, Don't put that as part of your. That's very helpful feedback. Thank you. Thank you. And I have one last one. This is regarding the gas parking. I read that there will be level two EV charging ready. So is there going to be, I mean, are there going to be stalls with the chargers or this is just potentially in the future it will be installed?

It'll be a mix of both, I believe. So code requires us to provide a certain number of stalls. with chargers day one. And then the majority of the balance of the stalls will be EV capable. So have essentially power there ready for the chargers to be installed if the HOA decides to in the future. And then all of the garage spaces will be capable of charging as well. So we actually, we have a fair amount of EV charging based on the code requirements.

That's great. Thank you. Thank you so much for all the clarification.

Of course. Thank you for having us.

Okay. Thank you, Vice Chair Kahn. I have some additional questions. First of all, you know, your project density, as per the staff report, says 19 dwelling units per acre. And the Gateway Mixed Use Plan goes up to 65 dwelling units per acre. Why did you choose such a relatively low density for a transit-oriented gateway area?

Yeah, so we're still within the density range. We worked with the city very early on in the Milpitas Gateway planning process to accommodate a density that works best both financially and through collaboration with the city meets kind of the shared objectives. So that's how we arrived at the 19 DUN acre. We did look at a scenario that had a higher density affordable housing building on a portion of the site. But through coordination with staff, Honestly, before I was involved with the project, so I'm not sure entirely of the project history. But I know through coordination with staff, it was decided that the inclusionary and affordable for sale units were of value to the city. And hence, we decided to go that route instead of looking at a plan that has a higher density building on a portion of the site.

Thank you, Commissioner Gupta. And just to add, it's the general plan and the MGSP have several policies, and some of them do, right? Like some of those design standards we show with the daylight plane, they're trying to also make sure that new developments are designed in compatibility with existing developments, especially single-family houses, right? So typically, right, a lot of projects that are proposed next to single-family residences, those adjacent residences right there are naturally very, very concerned about a new project coming in, being too tall, being too close. But that is why they have demonstrated that all their buildings will meet this daylight plane provision. So they're pushed back far enough, at least 40 feet, because of the alleyway and the height. And if you look at the diagrams, if they were just even one floor taller, then that would hit the daylight plane. So therefore, it would cause, you know, the existing houses to potentially see the bulk and scale this project. So it might be excessive. So I think it's kind of a nice I know it's on the lower range. It provides a nice transition scale that without being too overbearing to these other residences and community.

Okay. Now, next question. Since the project site is right next to 880, did you perform any analysis regarding long term residential livability, air quality, exposure And noise impact, noise impact you mentioned we've done some study, but what about the other things like air quality, exposure to the residents, and long-term residential livability being right next to 880? So why was not full analysis done for all of these different areas?

Yeah, so we conducted a detailed CEQA analysis, and our CEQA consultant is here if you have any questions on the specific sections of that analysis. We were found to be consistent with the general plan EIR, which considered this use, and I believe the subsequent specific plan EIR, which considered a use of this density that was residential in this location. So through our CEQA analysis, we looked at all of those impacts, and our CEQA concluded consultant determined that we were consistent with the original findings of the EAR.

I note that the applicant is also conditioned to use tier four construction equipment, which I think helps reduce those kind of air pollution emissions associated with construction. So under CEQA, there's a very, their quality section is very complex, but it didn't trip the thresholds for some of these aspects. So, um, And I think also the future CCNRs will have to discuss the potential noise impacts. And I think the new building code standards, right, there's certain window requirements that can help reduce the noise from such windows. And also they've met their, the distance requirement from the rear, from the highway. I think that requirement was 60 feet, but all these buildings along that highway edge would be 90 feet or more away from that, so.

Yeah, that's another reason why on our site plan, you see that the residential buildings are set back and buffered by parking from the highway, that buffer actually makes quite a big difference and reduces kind of the both aesthetic and other considerations of being close to the highway. As Christina mentioned, we exceed the required distance from the highway to the face of the residential building.

Okay. Now, in that area, you know, I see a lot of times people, I mean, I myself take 230 coming on that Abbott Avenue, and you see a lot of traffic going in that direction, going into 237. Now you're adding 134 families, which translates to 400 or 500 people. Won't that really cause some major traffic issues? I mean, was there any VMT study that was done?

