Agenda packet — Milpitas City Council, April 19, 2022 (part 3 of 4)

455 E. Calaveras Blvd., Milpitas, CA 95035 www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov Superior Customer Service  Open Communication  Integrity and Accountability  Trust and Respect  Recognition and Celebration

MEMORANDUM

Planning Department
DATE: April 20, 2022

TO: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research

THROUGH: Steven G. McHarris, City Manager

FROM: Jay Lee, Principal Planner

SUBJECT: 2021 General Plan Annual Progress Report

Background
The City of Milpitas recently completed a comprehensive update of its General Plan, which was adopted by the Milpitas City Council on February 23, 2021. The General Plan Update, which establishes a new planning horizon of 2040, provides updated goals, policies, and implementation actions and addresses new planning issues such as air quality and energy, community design, and economic and fiscal sustainability.

Future development projects consistent with the General Plan Update will be eligible for CEQA streamlining through the Programmatic EIR. The General Plan Update also includes a detailed implementation plan, which provides the responsible department, priority, and timing for all implementation actions. The City will review implementation of the General Plan on an annual basis, amend the General Plan as necessary, and update the City’s Zoning Ordinance and planning documents to ensure consistency with the General Plan.

Government Code Section 65400 mandates that all cities and counties submit an annual report on the status of the General Plan and progress in its implementation to their legislative bodies, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), and the Housing and Community Development (HCD) by April 1 of each year.

The intent of this statute is to ensure that the General Plan directs land use decisions and remains an effective guide for the long-term physical development of a community. It also provides local jurisdictions a tool to assess their effectiveness in implementing the Plan’s long-term vision.

This report highlights the City’s progress toward implementation of the 2040 General Plan. On April 19, 2022, staff shared this report to City Council, which authorized the submittal of the report to HCD.

Implementation Highlights by General Plan Element
Below is the City’s annual progress toward implementation of the previous General Plan by element.

Land Use Element

 Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP) Update: The City is currently updating the TASP, which was adopted by the City Council in June 2008 and amended in December 2011. The TASP will be renamed the “Milpitas Metro Specific Plan” (MMSP) to reflect new boundaries and focused attention on strategic redevelopment sites, circulation, and access. The MMSP area is concentrated around the new Milpitas Transit Center, which includes Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency (VTA) Light Rail and bus stations. The MMSP area has enjoyed significant residential development in the recovery from the Great Recession of 2008. Of the 7,109 potential dwelling units approved in the original 2008 Plan, over 6,900 units have been entitled, constructed, occupied, or are currently within the entitlement process. However, only a small amount of the proposed commercial space is entitled or under construction to date, and there are nearly 170 acres within the area that have not been redeveloped. Furthermore, there are sites beyond the current boundary that could be annexed 341
Item # C10.

MEMORANDUM

into the MMSP area. The MMSP update will leverage these development opportunities to reinforce the 2008 TASP’s vision for a high-density urban neighborhood with a mix of land uses around the Transit Center. The update will also enhance pedestrian and bicycle access throughout the MMSP area to complement these high-density mixed-use neighborhoods. Policy LU 2-1 and Action LU-2a  Midtown Specific Plan Update: The City is currently updating the Midtown Specific Plan, which was adopted by the City Council in March 2002 and amended in November 2010. The Midtown Specific Plan will be renamed the “Milpitas Gateway/Main St. Specific Plan” (MGSP) to reflect new boundaries and a new strategic focus on key redevelopment areas. The MGSP area, which contains the original commercial and industrial core of the City, has undergone significant changes related to its growing role as a housing and employment center. Development activity over the past several years has included approval or construction of 1,200 multi-family residential units, reinvestment and upgrades to the Great Mall, and extension of VTA’s Tasman East Light Rail Transit (LRT) line. However, several vacant and underutilized sites remain within the MGSP area and there is significant potential for development and redevelopment. The MGSP will provide policies and guidelines and identify improvements to streetscapes, infrastructure, and public open spaces to facilitate this area’s transition into an attractive and economically vital district with a compatible mixture of residential, retail, office, and service-oriented commercial uses served by a viable multi-model transportation network. Policy LU 2-1 and Action LU- 2a
 Development Handbook, ADU Toolkit, and ADU Visualization Tool: The City completed several projects to streamline housing production and diversify its housing stock. The Development Handbook provides a comprehensive explanation of the development review process from beginning to end to educate the public and improve internal operations. The user-friendly Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Toolkit seeks to facilitate ADU production by informing, inspiring, and guiding homeowners through a full-service permit review. The web based ADU Visualization Tool complements the ADU Toolkit by allowing homeowners to visualize and design their own ADUs in compliance with local and State regulations. Policy LU 1-4
 Zoning Ordinance: The City’s Zoning Ordinance is one of the primary implementation tools for the Land Use Element goals and policies. A Zoning Map, consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map, is also part of the Zoning Ordinance. Together, the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map are used to identify the specific types of use, intensity, and development standards applicable to given parcels or areas of land. The City ensures that amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map are consistent with the Land Use Element, and the City plans to initiate a comprehensive update to the Zoning Ordinance in early 2023 to ensure consistency with the new General Plan. The City limits the number of amendments to the General Plan to four per year and ensures that amendments fulfill the City’s broader objectives and benefits the community at large in keeping with Guiding Principle 2-a-G-

11. Policies LU 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, and 5-7 and Actions LU-1d, LU-5a, LU-5b, and LU-5c

Circulation Element

 Bicycle/Pedestrian & Trails Plan: The City is currently updating the Trails and Bikeway Master Plans, which were adopted by City Council in June 1997 and June 2009 respectively. The Trails Master Plan describes and maps approximately 35 miles of trails, 6 miles of which have been built. The Bikeway Master Plan recommends bicycling projects with cost estimates and priorities for implementation, identifies funding sources, and provides design guidelines with best practices for implementing bikeways. The Bicycle/Pedestrian & Trails Plan, which will be completed this summer, will identify gaps in the trail, pedestrian, and bicycle networks and provide recommendations to expand existing 342
Item # C10.

MEMORANDUM

networks, increase safety and accessibility for all users, support economic development, and enhance the quality of life for area residents. The update will also evaluate bicycle/scooter share programs, identify priorities, and recommend improvements. Policies CIR 2-1, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4- 8, 4-9, and 4-10 and Actions CIR-4a, CIR-4b, CIR-4c, CIR-4g, CIR-4h, and CIR-4i  Development Review and Traffic Impact Fees: As part of its development review process, the City requires private development projects to implement traffic mitigation measures to address potential impacts and deficiencies created by the project and identified in the transportation impact analysis.

Required mitigation measures include improvements to transportation infrastructure and transportation demand management (TDM) programs. Additionally, the City collects both citywide and area-specific traffic impact fees to fund and construct transportation improvements. Furthermore, the VTA serves as the Congestion Management Agency for Santa Clara County and maintains the County’s Congestion Management Program (CMP), which includes several intersections within Milpitas. Although traffic congestion is no longer considered a potentially significant impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Senate Bill (S.B.) 743, the City will continue to utilize level-of- service (LOS) analysis to address local traffic congestion while transitioning to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the new metric for assessing transportation impacts under CEQA. Policies CIR 1-9, 1-10, and 1-11 and Actions CIR-1l, CIR-1m, CIR-1n, CIR-1o, CIR-4k, CIR-4l, and CIR-7b  Citywide VMT Policy: The City adopted a citywide VMT policy to implement Senate Bill 743 and establish the methodology for analyzing transportation impacts under CEQA. The policy facilitates the buildout of the General Plan and supports new development in suitable areas near transit and mixed- use neighborhoods. The policy will help the City move away from auto-dependency and prioritize multimodal improvements to create a balanced and accessible transportation network that meets the needs of all users. Policies CIR 1-2 and 1-8 and Action CIR-1c  Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Consistent with the Circulation Element goals and policies, the City also made significant investment in transportation infrastructure and safety improvements through its CIP, which is updated every year. The significant transportation-related projects are discussed below.
o Enhanced Crosswalk Striping & Beacons: This project provides high visibility crosswalk striping and pedestrian actuated flashing beacons to facilitate safer pedestrian crossings at high vehicle and pedestrian volume intersections along school and bike routes and in residential areas. 16 beacons were installed at various locations throughout the City. The City also installed radar speed feedback signs as a traffic calming measure.
o Street Resurfacing Program: This annual program provides for roadway pavement repair, rehabilitation, and/or reconstruction. The program includes replacement and upgrade of curb, gutter, driveway, and sidewalk. The program also includes implementation of Class II bike lanes and Class III bike route facilities as described in the City’s Bikeway Master Plan. o ADA Curb Ramp Transition Program: This annual program involves citywide replacement or upgrade of existing curb ramps to current standard Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant ramps. The program also includes construction of segments of new sidewalk to close gaps and allow the City to be eligible for future Federal transportation aid funds. o S. Milpitas Blvd. Vehicle Bridge at Penitencia Creek: Design of the project and the associated CEQA analysis is underway. The project will provide a vehicular bridge over Penitencia Creek at the end of the new S. Milpitas Blvd. Extension. The vehicular bridge is part of the TASP 343
Item # C10.

MEMORANDUM

circulation infrastructure improvement to provide safe and convenient pedestrian connectivity within the TASP area.
o Montague Pedestrian Overcrossings: These projects will provide a pedestrian overcrossing over Montague Expressway at Piper Drive and the east levee of Penitencia Creek. The overcrossing at Piper Drive is complete and the overcrossing at Penitencia Creek is in the design phase.

These projects are part of the TASP circulation infrastructure improvements to provide safe and convenient pedestrian connectivity within the TASP area.

Policies CIR 1-8, 2-1, and 2-2 and Actions CIR-7c

Community Design

 Objective Design Standards: The City initiated work on the Objective Design Standards, which will provide clear and implementable design criteria for all new residential and mixed-use developments throughout the City. The Objective Design Standards will streamline housing approvals, comply with recent State legislation requiring objective and quantifiable design guidelines, and ensure that new residential development protects and improves the character of existing neighborhoods. Policies CD 1- 1, 1-2, 1-6, 2-1, 2-2, 2-4, 2-5, 2-7, 3-3, 3-5, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10. 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, and 5-8 and Actions CD-2b, CD-2c, CD-2d, CD-5a, and CD-5b
 Hillside Ordinance: The City’s Hillside Ordinance established the Hillside Combining District (Municipal Code Section XI-10-45.09), which promotes and encourages the orderly development of the hillside area of the City. The Hillside Ordinance provides regulations to ensure that development is in keeping with the natural character of the hillside, minimize grading of and alterations to hillsides, and address constraints associated with hillside development including geologic issues, slopes, access, and visibility. New developments in the Hillside Combining District are subject to these regulations and require review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council for compliance with the Hillside Site and Architectural Guidelines. Policies CD 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, 7-5, and 7-6 and Action CD- 7a
 Development Review: As part of the development review process, City staff reviews new development projects to ensure that new developments include excellent project design, high-quality architecture, public improvements to reinforce a sense of place, and preserve and enhance the community character. The City also requires private development projects to either install public art component that meets the requirements of Municipal Code Section XI-10-14 and is approved by the Arts Commission or pay an in-lieu fee to fund public art improvements throughout Milpitas. Policies CD 1-1, 1-2, 1-6, 2-1, 2-2, 2-4, 2-5, 2-7, 3-3, 3-5, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10. 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, and 5-8 and Actions CD-2b, CD-2c, CD-2d, CD-5a, and CD-5b

Economic Development

 Economic Development Strategy: In May 2020, the City adopted a new Economic Development Strategy (EDS) that will guide the City’s efforts over the next five years to grow the local economy and foster local economic health, diversity, and vibrancy. City Staff initiated work on the Innovation District Action Plan, which will provide specific actions to implement policies in the EDS related to the creation of an Innovation District. City staff also included tasks in the Gateway/Main St. Specific Plan scope of work to implement several EDS policies including a retail audit of the zoning code, retail strategies memo, property-based business improvement district, strategic property acquisition revenue fund, and 344
Item # C10.

MEMORANDUM

economic/scenario feasibility testing. Policies ED 1-1, 3-2, 3-3, and 4-2 and Actions ED-1c, ED-1d, ED-1j, ED-2a, ED-2c, ED-3c, ED-3f, ED-3h, and ED3i

Conservation & Sustainability Element

 Climate Action Plan (CAP): In compliance with Assembly Bill (A.B.) 32 and S.B. 375, the City adopted its CAP in May 2013. The CAP is designed to streamline environmental review of future development projects in the City, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). The CAP identifies an overall strategy, baseline emissions and forecasts, reduction measures, and implementation strategies to achieve the State-recommended greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction target of 15 percent below 2005 emission levels by 2020. The City is currently updating its CAP with new programs to meet the State’s new mid- and long-term statewide emissions targets (40 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050). Policies CON 1-3, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-10, 1-11, 1-13, and 7-13 and Actions CON-1a, CON-1g, and CON-1h  Cultural & Historic Preservation: The City continues to carry out its Cultural Resources Preservation Program as outlined in Chapter 4, Title XI of the Milpitas Municipal Code to identify and protect existing cultural and historic resources. City staff reviews requests to alter or demolish an existing cultural or historic resource for compliance with local, state, and federal historic preservation standards and forwards applications to the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Commission for a decision on whether the request meets the intent of the Cultural Resources Preservation Program. Additionally, projects subject to CEQA are analyzed for archaeological and paleontological impacts and mitigation measures are required as necessary. Policies CON 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, and 5-1 and Actions CON-4a and CON-4b
 Energy Use: As part of its development review process, the City requires new buildings to comply with the State’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings and offers expedited building permit processing for residential projects achieving Build It Green’s GreenPoint Rated standard and for commercial and industrial projects achieving the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver rating. Furthermore, in 2017, the City joined Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE), which is a community-owned agency serving Santa Clara County communities by acquiring and offering clean, carbon-free electricity. Policy CON 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3 and Actions CON- 1e and CON-1f

Utilities & Community Services

 Public Facilities and Utilities: The City maintains its public facilities and utilities to ensure that vital public services are available to its citizens. As part of its development review process, the City confirms that the development will be adequately served by public facilities and utilities by requiring public improvements when necessary and collecting development impact fees to defray all or a portion of the cost of public facilities and improvements necessary to serve the new development. A detailed discussion of the various public facilities and utilities is provided below. Several relevant topics including fire safety, parks and recreation, and stormwater are discussed in the implementation highlights for other General Plan elements, which provide more detailed policies regarding these topics. o Water Services: The City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) provides a framework for long term water planning to ensure adequate water supplies through the year 2040 and establishes a water use target that aids in meeting the State’s goal of reducing water use by 20 percent by 2020. The City is updating its Water Master Plan, which will be completed this 345
Item # C10.

MEMORANDUM

summer and guide the City’s decisions on water infrastructure investments over the next 20 years and incorporate the water needs associated with the TASP and Midtown Specific Plan updates. Following a Water Supply Augmentation Feasibility Report completed in 2015, the City has concentrated its CIP efforts in utilizing groundwater wells, expanding the existing recycled water supply delivery and treatment infrastructure, and continued conservation efforts. o Wastewater: The City is updating its Sewer Master Plan, which includes a summary of the City’s wastewater collection system, flow projections, an analysis of the system’s capacity, and a summary of the capacity improvements that are needed. The update, which will be completed this summer, will incorporate the sewer needs associated with the TASP and Midtown Specific Plan updates. The City’s Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) provides a plan to properly operate and maintain the sanitary sewer collection system. The SSMP aims to prevent sewer outflow, provide adequate capacity to convey peak flows. The City experiences very few sewer system overflows and the required system improvements have been incorporated into the CIP. o Police Protection: The City contains one police station with a Communications Center that coordinates information from 9-1-1 callers to responders in the field. The City is currently meeting its goal for response times to emergency calls of 3 minute or less. The adequacy of police services is also evaluated for any projects subject to CEQA. o Schools: Mabel Mattos Elementary School opened its doors to K-4 students with the start of the new school year in August 2018. With the completion of Phase II, the school will start serving grades K-5. The school will eventually serve grades K-6 and accommodate approximately 700 students.

Policies UCS 1-1, 1-4, 2-1, 2-3, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 3-1, 3-2, 8-1, and 8-15 and Actions UCS-1a, UCS-2a, UCS-c, and UCS-3a
 Stormwater & Drainage: The City participates in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP). The SCVURPPP and member agencies implement programs aimed at reducing pollutants in stormwater runoff and protecting water quality of the San Francisco Bay and Santa Clara Valley creeks and rivers. The City also requires post-construction stormwater controls on development projects as part of its obligations under Provision C.3 of the Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP). Furthermore, the City’s Storm Drain Master Plan identifies the capital improvements needed to maintain recommended levels of protection against stormwater runoff, which have been incorporated into the CIP. Policies UCS-4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, and 4-14 and Actions UCS-4a, UCS-4b, UCS-4c, UCS-4e, and UCS-4f
 Urban Growth Boundary: The City passed Measure I in November 2016 to continue the City’s urban growth boundary established by Measure Z in 1998, which was set to expire in 2018. The urban growth boundary, which limits development in Milpitas to the valley floor and the base of the foothills by prohibiting the City from providing services to new land use developments in the hillside area, will now continue through December 31, 2038. The City’s Urban Service Area boundary established by the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is coterminous with the City’s urban growth boundary. Policy UCS 1-6

Safety Element

 Development Review Process: One of the ways the City strives to minimize risk from geologic, fire, and flood hazards is through its development review process as discussed below. 346
Item # C10.

MEMORANDUM

o Seismic and Geologic Hazards: The City requires development projects in hillsides or fault zones to submit a geotechnical report, reviews the findings of the report, and conditions projects to adhere to the report’s recommendations. Projects subject to CEQA are also analyzed for potential geotechnical impacts and mitigation measures are required as necessary. o Fire Hazards: The Milpitas Fire Department reviews and inspects projects during the development review process to ensure that all new developments comply with the Uniform Fire Code and other local fire safety regulations.
o Flood Management: The City coordinates with the Santa Clara Valley Water District while reviewing development projects to ensure that buildings and structures are located, designed, and constructed in a manner that minimizes flood risks and complies with the City’s floodplain management regulations, which provide standards for any construction or other development within any area of special flood hazard.

Policies SA 1-1, 1-2, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5 and Actions SA-1a, SA-1b, SA-1d, SA- 1e, SA-2a, and SA-2c
 Fire Safety: The Fire Department operates four fire stations within its service area. The average response time in 2021 was 4 minutes, 48 seconds, which is slightly over the City’s response goal of 4 minutes. The City maintains its fire stations through regularly scheduled minor improvements. However, construction of the new Fire Station No. 2 is underway with an estimated completion timeline of Fall 2022. The Fire Department also performs routine fire inspections of existing buildings, structures, and properties in the City with the exception of single and multi-family dwellings in which the owner of the property resides. Policy SA 4-9 and Actions SA-3d, SA-3e, SA-4b, and SA-4c  Emergency Preparedness: The Milpitas Fire Department Office of Emergency Services (OES) coordinates the City’s preparedness efforts to mitigate against, plan for, respond to, and recover from natural disasters. The OES maintains the City’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), which provides a blueprint for emergency management within the City and requires the development of departmental Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). The City also partnered with Santa Clara County and other local jurisdictions to prepare the Santa Clara Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan, which is an updated multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan that assesses local hazard risks and recommends a tailored and coordinated mitigation strategy to improve the resiliency of the County. The OES actively implements the recommendations of these emergency plans by keeping the Emergency Operation Center in a state of readiness and training citizens in basic disaster response through the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT). Policies SA 3-4 and 3-5 and Actions SA-3a and SA-3b

Noise Element

 Development Review Process and Enforcement: As part of its development review process, the City conditions development projects to comply with the City’s noise regulations the Milpitas Municipal Code and noise compatibility standards in the Noise Element of the General Plan. Additionally, projects subject to CEQA are required to analyze potential noise impacts resulting from the project and mitigation measures are required to mitigate any significant noise impacts. The City’s Neighborhood Services Division and the Milpitas Police Department jointly enforce the City’s noise regulations, project conditions of approval, and CEQA mitigation measures to ensure compliance throughout the City.