Yeah, so a couple of things, right? Because the project is, like you said, so close to Calaveras Boulevard, it will have to pay into the city's Calaveras Boulevard widening fee that's assessed by the city's public works department. It's not by planning, so I don't know. The cost is off the top of my head. But that was a requirement. And in coordination with Caltrans, right, that can't just be everything decided by the city for Calaveras Boulevard. Also... what was the other part of your question um the no i was wondering oh sorry i'm sorry sorry the vmt study yes um so the city in 2022 has adopted the city's overall transportation guidelines and that sets the screening thresholds for vmt under sequa and it also you know sets force when when is a separate project specific transportation operation analysis report is required it's um you know prepared in tandem with some of the county's kind of thresholds for transportation. And so as part of that process and also, for example, like we discussed, the CEQA checklist was tearing off of the Gateway plans, subsequent EIR that had a lot of analysis under that and was assessed under that. The project didn't trip the VMT thresholds to require its own project report, but it did require the TOA report. So that was included as an attachment and that kind of helps inform, you know, the the off-street public improvements that the engineering division and the applicant have been coordinating together with and have agreed upon, right? So some of that was resurfacing on Valley Way, the new sidewalks, and they've been back and forth on some other things, but it might also include future improvements to the infrastructure for the streetlights nearby. So there's a lot of stuff that's studied now, but it will be studied in detail during the construction level.

So you're not concerned about the overall traffic?

We are concerned, but we evaluated per state, local, and federal regulation. So that's what was determined. We also have a traffic review team under engineering. They did not find any issues with the proposed layout of the design.

What about impact on the local schools? Kids will have to go to elementary school and different levels of school. So won't that, I mean, probably schools are already filled up in that area, right?

We did actually discuss this potential project with the MUSD superintendent, Cheryl, last name, Cheryl. So she did say that the schools immediately right there aren't impacted. And they also the project will be required separately to pay MUSD the school's impact fee. It's not it's collected by the school district and the school district is a state agency, not city. So we don't collect it on behalf of them. But it is something that they will be required to pay based on the current fee.

No, I'm sorry. Maybe I didn't understand. So they are required to pay is one thing, but how will the school accommodate all the additional kids?

They have determined that they have enough capacity in that surrounding area of the school districts to accommodate. And part of that impact fee for the school district is that they're supposed to, you know, with that money, decide how to, you know, maybe change any of their facilities, so.

So it was considered and the conclusion was that it will be managed somehow, right?

Yeah, the school district had no concern about this project coming in with this number of units to accommodate. The schools right there don't have a capacity issue. And like we said, it's already a requirement through the process that they have to pay the school district, the school's impact fee. But it's not included here because it's not collected by the city. It's a separate agency, so.

Trash enclosure. That seems to be one of the focus areas. So how many trash containers you will actually have, first of all?

Within the enclosure?

I said how many trash containers you will have to accommodate all the trash that will be generally created by the residents.

Yeah, we have a waste management plan that our trash consultant prepared that I'm happy to share after this meeting as a follow-up to give you more information on what's in the enclosure. I believe there will be one large compactor as well as a compactor for recycling and a compost area. And all of that's sized by calculations done by our trash management consultant to make sure that there's enough capacity for the residents given the pickup schedule with the valet trash and with Recology. So we did a detailed analysis to make sure that the enclosure is properly sized and properly serviced based on the number of residents in the community. And again, I'm happy to share that.

I'm coming from, you know, in my neighborhood there are only 11 homes and we have trash containers outside our gate. And that gets filled up just with 11 families. And here you're talking about 134. And of course, we only have pick-up service once a week. Maybe you'll have daily, maybe twice a day. I don't know. But it'll be a tough challenge to manage in all the trash, unless you have multiple containers and practically daily service.

Yes, I believe we have. I can't remember the exact frequency. Again, it's in the report that I'm happy to share with you. It will be more frequent than your standard pickup. And then the valet trash service helps manage the flow of trash. So residents get into a cadence with the service where they place the trash outside of their doors so it's not overflowing in the bins sitting there until the next pickup time. The service goes around with a much smaller vehicle, kind of like a a golf cart caddy, they pick up the trash from all the residents doors and then bring it to the trash enclosure at a timed sequence with the larger trash pickup for the community. So we found it really helps manage the flow of trash and ensure that the enclosure stays clean and isn't overflowing because residents aren't bringing their own trash there. It's coordinated with pickup times and it's managed by a professional service.