Policies N 1-2, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, and N 1-8 and Actions N-1a, N-1b, N-1c, and N-1d  Specific Plan Updates: As part of both specific plan updates, the City is analyzing and considering the noise compatibility of existing and new land uses as it updates the zoning for these plan areas. The 347
Item # C10.

MEMORANDUM

new land use plans will incorporate appropriate buffers and transitions between incompatible land uses to minimize noise impacts. Policies N 1-1 and N 1-7

Parks, Recreation, & Open Space Element

 Parks & Recreation Master Plan Update: The City updated the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, which was originally adopted in 2008, to include City recreational facilities and parks in the TASP and Midtown areas. The update includes an existing conditions assessment of all parks and recreation facilities, public engagement and outreach, a strategic plan to provide high-quality accessible parks and recreation facilities, and a programming and growth assessment. Policies PROS 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3 and Action PROS-1c
 Park Dedication or In-Lieu Fee: As part of its development review process, the City requires private development projects to either dedicate land or pay a park in-lieu fee (based on project square footage) to fund improvements to parks and recreation facilities to meet the additional demand for such facilities resulting from new developments and achieve the goals and policies of the Recreation Master Plan.

Policies PROS 1-4 and 1-5 and Action PROS-1b
 Parks & Recreation Facilities Improvements: Consistent with the Open Space & Environmental Conservation Element goals and policies, the City also made significant investment in parks and recreation facilities through its CIP. The significant projects are discussed below. o Citywide Park Rehabilitation: The City assessed and rehabilitated citywide park playgrounds needing minor improvements. Minor improvements were completed for Calle Oriente, Cardoza, Dixon Landing, and Hillcrest Parks in 2021.
o Minor Sports Courts Rehabilitation: The program provides for the rehabilitation of one to two sports courts annually.
o Sports Fields Turf Rehabilitation Program: The program is ongoing and provides for turf rehabilitation at City sports fields. Work includes re-sodding, re-seeding, irrigation repairs, and other minor rehabilitations. In 2021, the baseball fields at Dixon Landing Park were replaced. o Park Renovations: The City completed the design of one neighborhood park (Sandalwood Park) and will begin construction in 2023. Improvements include a new picnic and playground area, ADA access and path improvements, a new restroom, and upgraded irrigation and landscaping. o New Parks: The City began design of one new park (Trade Zone/Montague Park – North) and construction of another new park (McCandless Park) is underway. Phase 1 (Park Core) of McCandless park is expected to be completed in Fall 2022 and Phase 2 (Sports Field) is expected to be completed in Winter 2023. These new parks will add approximately 9.5 acres of new parkland.

Policies PROS 1-8 and 1-9 and Action PROS-1a

Community Health & Wellness

 Smoke-Free Ordinance: The City adopted a Smoke-Free Ordinance to expand the smoke-free areas within Milpitas and protect Milpitas’ most vulnerable populations. The Ordinance prohibits smoking in outdoor dining areas, parks and trails, multi-unit housing and associated common areas, near entryways to buildings where smoking is prohibited, service areas, and at public events. Policies CHW 7-2
348
Item # C10.

MEMORANDUM

 Retail Tobacco Licensing Program: The City is currently developing a Retail Tobacco Licensing Program to require licenses for tobacco retailers in Milpitas. The program will allow the City to enforce local regulations and ensure that retailers are not selling tobacco products to the youth. New retailers will also be required to locate a minimum distance from existing retailers and sensitive land uses such as schools and parks to minimize the undue concentration of retailers and protect the youth. Policy CHW 7-3 and Action CHW-7b

Housing Element

 Annual Progress Report (APR): On March 30, 2022, staff presented the 2021 APR for the Housing Element and 2021 Housing Successor Agency Annual Report to City Council, which authorized the submittal of both reports to HCD.
 Housing Element Update: The City initiated the Housing Element Update for the sixth housing element cycle (2023-2031) to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) adopted by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).  Housing Opportunity Zones (HOZ) Overlay District: The City started work on implementing a HOZ Overlay District to provide zoning and financial incentives for affordable housing development in key opportunity areas throughout Milpitas. The goal of the HOZ Overlay District is to facilitate affordable and supportive housing for all and help address the ongoing housing crisis through innovative and effective incentive-based zoning.

Conclusion
This report documents the City’s recent progress in implementing the General Plan. The information contained herein will be forwarded in the form of a letter to OPR to serve as the City of Milpitas’s General Plan Progress Report for 2021.
349
Item # C10.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Receive an Update on the Emergency Replacement of Two (2) Boilers and Install of a Temporary Heating System for the Public Works, Information Technology, and Police Department Building and Determine that the Condition Continues to Constitute an Emergency (Staff Contact: Tony Ndah, Public Works Director, 408-586- 2602)
Category: Consent Calendar-Community Services and Sustainable Infrastructure

Meeting Date: 4/19/2022
Recommendation: (1) Receive an update on the emergency replacement of two (2) boilers and the installation of a temporary heating system for the Public Works, Police and Information Technology Department buildings; and (2) Determine by a four-fifths vote that the condition continues to constitute an emergency.

Background:

Pursuant to Public Contract Code section 22050 and the attached Council Resolution No. 9134, the Director of Public Works, in the case of emergency, may authorize a repair of a public facility and procure the work without giving notice for bids to let contracts. An emergency is defined as “a sudden, unexpected occurrence that poses a clear and imminent danger, requiring immediate action to prevent or mitigate the loss or impairment of life, health, property, or essential public services.” Additionally, State law requires the Public Works Director, as the City official with delegated authority to take emergency action, to report any emergency authorization and the reason(s) for the authorization to the City Council not later than seven days after the action, or at its next regularly scheduled meeting if that meeting will occur not later than 14 days after the action. Further, the Public Works Director is required to report why the emergency would not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids and the City Council is required to review the emergency action at every regularly scheduled meeting thereafter until the emergency repair is completed. The City Council shall continue to review the emergency action at every regularly scheduled meeting thereafter until the action is terminated. At each review, the City Council shall determine, by a four-fifths vote, whether there is a need to continue the action.

Analysis:

Consistent with applicable State law and Council Resolution, on April 1, 2022, the Public Works Director authorized h the City to contract with its existing HVAC maintenance contractor, Environmental Systems Inc. (ESI), for the replacement of two (2) boilers and the installation of a temporary heating system for the Public Works, Information Technology and Police Department buildings. Further, within the required time frame the Public Works Director informed the City Council via the Information Memorandum on April 8 regarding the emergency authorization, the reasons for the authorization, and the cost for repair and installation of a temporary heating system in the amount of $208,068.

Staff is recommending that the City Council determine, by a four-fifths vote, that there is a need to continue the emergency action declared by the Public Works Director. Staff will return to City Council with an update at every regularly scheduled City Council meeting until the emergency action is terminated. The estimated completion date for the installation of the new boilers is mid-June 2022.

Fiscal Impact:
350
Item # C11.

The estimated repair and temporary heating installation cost of $208,968 will be paid from the Unanticipated Expenditure Reserve.

California Environmental Quality Act:

The emergency repair work is exempt from CEQA, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities and 15302, Replacement or Reconstruction.

Recommendations:

1. Receive an update on the emergency replacement of two (2) boilers and the installation of a temporary heating system for the Public Works, Police and Information Technology Department buildings.

2. Determine by a four-fifths vote that the condition continues to constitute an emergency.

Attachment:

None
351
Item # C11.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Receive an Update on the Repair of Pump No. 3 at the Main Lift Sewer Pump Station and Authorize Staff to Pay Final Invoices to Koffler Electric Totaling $90,095.32 (Staff Contact: Tony Ndah, Public Works Director, 408-586-2602) Category: Consent Calendar-Community Services and Sustainable Infrastructure

Meeting Date: 4/19/2022
Recommendation: Receive an update on the emergency repair of Pump No. 3 at the Main Lift Sewer Pump Station.

Background:

State law allows the City Council to delegate authority to City staff to award emergency contracts for the repair or replacement of public facilities without seeking competitive bids. On September 2, 2008, the City Council approved Resolution 7779, delegating to the Public Works Director the authority to take emergency action and to let emergency contracts without giving notice soliciting competitive bids. On March 15, 2022, City Council approved Resolution No. 9134, amending Resolution No. 7779, providing further clarification on when the Public Works Director must first report to City Council on emergency actions and, upon termination of the emergency action, seek City Council approval to ratify the emergency contract.

Pursuant to Public Contract Code section 22050 and Council Resolution No. 9134, the Director of Public Works, in the case of emergency, may authorize a repair of a public facility and procure the work without giving notice for bids to let contracts. An emergency is defined as “a sudden, unexpected occurrence that poses a clear and imminent danger, requiring immediate action to prevent or mitigate the loss or impairment of life, health, property, or essential public services.” Additionally, State law requires the Public Works Director, as the City official with delegated authority to take emergency action, to report to the City Council at its next meeting the reasons why the emergency action was necessary and why the emergency would not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids along with reviewing the emergency action at every regularly scheduled meeting thereafter until the action is terminated. The City Council must review the emergency action and determine, by a four-fifths vote, that there is a need to continue the emergency action.

Per the foregoing, the Public Works Director authorized staff to execute a contract with Koffler Electrical (“Koffler”) on February 28, 2022 to complete the emergency repair of Pump No. 3 at the Main Lift Pump Station located at 1425 North McCarthy Boulevard. Pump No. 3 has been in service for 15 years at the Main Lift Sewer Pump Station and has exceeded its useful life. The Public Works Department had programmed the rebuild or replacement of Pump No. 3 in the FY21-22 Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”) budget, however Pump No. 3 failed before the project could be competitively bid. In order to keep the Main Lift Sewer Pump Station operating at design capacity and with working reserves that will be necessary during upcoming force main and San Jose Headworks construction projects, all four pumps need to be operational. In addition, current economic conditions escalated the cost and delivery time to purchase a new pump beyond that programmed in the CIP budget to replace the pump. A new pump is approximately $212,500.00 and would have required a lead time of twenty-four weeks. The cost to rebuild the pump is significantly lower than the cost to purchase a new pump. The emergency rebuild of Pump No. 3 cost $90,095.32 and only required a lead time of eight weeks. Because of the lower cost and shorter lead time to have the pump rebuilt instead of purchasing a new pump, the Public Works Department proceeded with rebuilding the pump.

352
Item # C12.

Analysis:

The Public Works Director determined the urgent need to rebuild the pump so that it could be put back into operation constituted an emergency because there was a clear and imminent danger, requiring immediate action to prevent or mitigate the loss or impairment of life, health, property, or essential public services and the emergency would not permit a delay by the competitive solicitation of bids.

In accordance with Public Contract Code section 22050 and pursuant to authority delegated by the City Council under Council Resolution No. 9134, amending Resolution No. 7779,the Public Works Director authorized Koffler Electrical to complete the rebuild of Pump No. 3 and executed a construction contract with Koffler on March 10, 2022. Koffler completed the pump rebuild on April 4, 2022 and reinstalled the pump at Main Lift Sewer Pump Station on April 5, 2022. Accordingly, the Public Works Director terminated the emergency action. The total cost for the repair is $90,095.32.

Fiscal Impact:

The repair cost of $90,095.32 has been encumbered and there are sufficient funds available within CIP 6124 for Sewer Pump Station Rehabilitation for the emergency work at Main Lift Sewer Pump Station. CIP6124 funding source comes from the Sewer Infrastructure Fund. As of April 11, 2022, the balance for CIP 6124 is $105,107.

California Environmental Quality Act:

The emergency repair work is exempt from CEQA, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities and 15302, Replacement or Reconstruction.

Recommendations:

Receive an update on the emergency repair of Pump No. 3 at the Main Lift Sewer Pump Station.

Attachment:

None
353
Item # C12.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Agreement with Best, Best & Krieger, LLP for Specialized/Supplemental Legal Services (Staff Contact: Ashwini Kantak, Assistant City Manager, 408-586-3053) Category: Consent Calendar-Leadership and Support Services Meeting
Date:
4/19/2022
Recommendation: Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement for specialized/supplemental legal services with Best Best & Krieger LLP.

Background:

At the September 22, 2015, Special City Council Meeting, the City Council approved the Legal Services Agreement with the law firm Best, Best & Krieger, LLP (BBK) for City Attorney services. Since 2015 BBK has been providing City Attorney and specialized legal services to the City.

At the June 22, 2021, City Council meeting Council provided direction to change the staffing model for legal services and to transition to an in-house City Attorney. Subsequently the City Council provided direction on the recruitment process and the recruitment for the City Attorney was conducted from late 2021 to early 2022. An in-house City Attorney contract is agendized for the April 19, 2022, City Council meeting for Council consideration.

Analysis:

The new in-house City Attorney will begin work on April 26, 2022. However, at this time, there is no other City Attorney staff to support the office. Additionally, it is anticipated that even with the potential addition of some in- house City Attorney staffing, the in-house resources will not be adequate to provide all of the legal services required to support complex operations and programs in a full-service city like Milpitas. Thus, contractual services for specialized and supplemental services are anticipated as a key component of this service delivery model.

In addition to the City Attorney from BBK, staff has been working with several attorneys from BBK on matters related to planning, labor, utilities, public safety, finance, risk management, housing, technology, capital projects, and many other programs and contracts. In order to minimize disruption to the ongoing work and ensure a smooth transition while the City switches the service delivery model for legal services, staff is recommending entering into a contract for specialized and supplemental services with BBK.

The draft agreement includes hourly rates for various types of legal services and the exact scope will depend on the legal support needed. The hourly rates have been increased by approximately $5 for special and general services to address the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase that would have otherwise gone into effect July 2022, through the current agreement. With this adjustment in hourly rates, there will be no additional CPI increase until July 2023. The rate for General Legal Services is $255/hour. Rates for Code Enforcement and Public Records Act work have been reduced from $325/hour to $275/hour and from $250/hour to $210/hour, respectively.

The contract is effective until terminated by either party as allowed in the agreement. Once the new in-house City Attorney has had time to evaluate the City’s legal needs and develop an in-house staffing plan, in coordination with the City Council, he may bring forward other recommendations for specialized and/or supplemental legal services in the future.

354
Item # C13.

Policy Alternative:

Alternative 1: Do not approve and authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with BBK

Pros: None.

Cons: The City will not be able to have adequate legal support for its operations and programs.

Reason not recommended: Legal services are a vital component of the City’s ability to offer services and a contract with BBK to provide those services is necessary.

Fiscal Impact:

The FY 2021-2022 Adopted Budget includes $1.1 million for the City Attorney’s office. The proposed FY 2022- 2023 Budget will include funding for both in-house staffing and contractual services and may be adjusted as needed once the in-house City Attorney is able to finalize the staffing plan.

California Environmental Quality Act:

Not applicable to this item.

Recommendations:

Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement for specialized/supplemental legal services with Best Best & Krieger LLP.

Attachments:

1. Draft Letter of Agreement with Best, Best & Krieger

355
Item # C13.
38077.00100\35021343.1
Bend OR
(541) 382-3011
Indian Wells
(760) 568-2611
Irvine
(949) 263-2600
Los Angeles
(213) 617-8100
Ontario
(909) 989-8584
2001 N. Main Street, Suite 390, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 977-3300 | Fax: (925) 977-1870 | www.bbklaw.com Riverside
(951) 686-1450
Sacramento
(916) 325-4000
San Diego
(619) 525-1300
Walnut Creek
(925) 977-3300
Washington, DC
(202) 785-0600
April 19, 2022
City of Milpitas
455 E. Calaveras Blvd.

Milpitas, CA 95035
Re: Agreement for Specialized and Supplemental Legal Services

ABOUT OUR REPRESENTATION
Best Best & Krieger LLP is pleased to represent the City of Milpitas (the “City”) with specialized and/or supplemental legal services. This letter constitutes our agreement setting the terms of our representation. If you want us to represent you and agree to the terms set forth in this letter, after you review the letter, please sign it and return the signed copy to us. If signed and returned to Best Best & Krieger LLP, we will take this to mean that any other agreements Best Best & Krieger LLP has with the City will automatically be terminated and this agreement shall control as of the date noted below in the signature line.

CONFIDENTIALITY AND ABSENCE OF CONFLICTS
An attorney-client relationship requires mutual trust between the client and the attorney. It is understood that communications exclusively between counsel and the client are confidential and protected by the attorney-client privilege.

To also assure mutuality of trust, we have maintained a conflict of interest index. The California Rules of Professional Conduct defines whether a past or present relationship with any party prevents us from representing the City Similarly, the City of Milpitas is and will be included in our list of clients to ensure we comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct with respect to our representation of the City.

As you know, Best Best & Krieger LLP has had a long standing relationship with the City of Milpitas. On that basis, we can continue to represent the City and have previously obtained waiver letters for any other work we do which may be adverse to the City. 356
Item # C13.
38077.00100\35021343.1
City of Milpitas
April 19, 2022

Page 2 ends

YOUR OBLIGATIONS ABOUT FEES AND BILLINGS
For all General Legal Services , including any City Attorney overflow work. General Legal Services shall include all services provided that are not otherwise specifically identified below as either Public Records Act, Code Enforcement, Special Legal Services, or Third Party Reimbursable Legal Services.

All Attorneys $255/hour
Paralegals, Clerks, Analysts $170/hour
For all Public Records Act work handled by the Advanced Record Center (ARC) at BB&K:

All professionals $210/hour
For all Code Enforcement work handled by the Comprehensive Code Enforcement team at BB&K:

All Attorneys $275/hour
Paralegals, Clerks, Analysts $170/hour
For all Special Legal Services which may include, litigation and formal administrative or other adjudicatory hearing matters, labor relations and employment matters, real estate matters, land acquisition and disposal matters (including pre-condemnation), successor agency and housing matters, taxes, fees and charges matters (e.g. Prop. 218 & Mitigation Fee Act), public construction disputes and complex public construction issues, non-routine contract negotiation matters (including non-BB&K model agreements and franchise agreements), non-routine land use and development matters (including general plan updates, Williamson Act issues, annexations and development agreements), environmental matters (e.g. CEQA, NEPA, endangered species), water law matters (e.g. water rights & quality), tax and ERISA related matters, toxic substances matters (e.g. CERCLA, RCRA), public utility matters (e.g. electric, natural gas, telecommunications, water, rail or transit that involve state or federal regulatory issues), renewable energy and energy efficiency project contracts and power purchase agreements, intergovernmental Relations and Advocacy efforts (e.g. legislative and regulatory representation) at the federal and state level, election law matters, including election law litigation, and other matters mutually agreed upon between BBK and the City Manager.

Partners and Of Counsels: $330/hour
Associates $275/hour
Paralegals, Clerks, Analysts $180/hour
For all Third Party Reimbursable Services:
357
Item # C13.
38077.00100\35021343.1
City of Milpitas
April 19, 2022

Page 3 ends

All professionals: The then current private hourly rate The billing policies are described in the memorandum attached to this letter, entitled “Best Best & Krieger LLP’s Billing Policies.” You should consider the Billing Policies memorandum part of this agreement as it binds both of us. For that reason, you should read it carefully.

The above rates will be adjusted annually using the cost of living index. At the start of the City’s fiscal year, beginning July 1, 2023 and every July thereafter during the term of this Agreement, rates shall be increased for the change in the cost of living for the most recently published twelve (12) month period, as shown by the U.S. Department of Labor in its All Urban Consumers Index set forth in the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA area (bi-monthly); provided, however, that such adjustment shall never be lower than zero percent (0%) nor more than seven percent (7%). In addition to the automatic rate increases, either BB&K or the Client may initiate consideration of a rate increase at any time

INSURANCE
We are also pleased to let you know that Best Best & Krieger LLP carries errors and omissions insurance with Lloyd’s of London. After a standard deductible, this insurance provides coverage beyond what is required by the State of California.