The professional service is part of the HOA.

Correct.

Correct. Is there any gate? Is this a gated community? Is there a plan to have a gated community?

We're not planning a gate, no.

OK. OK. Coming back to the original conditions of approval that you want to add or change, modify, and Attorney Creech gave the response, can we get into that? Can you respond to what he said that

know it's going to be a challenge to accept any of your your changes so let's discuss that i think that's a legal point is important yeah of course and um as i mentioned it's always a scramble to get here i unfortunately haven't had the opportunity to sit down with the city attorney and review his concerns very busy man very packed schedule so between Sunday when we received the condition or Saturday when we received the conditions to today with the holiday weekend, we just haven't had a chance to collaborate on the language. And this all came together quite quickly. However, I hear your concerns and I appreciate the clarifications on a few items. Our Land Use Council drafted the SB 330 language based on language that has been accepted by other cities in the past and we've worked with many cities on SB 330 projects. I understand the concerns were more than open to modifying the language based on the points that you raised to align with So we are mutually aligned on SB 330 and make sure there are no nuances that are missed in the condition we wrote. Again, we just kind of ran out of time to go through that back and forth that we typically would on conditions to make sure that everybody is comfortable with the exact words in every condition. But the principle of the condition is what we feel like is most important to include the specific nuances of the words I think we could easily work through with the city attorney's office and staff.

Okay, so we at Planning Commission will not be accepting this condition because it's all legalistic and we don't feel very confident in discussing or approving one way or the other. So we'll say that you work with the city attorney's office before you go to the city council and iron that out, right?

Yeah, I think that's acceptable. But again, it's not the meat of our discussion. It's just something that came up in our last minute review. And we're more than willing to work with staff in the city attorney's office in between now and city council to iron out any language that we feel like is still appropriate to include.

Okay, that's good. Again, coming back to one of the residents who gave those four areas of concern, I understand three are already pretty much addressed. Those are easy ones. The only one which we're still debating is the trash location. The other three are fully complied with. I mean, you're going to take care of them?

I believe he still had some concerns about three or four trees along the fence line yeah and we're going to look into those a bit further. We have to meet a minimum tree replacement requirements so again it's a bit of a puzzle figuring out. If those trees aren't there, where else can they go, they also do provide some aesthetic benefit to the Community into our residents, so we want to make sure that that's not lost. But I completely hear the residents' concern, and we will try our best to resolve it. We just received the comment on Monday and, again, didn't have time to come to a complete, well-thought-out response by today.

When you say try your best to resolve, that kind of worries me. That's not a commitment by any means.

Oh, no, I hear you. So we will coordinate with our landscape consultant, our civil consultant, and the city to make sure we are still meeting mandatory objective code requirements while hopefully finding a new home for these trees. However, there are a couple considerations at play that I need to vet through our design team before I can come back to the resident and give a more complete response that we've thoroughly vetted.

»» And then there was that IV issue.

»» Yes, we've removed the IV.

»» It's kind of a no-brainer, I think.

»» Yes, and we totally hear everyone's concerns.

»» Then there was high voltage equipment. I'm sure you removed that, right?

Sorry, one more time.

High voltage equipment is lying.

Yes, that's being removed, and we're not planning on installing any other PG&E equipment along that fence line.

So as far as going back to trash location, we strongly recommend that you actually move the location, because I think that's very too close to the neighboring community. I know that's going to be a challenge, because you didn't give a firm answer that you're going to move it. But that's our list. It's my recommendation that it should be moved. I mean, everybody else kind of expects concern. But you're saying that, again, one of those things you will try to do your best, but you're not committing.

Like I said, we worked with staff on this pretty extensively. And it's meeting mandatory objective. The current location is meeting mandatory objective requirements. The waiver takes into consideration certain requirements from the fire department. and engineering departments. So we, again, are balancing a lot of different considerations here. As Christina mentioned, there is currently a trash enclosure in this location. This one will be much more extensively designed, include drainage. It includes a roof. It'll be serviced by a professional company. And there are certain turning radiuses as well as engineering concerns that factor into the location of the trash enclosure. And I can't, I'm not an engineer or a traffic consultant myself, so I can't give you those responses on the fly. However, I can say that we are meeting mandatory objective standards for which we reviewed with staff.

Yeah, and also just quickly add, sorry, that the... Even though the project is providing 60 guest parking cells, that's actually, you know, considering that it's a cul-de-sac, right, and not a lot of, you know, free public street parking next door, that could be limited, right, by project to scale, and, right, a lot of these new housing projects that are coming in, a big concern about with the future residents around it is the lack of parking, especially guest parking. But actually, even though they are providing 60 and the code required 45, the state density bonus law actually would supersede potentially our requirements. They actually require zero guest parking stalls. And generally, many projects barely provide any guest parking. They could have provided zero, actually. And that would have been required for us to approve that that was included. But I think we have to consider that a lot of these housing developments, the big concern is the lack of parking. It's complicated with the state versus local requirements because they're slowly taking away local requirements away. But I think 60 guest parking is a lot better than zero or 45.

So on a side question, your foundation, You know, I kind of drove around that area today, and you have a lot of nonprofits who reside there. So do they get any special benefits as nonprofits to be a tenant in that complex?

Yes, and I can go into that in more detail. They did receive, we had on-site staff that supported the nonprofits in the center. And there are some certain cost benefits that we provide through the center. All of the nonprofits that were previously housed there were given grants to relocate their space between $20,000 and $50,000. And our onsite team worked with them extensively to find new spaces. A few of them relocated to other nonprofit centers in our portfolio, like our center in San Jose. which they would get the same level of service. And then all of the previous tenants can continue to use the support spaces in our nonprofit centers in San Jose, Palo Alto, and Redwood City, like conference rooms and meeting spaces and things like that, which we found was one of the biggest benefits of the nonprofit centers because those spaces are expensive if a tenant were to go find that space on their own because they're large and you have to pay for the square footage. But They're provided as an amenity to the tenants in our nonprofit centers.

So you're removing all of the nonprofit businesses out of there? I mean, you're completely redoing the whole complex, right?

Correct. Correct. All of the existing buildings will be demolished. All of the tenants that were previously in the center have already relocated. They vacated their spaces at the end of 2025. So it's currently vacant now.

Okay. Thank you. So, you know, overall, I think even though we're asking a lot of questions, it is going to be a good addition to the community, to Milpitas. It certainly will beef up that area. It's kind of, you know, I mean, especially if you come close to even the drawings you have provided, it's going to be a very nice area, nice locality, and certainly a good addition to Milpitas. So we're not saying that this whole project doesn't make any sense, right? Just trying to pick on a few things here and there.

Oh, not the green. I was going to say, we appreciate all the questions. All of the questions from you all make us better developers on this project and the next ones. We love coming to meetings like this. There are so many fewer opportunities to interact with you all post-COVID. So we really welcome the feedback and thank you for your time.

Are there any comments, additional comments for public hearing?

I've received no speaker cards for this project, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Is there anybody from public here who wants to speak on this item? button.

Hi, my name is Harshad. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I think one of my communication has been discussed here. And thank you for doing that. Thank you for considering that. So I'm the neighbor who's living right next to the property. And I had those concerns. and I understand that trash is already there and that itself is a concern that is and given that the larger number of units are coming up it has become even more accelerated concern and that is why we have raised that so I want city to it will be I will be very glad if city can consider that and help plan this better one more thing I noticed when I came here that there were communication being sent to the to the residents but as a resident i checked with my wife also we have not received any such communication i checked with the neighbor also and they have not received any such communication from the separator group we received this card this card is from the city of milpitas thank you for sending us this card again we received two of this for the change of schedule also and because of this we got to know about this project first time so another thing my wife runs a daycare over there there are small kids which are like two or three years of age and because of this trash having so close it has a lot of pest related or animal related concern but animal go into the trash they take the foods and they spread it across and sometimes it ends up into my property also and at that time even though we are watching kids but kids have a tendency to pick up whatever they can find and then they sometimes they just use it or touch even with their touch their hands and then they use that hand to touch their faces or tongue or something so we are concerned about those also uh so it is uh it will be great if we if this trash can be relocated some other location especially away from the resident property lines thank you thank you i think mrs patel wants to say something

Thank you. My English is not that good. So the concern is about trees also, the pine trees. Can I explain in Gujarati so he can explain in English?