INDEMNITY
BB&K agrees to indemnify the City of Milpitas, its officers, employees and agents from any and all actions, suits, claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs, penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities (herein “claims or liabilities”) arising from the negligent acts or omissions of BB&K, except to the extent such claims or liabilities arise from the negligence or willful misconduct of the City of Milpitas, its officers, agents or employees.

In the event BB&K, its officers, agents or employees is made a party to any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against the City of Milpitas for such damages or other claims solely arising out of or in connection with the work, operation, or activities of the City of Milpitas hereunder, the City of Milpitas agrees to pay to BB&K, its officers, agents or employees legal costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by attorney, its officers, agents or employees in such action or proceeding.

CIVILITY IN LITIGATION
In litigation, courtesy is customarily honored with opposing counsel, such as extensions to file pleadings or responses to other deadlines. In our experience, the reciprocal extension of such courtesies saves our clients’ time and money. By signing this letter you will be confirming your approval of this practice in your case.
358
Item # C13.
38077.00100\35021343.1
City of Milpitas
April 19, 2022

Page 4 ends

HOW THIS AGREEMENT MAY BE TERMINATED
You, of course, have the right to end our services at any time. If you do so, you will be responsible for the payment of fees and costs accrued but not yet paid, plus reasonable fees and costs in transferring the case to you or your new counsel. By the same token, we reserve the right to terminate our services to you upon written notice, order of the court, or in accordance with our attached Billing Policies memorandum. This could happen if you fail to pay our fees and costs as agreed, fail to cooperate with us in this matter, or if we determine we cannot continue to represent you for ethical or practical concerns.

CLIENT FILE
If you do not request the return of your file, we will retain your file for five years. After five years, we may have your file destroyed. If you would like your file maintained for more than five years or returned, you must make separate arrangements with us.

THANK YOU
If you have any questions at any time about our services or billings, please do not hesitate to contact us.

If this letter meets with your approval, please sign and date it, and return the original to us.

Sincerely,

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
AGREED AND ACCEPTED:

By:

Dated:
359
Item # C13.
38077.00100\35021343.1
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP’S BILLING POLICIES
Our century of experience has shown that the
attorney-client relationship works best when there is mutual understanding about fees, expenses, billing and payment terms. Therefore, this statement is intended to explain our billing policies and procedures. Clients are encouraged to discuss with us any questions they have about these policies and procedures. Clients may direct specific questions about a bill to the attorney with whom the client works or to our Accounts Receivable Department
([email protected]). Any specific billing arrangements different from those set forth below will be confirmed in a separate written agreement between the client and the firm.

Invoice and Payment Options
Best Best & Krieger strives to meet our clients’
needs in terms of providing a wide variety of invoice types, delivery and payment options. Please indicate those needs including the preferred method of invoice delivery (Invoice via Email; or USPS). In addition,
[email protected] can provide a W-9 upon
request and discuss various accepted payment methods.

Fees for Professional Services
Unless a flat fee is set forth in our engagement letter with a client, our fees for the legal work we will undertake will be based in substantial part on time spent by personnel in our office on that client’s behalf. In special circumstances which will be discussed with the client and agreed upon in writing, fees will be based upon the novelty or difficulty of the matter, or the time or other special limitations imposed by the client.

Hourly rates are set to reflect the skill and
experience of the attorney or other legal personnel rendering services on the client’s behalf. All legal services are billed in one-tenth of an hour (0.10/hour) or six-minute
increments. Our attorneys are currently billed at rates from $235 to $850 per hour, and our administrative assistants, research assistants, municipal analysts, litigation analysts, paralegals, paraprofessionals and law clerks are billed at rates from $175 to $295 per hour for new work. These rates reflect the ranges in both our public and our private rates.

These hourly rates are reviewed annually to accommodate rising firm costs and to reflect changes in attorney status as lawyers attain new levels of legal experience. Any increases resulting from such reviews will be instituted automatically and will apply to each affected client, after advance notice.

Non-Attorney Personnel: BBK may employ the
services of non-attorney personnel under the supervision of a BBK attorney in order to perform services called for in the legal services agreement. The most common non-attorney personnel utilized are paralegals. Other types of non- attorney personnel include, but are not limited to, case clerks, litigation analysts, and specialty consultants. The client agrees that BBK may use such non-attorney personnel to perform its services when it is reasonably necessary in the judgment of the responsible BBK attorney. Hourly fees for non-attorney personnel will be charged at the rate then in effect for such personnel. A copy of BBK’s current rates and titles for non-attorney personnel will be provided upon request.

Fees For Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”)
Support and Storage
BBK provides Electronically Stored Information
(“ESI”) services for matters requiring ESI support –
typically litigation or threatened litigation matters. BBK provides services for basic ESI processing and storage at the following rates per month based on the number of gigabytes of data (“GB”) processed and stored:
1GB -250GB: $10 per GB
251GB - 550GB: $8 per GB
551GB - 750GB: $6 per GB
751GB - 1TB: $4 per GB
The amount BBK charges for basic processing and
storage of ESI allows BBK to recover the costs of providing such services, plus a net profit for BBK. BBK believes that the rates it charges for processing and storage are lower than comparable services available from third party vendors in the market. If you wish to contract separately with a third party vendor for processing and storage costs, please notify BBK in writing. BBK shall not incur costs for ESI support on a particular matter without first confirming by email or written correspondence with the client that the client agrees such services are necessary for the matter at hand.

Fees For Other Services, Costs and Expenses
We attempt to serve all our clients with the most
effective support systems available. Therefore, in addition to fees for professional legal services, we also charge separately for some other services and expenses to the extent of their use by individual clients. These charges include but are not limited to, mileage at the current IRS approved rate per mile, extraordinary telephone and document delivery charges, copying charges, computerized research, court
filing fees and other court-related expenditures including court reporter and transcription fees. No separate charge is made for secretarial or word processing services; those costs are included within the above hourly rates.

We may need to advance costs and incur expenses
on your behalf on an ongoing basis. These items are
separate and apart from attorneys’ fees and, as they are out- of-pocket charges, we need to have sufficient funds on hand 360
Item # C13.
38077.00100\35021343.1
from you to pay them when due. We will advise the client from time to time when we expect items of significant cost to be incurred, and it is required that the client send us advances to cover those costs before they are due.

Advance Deposit Toward Fees And Costs
Because new client matters involve both a
substantial undertaking by our firm and the establishment of client credit with our accounting office, we require an advance payment from clients. The amount of this advance deposit is determined on a case-by-case basis discussed first with the client, and is specified in our engagement letter.

Upon receipt, the advance deposit will be deposited
into the firm’s client trust account. Our monthly billings will reflect such applications of the advance deposit to costs and not to attorney’s fees (unless otherwise noted in our accompanying engagement letter). At the end of
engagement, we will apply any remaining balance first to costs and then to fees. We also reserve the right to require increases or renewals of these advanced deposits.

By signing the initial engagement letter, each client
is agreeing that trust account balances may be withdrawn and applied to costs as they are incurred and to our billings, when we issue our invoice to the client. If we succeed in resolving your matter before the amounts deposited are
used, any balance will be promptly refunded.

Monthly Invoices and Payment
Best Best & Krieger LLP provides our clients with
monthly invoices for legal services performed and expenses incurred. Invoices are due and payable upon receipt.

Each monthly invoice reflects both professional and
other fees for services rendered through the end of the prior month, as well as expenses incurred on the client’s behalf that have been processed by the end of the prior month.

Processing of some expenses is delayed until the next month and billed thereafter.

Our fees are not contingent upon any aspect of the
matter and are due upon receipt. All billings are due and payable within ten days of presentation unless the full amount is covered by the balance of an advance held in our trust account. If a bill is not paid within 30 days, a late charge of one percent per month on the unpaid invoice may be added to the balance owed, commencing with the next
statement and continuing until paid.

It is our policy to treat every question about a bill
promptly and fairly. It is also our policy that if a client does not pay an invoice within 60 days of mailing, we assume the client is, for whatever reason, refusing to pay. We reserve the right to terminate our engagement and withdraw as
attorney of record whenever our invoices are not paid. If an invoice is 60 days late, however, we may advise the client by letter that the client must pay the invoice within 14 days or the firm will take appropriate steps to withdraw as
attorney of record. If the delay is caused by a problem in the invoice, we must rely upon the client to raise that with us during the 14-day period. This same policy applies to fee arrangements which require the client to replenish fee
deposits or make deposits for anticipated costs.

From time to time clients have questions about the
format of the bill or description of work performed. If you have any such questions, please ask them when you receive the bill so we may address them on a current basis.

Changes in Fee Arrangements and Budgets
It may be necessary under certain circumstances for
a client to increase the size of required advances for fees after the commencement of our engagement and depending
upon the scope of the work. For example, prior to a
protracted trial or hearing, the firm may require a further advance payment to the firm’s trust account sufficient to cover expected fees. Any such changes in fee arrangements will be discussed with the client and mutually agreed in writing.

Because of the uncertainties involved, any estimates
of anticipated fees that we provide at the request of a client for budgeting purposes, or otherwise, can only be an
approximation of potential fees.

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
361
Item # C13.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Adopt a Resolution Supporting the Submission of Projects for 2023 Community Project Funding (Staff Contact: Walter C. Rossmann, Deputy City Manager, 408-586- 3012)
Category: Consent Calendar-Leadership and Support Services Meeting
Date:
4/19/2022
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution Supporting the Submission of Projects for 2023 Community Project Funding.

Background:

On March 31, 2022 the City was notified regarding the call for Community Project Funding Request submissions for the Fiscal Year 2023. These one-time funding request submissions were due Friday April 15 to Congressman Khanna’s Office. As the Council is aware,the City was successful in receiving $3 million funding for the S. Milpitas Boulevard Extension Bridge as part of the Fiscal Year 2022 funding cycle.

On March 18, 2022, House Appropriations Committee Chair Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) issued guidance to Members of the House regarding the 2023 requests for Community Project Funding. For each request submitted, Members of the House must provide evidence of community support that were compelling factors in their decision to select the requested projects. Examples of Community engagement and support include:
 Letters of support from elected community leaders
 Press articles highlighting the need for the requested Community Project Funding  Support from newspaper editorial boards
 Projects listed on State intended use plans, community development plans, or other publicly available planning documents
 Resolutions passed by city councils or boards.

Analysis:

After a review of key infrastructure needs, staff resubmitted the Calaveras Boulevard Widening project (requested amount: $25 million) and the Montague Expressway Pedestrian Overcrossing (requested amount:
$5 million). As the third project, staff requested $3 million for Carbon Neutral Home Incentives Program complementing SVCE’s program consistent with recent Council discussion and the draft Climate Action Plan.

Calaveras Bridge Widening
This project provides for the replacement of the Calaveras Boulevard vehicle bridges between Milpitas Boulevard and Abel Street. These bridge structures were constructed in the early 1970s and are reaching the end of their service life, and the structures do not have adequate bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The replacement bridge structures will accommodate up to three vehicle travel lanes including a six-foot-wide bike lane and a ten-foot-wide sidewalk along both sides of the structures. State Route 237 (Calaveras Boulevard) is owned by the State of California and the City would be the local project sponsor. The project is estimated to cost $84,000,000 and the City would be required to provide an 11.5% local funding match for the project, however, the project is not funded. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 7894 on June 16th, 2009 to establish a Development Traffic Impact Fee to provide funding for this project. At this time, the City has collected approximately $5,000,000 in impact fee funding and the environmental documentation phase of the project will commence in the spring of 2022.
362
Item # C14.

Montague Expressway Pedestrian Overcrossing @ Penitencia Creek This project provides for the design and construction of a pedestrian overcrossing (POC) bridge over Montague Expressway at the east levee of Penitencia Creek. This POC bridge is part of the Metro Specific Plan circulation infrastructure plan to provide safe and convenient pedestrian connectivity between Metro residential developments, schools, parks, Great Mall, and the BART Station. The Project is currently in the design phase and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process is anticipated to start later this Spring. Funding for the design phase is from the Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP), however funding is not currently available for the construction phase, which is estimated to cost up to $15,000,000.

Carbon Neutral Home Incentives Program
On April 5, the City Council discussed and provided feedback regarding the draft Climate Action Plan Update, which sets a goal of achieving carbon-neutrality by 2045. One of the strategies to achieve this goal is the electrification of existing homes. Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) has committed $4 million to incentivize single-family residential homeowners to invest home improvements (e.g.: electrical panel upgrades, pre-wiring for future electric appliance upgrades, heat pump water heating, heat pump space heating and cooling, Electric Vehicle charging) which reduce the use of non-renewable resources and greenhouse gas emissions. SVCE and staff estimate that investments for such home improvements can range between $12,000 to $25,000.

Therefore, while the SVCE incentive package, which provides several thousands of dollars, is notable, it may not provide a sufficient monetary incentive and may still put such improvements out of reach for many homeowners. If funded, the City’s Carbon Neutral Home Incentives Program would complement the SVCE incentive package up to $3,000 per homeowner to significantly drive down the costs of retrofit and create greater access to carbon neutral homes for about 1,000 Milpitas single-family homeowners.

Community Engagement
These funding requests submitted for Community Project Funding fulfill the community engagement requirement as follows. They are listed in community development plans and documents that are publicly available.

More specifically, the two transportation projects are included in the City’s Capital Improvement Program, and the City Council and the Milpitas Housing Authority Commission adopted Resolution No. 9005 on April 6th, 2021 following the Public Hearing to adopt the 2022-2026 Capital Improvement Program. In addition, following a Public Hearing, the City’s Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 22-003 on March 23, 2022 finding the proposed 2023-2027 Capital Improvement Program, which includes these two transportation projects, in conformance with the City’s General Plan as required by Government Code 65401.

As part of the process to update the City’s Climate Action Plan, the City conducted community outreach through multiple channels to solicit community input on actions the City should take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This included virtual meetings with Sunnyhills Neighborhood Association, Milpitas High School students, the Development Roundtable, a virtual public workshop, online survey, and outreach at the Milpitas Framers’ Market. Through these forums, community members recognized that natural gas use in existing buildings is the second largest source of community GHG emissions and that the City needs to transition away from fossil fuels and support building electrification as a key action in fighting climate change. Therefore, promoting the benefits and incentives for electrification on existing buildings is one of the near-term actions included in the CAP Update.

Resolution
To reinforce community support and engagement for these regionally important transportation infrastructure projects and Carbon Neutral Home Incentives Program, staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached Resolution.

Fiscal Impact:

Two of t he three funding requests are included in the City’s Capital Improvement Program, however these projects do not have the funding to move forward. Federal Community Project Funding will assist in the completion of these projects. The funding request for the Carbon Neutral Home Incentives Program will support one of the over 100 strategies to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. 363
Item # C14.

California Environmental Quality Act:

The City Council’s action in adopting the resolution is not a project subject to CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15378(b)(4) as it is more akin to a governmental fiscal activity where the City is seeking funding for various projects, where there is no specific commitment to implement those projects absent the necessary funding flowing to the City. If the projects on the resolution are provided funding in an amount needed for the City to explore implementation of the project, then the City will undertake CEQA analysis at that time prior to any discretionary action to adopt or implement any project on the list.

Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution Supporting the Submission of Projects for 2023 Community Project Funding.

Attachments:

1. Resolution
364
Item # C14.

Resolution No. ____
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MILPITAS IN SUPPORT

OF THE TWO TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND ONE

CLIMATE ACTION PLAN PROJECT SUBMITTED FOR FEDERAL COMMUNITY

PROJECT FUNDING

WHEREAS, the United States Congress Appropriations Committee is accepting up to 15 Transportation Infrastructure Projects from each Committee Representative for review and consideration for federal Community Project Funding (CPF) for the Fiscal Year 2023; and

WHEREAS, the City of Milpitas is within the District Represented by Ro Khanna, who is a member of the Appropriations Committee; and

WHEREAS, the Milpitas City Council and the Milpitas Housing Authority Commission adopted Resolution No. 9055 last April 6th, 2021, following a Public Hearing to adopt the 2022-2026 Capital Improvement Program which includes the following two regionally significant transportation infrastructure Projects: Project No. 2018 Montague Expressway Pedestrian Overcrossing at Penitencia Creek; Project No. 4258 Calaveras Bridge Widening; and

WHEREAS, following a Public Hearing, the City's Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 22-003 on March 23rd, 2022, finding the proposed 2023-2027 Capital Improvement Program, which also includes these two transportation Projects, in conformance with the City's General Plan as required by Government Code 65401; and

WHEREAS, the City of Milpitas is in the final stages of updating its Climate Action Plan which included substantive community engagement with the goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045; and

WHEREAS, the City Council provided feedback regarding the draft Climate Action on April 5 supporting electrification of households; and

WHEREAS, the local Community Choice Energy provider’s (Silicon Valley Clean Energy) provides an incentive package for electrification;

WHEREAS, the Carbon Neutral Homes Incentive Program will complement Silicon Valley Clean Energy’s program and support the electrification of for about 1,000 single-family households; and

WHEREAS, the City of Milpitas submitted Community Project Funding requests for each of these three Projects to Representative Khanna's Office on April 15, 2022 for consideration in submitting to the Appropriations Committee ahead of the April 29, 2022 deadline for Federal funding; and

WHEREAS, community engagement and support are crucial in determining which projects are worthy of Federal funding. Only projects with demonstrated community support will be considered for funding, and it is recommended the Milpitas City Council demonstrate its support for these regionally significant transportation infrastructure and Climate Action Plan projects submitted for CPF funding.

365
Item # C14.

Resolution No. ____

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Milpitas hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct, are incorporated herein and by this reference made an operative part hereof.

2. The following two transportation infrastructure projects are included in the adopted 2022-2026 Capital Improvement Program, which is a publicly available development document, and these Projects are significant infrastructure projects that are an important step to relieving traffic congestion and in enhancing roadway safety for pedestrians and bicyclists which are worthy of Federal funding through the Community Project Funding process:

 Project No. 2018 Montague Expressway Pedestrian Overcrossing at Penitencia Creek; and  Project No. 4258 Calaveras Bridge Widening.

3. The City’s Carbon Neutral Home Incentives Program would complement our local Community Choice Energy provider’s (Silicon Valley Clean Energy) incentive package by providing up to $3,000 more per homeowner to significantly drive down the costs of retrofit and create greater access to carbon neutral homes for about 1,000 Milpitas single-family homeowners.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of April 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: APPROVED:

_____________________________ __________________________ Wendy Wood, City Clerk Rich Tran, Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_____________________________
Christopher J. Diaz, City Attorney
366
Item # C14.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Introduce an Ordinance Adopting a Controlled Equipment Use Policy per California Assembly Bill 481 (Staff Contact: John Torrez, Assistant Chief of Police, 408-586- 2408)
Category: Public Hearings-Public Safety

Meeting Date: 4/19/2022
Recommendation: Introduce an ordinance adopting a Controlled Equipment Use Policy per California Assembly Bill 481.

Background:

On September 30, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law California Assembly Bill No. 481 (AB 481).

AB481 codified Government Code sections 7070 through 7075 which requires a law enforcement agency to obtain approval from the applicable governing body, via adoption of a “military equipment” use policy by ordinance, prior to funding, acquiring, or using military equipment. AB481 is intended to increase police transparency and requires law enforcement agencies to adopt a “military equipment” use policy prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of “military equipment.” The term “military equipment” is broadly defined in AB 481 and includes various pieces of equipment that are currently being used by Milpitas Police Department staff, such as aerial drones, battering rams, and the Armored Rescue Vehicle.

Pursuant to AB481, the “military equipment” policy (herein referred to as Controlled Equipment Policy) must be adopted by ordinance at a regular meeting of the City Council. The policy must address the type, quantity, capabilities, purposes, and authorized uses of each type of controlled equipment; the cost associated with its acquisition and continued use; the legal limitations and procedural rules that govern its use; the training required; the mechanisms in place to ensure policy compliance; and the procedures by which members of the public may file complaints.