Yes, you're allowed to do that. Also, for our timekeeping, they get double the amount of time for translation.

So I can start? Can I get a pine tree? Sticks. Her concern is currently there are four large pine trees.

And those pine trees, the leaves fall and sometimes they are green. So the kids when they play around, they tend to take some of the leaves and try to pull it and it scratches their fingers. And some of the time parents also have complained about it. And she does the daily cleaning. in that area, but still, during the day throughout the day, it keeps on because they are significantly large, they keep on falling regularly.

Yeah, I understand pine trees do shed shed a lot. Yeah. So then I think it's being addressed, they understand they will do their best to get, you know, remove those trees is what I understand.

Her another concern is in the new design, the number of trees are again like four in that space. And she's concerned about the same problem again that things might fall on and again it can risk children's. So her request is to if those trees can be relocated or sized down below the fence level so that such a risk doesn't arise.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Are there any other comments from the public? Anybody else? Okay. So with that, are there any additional comments or questions from the commissioners?

Do you have any questions? Go ahead.

Mr. Calkins.

Yeah.

Mine was more of just a statement. I live in a community where there's a big wall because it's relatively close to the freeway. And I would suggest the vines on there. Some people just like to put their initials on walls if it's blank like that. So the vines are a good deterrent for those kind of things. From me to you. Thanks.

Yeah. I just wanted to know if the project is all electric or gas or solar.

we have a problem with this gas coming up in this area and there's a government regulation so many things going on of course the project is all electric um i'm not 100 sure on the solar but i believe there is a solar requirement for town homes um that's code mandated so the project would obviously meet any code mandated solar um but it is all electric and there's no gas perfect thank you and uh another thing uh

You helped, I read somewhere that you helped to relocate your tenants also and you're helping them. Thank you very much. Not a lot of people do that. Deeply appreciate that.

Yeah, of course. We wanted to make sure we were handling this process with care as the center has been in Milpitas since the early 2000s, like I said. So we wanted to make sure that the organizations that are supporting the community continue to thrive and that we're there for support regardless of whether They're housed in one of our centers or elsewhere in the community. Our philanthropies team does amazing work, and I'm happy to talk about that with you all outside of this meeting or introduce you to members of our philanthropies team so you can learn more about what they do. But they really enjoyed working in the center. Our team took great pride in it. Like I said, it was the first one. So we're hoping to continue that work just without a real estate footprint here.

Thank you. My final question will be coming back to the garbage thing. I saw that area. That area is known to me. And all of them, there was no residence. There were only offices in that 600 Valley Way. Those buildings were office buildings, and there's no tenant now, as you said. So basically, the trash is dry trash when there are office buildings. There's hardly any wet trash over there. So when I pointed out that, my concern was with the over 350 to 400 people moving into that area. And there will be a lot of wet trash and dry trash, so more of wet. So that was the reason if something can be done to ease out the concern of the nearby residents, it will be very much appreciated.

yeah well we'll look into it with our team like i said i'm happy to share our waste management plan which goes into much more detail than i can share off the top of my head on the number of pickups how the valley trash service works and how they help manage the different kinds of trash and waste streams coming from the community um we were very concerned because this is always an issue in communities and springing in a professional service to manage it. We've just found this to be very successful in similar communities. So I can give you our waste management plan some more information on the valley trash service and then we'll look at the location one more time with staff to see if there's anything we can do. But like Christina mentioned, it's kind of a policy trade off when we're trying to meet all these different requirements. And eventually something has to, everything has to land in a home. And this is the home that the trash enclosure landed in. But of course, we will continue the conversation.

And thank you for the parking, the extra 60 parkings. You could have not given even one parking. I appreciate that also. A lot of people don't do that. Of course.

And we've tried to maintain that through this puzzle to make sure we're providing as much parking on site as we can.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Any other questions or comments?

I do want to follow up on the comment from Mr. Patel about not receiving the outreach postcards from the developer. Do you have any comment on that?