AB481 also requires any law enforcement agency that receives approval for the use of controlled equipment to submit an annual report to the governing body regarding the use of the equipment, any complaints received, any internal audits or other information about violations of the controlled equipment use policy, the cost of such use, and other similar information.

Analysis:

The continued acquisition and use of controlled equipment is necessary to ensure law enforcement can safeguard lives, ensure safety, and protect civil liberties. The use of certain controlled equipment is vital to the Milpitas Police Department’s mission and will continue to be strictly regulated through internal processes and oversight.

The term “military equipment”, as used in AB 481, in fact does not necessarily indicate equipment that has been used by the military. Pursuant to AB 481, items deemed to be “military equipment” include, but are not limited to, unmanned aerial or ground vehicles, armored vehicles, command and control vehicles, less lethal shotguns, less lethal 40mm projectile launchers, and flashbangs.
367
Item # 15.

The proposed ordinance seeks to codify the Milpitas Police Department’s Controlled Equipment Use Policy, Policy Manual (MPM) Section 708. MPM 708 outlines each item identified in California Government Code section 7070, that is currently owned by the City. California Government Code sections 7070 through 7075 are titled, "Funding, Acquisition, and Use of Military Equipment. Section 7070 (a) through (f) provide the definitions for terms used with Sections 7070 through 7075. Section 7070(c)(1) through (16) define the items included in the definition of the term "Military Equipment".

An attachment to MPM 708 includes an inventory of controlled equipment used by the Milpitas Police Department. The current inventory of controlled equipment was acquired and used in service prior to the implementation of AB481. The future acquisition of any controlled equipment will require a public meeting, inventory list update, and council approval except for in emergency situations.

The proposed policy (MPM 708) safeguards the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties while ensuring transparency, oversight, and accountability measures are in place. MPM 708 requires that the Chief of Police or their designee to ensure compliance with the policy while an annual report to Council and the public will reinforce transparency, oversight, and accountability. Additionally, pursuant to the policy, members of the public may submit complaints to the police department.

The Police Department subscribes to best practices and is committed to using the most up to date tools and equipment to safeguard the citizens of Milpitas. Many of the items deemed to be “military equipment” by AB 481 are in fact employed by the Milpitas Police Department, and law enforcement agencies across the country, to maximize public safety while minimizing risk to community members and officers. These items provide peace officers with the ability to safely resolve volatile situations which otherwise might rise to the level of a lethal force encounter. To that end, the controlled equipment mentioned in this report, and accompanying Controlled Equipment Use Policy, also provides the Department’s peace officers with vital tools that facilitate compliance with our comprehensive and stringent use of force policy.

The Milpitas Police Department seeks City Council’s adoption of the attached ordinance to allow the continued use of controlled equipment and govern future funding, acquisition, and use of controlled equipment in accordance with the law.

Policy Alternatives:

Alternative 1: Do not adopt the ordinance preventing the Milpitas Police Department from utilizing public safety tools that were in use prior to the passage of Assembly Bill 481 and the future acquisition and/or use of controlled equipment

Pros: There are no identified benefits to this alternative.

Cons: By not being able to utilize equipment already possessed by the Milpitas Police Department, it would curtail the Department’s ability to utilize the tools necessary to effectively ensure public safety. It would hinder the effectiveness of the Milpitas Police Department in preventing and addressing crime in the City, which in turn, would put the health, safety, and welfare of citizens and officers at increased risk.

Reason not Recommended: Not adopting the ordinance would prohibit the use of essential public safety equipment and would jeopardize the welfare of citizens and peace officers within the City of Milpitas.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact to introduce the proposed Ordinance.

California Environmental Quality Act:

The action being requested is not a project as defined by CEQA (CEQA Guidelines exemption 15378(b)(2)).

Recommendation:

Introduce an ordinance adopting a Controlled Equipment Use Policy per California Assembly Bill. 368
Item # 15.

Attachments:

1. Proposed Ordinance

2. Milpitas Police Department Policy Manual Section 708

3. Milpitas Police Department Controlled Equipment Inventory List 369
Item # 15.

REGULAR

NUMBER: 311

TITLE: AN UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

MILPITAS TO ESTABLISH GUIDELINES FOR THE ACQUISITION, FUNDING, USE AND REPORTING OF “CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT”, AS THE TERM IS DEFINED IN GOVERNMEN T CODE SECTION 7070 AND TO FULFILL THE OBLIGATIONS SET FORTH IN ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 481

HISTORY: This Ordinance was introduced (first reading) by the City Council at its meeting of ___________, 2022 , upon motion by_________________________ and was adopted (second reading) by the City Council at its meeting of _______________, upon motion by ____________________________. The Ordinance was duly passed and ordered published in accordance with law by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: APPROVED:

________________________________ __________________________ Wendy Wood, City Clerk Rich Tran, Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________
Christopher J. Diaz, City Attorney

370
Item # 15.
2 Ordinance No. _____
RECITALS AND FINDINGS:

WHEREAS, on September 30, 2021 Governor Newsom signed a series of policing reform legislation items into law. These laws are aimed at increasing police transparency, and AB 481 in particular requires law enforcement agencies to adopt a military equipment use policy (“Policy”) prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of military e quipment as defined by the law, which Policy must be adopted by ordinance at a regular meeting of the governing body for that agency (i.e., the City Council); and WHEREAS, AB 481 requires adoption of the Policy before a law enforcement agency can take action to request military equipment as defined by the statute; seek funds (such as grants or in- kind donations) for acquiring military equipment; actually acquire military equipment, either permanently or temporarily by owning, borrowing, or leasing; collaborate with other law enforcement agencies to deploy or use military equipment in the age ncy’s territorial jurisdiction; use new or existing military equipment in a manner not previously subject to AB 481’s scope; solicit or respond to a proposal for, or enter into an agreement with, any person or entity to seek funds for, apply for, acquire, use, or collaborate in using military equipment; or to acquire military equipment through any other means not specifically detailed in the statute; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the acquisition of “military and militaristic equipment,” as defined in AB 481, and the deployment of such military equipment in the City of Milpitas, can impact the public’s safety and welfare, including introducing significant risks to civil rights, civil liberties, and physical and psychological wellbeing, and incurring significant financial costs; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the public has a right to know about any funding, acquisition, or use of military or militaristic equipment by the City of Milpitas, as well as a right to participate in any City decision to fund, acquire, or use such equipment; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that decisions regarding whether and how military or militaristic equipment is funded, acquired, or used should give strong consideration to the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties, and should be based on meaningful public input; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that legally enforceable safeguards, including transparency, oversight, and accountability measures, must be in place to protect the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties before military or militaristic equipment is funded, acquired, or used; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that if military or militaristic equipment is acquired, reporting measures must be adopted that empower the City Council and public to verify that mandated civil rights safeguards have been strictly adhere to; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with AB 481, the proposed Policy has been made available on the Milpitas Police Department’s website at le ast 30 days prior to the public hearing by the City Council to adopt the Policy, and once adopted, the Policy will be made available to the public on the Police Department’s website for as long as the covered military equipment is available for use; and
371
Item # 15.
3 Ordinance No. _____
WHEREAS, in accordance with AB 481, the Policy is being agendized as an open session item at a regular meeting of the City Council, and public comment on the item will be allowed in accordance with the Brown Act; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance shall be reviewed by the City Council at least annually, and based on an annual military equipment report that must be submitted to the City Council pursuant to AB 481, the City Council shall determine whether each type of military equipment identified in the report has complied with the standards for continued approval. If the City Council cannot make such a determination, it shall either disapprove a renewal of the authorization for that type of equipment, or require modifications to the Policy in a manner to resolve the lack of compliance.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Milpitas does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. RECORD AND BASIS FOR ACTION
The City Council has duly considered the full record before it, which may include but is not limited to such things as the City staff report, testimony by staff and the public, and other materials and evidence submitted or provided to the City Council. Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. PURPOSE OF ORDINANCE
(A) This Ordinance establishes guidelines for the acquisition, funding, use and reporting of “controlled equipment”, as the term is defined in Government Code section 7070. This Ordinance is provided to fulfill the obligations set forth in Assembly Bill No. 481. These obligations include but are not limited to seeking approval on specific items deemed to be controlled equipment and requirements related to compliance, annual reporting, cataloging, and complaints regarding these items.
(B) This policy shall be made publicly available on the City’s website and shall be reviewed annually by the Governing Body.
(C) This Ordinance shall be known as Controlled Equipment: Funding, Acquisition, and Use Ordinance.

SECTION 3. FINDINGS
Pursuant to Government Code § 7071(d)(1), as may be amended or renumbered from time to time, the City Council hereby makes the following findings in support of its adoption of the Policy:

(A) The military equipment identified in the Policy is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

(B) The proposed Policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.
372
Item # 15.
4 Ordinance No. _____
(C) If the Police Department purchases military equipment pursuant to the Policy, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

(D) Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use polic y that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.

SECTION 4. MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY ADOPTED.

In light of the findings set forth in Section 3, and in accordance with AB 481, the Policy attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated in full by reference is hereby adopted by the City Council.

SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

In accordance with Section 36937 of the Government Code of the State of California, this Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk of the City of Milpitas shall cause this Ordinance or a summary thereof to be published in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California.

SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY.

Each of the provisions of this Ordinance is severable from all other provisions. If any article, section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 7. NOT A CEQA PROJECT.

The City Council finds that this Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) a nd 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
373
Item # 15.

EXHIBIT 1

1. Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS): An unmanned aircraft along with the associated equipment necessary to control it remotely.
a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost of current UAS:
i. DJI MAVIC MINI, cost: $500 (grant funding), quantity: 2. Miniature UAS that weighs approximately 249 grams and is able to record video and audio with approximately 30 minutes of flight time.
ii. DJI MAVIC ENTERPRISE DUALS, cost: $3,500 (grant funding), quantity: 4. UAS that has a color and inferred camera as well as audible speaker and light. Capable of video recording and weighs 899 grams, approx. 30 minutes of flight time. iii. DJI Matrice 210 V2, cost: $10,410 (grant funding), quantity: 1. UAS that is foul weather capable has a dual downward gimbal, has an IR camera, zoom camera and light. Has video recording capabilities approx. 11 pounds. 45 minutes of flight time. iv. DJI Matrice 300 RTK, cost: $ 11,349 (grant funding) , quantity: 1 . UAS that is foul weather capable and has dual gimbal, has an IR camera, zoom camera and light. Has video recording capabilities and is approx. 14 pounds. Has 55 minutes of flight time. b. Purpose
Unmanned aerial systems (UAS) are necessary as they provide visibility to high risk locations. Without the use of a UAS, officers would have to deploy to high risk locations which would increase the risk to the officers and members of the public.

To be de ployed when its view would assist officers or incident commanders with the following situations, which include but are not limited to:
i. major collision investigations.
ii. search for missing persons.
iii. natural disaster management.
iv. crime scene photography.
v. SWAT, tactical or other public safety and life preservation missions.

374
Item # 15.
c. Authorized Use
Only assigned operators who have completed the required training shall be permitted to operate the DJI Mavic Mini during approved missions.
d. Expected Life Span
All UAS equipment, 3-5 years.
e. Fiscal Impact
Annual maintenance and battery replacement cost is approximately $10,000. f. Training
All Department UAS operators are licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration for UAS operation. In addition, each operator must attend on going department training. g. Legal and Procedural Rules
Use is established under Milpitas Policy Manual Section 456 and FAA Regulation 14 CFR Part 107. It is the policy of the Milpitas Police Department to utilize UAS only for official law enforcement purposes, and in a manner that respects the privacy of our community, pursuant to State and Federal law.

2. Robots: Unmanned machine operating on the ground utilized to enhance the safety to the community and officers.
a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. Robotex Avatar ll, cost: $19,406 (grant funding), quantity: 1. The AVATAR II enables law enforcement to remotely inspect dangerous situations and gather video and audio intelligence including direct -to-unit video and audio recording, a touchscreen display, increased durability, and secure Wi-Fi networking. With these capabilities’ officers will be better equipped to remotely gather intelligence and keep themselves and their teams safe from harm.
ii. ICOR Mini Caliber, cost: $48,500 (general funds), quantity: 1. Lightweight, modular and one-man portable, the robot is designed for rapid deployment, is simple to operate and quick to deploy for searching rooms, hallways, stair wells and confined spaces. It also includes an extendible rotating claw arm that simplifies opening door handles providing protection and safety to their operators.

375
Item # 15.
b. Purpose
To be used to remotely gain visual/audio data, deliver HNT phone, open doors, disrupt packages, and clear buildings.
c. Authorized Use
Only assigned operators who have completed the required training shall be permitted to operate the robots identified at sections 2(a)(i) through (ii). Use is established by the SWAT Team Leader and or Incident Commander.
d. Expected Life Span
All robots, 8-10 years.
e. Fiscal Impact
Annual maintenance and battery replacement cost is approximately $5,000. f. Training
All robot operators must complete an inhouse training program prior to operating the robots identified at sections 2(a)(i) through (ii).
g. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the Milpitas Police Department to utilize a robot only for official law enforcement purposes, and in a manner that respects the privacy of our commu nity, pursuant to State and Federal law.

3. Armored Vehicles: Commercially produced wheeled armored personnel vehicle utilized for law enforcement purposes.
a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. 2018 LENCO BEARCAT MEDEVAC, G2, cost: $388,800 (general capital improvement project), quantity: 1. The Lenco BearCat Medevac, also known as the MedCat, was designed to meet the combined requirements of SWAT & Tactical EMS Teams. The Medevac can be used as an armored Response & Rescue SWAT truck for dangerous callouts and is equipped to provide Tactical EMS with a safe & effective environment to deal with trauma cases. It seats 10-12 personnel with open floor plan that allows for rescue of down personnel. It can stop various projectiles, which provides greater safety to citizens and officers beyond the protection level of shield and personal body armor. 376
Item # 15.
b. Purpose
To be used in response to critical incidents to enhance officer and community s afety, improve scene containment and stabilization, and assist in resolving critical incidents. c. Authorized Use
The Medevac is primarily used for Special Weapons and Tactics Team (SWAT) incidents safe transport of SWAT personnel to and from critical incidents, high risk rescue operations, training, and to provide emergency medical staff and/or Tactical Emergency Medicine (TEM) personnel a safe working environment, delivering equipment, and other rescue capabilities. It may also be used for community engagement efforts and other applications deemed appropriate based on the specific circumstances of a given incident.

Armored vehicles shall be used only by officers trained in their deployment and in a manner consistent with Department policy and training.
d. Lifespan
Lenco Bearcat Medevac G2, 25 years.
e. Fiscal Impact
Annual maintenance cost of approximately $10,000
f. Training
All driver/operators shall attend formalized instruction and be trained in vehicle operations and practical driving instruction.
g. Legal and Procedural Rules
Use is established under Milpitas Policy Manual Section 707 . It is the policy of the Department to utilize armored vehicle only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law.

4. Mobile Incident Command Vehicle (MIC): A mobile office that provides shelter, access to Police Department computer systems, and restroom facilities on extended events.
a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. 1998 Winnebago Adventurer (custom built) vehicle, cost: $133,166 (unknown), quantity:

1. The MIC can also be utilized for SWAT/CNT and other critical incidents, preplanned large events, searching for missing persons, natural disasters, and community events. 377
Item # 15.
ii. TBD (custom build) vehicle, estimated cost: $1,250,00.00 (general capital improvement project),, quantity: 1. The M IC will be used by the Police and Fire Departments during critical incidents, preplanned large events, searching for missing persons, natural disasters, and community events.
b. Purpose
To be used based on the specific circumstances of a given critical incident, large event, natural disaster or community event that is taking place. c. Authorized Use
The MIC shall be used by personnel trained in their deployment and in a manner consistent with Department policy and training. Furthermore, only personnel who have completed the Departmental Training and who are properly licensed will be allowed to drive the MIC.
d. Lifespan
The MIC estimated 25-year lifespan on chassis and vehicle structure. Upgrades needed in 6 years to maintain IT systems.
e. Fiscal Impact
Annual maintenance cost is approximately $10,000.
f. Training
The driver/operator shall receive training in the safe handling of the vehicle on a closed training course. Once the operator has shown competence in vehicle handling, the driver/operator will drive the vehicle throughout the city with an experienced driver. g. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the Department to use the MIC only for official purposes, and in accordance with California State law regarding the operation of motor vehicles.

5. 40 MM Launchers and Rounds: 40MM Launchers are utilized by department personnel as a less lethal tool to launch impact rounds. a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, 40MM SINGLE SHOT LAUNCHER, #1425, cost: $ 810 (general funds), quantity: 6. The 40MM Single Launcher is a tactical single shot launcher 378
Item # 15.
that features an adjustable Integrated Front Grip (IFG) with a rail mounted holographic sight. It will fire standard 40mm less lethal ammu nition, up to 4.8 inches in cartridge length. It will launch a 40MM less lethal round up to 131 feet and is only authorized to be used by trained personnel.
iii. DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, 40MM EXACT IMPACT SPONGE, #6325, cost: $18 (general funds), quantity: 25. A less lethal 40mm lightweight plastic and foam projectile fired from a single or multi-round purpose built 40mm launcher with a rifled barrel at 325 FPS. The 30 -gram foam projectile delivers 120 ft/lbs. of energy on impact. The 40mm Exact Im pact Sponge Round provides accurate and effective performance when fired from the approved distance of not less than five (5) feet and as far as 131 feet from the target.
iv. DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, 40MM DIRECT IMPACT MARKING ROUNDS , #632 6, cost: $30 (general funds), quantity: 7. A less lethal 40MM lightweight plastic and crushable foam projectile fired from a single or multi-round purpose-built 40mm launcher with a rifled barrel at 295 FPS. The 39-gram crushable foam projectile delivers 120 ft/lbs of energy upon impact in addition to dispersion of 5 grams of OC irritant. The 40mm Direct Impact Round provides accurate and effective performance when fired from the approved distance of not less than five (5) feet and as far as 120 feet from the target. When loaded with a green marking agent, the Direct impact Round can be used to indicate the aggressor in a riot situation to the teams on the ground. iii. DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, 40MM DIRECT IMPACT RELOADABLE 250 SHOT TRAINING KIT, #6530, cost: $1 300(general funds), quantity: 1. The Direct Impact Reloadable Training Kit allows realistic training to be conducted at a fraction of the cost of using operational rounds. These reusable projectiles can be reloaded by hand in the field in less than 10 seconds without the need for presses or other reloading equipment.

These rounds are not for use on humans.
vi. DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, SPEDE -HEAT 40MM LONG -RANGE, CS, #6182, cost:
$30 (general funds), quantity: 40. The SPEDE-HEAT CS Long-Range Munitions delivers one chemical canister of CS agent from a 40 mm launcher down range up to 150 yards.

The Spede -Heat is a pyrotechnic round designed specifically for outdoor use in riot situations with a high -volume continuous burn that expels its payload in approximately 20-40 seconds from a single source. The Spede -Heat family may be used to conceal tactical movement.
v. DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, FERRETT 40MM POWDER BARRICADE ROUND, CS , #1292/2292, cost: $ 30 (general funds), quantity: 15. A less lethal 40MM round used to penetrate barriers, such as windows, hollow core doors, wallboard and thin plywood.