We received the mailing list from the city. I can't remember the exact radius, but I believe it was 500 feet and mailed postcards to all of those addresses. Unfortunately, I'm not I can't control the post service once those postcards leave our hands, so I'm not sure if Mr. Patel received his postcard or not. We communicated with Christina regularly when we mailed the postcards. She approved kind of the proof, and then we sent her an email once we mailed them using the mailing list that she provided. I'm sure all that communication can be provided. But we're we apologize that some postcards might have gotten lost in the mail. That's obviously not our intent. And we'd love any neighborhood feedback that's that neighbors are wanting to share.

And Chris Christina helped me understand if the distance guidelines that was given to the developer for outreach is the same distance that our city is using for this public hearing noticing.

Um, yes, it should be the same radius. And also, so that was actually an applicant initiated community meeting, but actually, you know, within the city zoning ordinance, you know, it is very common that, you know, people will say they didn't receive a postcard and it's not easy to track, right? I have a hundred to a thousand postcards, but I would say also within the zoning ordinance, um, and the procedures D two zero four zero, um, five, um, it talks about, you know, um,

I keep losing it, sorry.

It does state that, this is actually, if it was, for example, the city's, like a city-initiated public hearing notice, it says, failure to receive notice, the validity of the proceeding shall not be affected by the failure of any property owner, resident, or organization to receive notice. We know it's complicated, but we're following the, you know, what's required by state law. You know, for different privacy reasons, we don't have access to everyone's cell phone number, emails, right, to do that kind of notice, but maybe in a new world, so.

But it's at least the same radius and the same address list that was shared with the developer.

I think actually, potentially, it was even a bigger radius at the time because it was under the previous zoning code and before it became impacted into the specific plan area. So that was... But I mean, still, right, we have to follow procedures based on the current adopted regulations at the time, so...

All right.

Thank you. We would suggest to anyone else listening out there that, you know, if you do have access to the Internet, there's a way to subscribe to the city's, you know, news blast when we do release different agendas and those kind of postings. So thank you.

Thank you. With that, I'd like to close the public hearing. And now, is there any motion to recommend this project to the city council. Commissioner Calkins.

Yes, sir. I would like to propose a motion to adopt resolution number 26-009 with the clerical revision to the condition of approval number 76 with the photometric analysis recommending the city council approve The site development permit number SD 24 dashes 0005 vesting tentative map number mt 24 dash 0002 entity bonus permit number db to four dash 0001 and environmental assessment number EA 24 dash 0003 subject to the findings and conditions of approval.

Is there a second?

This is not a direct second. I wanted to ask city attorney, how can we include recommendation that the applicant follow through with some of the recommendations that we have discussed here, among which including working with the city attorney on the language of several conditions that they have concerns about, as well as re-evaluating with city staff on any possible relocation of the trash enclosure, as well as evaluating on the tree removal. So how do we, if it's possible to include some of these concerns that needs follow up?

So there are a few different points there. The commission is allowed to impose additional conditions of approval. However, the commission may not be in a position to want to impose those additional conditions tonight. Those could be the applicant's proposed conditions because you don't feel like that you want to add those other conditions. In terms of relocating, adding a condition, for instance, to relocate the trash enclosure or to the applicant to seek out removal of those additional trees. Those may present difficult issues for imposing that condition because the location of the trash enclosure, and particularly it's being governed by our waiver under state density bonus law, which the applicant may be entitled to if they can show that it would physically preclude them from being able to develop the property at the densities allowed under state density bonus law. Similarly for the trees. Tree removals are governed by our tree removal ordinance. The Public Works Department ultimately has authority over that. And trees, particularly of the size that these trees are, may have special requirements that if not necessary for the development being constructed, their removal isn't necessary for the buildings. It's just desired. There may be impediments to removing trees of this size and maturity. So what I might suggest to you is the commission is always able to provide feedback. separate and apart from conditions of approval. And that feedback can be conveyed to the city council at the time that the planning commission's recommendation comes up to them. So for instance, if what you're hearing tonight you would like to hear more information to be really clear that there's not a way to accommodate this trash enclosure and its location on the property other than with the request waiver that truly is a physical impediment and that you would like to see the app can be able to present greater factual information to demonstrate that to the city council that's something that can be conveyed as part of feedback along with it similarly if your feedback is that these trees that are there determining that the neighbors have had concerns about that the app can be able to see if that is part of their proposal and to review it with the public works department present information of that when it comes to the city council if they have revisions on it those are the kind of feedback that you could say separate apart from how you condition the project how you approve the project saying staff please convey to the city council that we believe that there may be additional and more information that can be provided to justify these things and that we have told the applicant to work forward um with trying to develop that information prior to the city council's hearing it's the that would be a process that you'd use if you've heard enough information to be able to recommend as proposed but you believe that the project could benefit from development of a further record before a final hearing before the state council okay so given that i like to recommend that um