Upon impacting the barrier, the nose cone ruptures and instantaneously delivers a small 379
Item # 15.
chemical payload inside of a structure or vehicle. In a tactical deployment situatio n, the 40mm Ferret is primarily used to dislodge barricaded subjects from confined areas. Its purpose is to minimize the risks to all parties through pain compliance, temporary discomfort and/or incapacitation of potentially violent or dangerous subjects. vi. DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, FERRETT 40MM POWDER BARRICADE TRAINING ROUND, INERT, #1293, cost: $23 (general funds), quantity: 14. An inert training less lethal 40MM round used to penetrate barriers, such as windows, hollow core doors, wallboard and thin plywood . Upon impacting the barrier, the nose cone ruptures and instantaneously delivers an inert payload inside of a structure or vehicle. The 40mm inert Ferret round is primarily used to train personnel in the proper use of its deployment. vii. DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, FERRETT 40MM LIQUID BARRICADE TRAINING ROUND, INERT, #1263, cost: $23 (general funds), quantity: 15. An inert training less lethal 40MM round used to penetrate barriers, such as windows, hollow core doors, wallboard and thin plywood. Upon impacting the barrier, the nose cone ruptures and instantaneously delivers an inert payload inside of a structure or vehicle. The 40mm inert Ferret round is primarily used to train personnel in the proper use of its deployment. viii. COMBINED SYSTEMS INC., 40MM SPONGE, SMOKLESS SPIN STABILIZED ROUND, #4557, cost : $30 (general funds) , quantity : 261. A spin -stabilized projectile delivering blunt trauma effect. Although it is extremely accurate and consistent, accuracy is dependent on the launcher. Effectiveness depends on many variables, such as distance, clothing, stature, and the point where the pro jectile impacts. Its purpose is to minimize the risks to all parties through pain compliance and/or incapacitation of potentially violent or dangerous subjects.
b. Purpose
To limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable.
c. Authorized Use
Situations for use of the less lethal weapon systems may include, but are not limited to:
i. Self-destructive, dangerous and/or combative individuals. ii. Riot and civil unrest incidents.
iii. Circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained. iv. Potentially vicious animals.
380
Item # 15.
v. Training exercises or approved demonstrations.
d. Training
Sworn members utilizing 40MM less lethal chemical agents or impact rounds are trained in there use by POST certified less lethal and chemical agents instructors. e. Lifespan
Defense Technology #1425- 25 years.

Model 6325 Exact Impact Sponge- 5 years.

Model 6326 Direct Impact Marking Round OC- 5 years.

Model 6530 Direct Impact Reloadable Training Kit – Until Diminished Model 6182 Spede-Heat 40 MM long-range, CS- 5 years.

Model 1292/2292 40mm Ferret Barricade Penetrator, CS – 5 years Model 1293 40mm Powder Ferret Barricade Penetrator, Inert – 5 years Model 1292/2292 40mm Liquid Ferret Barricade Penetrator, Inert – 5 years CSI Model 4557 40mm Smokeless Sponge Round, 5 years
f. Fiscal Impact
Annual maintenance is approximately $50 for each launcher. g. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the Department to utilize the 40mm only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.

6. Less Lethal Shotgun: Less Lethal Shotgun is used to deploy the less lethal 12-gauge Super-Sock Beanbag Round.
a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. REMINGTON 870 LESS LETHAL SHOTGUN, cost: $946 (general funds), quantity: 35.

The Remington 870 Less Lethal Shotgun is used to deploy the less lethal 12 -gauge Super-Sock Beanbag Round up to a distance of 75 feet. The range of the weapon system 381
Item # 15.
helps to maintain space between officers and a suspect reducing the immediacy of the threat which is a principle of De-escalation.
ii. COMBINED SYSTEMS INC. SUPER-SOCK BEA NBAG ROUND, #2581 cost: $ 6 (general funds), quantity: 1200. A less lethal 2.4-inch 12-gauge shotgun round firing a ballistic fiber bag filled with 40 grams of lead shot at a velocity of 270-290 feet per second (FPS). CTS Super-Sock rounds are discharged from a dedicated 12-gauge shotgun that is distinguishable by an orange butt stock and fore grip. This round provides accurate and effective performance when fired from the approved distance of not fewer than five (5) feet. The maximum effective range of this munition is up to 75 feet from the target. b. Purpose
To limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable.
c. Authorized Use
Situations for use of the less lethal weapon systems may include, but are not limited to:
i. Self-destructive, dangerous and/or combative individuals. ii. Riot and civil unrest incidents.
iii. Circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained. iv. Potentially vicious animals.
v. Training exercises or approved demonstrations.
d. Lifespan
Remington 870 Less Lethal Shotgun- 25 years.

Super Sock Round- No listed expiration date.
e. Fiscal Impact
Annual maintenance is approximately $50 for each shotgun. f. Training
All officers are trained in the 12 gauge less lethal shotgun as a less lethal option by in- service training.
g. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the Department to utilize the less lethal shotgun only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
382
Item # 15.

7. Distraction Devices: A device used to distract dangerous persons. a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. COMBINED TACTICAL SYSTEMS, 7290-2 NOISE FLASH DEVICE, cost: $52 (general fund), quantity: 17. A non -bursting, non-fragmenting multi-bang device that produces a thunderous bang with an intense bright light. Ideal for distracting dangerous suspects during assaults, hostage rescue, room entry or other high-risk arrest situations. ii. COMBINED TACTICAL SYSTEMS, 7290 -9 NOISE FLASH DEVICE MULTI BURST, cost: $60 (general fund), quantity: 6. A multi-bang, non-bursting, non-fragmenting multi- bang device that prod uces a thunderous bang with an intense bright light. Ideal for distracting dangerous suspects during assaults, hostage rescue, room entry or other high- risk arrest situations.
iii. DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, 8902 NOISE FLASH DEVICE, LOW ROLE, cost: $ 55 (general fund), quantity: 1. A non -bursting, limited movement and rolling, non- fragmenting device that produces a thunderous bang with an intense bright light. Ideal for distracting dangerous suspects during assaults, hostage rescue, room entry or other high- risk arrest situations.
b. Purpose
A distraction device is ideal for distracting dangerous suspects during assaults, hostage rescue, room entry or other high -risk arrest situations. To produce atmospheric overpressure and brilliant white light and, as a result, can cause short-term (6 - 8 seconds) physiological/psychological sensory deprivation to give officers a tactical advantage. c. Authorized Use
Diversionary Devices shall only be used:
i. By officers who have been trained in their proper use. ii. In hostage and barricaded subject situations.
iii. In high risk warrant (search/arrest) services where there may be extreme hazards to officers.
iv. During other high-risk situations where their use would enhance officer safety. v. During training exercises.
d. Lifespan
Until used.
383
Item # 15.
e. Fiscal Impact
No annual maintenance.
f. Training
Prior to use, officers must attend divisionary device training that is conducted by Post certified instructors.
g. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the Department to utilize diversion devices only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law regarding the use of force.

8. Rifles: Guns that are fired from shoulder level, having a long spirally grooved barrel intended to make bullets spin and thereby have greater accuracy over a long distance. a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. COLT TACTICAL CARBINE, MODEL AR -15A3, cost: $ 800 (general fund), quantity:
100. A rifle that fires an intermediate-power cartridge (.223) which is more powerful than a standard pistol but less powerful than a standard rifle. Rifle and has a 16" barrel. The magazine holds 30 rounds of ammunition and the rifle has a collapsible stoc k. The carbine provides officers the ability to engage hostile suspects at distances generally greater than the effective distance of their handguns. Additionally, AR -15 rifles offer advantages over handguns, such as increased accuracy potential and the ability to defeat soft body armor but are not appropriate for every situation. ii. COLT TACTICAL CARBINE, MODEL M16, cost: $800 (general fund), quantity: 4. A rifle that fires an intermediate -power cartridge (.223) which is more powerful than a standard pistol but less powerful than a standard rifle. Rifle and has a 11.5" barrel. The magazine holds 30 rounds of ammunition and the rifle has a collapsible stock. The carbine provides officers the ability to engage hostile suspects at distances generally greater than the effective distance of their handguns. Additionally, AR -15 rifles offer advantages over handguns, such as increased accuracy potential and the ability to defeat soft body armor but are not appropriate for every situation. Used by the Special Weapons and Tactics Team.
iii. SIONICS WEAPONS SYSTEMS, MODEL SHORT BARREL RIFLE (SBR) LE, cost: $ 1500 (general fund), quantity: 7. A rifle that fires an intermediate-power cartridge (.223) which is more powerful than a standard pistol but less powerful than a standard rifle. Rifle and has a 11.5" barrel. The magazine holds 30 rounds of ammunition and the rifle has a collapsible stock. The carbine provides officers the ability to engage hostile suspects at 384
Item # 15.
distances generally greater than the effective d istance of their handguns. Made out of aluminum with an ambidextrous safety selector and charging handle. Used by the Special Weapons and Tactics Team.
iv. HECKLER & KOCH, MODEL MP5A3, cost: $1000 (general fund), quantity: 7. A submachine gun chambered in 9mm it is universally applicable making it useable in all areas and under all conditions. The magazine holds 30 rounds of ammunition and allows officers the ability to engage hostile suspects at distances generally greater than the effective distance of their handguns. Used by the Special Weapons and Tactics Team. v. REMINGTON, MODEL 700 P BOLT ACTION RIFLE, cost: $0 (personal weapons donated by prior SWAT officers ), quantity: 3. A semi-automatic shoulder-fired rifle with precision optics that fires a .308 Winchester cartridge. The .308 rifle provides SWAT Snipers the ability to engage hostile suspects at great distances with accuracy. The .308 rifles are used exclusively by officers assigned to the SWAT Sniper Team. These rifles are typically deployed with the SWAT Sniper Team during high risk SWAT operations and special events or instances wherein Sniper Over Watch Teams are needed. vi. REMINGTON, MODEL 700 SPS TACTICAL BOLT ACTION RIFLE, cost: $0 (personally owned rifle, Owner Applied Number (OAN): SRL302-1), quantity: 1. A semi- automatic shoulder-fired rifle with precision optics that fires a .308 Winchester cartridge.

The .308 rifle provides SWAT Snipers the ability to engage hostile suspects at great distances with accuracy. The .308 rifles are used exclusively by officers assigned to the SWAT Sniper Team. These rifles are typically deployed with the SWAT Sniper Team during high risk SWAT operations and special events or instances wherein Sniper Over Watch Teams are needed.
vii. REMINGTO N, MODEL 700 SPS TACTICAL BOLT ACTION RIFLE, cost: $0 (personally owned rifle, OAN: SRL319 -1), quantity: 1. A semi-automatic shoulder-fired rifle with precision optics that fires a .308 Winchester cartridge. The .308 rifle provides SWAT Snipers the abili ty to engage hostile suspects at great distances with accuracy.

The .308 rifles are used exclusively by officers assigned to the SWAT Sniper Team.

These rifles are typically deployed with the SWAT Sniper Team during high risk SWAT operations and special e vents or instances wherein Sniper Over Watch Teams are needed.
viii. REMINGTON, MODEL 700 PSS BOLT ACTION RIFLE, cost: $0 (personally owned rifle, OAN: SRL289 -1), quantity: 1. A semi-automatic shoulder-fired rifle with precision optics that fires a .308 Winchester cartridge. The .308 rifle provides SWAT Snipers the ability to engage hostile suspects at great distances with accuracy. The .308 rifles are used exclusively by officers assigned to the SWAT Sniper Team. These rifles are typically 385
Item # 15.
deployed with the SWAT Sniper Team during high risk SWAT operations and special events or instances wherein Sniper Over Watch Teams are needed. ix. RUGER PRECISION RIFLE, MODEL 18028 BOLT ACTION RIFLE, cost: $0, (personally owned rif le, OAN: SRL302 -2), quantity: 1. A semi-automatic shoulder-fired rifle with precision optics that fires a .308 Winchester cartridge. The .308 rifle provides SWAT Snipers the ability to engage hostile suspects at great distances with accuracy.

The .308 r ifles are used exclusively by officers assigned to the SWAT Sniper Team.

These rifles are typically deployed with the SWAT Sniper Team during high risk SWAT operations and special events or instances wherein Sniper Over Watch Teams are needed.
x. RUGER PRE CISION RIFLE, MODEL 18028 BOLT ACTION RIFLE, cost: $0, (personally owned rifle, OAN: SRL319 -2), quantity: 1. A semi-automatic shoulder-fired rifle with precision optics that fires a .308 Winchester cartridge. The .308 rifle provides SWAT Snipers the abil ity to engage hostile suspects at great distances with accuracy.

The .308 rifles are used exclusively by officers assigned to the SWAT Sniper Team.

These rifles are typically deployed with the SWAT Sniper Team during high risk SWAT operations and special events or instances wherein Sniper Over Watch Teams are needed.
xi. Colt M16A1 RIFLE, cost: $0 (1033 program), quantity: 15. Received from the military and converted to semi-automatic AR-15. (4) are currently in use in the Traffic Safety Unit.

The traffic safety unit utilizes converted rifles to enhance the tactical capabilities when on their motorcycles to augment their se rvice pistols when needed. ( 7) are in use by the Honor Guard for ceremonial display. Honor Guard members are sworn peace officers who have been specially chosen from all divisions of the department. Duties include providing funeral honors for officers wh o have been killed in the line of duty or other ceremonial duties as assigned. (4) are currently not in use. xii. FEDERAL AMERICAN EAGLE 9MM LUGER, 147 GRAIN (GR) FULL METAL JACKET, cost: $20 per box (general fund), quantity: 250 boxes. This Federal American Eagle 9mm Luger ammunition is loaded with a 147 grain Full Metal Jacket bullet. The Full Metal Jacket bullet is for range practice and reducing fouling in the barrel. The jacket extends from the nose to the base, preventing bullet expansio n and barrel leading. This ammunition is new production, non-corrosive, ammo, featuring brass cases, boxer primed and is reloadable.
xiii. FEDERAL .223 55GR RIFLE ROUND, cost: $20 per box (general fund), quantity:
1150 cases. Federal 223 Remington ammo fea tures a lead core 55 Grain Full Metal Jacket bullet that is nonmagnetic, non-corrosive boxer primer and new virgin brass casing that can be reloaded up to seven times for those high volume 223 ammo shooters that 386
Item # 15.
love to reload their 223 Remington ammunitio n. The Federal American Eagle 223BL ammo offers muzzle velocity of 3240 feet per second and muzzle energy of 1282 ft lbs. xiv. HORNADY .223 55GR RIFLE ROUND, TAP URBAN, cost: $20 per box (general fund), quantity: 110 cases. The preferred choice for use in SBRs, carbines, and rifles when the probability for barrier penetration is low. The TAP round offers high velocity in shorter barreled firearms with an increase in penetration and weight retention. These factors make this bullet a great choice when collateral risk is high. xv. HORNADY .308 WINCHESTER 155GR RIFLE ROUND, A -MAX TAP, cost: $26 per box (general fund), quantity: 15 cases. This law enforcement cartridge offers match accuracy with a high ballistic coefficient providing superior long-range performance. This load demonstrates expansion and fragmentation similar to the 110 gr. load, but with a noticeable increase in penetration and retained bullet weight. This bullet penetrates glass with minimal deflection and exhibits excellent expansion and fragmentation characteristics.
b. Purpose
To be used as precision weapons to address a threat with more precision and/or greater distances than a handgun, if present and feasible.
c. Authorized Use
Only members that are POST certified and departmentally trained are authorized to use a rifle they have been trained on.
d. Lifespan
Colt AR-15A3 – no expiration
Colt Model M16 – no expiration
Sionic SBR – no expiration
MP5 – no expiration
Remington 700 – no expiration
Remington 700 SPS Tactical – no expiration
Ruger Precision Rifle – no expiration
Colt M16A1rifle converted to semi-automatic AR-15- no expiration.

Federal American Eagle 9mm Luger 147 Grain FMJ- no expiration.

Federal .223 FMJ- no expiration.

Hornady .223- no expiration.

Hornady .308- no expiration.
387
Item # 15.
e. Fiscal Impact
Annual maintenance is approximately $50 for each rifle. Personally owned weapons are maintained at owners cost.
f. Training
Prior to using a rifle, officers must be certified by POST instructors in the operation of the rifle. Additionally, all members that operate any rifle are required to pass a range qualification at least once a year.
g. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the Department to utilize rifles only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law regarding the use of force.

8. Chemical Agent and Smoke Canisters: Canisters that contain chemical agents that are released when deployed.
a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, FLAMLESS TRI -CHAMBER SAF -SMOKE CANISTER , #1033, cost: $40 (general fund), quantity: 4. The design of the Tri -Chamber Flameless Saf-Smoke allows for the contents to burn within an internal can and disperse the agent safely with reduced risk of fire. Primary designed for indoor tactical situations will deliver about 20-25 seconds of burn ti me. Was designed for barricaded situations in mind to primarily detect and or dislodge a barricades subject. The purpose of the Tri -Chamber Flameless Saf-Smoke is to minimize the risk to all parties through pain compliance and or incapacitation of potentially violent or dangerous subjects. ii. DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, MILITARY-STYLE SAF-SMOKE CANISTER, #1063, cost:
$22 (general fund), quantity: 12. The Saf -Smoke canister was designed for training but may also be used in operations. The Saf -Smoke offers th e same burn times as other smoke canisters making it an appropriate choice for training or simulation deployment of chemical agent canisters.
iii. DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, MAXIMUM HC SMOKE MILITARY STYLE CANISTER , #1083, cost: $30, quantity: 8. The Riot Control smoke is designed specifically for outdoor use in riotous situations with a high volume continuous burn that expels its payload in approximately 20-40 seconds through four gas ports located on the top of the canister.

The smoke can be used to conceal tactical movement. The volume of smoke and agent is vast and obtrusive.
iv. DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, HAN -BALL GRENADE, CN, #1091, cost: $40 (general fund), quantity: 5. The Han-Ball Grenade is a launchable grenade and is a maximum effect device that delivers three stimuli for psychological and physiological effects: light, sound and CS. This grenade is a launchable and combines loud report and flash with effects of chemical agents making it suitable for riot control situations. 388
Item # 15.
v. DEFEN SE TECHNOLOGY, HAN -BALL GRENADE, CS, #1092, cost $40 (general fund), quantity: 50. The Han -Ball Grenade is a launchable grenade and is a maximum effect device that delivers three stimuli for psychological and physiological effects: light, sound and CS. This grenade is a launchable and combines loud report and flash with effects of chemical agents making it suitable for riot control situations. iv. DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, FLAMLESS EXPULISION GRENADE, INERT, #2043, cost: $40 (general fund), quantity: 3. The Inert Flameless Expulsion Grenade is a training device that will allow team members to deploy the grenade without effecting roll players.

This compact, non-pyrotechnic, inert powder device provides safe expulsion without risk of fire. Unlike pyrotechnical grenades, this device’s contents are expelled upon actuation of a CO2 cartridge that will affect a confined area of approximately 1500 square feet. b. Purpose
To limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable situations for use of the less lethal weapon systems may include, but are not limited to:
i. Self-destructive, dangerous and/or combative individuals. ii. Riot control and civil unrest incidents.
iii. Circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained. iv. Potentially vicious animals.
v. Training exercises or approved demonstrations.
c. Authorized Use
Only officers who have received POST certification in the use chemical agents are authorized to use chemical agents.
d. Training
Sworn members utilizing chemical agent canisters are certified by POST less lethal and chemical agents instructors.
e. Lifespan
5 years from manufacturing date.
f. Fiscal Impact
No annual maintenance
g. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the Department to ut ilize chemical agents only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
389
Item # 15.

9. Explosive Breaching Tools: Tools that are used to conduct an explosive breach. a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. PRIMACORD (UN0065), cost: $2 per foot (general fund), quantity: 3000 feet.

PRIMACORD is a detonating cord that is a thin, flexible plastic tube usually filled with pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PET N, pentrite). With the PETN exploding at a rate of approximately 6400m/s, any common length of detonation cord appears to explode instantaneously. It is a highspeed fuse which explodes, rather than burns, and is suitable for detonating high explosives. Explosive entry is a non-lethal force option, but it should only be used when you can justify that spending any length of time in front of a door with a mechanical breach would be too dangerous for the officer conducting the breach or that mechanical breaching would fail on a reinforced objective. ii. NONEL LEAD LINE (#UN0349), cost: $1 (general fund), quantity: 5000 feet. NONEL LEAD LINE provides maximum flexibility to the blaster in choosing a position of safety from which to initiate nonelectric blast rounds in either underground or surface applications. LEAD LINE propagates a low energy signal, similar to a dust explosion, at approximately 6500 ft/sec (2000 m/sec) along the tubes length with minimal disturbance to the outside of the tube.
iii. NONEL DETONATOR ASSEMBLY, NON-ELECTRIC (#UN0361), cost: $15 (general fund), quantity: 120. A detonator assembly is a small sensitive primary explosive device generally used to detonate a larger, more powerful and less sensitive secondary explosive such as a plastic explosive. Detonator assemblies come in a variety of types, including non-electric caps, electric caps, and fuse caps. b. Purpose
To safely gain entry into a structure.
c. Authorized Use
Explosive breaching may only occur after authorization by the Incident Commander or SWAT Commander in the field, and during training exercises. d. Lifespan
Blasting Caps- 10 years
Detonating cord- 10 years
Lead Line- 10 years
e. Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact.

390
Item # 15.
f. Training
All officers who use explosive breaching tools shall attend 40 hours of explosive breaching instruction and must additionally receive quarterly training for explosive operations.
g. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the Department to utilize breaching tools only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law. 391
Item # 15.

EXHIBIT B
Controlled Equipment (Military Equipment)
708.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the approval, acquisition, and reporting of use requirements of controlled equipment , also defined as “military equipment” pursuant to Assembly Bill 481 (Government Code § 7070; Government Code § 7071; Government Code § 7072).
708.1.1 DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include (Government Code § 7070):

Governing body – The elected or appointed body that oversees the Department.

Controlled Equipment – Includes items defined in California Government Code section 7070, subsections (c)(1) through (c)(16); and any other item deemed to be controlled equipment by the governing body.
708.2 POLICY
It is the policy of the Milpitas Police Department that members of this department comply with the provisions of Government Code § 7071 with respect to controlled equipment. 708.3 CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR

The Chief of Police, or designee, shall act as the controlled equipment coordinator. The responsibilities of the controlled equipment coordinator include but are not limited to:

(a) Acting as a liaison to the governing body to meet the requirements of this policy.

(b) Identifying equipment currently owned or used by the Milpitas Police Department, and that equipment the Department intends to acquire or use, that qualifies as controlled equipment and ensuring compliance with legislative mandates.

(d) Collaborating with any allied agency that may use controlled equipment within the City of Milpitas (Government Code § 7071).

(e) Preparing for, scheduling, and coordinating an annual community engagement meeting to include:

1. Publicly noticing the meeting no less than 30 days in advance.

2. Preparing for public inquiries regarding the department’s funding, acquisition, and use of equipment.

392
Item # 15.

EXHIBIT B
(f) Preparing the annual controlled equipment report for submission to the Chief of Police and ensuring that the report is made available to the public on the department website (Government Code § 7072).

(g) Establishing a procedure for the public to register a complaint or concern, submit a question about the use of controlled equipment, and identify how the Department will respond.

708.4 CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT INVENTORY

A list of equipment currently held by the department or in coordination with another local agency is attached to this policy as Exhibit 1 and incorporated into this policy by reference.

The inventory list will be updated each year as part of the annual report required pursuant to AB 481.

708.5 APPROVAL

The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall obtain approval from the governing body by way of an ordinance adopting the controlled equipment policy. As part of the approval process, the Chief of P olice or the authorized designee shall ensure the proposed controlled equipment policy is submitted to the governing body and is available on the department website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the controlled equipment (Government Code § 7071). The controlled equipment policy must be approved by the governing body prior to engaging in any of the following (Government Code § 7071):

(a) Requesting controlled equipment from the Federal Government pursuant to 10 USC § 2576a (Ex: 1033 Program)

(b) Seeking funds for controlled equipment, including but not limited to applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in -kind donations, or other donations or transfers.

(d) Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of controlled equipment within the jurisdiction of this department.

(e) Using any new or exi sting controlled equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body.

(f) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of controlled equipment.

393
Item # 15.

EXHIBIT B
(g) Acquiring controlled equipment through any means not provided above.

708.6 EXIGENCY- PROCUREMENT AND USE

Nothing in this policy shall prohibit the procurement or use of controlled equipment when exigent circumstances exist. In rare circumstances , exigent circumstances may occur where the immediate procurement and use of controlled equipment may be necessary to preserve life, prevent physical harm to officers or other persons, prevent the destruction of relevant evidence, prevent the escape of the suspect, or maintain public safety. In the event such an event occurs, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee may authorize the procurement and use of controlled equipment. Any exigent procurement and/or use of controlled equipment will be reported to the governing body , in writing, unless such information is confidential or privileged under local, state or federal law. 708.7 ANNUAL REPORT

Upon approval of a controlled equipment policy, the Chief of Police or their authorized designee shall submit a controlled equipment report to the governing body for each type of controlled equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the controlled equipment is available for use (Government Code § 7072).

The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall also make each annual controlled equipment report publicly available on the department website for as long as the controlled equipment is available for use. The report shall include all information required by Government Code § 7072 for the preceding calendar year for each type of controlled equipment in department inventory.

708.8 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing t he annual report, the Department shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the Department should discuss the report and respond to public questions regarding the funding, acquisition, or use of controlled equipment.

708.9 MAINTENANCE AND RESUPPLY OF CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT

In the event a previously approved supply of controlled equipment falls below the approved quantity, the Department may replenish the supply, as needed, without first obtaining additional approval from the Governing Body.

394
Item # 15.

EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT 1
Controlled Equipment Inventory
395
Item # 15.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Conduct a Public Hearing and Adopt a Resolution Approving Issuance of the California Municipal Finance Authority Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds in an Aggregate Principal Amount Not to Exceed $47,000,000.00 for the Benefit of Milpitas Pacific Associates to Provide for the Financing of an Affordable Housing Project at 308 Sango Court (Staff Contact: Sharon Goei, Building Safety and Housing Director, 408-586-3260)
Category: Public Hearings-Community Development
Meeting
Date:
4/19/2022
Recommendation: (1) Open the public hearing under the requirements of the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”); (2) Move to close the public hearing following any comments; and (3) Adopt a resolution approving the issuance of the Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $47,000,000.00 by the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) for the benefit of Milpitas Pacific Associates to provide for the financing of the 308 Sango Court project. Such adoption is solely for the purposes of satisfying the requirements of TEFRA, the Code, and the California Government Code Section 6500 regarding Joint Exercise of Powers.

Background:

The 308 Sango Court project (the “Project”) is an 85-unit 100% affordable multifamily rental housing project that was approved by the City Council on August 5, 2021. The Project submitted a building permit application package in February 2022 and is undergoing plan review.

Milpitas Pacific Associates, a California Limited Partnership (the “Borrower”), a partnership of which Pacific West Communities, Inc. (the “Developer”) or a related person to the Developer is the general partner, has requested that the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) issue tax-exempt Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $47,000,000 (the “Bonds”). The proceeds of the Bonds will be used to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement, and equipping of the Project.

Analysis:

Multifamily housing projects that set aside a portion of their units for affordable housing qualify for tax-exempt bond financing. The bond financing program was established by both Federal and State law, and gives private developers access to below-market interest rates for housing projects that include affordable units. Under the law, 40% of the units in the project must be set aside and made available to households who earn no more than 60% of the Area Median Income. The Project will meet the requirement and therefore, qualifies for tax- exempt financing through the issuance of bonds.

In order for all or a portion of the Bonds to qualify as tax-exempt bonds, the City of Milpitas must conduct a public hearing under the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (the “TEFRA Hearing”) providing for the members of the community an opportunity to speak in favor of or against the use of tax-exempt bonds for the financing of the Project. TEFRA requires that a public hearing be held by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which a project to be financed with tax-exempt financing is located, and that the governing body approve the proposed financing. Prior to such TEFRA Hearing, reasonable notice must be provided to the members of the community. Following the close of the TEFRA Hearing, an “applicable elected representative” of the 396
Item # 16.

governmental unit hosting the Project, which is the Milpitas City Council, must provide its approval of the issuance of the Bonds for the financing of the Project.

The Borrower has requested that the CMFA issue tax-exempt bonds to finance the Project. The CMFA was created on January 1, 2004 pursuant to a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement to promote economic, cultural, and community development, through the financing of economic development and charitable activities throughout California. To date, over 300 municipalities, including the City of Milpitas, have become members of CMFA.

The CMFA was formed to assist local governments, nonprofit organizations, and businesses with the issuance of taxable and tax-exempt bonds aimed at improving the standard of living in California. The CMFA’s representatives and Board of Directors have considerable experience in bond financings.

The Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement provides that the CMFA is a public entity, separate and apart from each member executing such agreement. The debts, liabilities, and obligations of the CMFA do not constitute debts, liabilities, or obligations of the members executing such agreement.

The Bonds to be issued by the CMFA for the Project will be the sole responsibility of the Borrower. The City will have no financial, legal, moral obligation, liability or responsibility for the Project or the repayment of the Bonds for the financing of the Project. All financing documents with respect to the issuance of the Bonds will contain clear disclaimers that the Bonds are not obligations of the City or the State of California, but are to be paid for solely from funds provided by the Borrower. The City will bear no costs in the issuance of the Bonds.

Participation by the City in the CMFA will not impact the City’s appropriations limits and will not constitute any type of indebtedness by the City. Outside of holding the TEFRA Hearing and adopting the required resolution, no other participation or activity of the City or the City Council with respect to the issuance of the Bonds will be required.

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the issuance of bonds by the CMFA for the financing of the 308 Sango Court project.

Policy Alternative:

Alternative 1: Do not approve the resolution approving the issuance of the bonds by the CMFA for the benefit of Milpitas Pacific Associates to provide for the financing of the Project.

Pros: None.

Cons: The 85-unit 100% affordable housing project at 308 Sango Court may not be created without the use of tax-exempt bond financing.

Reason not recommended: Not approving the resolution may jeopardize the creation of 85 additional affordable housing units in Milpitas.

Fiscal Impact:

With the exception of staff time, there are no fiscal impacts to the City. It is expected upon closing of the California Municipal Finance Authority Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds that a portion of the issuance fee will be granted by the CMFA to the General Fund of the City. Such grant may be used for any lawful purposes of the City. The amount expected is approximately $15,000.00.

California Environmental Quality Act:

Not applicable. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4)&(5), action on this item is not a project subject to CEQA because it is a financing activity that will not result in a physical change to the environment.

Recommendation:

1. Open the public hearing under the requirements of the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”).

2. Move to close the public hearing following any comments. 397
Item # 16.

3. Adopt a resolution approving the issuance of the Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $47,000,000.00 by the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) for the benefit of Milpitas Pacific Associates to provide for the financing of the 308 Sango Court project. Such adoption is solely for the purposes of satisfying the requirements of TEFRA, the Code, and the California Government Code Section 6500 regarding Joint Exercise of Powers.

Attachment:

1. TEFRA Resolution

398
Item # 16.

RESOLUTION NO. ______________

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MILPITAS

APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF THE CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL

FINANCE AUTHORITY MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS

IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$47,000,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING OR REFINANCING THE

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMEN T AND EQUIPPING
OF 308 SANGO COURT AND CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS RELATING

THERETO
WHEREAS, Milpitas Pacific Associates, a California Limited Partnership (the "Borrower"), a partnership of which Pacific West Communities, Inc. (the "Developer") or a related person to the Developer is the general partner, has requested that the California Municipal Finance Authority (the "Authority") adopt a plan of financing providing for the issuance of exempt facility bonds for a qualified residential rental project pursuant to Section 142(a)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code") in one or more series issued from time to time, including bonds issued to refund such exempt facility bonds in one or more series from time to time, and at no time to exceed $47,000,000 in aggregate principal amount (the "Bonds"), to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of a multifamily rental housing project located at 308 Sango Court, Milpitas, California (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority must be approved by the City of Milpitas (the "City ") because the Project is located within the territorial limits of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City (the "City Council") is the elected legislative body of the City and is one of the "applicable elected representatives" required to approve the issuance of the Bonds under Section 147(f) of the Code; and WHEREAS, the Authority has requested that the City Council approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority in order to satisfy the public approval requirement of Section 147(f) of the Code and the requirements of Section 4 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement relating to the California Municipal Finance Authori ty, dated as of January 1, 2004 (the "Agreement"), among certain local agencies, including the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, the City Council has, following notice duly given, held a public hearing regarding the issuance of the Bonds, and now desires to approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Milpitas as follows:

Section 1. The foregoing resolutions are true and correct.

Section 2. The City Council hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority.

It is the purpose and intent of the City Council that this resolution constitute approval of the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority, for the purposes of (a) Section 147(f) of the Code by the 399
Item # 16.

Resolution No. _____
applicable elected representative of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which the Project is located, in accordance with said Section 147(f) and (b) Section 4 of the Agreement.

Section 3. The issuance of the Bonds shall be subject to the approval of the Authority of all financing documents relating thereto to which the Authority is a party. The City shall have no responsibility or liability whatsoever with respect to the Bonds.

Section 4. The adoption of this Resolution shall not obligate the City or any department thereof to (i) provide any financing to acquire or construct the Project or any refinancing of the Project; (ii) approve any application or request for or take any other action in connection with any planning approval, permit or other action necessary for the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, installation or operation of the Project; (iii) make any contribution or advance any funds whatsoever to the Authority; or (iv) take any further action with respect to the Authority or its membership therein.

Section 5. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents which they deem necessary or advisable in order to carry out, give effect to and comply with the terms and intent of this resolution and the financing transaction approved hereby.

Section 6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this _______ day of ______ 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
____________________________ _________________________
Mary Lavelle, City Clerk Wendy Wood, City Clerk Rich Tran, Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________
Christopher J. Diaz, City Attorney

400
Item # 16.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Adopt a Resolution Approving the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule (Staff Contact: Lauren Lai, Finance Director, 408-586-3111)
Category: Leadership and Support Services
Meeting Date: 4/19/2022
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule.

Background:

Consistent with Council adopted fiscal policy regarding user fees, staff is bringing forward the attached Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2022-23 for Council consideration and adoption. Per the fiscal policy, all fees were reviewed for potential adjustments to recover the full cost of services provided.

The City’s master fee schedule identifies fees for services and activities provided at the request of, or on behalf of, a single party as opposed to the public at large. Examples of user and regulatory fees collected by the City of Milpitas and municipalities throughout California include, but are not limited to:

 Planning Fees, such as entitlement review and review for compliance with the zoning code  Building Fees, such as permitting of new construction or modifications to existing structures  Engineering Fees, such as map review, encroachment permitting, and public improvement review  Utility Fees, such as requests for sewer lateral inspections, and restoration of discontinued service  Police Fees, such as vehicle impound and false alarm response  Animal Regulation Fees, such as licensing and impound fees  Fire Fees, such as annual inspections and construction review to ensure compliance with the fire code  Recreation Fees, such as program participation fees, and facility rental fees  Administrative Fees, such as license application review fees

User and regulatory fees specifically exclude:

 Taxes
 Assessments
 Franchise Fees
 Development Impact Fees
 Fines or Penalties
 Utility Rates and Services Charges

User and regulatory fees are established by the City Council. The master fee schedule was most recently comprehensively updated on May 4, 2021.

The fee schedule is reviewed annually by City staff as part of the normal course of operations. Typically, a cost of service study is completed every three to five years with incremental updates occurring in the years in between comprehensive studies. This update represents an interim year update with minor, incremental, changes proposed that incorporate feedback received during prior fee studies and feedback received subsequent to adoption of the City’s current schedule of fees.

401
Item # 17.

Analysis:

During interim years (i.e., during years in between comprehensive fee studies) the City Council has authorized inflationary adjustments to fees. The inflationary adjustments are based on the estimated average annual increase in total employee compensation costs, with distinct averages calculated for employees commonly classified as miscellaneous employees and employees commonly classified as safety employees. If the estimated average employee compensation costs do not change or go down, no change shall be made to the fee schedule for that year unless an adjustment is made to targeted cost recovery levels or fee study findings indicate that an adjustment is appropriate. The City’s annual budgeting process includes forecast adjustments to City operating costs. For FY 2022/23, wages for each employee category increased as follows (see attachment #4):
 Miscellaneous Employee Compensation increased by 4.34%  Safety Employee Compensation increased by 4.06%

Based on these changes to compensation costs:
 Non-safety related fees are proposed to increase by 4.34%  Safety related fees are proposed to increase by 4.06% *There may be instances of rounding that result in adjustments different than amounts listed above In addition to the inflationary adjustments, several minor changes are proposed to enhance fee schedule clarity, recalibrate fees to the City’s current costs of service, and correct typographical errors in the current fee schedule. Discrete fee adjustments included:

Building Fees
 Clarifying fee descriptions and correcting typographical errors in prior fee schedule

Planning Fees (see attachment #3)
 Modifying special event application review fees to account for varying levels of special event magnitude o The current fee schedule distinguishes between reviews for minor and major events o The proposed fee schedule distinguishes between:
 Minor Event Review
 Regular Event Review
 Major Event Review
o Minor events are for permits issued over-the-counter for small private events. Regular events permits are typically issued for events less than four consecutive days, including block parties, or that require review by multiple departments. Major event permits are typically issued for events that exceed four consecutive days and/or anticipate crowds exceeding 1,000 people.

 Modifying several planning fees to account for building review activities included in the application review process. Modified fees include:
o Special Event Application Review for Major Events
o Pre-Application Review Fees
o Site Development Reviews
o Conditional Use Permit Reviews

Recreation Fees
 Modifying the community garden fee from a fixed fee of $15 per plot to a fee aligned to plot size o As the City’s new community garden becomes available there will be a difference in plot sizes and water usage. The modified fee structure will provide a more consistent application using charge per square foot of plot rented.
 In response to a request from City Council, the deposit for rental of the Senior Center Auditorium has been reduced to $500.
 In order to maintain consistency within the fee schedule, all indoor auditorium deposits have been reduced to $500.
 Recreation fees are proposed for an inflationary adjustment for the first time in several years. This 402
Item # 17.

will allow the department to better respond to increases in seasonal labor costs and other recurring costs. While the City Council adopted the recreation cost recovery policy in Fiscal Year 2020-2021, due to the Pandemic and the need to collect more data, staff plans to phase in this policy and implement beginning with the FY 2023-2024 master fee schedule update.

Finance / Administrative Fees
 Modify the fee schedule to clarify that credit card transaction fees apply when a credit card is used for payment of fees for development/fire-related fees, permits, plan review, etc. This is an existing fee and allows the City to offset its vendor related costs associated with credit card transaction processing. The fee only applies when a credit card is used for payment of fees.

No new fees are proposed as a result of these inflationary adjustments and fee recalibrations.

Policy Alternatives:

Since fees are proposed to remain relatively unchanged, no alternatives are recommended.

Fiscal Impact:

The anticipated revenue impact of the proposed changes is $506,000 per year.

California Environmental Quality Act:

The fees (charges) authorized by this Resolution are statutorily exempt from environmental review under Guideline 15273 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which provides an exemption for the establishment or modification of charges by public agencies, which the public agency finds are for the purpose of meeting operating expenses.

Recommendation:

Adopt a resolution approving the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule.