This feedback you're talking about with respect to the trees, with respect to trash enclosure, and with respect to also streamlining or agreeing on the additional terms, conditions of approval that brought up by the applicant to resolve those with the city attorney Creech before it goes to city council. So I would commend that this feedback be included in the minutes of the meeting. But perhaps that would be a good way to document. And the feedback is we're not really adding conditions of approval. And so once this makes sure that it's part of the minutes, I think that will probably take care of it.

And if possible, include that in your presentation so it becomes very clear that these are some of the concern areas and how, if there is any follow-up, you can follow up on these. Thank you.

so as i think that what we're going on is we have a motion by commissioner caulkins but i think you're proposing is is that you might have an additional motion after that motion is resolved to have the minutes reflect something is that what i'm hearing whether you could call that parts of the same motion or additional motion i mean So it's frankly your choice if you want to include as Commissioner Calkins, then you would propose to him a friendly amendment that the minutes reflect the Planning Commission's recommendation that the applicant provide additional information to the City Council addressing the location of the trash enclosure, the trees, and the conditions of approval proposed. Is that, that's the friendly amendment you want to make, Commissioner Calkins? Commissioner Calkins, would you like to accept that friendly amendment to your motion?

I would actually like to make it just noted in the minutes, you know, for the meeting and make sure city council, ask city council to review the minutes and the discussions that we've had on it.

So I think that's what he's saying.

So his motion includes... Can we have a separate motion on what we discussed? Vice Chair and Chair, what we talked about right now. So we are all in new unionism to present it to the city council that we are all agreed on this.

So what I'm hearing then is Commissioner Calkins, you're not sure about the friendly amendment. So you would like to keep your motion as is. So then procedure of the question would be, is there a second?

Is there a second to Commissioner Calkins' motion? Is there a second?

I'll second.

Commissioner Calkins?

Aye.

Commissioner Wasti?

Aye.

Vice Chair Kong? Aye. Chair Gupta?

Aye.

Thank you.

So now we are looking for a motion. Yes?

Right. And then it sounds like that Commissioner Gupta, if I was understanding you correctly, you want to make a motion. that the minutes reflect the Planning Commission's recommendation that the applicant work with staff and provide further information demonstrating that the trash enclosures need to be located where they are and that not locating there would physically prevent them from being able to develop at the densities allowed under state density bonus law. that they work with the Public Works Department to determine if the four trees discussed can be removed and, if so, if that could be done as part of their design. And then that the three conditions of approval that were not adopted, that they work with staff to determine if those could be added in a factual basis prior to the hearing with State Council.

Okay, I make a motion to exactly replicate what Attorney Creech has said. I don't want to repeat that, so that's my motion.

I'll second that.

Commissioner Calkins?

Aye.

Commissioner Awasthi?

Aye.

Vice Chair Kong? Aye. Chair Gupta? Aye. Thank you.

Okay. So with that, recommendations made to the city council as we already went through two different motions. So this, with that we move on. This part of the item is done. This item is done. Now is there any new business? Any new business to talk about? Anybody wants to talk about new business?

Yeah, I do. In one of the letters we received today, it addresses all of us at our Milpitas.gov email addresses. How do we get access to our Milpitas.gov email addresses?

So at this time, your Milpitas.gov email addresses are solely used for calendaring because your calendars are made public are available to the public so they could see which meetings, should you have meetings with applicants or developers? Not for email purposes at the moment.

Gotcha. Okay. Just a side note on that, because city staff has actually emailed me at nopedis.gov, and then they said I didn't respond to their email. That's why I bring it up.

I could have Jay speak to our IT director on access moving forward.

Thanks. Okay. Is there any other new business? If not, this meeting is adjourned.

Take care.