Attachments:

1. Resolution Approving the Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2022-23

2. Illustration of Current and Proposed Fees and Fee Schedule Changes

3. Cost of Service Analysis Supporting Fee Recalibrations

4. Cost of Living Adjustment Calculation
403
Item # 17.

RESOLUTION NO. _______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MILPITAS APPROVING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

WHEREAS, the City of Milpitas (the “City”) charges fees for licenses, permits, and various services provided by the City (collectively, the “Fees”); and

WHEREAS, the Fees are established to offset all, or portions of, the costs of providing the various services for which the Fees are collected; and

WHEREAS, certain of the Fees are subject to the adoption procedures s et forth under Government Code section 66016, and others are subject to the procedures of Government Code section 66018; and

WHEREAS, in addition to Fees, the City’s Master Fee Schedule also identifies various fines and penalties (the “Penalties”) for vio lations of applicable State or local law, including violation of a provision of any ordinance or the City’s Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, it is useful to consolidate into one place such fees for services, permits, licenses and fines for public information and transparency into a Master Fee Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated into this Resolution by this reference; and

WHEREAS, on February 5, 2019, pursuant to the procedural and substantive requirements of article XIII D, section 6 of the California Constitution (also known as “Proposition 218”), the City Council approved a schedule of automatic increases for the rates for its water and sewer service fees and charges; and

WHEREAS, all references to the approved schedule of automatic increases for the rates for water and sewer service fees and charges are included in the Master Fee Schedule for information purposes only and are not being considered, modified, or “increased” as such term is defined under Government Code section 53750; and

WHEREAS, on November 19 , 2019, pursuant to the procedural and substantive requirements of Government Code Section 66000 et seq. (“Mitigation Fee Act”), the City Council approved a schedule of fees and automatic increases for the Transit Area Development Impact Fee; and

WHEREAS, all references to the approved schedule of automatic increases for the Transit Area Development Impact Fee are included in the Master Fee Schedule for information purposes only and are not being considered, modified, increased, as part of this Resolution; and

WHEREAS, staff recommends authorizing the Finance Director to make annual inflationary adjustments for various fees identified in the Master Fee Schedule; and

WHEREAS, inflationary adjustments will be based on the estimated average annual increase in total employee compensation costs, with distinct averages calculated for employees commonly classified as miscellaneous employees and employees commonly classified as safety employees; and

WHEREAS, if the estimated average employee compensation costs do not change or go down, no change shall be made to the fee schedule for that year unless an adjustment is m ade to targeted cost recovery levels or fee study findings indicate that an adjustment is appropriate; and

WHEREAS, the City Council now wishes to adopt the updated Master Fee Schedule set forth in Exhibit 1 hereto; and

NOW, THEREFORE , the City Council o f the City of Milpitas hereby finds, determines, and resolves as follows:
404
Item # 17.

1. The above Recitals are true and correct and by this reference incorporated herein.

2. The City Council has considered the full record before it, which may include but is not limited to such things as the staff report, testimony by staff and the public, and other materials and evidence submitted or provided to it. Based upon such consideration, the City Council finds and determines that:

(a) The Fees established by this Resolution:

(1) are imposed for a specific government service provided directly to the payor, or for reasonable regulatory costs of the City for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and administrative enforcements of the City’s Municipal Code or other rules or ordinances;

(2) are no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity for which the Fee is imposed; and

(3) the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity for which the Fee is imposed.

(b) The Penalties established by this resolution are imposed for a violation of applicable State or local law, including violation of an ordinance of the City or the Municipal Code, and persons upon whom the Penalty is imposed have adequate rights to appeal such penalty under the Municipal Code.

3. The City Council hereby approves the Master Fee Schedule included herewith as Exhibit

1. The fees and penalties adopted pursuant to this Resolution shall supersede any prior fees, charges, penalties, or other exactions imposed by resolution or otherwise by the City Council, to the extent such prior fees, charges, penalties, or other exactions conflict with the Fees and Penalties set forth in Exhibit 1 hereto.

4. The Finance Director has authority to make annual inflationary adjustments for various fees identified in the Master Fee Schedule based on the estimated average annual increase in total employee compensation costs, with distinct averages calculated for employees commonly classified as miscellaneous employees and employees commonly classified as safety employees. If the estimated average employee compensation costs do not change or go down, no change shall be made to the fee schedule for that year unless an adjustment is made to targeted cost recovery levels or fee study findings indicate that an adjustment is appropriate.

5. The inflationary changes authorized by this Resolution do not apply to the rates for water and sewer service fees and charges. These rates and charges are established pursuant to the procedural and substantive requirements of article XIII D, section 6 of the California Constitution (also known as “Proposition 218”). Any reference to rates for water and sewer service fees and charges are included in the Master Fee Schedule for information purposes only and are not considered, modified, or “increased” as such term is defined under Government Code section 53750 as part of the City’s fee schedule update.

405
Item # 17.

6. The inflationary changes authorized by this Resolution do not apply to the Transit Area Development Impact Fee. Th is fee is established pursuant to the procedural and substantive requirements of Government Code Section 66000 et seq. (“Mitigation Fee Act”) . Any reference to the Transit Area Development Impact Fee are included in the Master Fee Schedule for information purposes only and are not considered, modified, or “increased” as part of the City’s fee schedule update.

7. The updated Master Fee Schedule will become effective July 1, 2022.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ______________ day of _______, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: APPROVED

_____________________________ ________________________ Wendy Wood, City Clerk Rich Tran, Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________
Christopher J. Diaz, City Attorney

406
Item # 17.

Exhibit 1
407
Item # 17.

Illustration of Current and Proposed Fees
Effective Fiscal Year 2022-23
408
Item # 17.

Services / Activities / Subject Matter Page
BUILDING 3
ANIMAL REGULATION 19
PLANNING 20
ENGINERING 23
TRANSIT AREA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE 24
PUBLIC WORKS 25
FIRE 30
AMBULANCE 37
POLICE 40
RECREATION 42
FINANCE 55
CITY CLERK 56
INFORMATION SERVICES 57
City of Milpitas

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
409
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

BUILDING SAFETY AND HOUSING - CONSTRUCTION
New Construction, Tenant Improvements, Remodels
FY 21/22 Fee FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee FY 22/23 Fee
Plan Review Inspection Plan Review Inspection
Occupancy Classification
Threshold
SqFt Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof
Y'rly
In'fltr
1 100 261.44$ 428.03$ 272.78$ 446.61$ Y 200 374.58$ 642.05$ 390.83$ 669.91$ Y 300 544.29$ 856.07$ 567.91$ 893.22$ Y 400 996.84$ 1,177.09$ 1,040.10$ 1,228.18$ Y 500 1,223.12$ 154.11$ 1,712.13$ 171.21$ 1,276.20$ 160.80$ 1,786.44$ 178.64$ Y 1,000 1,993.68$ 181.02$ 2,568.20$ 171.21$ 2,080.21$ 188.88$ 2,679.65$ 178.64$ Y 1,500 2,898.80$ 181.02$ 3,424.26$ 256.82$ 3,024.61$ 188.88$ 3,572.87$ 267.97$ Y 2,000 3,803.91$ 154.11$ 4,708.36$ 342.43$ 3,969.00$ 160.80$ 4,912.70$ 357.29$ Y 2,500 4,574.47$ 135.77$ 6,420.49$ 342.43$ 4,773.01$ 141.66$ 6,699.14$ 357.29$ Y 3,000 5,253.31$ 77.06$ 8,132.62$ 149.81$ 5,481.30$ 80.40$ 8,485.57$ 156.31$ Y 4,000 6,023.87$ 90.51$ 9,630.73$ 214.02$ 6,285.31$ 94.44$ 10,048.70$ 223.30$ Y 5,000 6,928.99$ 45.26$ 11,770.89$ 107.01$ 7,229.71$ 47.22$ 12,281.75$ 111.65$ Y Tract or Repetitive Fees: 25% of Original Same as regular 25% of Original Same as regular N Commercial / Multi-Family / Non-
Residential - New Construction, Tenant
Improvement, and Shell
2 1,500 4,216.43$ 61.48$ 10,767.69$ 138.75$ 4,399.43$ 64.16$ 11,235.01$ 80.25$ Y 7,500 7,905.81$ 87.84$ 15,382.42$ 128.08$ 8,248.92$ 91.65$ 16,050.01$ 128.40$ Y 15,000 14,493.99$ 79.06$ 24,611.87$ 85.38$ 15,123.03$ 82.49$ 25,680.02$ 136.96$ Y 30,000 26,352.71$ 14.64$ 44,301.36$ 39.14$ 27,496.41$ 15.28$ 46,224.04$ 57.78$ Y 75,000 32,940.88$ 19.32$ 69,220.88$ 40.56$ 34,370.52$ 20.16$ 72,225.07$ 23.54$ Y 150,000 47,434.87$ 31.63$ 86,141.54$ 57.64$ 49,493.54$ 33.00$ 89,880.08$ 60.14$ Y 3 500 1,581.60$ 69.19$ 2,996.23$ 64.21$ 1,650.25$ 72.20$ 3,126.26$ 66.99$ Y 2,500 2,965.51$ 98.85$ 4,280.33$ 102.73$ 3,094.21$ 103.14$ 4,466.09$ 107.19$ Y 5,000 5,436.77$ 88.96$ 6,848.52$ 109.57$ 5,672.72$ 92.83$ 7,145.75$ 114.33$ Y 10,000 9,885.03$ 22.16$ 12,327.34$ 46.23$ 10,314.04$ 23.12$ 12,862.34$ 48.23$ Y 25,000 13,209.13$ 37.14$ 19,261.46$ 18.83$ 13,782.41$ 38.75$ 20,097.41$ 19.65$ Y 50,000 22,494.56$ 44.99$ 23,969.82$ 47.94$ 23,470.83$ 46.94$ 25,010.11$ 50.02$ Y 5 1,000 3,987.37$ 86.08$ 7,490.57$ 80.26$ 4,160.42$ 89.81$ 7,815.66$ 83.74$ Y 5,000 7,430.45$ 118.64$ 10,700.81$ 128.41$ 7,752.93$ 123.79$ 11,165.23$ 133.98$ Y 10,000 13,362.60$ 105.50$ 17,121.30$ 136.97$ 13,942.53$ 110.07$ 17,864.36$ 142.91$ Y 20,000 23,912.04$ 19.47$ 30,818.34$ 57.78$ 24,949.82$ 20.31$ 32,155.86$ 60.29$ Y 50,000 29,752.46$ 30.61$ 48,153.66$ 28.25$ 31,043.71$ 31.93$ 50,243.52$ 29.48$ Y 100,000 45,053.74$ 45.05$ 62,278.73$ 62.28$ 47,009.08$ 47.01$ 64,981.63$ 64.98$ Y Single-Family, Two-Family, Additional
Dwelling Units / Remodels
A-Assembly - New Construction
A-Assembly - Tenant Improvement
B - Business - New Construction:
3 410
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

BUILDING SAFETY AND HOUSING - CONSTRUCTION
New Construction, Tenant Improvements, Remodels
FY 21/22 Fee FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee FY 22/23 Fee
Plan Review Inspection Plan Review Inspection
Occupancy Classification
Threshold
SqFt Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof
Y'rly
In'fltr
6 500 1,528.24$ 66.86$ 3,277.12$ 70.22$ 1,594.56$ 69.76$ 3,419.35$ 73.27$ Y 2,500 2,865.44$ 95.51$ 4,681.61$ 112.36$ 2,989.80$ 99.66$ 4,884.79$ 117.23$ Y 5,000 5,253.31$ 85.97$ 7,490.57$ 119.85$ 5,481.30$ 89.69$ 7,815.66$ 125.05$ Y 10,000 9,551.47$ 15.92$ 13,483.02$ 50.56$ 9,966.01$ 16.61$ 14,068.19$ 52.76$ Y 25,000 11,939.34$ 21.02$ 21,067.22$ 20.60$ 12,457.51$ 21.93$ 21,981.54$ 21.49$ Y 50,000 17,192.65$ 34.38$ 26,216.99$ 52.44$ 17,938.81$ 35.87$ 27,354.81$ 54.71$ Y 7 500 1,793.31$ 78.42$ 4,119.81$ 88.29$ 1,871.14$ 81.86$ 4,298.61$ 92.11$ Y 2,500 3,362.46$ 112.08$ 5,885.45$ 141.25$ 3,508.39$ 116.95$ 6,140.88$ 147.38$ Y 5,000 6,164.51$ 100.87$ 9,416.72$ 150.66$ 6,432.05$ 105.25$ 9,825.40$ 157.21$ Y 10,000 11,208.20$ 18.68$ 16,950.09$ 63.56$ 11,694.63$ 19.49$ 17,685.72$ 66.32$ Y 25,000 14,010.25$ 24.66$ 26,484.51$ 25.90$ 14,618.29$ 25.73$ 27,633.94$ 27.02$ Y 50,000 20,174.76$ 40.35$ 32,958.50$ 65.92$ 21,050.34$ 42.10$ 34,388.90$ 68.78$ Y 8 100 843.29$ 184.46$ 1,498.11$ 160.51$ 879.89$ 192.47$ 1,563.13$ 167.48$ Y 500 1,581.16$ 263.53$ 2,140.16$ 256.82$ 1,649.78$ 274.96$ 2,233.05$ 267.97$ Y 1,000 2,898.80$ 237.17$ 3,424.26$ 273.94$ 3,024.61$ 247.47$ 3,572.87$ 285.83$ Y 2,000 5,270.54$ 43.92$ 6,163.67$ 115.56$ 5,499.28$ 45.83$ 6,431.17$ 120.58$ Y 5,000 6,588.18$ 57.98$ 9,630.73$ 47.08$ 6,874.10$ 60.49$ 10,048.70$ 49.13$ Y 10,000 9,486.97$ 94.87$ 11,984.91$ 119.85$ 9,898.71$ 98.99$ 12,505.06$ 125.05$ Y 9 5,000 5,797.60$ 19.94$ 8,560.65$ 42.81$ 6,049.21$ 20.80$ 8,932.18$ 44.66$ Y 25,000 9,784.96$ 44.92$ 17,121.30$ 102.74$ 10,209.63$ 46.86$ 17,864.36$ 107.19$ Y 50,000 21,013.24$ 14.48$ 42,803.25$ 29.96$ 21,925.22$ 15.11$ 44,660.91$ 31.26$ Y 100,000 28,254.15$ 8.36$ 57,784.39$ 7.85$ 29,480.38$ 8.72$ 60,292.23$ 8.19$ Y 250,000 40,791.19$ 4.64$ 69,555.28$ 14.98$ 42,561.53$ 4.84$ 72,573.98$ 15.63$ Y 500,000 52,380.30$ 10.47$ 107,008.13$ 21.40$ 54,653.60$ 10.93$ 111,652.28$ 22.33$ Y 10 2,000 2,233.31$ 18.92$ 2,334.72$ 19.46$ 2,330.24$ 19.74$ 2,436.05$ 20.30$ Y 10,000 3,746.65$ 45.40$ 3,891.20$ 46.70$ 3,909.25$ 47.37$ 4,060.08$ 48.72$ Y 20,000 8,286.66$ 15.04$ 8,560.65$ 15.57$ 8,646.30$ 15.69$ 8,932.18$ 16.24$ Y 40,000 11,294.98$ 8.41$ 11,673.61$ 8.91$ 11,785.19$ 8.78$ 12,180.25$ 9.30$ Y 100,000 16,345.73$ 4.83$ 17,024.02$ 4.87$ 17,055.13$ 5.03$ 17,762.86$ 5.08$ Y 200,000 21,166.63$ 10.59$ 21,888.03$ 10.94$ 22,085.26$ 11.05$ 22,837.97$ 11.42$ Y F - Factory - Tenant Improvement:

B - Business - Tenant Improvement:

E - Education - New Construction:

E - Education - Tenant Improvement:

F - Factory - New Construction:
4 411
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

BUILDING SAFETY AND HOUSING - CONSTRUCTION
New Construction, Tenant Improvements, Remodels
FY 21/22 Fee FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee FY 22/23 Fee
Plan Review Inspection Plan Review Inspection
Occupancy Classification
Threshold
SqFt Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof
Y'rly
In'fltr
11 1,000 4,558.02$ 99.70$ 8,426.89$ 90.29$ 4,755.84$ 104.03$ 8,792.62$ 94.21$ Y 5,000 8,546.29$ 142.43$ 12,038.41$ 144.46$ 8,917.20$ 148.62$ 12,560.88$ 150.73$ Y 10,000 15,668.20$ 128.19$ 19,261.46$ 154.10$ 16,348.20$ 133.76$ 20,097.41$ 160.78$ Y 20,000 28,487.64$ 23.74$ 34,670.63$ 65.01$ 29,724.00$ 24.77$ 36,175.34$ 67.83$ Y 50,000 35,609.55$ 31.34$ 54,172.86$ 26.49$ 37,155.00$ 32.70$ 56,523.97$ 27.63$ Y 100,000 51,277.75$ 51.28$ 67,415.12$ 67.41$ 53,503.21$ 53.51$ 70,340.93$ 70.34$ Y 12 1,000 2,279.01$ 49.86$ 4,494.34$ 48.15$ 2,377.92$ 52.02$ 4,689.40$ 50.24$ Y 5,000 4,273.15$ 71.22$ 6,420.49$ 77.04$ 4,458.60$ 74.31$ 6,699.14$ 80.39$ Y 10,000 7,834.10$ 64.10$ 10,272.78$ 82.18$ 8,174.10$ 66.88$ 10,718.62$ 85.75$ Y 20,000 14,243.82$ 11.87$ 18,491.00$ 34.67$ 14,862.00$ 12.39$ 19,293.51$ 36.18$ Y 50,000 17,804.78$ 15.67$ 28,892.19$ 14.12$ 18,577.50$ 16.35$ 30,146.11$ 14.74$ Y 100,000 25,638.88$ 25.64$ 35,954.73$ 35.95$ 26,751.60$ 26.75$ 37,515.17$ 37.51$ Y 13 2,000 2,739.80$ 29.96$ 5,617.93$ 30.10$ 2,858.70$ 31.27$ 5,861.74$ 31.40$ Y 10,000 5,137.12$ 42.81$ 8,025.61$ 48.15$ 5,360.07$ 44.67$ 8,373.92$ 50.24$ Y 20,000 9,418.05$ 38.53$ 12,840.98$ 51.37$ 9,826.79$ 40.20$ 13,398.27$ 53.59$ Y 40,000 17,123.73$ 7.13$ 23,113.76$ 21.67$ 17,866.90$ 7.44$ 24,116.89$ 22.61$ Y 100,000 21,404.66$ 9.42$ 36,115.24$ 8.83$ 22,333.62$ 9.83$ 37,682.64$ 9.21$ Y 200,000 30,822.71$ 15.41$ 44,943.41$ 22.47$ 32,160.41$ 16.08$ 46,893.96$ 23.45$ Y 14 1,000 1,106.59$ 24.21$ 2,340.80$ 25.08$ 1,154.62$ 25.26$ 2,442.39$ 26.17$ Y 5,000 2,074.86$ 34.58$ 3,344.00$ 40.12$ 2,164.91$ 36.08$ 3,489.13$ 41.87$ Y 10,000 3,803.91$ 31.13$ 5,350.41$ 42.81$ 3,969.00$ 32.47$ 5,582.61$ 44.66$ Y 20,000 6,916.20$ 5.76$ 9,630.73$ 18.05$ 7,216.37$ 6.01$ 10,048.70$ 18.84$ Y 50,000 8,645.25$ 7.61$ 15,048.02$ 7.35$ 9,020.46$ 7.94$ 15,701.10$ 7.68$ Y 100,000 12,449.16$ 12.45$ 18,726.42$ 18.73$ 12,989.46$ 12.99$ 19,539.15$ 19.54$ Y 15 500 2,266.55$ 99.16$ 4,681.61$ 100.32$ 2,364.92$ 103.47$ 4,884.79$ 104.67$ Y 2,500 4,249.79$ 141.66$ 6,688.01$ 160.51$ 4,434.23$ 147.81$ 6,978.27$ 167.48$ Y 5,000 7,791.28$ 127.49$ 10,700.81$ 171.22$ 8,129.42$ 133.03$ 11,165.23$ 178.64$ Y 10,000 14,165.96$ 23.61$ 19,261.46$ 72.23$ 14,780.77$ 24.63$ 20,097.41$ 75.37$ Y 25,000 17,707.45$ 31.17$ 30,096.04$ 29.43$ 18,475.96$ 32.52$ 31,402.20$ 30.70$ Y 50,000 25,498.73$ 51.00$ 37,452.84$ 74.90$ 26,605.38$ 53.22$ 39,078.30$ 78.15$ Y H - Hazardous Materials - New
Construction:

H - Hazardous Materials - Tenant
Improvement:

I - Licensed Clinics - New Construction:

I - Licensed Clinics - Tenant
Improvement:

M - Mercantile - New Construction:
5 412
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

BUILDING SAFETY AND HOUSING - CONSTRUCTION
New Construction, Tenant Improvements, Remodels
FY 21/22 Fee FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee FY 22/23 Fee
Plan Review Inspection Plan Review Inspection
Occupancy Classification
Threshold
SqFt Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof
Y'rly
In'fltr
16 250 1,040.77$ 91.06$ 1,872.64$ 80.26$ 1,085.94$ 95.02$ 1,953.91$ 83.74$ Y 1,250 1,951.44$ 130.09$ 2,675.20$ 128.41$ 2,036.13$ 135.74$ 2,791.31$ 133.98$ Y 2,500 3,577.63$ 117.08$ 4,280.33$ 136.97$ 3,732.90$ 122.17$ 4,466.09$ 142.91$ Y 5,000 6,504.79$ 21.68$ 7,704.59$ 57.78$ 6,787.09$ 22.62$ 8,038.96$ 60.29$ Y 12,500 8,130.98$ 28.62$ 12,038.41$ 23.55$ 8,483.87$ 29.86$ 12,560.88$ 24.56$ Y 25,000 11,708.62$ 46.83$ 14,981.14$ 59.92$ 12,216.77$ 48.86$ 15,631.32$ 62.53$ Y 17 2,000 10,140.81$ 110.92$ 25,748.83$ 137.94$ 10,580.92$ 115.73$ 26,866.33$ 143.93$ Y 10,000 19,014.02$ 158.45$ 36,784.04$ 220.71$ 19,839.23$ 165.33$ 38,380.47$ 230.28$ Y 20,000 34,859.05$ 142.60$ 58,854.47$ 235.41$ 36,371.93$ 148.79$ 61,408.75$ 245.64$ Y 40,000 63,380.08$ 26.41$ 105,938.04$ 99.32$ 66,130.78$ 27.55$ 110,535.75$ 103.63$ Y 100,000 79,225.10$ 34.86$ 165,528.19$ 40.47$ 82,663.47$ 36.37$ 172,712.12$ 42.22$ Y 200,000 114,084.15$ 57.04$ 205,990.64$ 102.99$ 119,035.40$ 59.52$ 214,930.63$ 107.46$ Y 18 500 2,410.66$ 105.47$ 5,992.46$ 128.41$ 2,515.29$ 110.04$ 6,252.53$ 133.98$ Y 2,500 4,520.00$ 150.66$ 8,560.65$ 205.45$ 4,716.16$ 157.21$ 8,932.18$ 214.37$ Y 5,000 8,286.66$ 135.60$ 13,697.04$ 219.15$ 8,646.30$ 141.48$ 14,291.49$ 228.66$ Y 10,000 15,066.65$ 25.12$ 24,654.67$ 92.46$ 15,720.54$ 26.20$ 25,724.68$ 96.47$ Y 25,000 18,833.31$ 33.14$ 38,522.93$ 37.67$ 19,650.68$ 34.59$ 40,194.82$ 39.30$ Y 50,000 27,119.97$ 54.24$ 47,939.64$ 95.88$ 28,296.98$ 56.59$ 50,020.22$ 100.04$ Y 19 2,000 21,211.62$ 11.10$ 32,771.24$ 175.56$ 22,132.21$ 11.58$ 34,193.51$ 183.18$ Y 10,000 22,099.64$ 184.16$ 46,816.05$ 280.89$ 23,058.76$ 192.16$ 48,847.87$ 293.09$ Y 20,000 40,516.01$ 165.74$ 74,905.69$ 299.62$ 42,274.40$ 172.94$ 78,156.59$ 312.63$ Y 40,000 73,665.47$ 30.69$ 134,830.24$ 126.40$ 76,862.55$ 32.03$ 140,681.87$ 131.89$ Y 100,000 92,081.83$ 40.52$ 210,672.25$ 51.50$ 96,078.18$ 42.27$ 219,815.42$ 53.73$ Y 200,000 132,597.84$ 66.30$ 262,169.91$ 131.08$ 138,352.58$ 69.18$ 273,548.08$ 136.77$ Y 20 500 3,068.93$ 134.26$ 6,554.25$ 140.45$ 3,202.12$ 140.09$ 6,838.70$ 146.54$ Y 2,500 5,754.24$ 191.81$ 9,363.21$ 224.71$ 6,003.98$ 200.13$ 9,769.57$ 234.47$ Y 5,000 10,549.44$ 172.63$ 14,981.14$ 239.70$ 11,007.29$ 180.12$ 15,631.32$ 250.10$ Y 10,000 19,180.80$ 31.97$ 26,966.05$ 101.12$ 20,013.25$ 33.36$ 28,136.37$ 105.51$ Y 25,000 23,976.00$ 42.19$ 42,134.45$ 41.19$ 25,016.56$ 44.03$ 43,963.08$ 42.99$ Y 50,000 34,525.45$ 69.06$ 52,433.98$ 104.86$ 36,023.85$ 72.05$ 54,709.62$ 109.41$ Y M - Mercantile - Tenant Improvement:

R-1 - Residential Hotels - New
Construction:

R-1 - Residential Hotels - Tenant
Improvement:

R-2 - Residential Multi-Family - New
Construction:

R-2 - Residential Multi-Family - Tenant
Improvement:
6 413
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

BUILDING SAFETY AND HOUSING - CONSTRUCTION
New Construction, Tenant Improvements, Remodels
FY 21/22 Fee FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee FY 22/23 Fee
Plan Review Inspection Plan Review Inspection
Occupancy Classification
Threshold
SqFt Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof
Y'rly
In'fltr
21 2,000 6,191.23$ 67.71$ 14,044.82$ 75.24$ 6,459.93$ 70.66$ 14,654.36$ 78.51$ Y 10,000 11,608.55$ 96.74$ 20,064.02$ 120.38$ 12,112.36$ 100.94$ 20,934.80$ 125.61$ Y 20,000 21,282.34$ 87.07$ 32,102.44$ 128.41$ 22,205.99$ 90.84$ 33,495.68$ 133.98$ Y 40,000 38,695.17$ 16.12$ 57,784.39$ 54.17$ 40,374.54$ 16.82$ 60,292.23$ 56.52$ Y 100,000 48,368.96$ 21.28$ 90,288.11$ 22.07$ 50,468.17$ 22.21$ 94,206.61$ 23.03$ Y 200,000 69,651.30$ 34.83$ 112,358.53$ 56.18$ 72,674.16$ 36.34$ 117,234.89$ 58.62$ Y 22 1,000 3,015.56$ 65.97$ 7,490.57$ 80.26$ 3,146.43$ 68.83$ 7,815.66$ 83.74$ Y 5,000 5,654.17$ 94.23$ 10,700.81$ 128.65$ 5,899.56$ 98.33$ 11,165.23$ 133.98$ Y 10,000 10,365.99$ 84.81$ 17,121.30$ 136.97$ 10,815.87$ 88.49$ 17,864.36$ 142.91$ Y 20,000 18,847.25$ 15.70$ 30,818.34$ 57.78$ 19,665.22$ 16.39$ 32,155.86$ 60.29$ Y 50,000 23,559.06$ 20.73$ 48,153.66$ 23.55$ 24,581.52$ 21.63$ 50,243.52$ 24.56$ Y 100,000 33,925.04$ 33.92$ 59,924.55$ 59.92$ 35,397.39$ 35.40$ 62,525.28$ 62.53$ Y 23 1,000 3,688.05$ 80.67$ 7,022.41$ 76.28$ 3,848.11$ 84.18$ 7,327.18$ 78.51$ Y 5,000 6,915.10$ 115.25$ 10,032.01$ 120.38$ 7,215.21$ 120.25$ 10,467.40$ 125.61$ Y 10,000 12,677.68$ 103.73$ 16,051.22$ 128.41$ 13,227.89$ 108.23$ 16,747.84$ 133.98$ Y 20,000 23,050.32$ 19.21$ 28,892.19$ 54.17$ 24,050.70$ 20.04$ 30,146.11$ 56.52$ Y 50,000 28,812.90$ 25.36$ 45,144.05$ 22.07$ 30,063.38$ 26.46$ 47,103.30$ 23.03$ Y 100,000 41,490.58$ 41.49$ 56,179.27$ 56.18$ 43,291.27$ 43.29$ 58,617.45$ 58.62$ Y 24 1,000 2,028.16$ 44.37$ 4,119.81$ 44.14$ 2,116.18$ 46.29$ 4,298.61$ 46.06$ Y 5,000 3,802.80$ 63.38$ 5,885.45$ 70.63$ 3,967.85$ 66.13$ 6,140.88$ 73.69$ Y 10,000 6,971.81$ 57.04$ 9,416.72$ 75.34$ 7,274.39$ 59.52$ 9,825.40$ 78.60$ Y 20,000 12,676.02$ 10.57$ 16,950.09$ 31.78$ 13,226.16$ 11.02$ 17,685.72$ 33.16$ Y 50,000 15,845.02$ 13.95$ 26,484.51$ 12.95$ 16,532.69$ 14.55$ 27,633.94$ 13.51$ Y 100,000 22,816.83$ 22.82$ 32,958.50$ 32.96$ 23,807.08$ 23.81$ 34,388.90$ 34.39$ Y 25 500 1,501.55$ 65.70$ 2,574.88$ 55.17$ 1,566.72$ 68.54$ 2,686.63$ 57.57$ Y 2,500 2,815.41$ 93.85$ 3,678.40$ 88.29$ 2,937.60$ 97.92$ 3,838.05$ 92.11$ Y 5,000 5,161.58$ 84.46$ 5,885.45$ 94.17$ 5,385.59$ 88.13$ 6,140.88$ 98.25$ Y 10,000 9,384.69$ 15.64$ 10,593.80$ 39.73$ 9,791.99$ 16.32$ 11,053.58$ 41.45$ Y 25,000 11,730.87$ 20.64$ 16,552.82$ 16.18$ 12,239.99$ 21.54$ 17,271.21$ 16.89$ Y 50,000 16,892.45$ 33.79$ 20,599.06$ 41.19$ 17,625.58$ 35.26$ 21,493.06$ 42.98$ Y R-4 - Care / Assisted Living - New
Construction:

R-4 - Care / Assisted Living - Tenant
Improvement:

S-1 - Storage Moderate Hazard - New
Construction:

S-2 - Storage Low Hazard - New
Construction:

S - Storage - Tenant Improvement:
7 414
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

BUILDING SAFETY AND HOUSING - CONSTRUCTION
New Construction, Tenant Improvements, Remodels
FY 21/22 Fee FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee FY 22/23 Fee
Plan Review Inspection Plan Review Inspection
Occupancy Classification
Threshold
SqFt Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof
Y'rly
In'fltr
26 150 869.97$ 126.87$ 1,591.75$ 113.69$ 907.73$ 132.38$ 1,660.83$ 118.63$ Y 750 1,631.20$ 181.24$ 2,273.92$ 181.92$ 1,701.99$ 189.11$ 2,372.61$ 189.81$ Y 1,500 2,990.53$ 163.12$ 3,638.28$ 194.04$ 3,120.31$ 170.20$ 3,796.18$ 202.46$ Y 3,000 5,437.32$ 30.21$ 6,548.90$ 81.86$ 5,673.30$ 31.52$ 6,833.12$ 85.41$ Y 7,500 6,796.65$ 39.87$ 10,232.65$ 33.35$ 7,091.62$ 41.60$ 10,676.75$ 34.80$ Y 15,000 9,787.18$ 65.25$ 12,733.97$ 84.90$ 10,211.94$ 68.08$ 13,286.62$ 88.58$ Y 27 100 579.98$ 126.87$ 1,123.59$ 120.38$ 605.15$ 132.38$ 1,172.35$ 125.61$ Y 500 1,087.46$ 181.24$ 1,605.12$ 192.62$ 1,134.66$ 189.11$ 1,674.78$ 200.97$ Y 1,000 1,993.68$ 163.12$ 2,568.20$ 205.45$ 2,080.21$ 170.20$ 2,679.65$ 214.37$ Y 2,000 3,624.88$ 30.21$ 4,622.75$ 86.67$ 3,782.20$ 31.52$ 4,823.38$ 90.44$ Y 5,000 4,531.10$ 39.87$ 7,223.05$ 35.31$ 4,727.75$ 41.60$ 7,536.53$ 36.85$ Y 10,000 6,524.78$ 65.25$ 8,988.68$ 89.89$ 6,807.96$ 68.08$ 9,378.79$ 93.79$ Y 28 5,000 5,479.59$ 23.97$ 10,299.53$ 22.07$ 5,717.41$ 25.01$ 10,746.53$ 23.03$ Y 25,000 10,274.24$ 34.25$ 14,713.62$ 35.31$ 10,720.14$ 35.73$ 15,352.19$ 36.85$ Y 50,000 18,836.10$ 30.83$ 23,541.79$ 37.67$ 19,653.59$ 32.16$ 24,563.50$ 39.30$ Y 100,000 34,247.45$ 5.71$ 42,375.22$ 15.89$ 35,733.79$ 5.96$ 44,214.30$ 16.58$ Y 250,000 42,809.32$ 7.53$ 66,211.28$ 6.47$ 44,667.24$ 7.86$ 69,084.85$ 6.75$ Y 500,000 61,645.42$ 12.32$ 82,396.26$ 16.48$ 64,320.83$ 12.86$ 85,972.25$ 17.20$ Y * Amounts exclude City of Milpitas standard permitting fees and State of California fees. ** A - Assembly New Construction per 100 SF amounts adjusted in order to reflect proper scaling from tier to tier. No change proposed to base fee. *** S-1 - Storage Moderate Hazard - New Construction: per 100 SF amounts adjusted in order to reflect proper scaling from tier to tier. No change proposed to base fee.

U - Utility - Misc - New Construction:

U - Utility - Misc - Tenant Improvement:

Shell Building:
8 415
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

BUILDING SAFETY AND HOUSING - MISCELLANEOUS
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Charge Basis Y'rly
In'fltr Note

MISCELLANEOUS FEES - RESIDENTIAL
Combination Permits
1 Attached Garage - 1 to 3 cars $1,290 $1,346 Y
2 Detached Garage or Shed Accessory Structure $1,108 $1,156 Y [a] 3 Bathroom Remodel (1 or more if inspected at same time) $945 $986 Y 4 Kitchen Remodel $945 $986 Y [b]
5 Kitchen and Bathroom Remodel $1,373 $1,432 Y
6 Standard Patio Encl / Sun Room, manufactured $1,215 $1,268 Y [c] 6 Engineered Patio Encl / Sun Room, custom Patio Enclosure / Sunroom $1,272 $1,327 Y 7 Garage conversion $1,215 $1,268 Y
8 Green House $1,001 $1,045 Y
9 Patio Cover $1,001 $1,045 Y
10 Window, Skylight or Exterior Door $838 $874 Y
Miscellaneous Construction
11 Wood Fences over 7’ high, concrete / masonry over 4’ high $746 $778 Y 12 Sound Wall $1,293 $1,349 Y
13 Structural Roof Conversions $1.99 $2.07 per sq ft Y
14 AC Condenser Replacement $268 $279 Y
15 Furnace Replacement $321 $335 Y
16 Water Heater Replacement $321 $335 Y
17 Solar Permit
a) 15kW or less $450 $450 N
b) Above 15kW – base $450 $450 base N
c) Above 15kW – per kW $15 $15 per kw N
18 Solar Thermal
a) 10kWth or less $450 $450 N
b) 10kWth or more - base $450 $450 base N
c) 10kWth or more – per kWth $15 $15 per kWth N
19 Fireplace reconstruction $633 $660 Y
20 Siding/stucco replacement $535 $558 Y
21 Seismic Strengthening $633 $660 Y
22 Miscellaneous Construction Not Listed See hourly rates for Plan Review and
Inspection
See hourly rates for
Plan Review and
Inspection
N [d]
Activity Description
9 416
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

BUILDING SAFETY AND HOUSING - MISCELLANEOUS
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Charge Basis Y'rly
In'fltr NoteActivity Description
Mobilehome Permit Fees
23 Mobilehome Installation Fee $196 $196 each N
24 Permit Issuance Fee $196 $196 each N
25 Awning (each) $196 $196 each N
26 Porch > than 12 sq. ft. $196 $196 each N
27 Deck > 12 sq. ft. $196 $196 each N
28 Cabana (each) $196 $196 each N
29 Ramada (each) $196 $196 each N
30 Private Garage (each) $196 $196 each N
31 Fence > 6 ft. height (each) $196 $196 each N
32 Windbreak > 6 ft. height (each) $196 $196 each N
33 MEP (each) $196 $196 each N
34 Re-inspection Fees
a) First Hour $178 $178 N
b) 1 additional hour $82 $82 N
c) 1/2 hour additional $41 $41 N

MISCELLANEOUS FEES - COMMERCIAL
Miscellaneous Construction
35 Permit Issuance Fee $183 $191 Y [e]
36 Equipment Installation
a) Each Type - Plan Check Review $453 $472 Y [f]
b) Each Type (max 3 pieces) Each 2 pieces or fraction thereof - Inspection $428 $447 Y [f] 37 Racks, each type
a) First Rack / Each Rack Type $774 $807 Y [f]
b) Each 5 additional racks or fraction thereof $214 $223 Y [f] 38 Roof Screen $988 $1,030 Y
39 Fences $988 $1,030 Y
40 Monument Sign
a) Each Piece - Not Electrical $654 $683 Y
b) Each Piece - Including Electrical $818 $853 Y
41 Wall Mounted Sign
a) Each Type (max 2 pieces) Each 2 pieces or fraction thereof - Not Electrical $440 $459 Y [f] b) Each Type (max 2 pieces) Each 2 pieces or fraction thereof - Including Electrical
$604 $630 Y [f]
10 417
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

BUILDING SAFETY AND HOUSING - MISCELLANEOUS
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Charge Basis Y'rly
In'fltr NoteActivity Description
42 Solar Permit
a) 50kW or less $1,000 $1,000 N
b) 50kW – 250kW – Base $1,000 $1,000 base N
c) 50kW – 250kW – per kW above 50kW $7 $7 per kW N
b) Above 250kW – base $2,400 $2,400 base N
c) Above 250kW – per kW $5 $5 per kW N
43 Solar Thermal
a) 30kWth or less $1,000 $1,000 N
b) 30kWth – 260kWth – Base $1,000 $1,000 base N
c) 30kWth – 260kWth – per kWth above 30kWth $7 $7 per kWth N d) 260+ kWth – Base $2,610 $2,610 base N
e) 260+ kWth – per kWth above 260kWth $5 $5 per kWth N
44 Miscellaneous Construction Not Listed See hourly rates for Plan Review and
Inspection
See hourly rates for
Plan Review and
Inspection
N
Other Plan Check, Inspection and Permit Fees
45 Certificate of Occupancy (inspection, record review, printing) $665 $694 Y 46 Temporary Building Permit Issuance ***** $410 $428 Y 47 Accessibility Exception Request $544 $568 Y
48 Christmas Tree Lot $306 $319 Y
49 Faithful Performance Bond Execution $318 $332 Y
50 Inspection Investigation Fee (Construction w/o Permits, Per MMC) 100% of insp. Fee 100% of insp. Fee N

RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND MEP FEES
Grading
51 Permit Issuance Fee $183 $191 Y [e]
52 Plan Check:
a) 0 - 10,000 Cubic Yards $453 $472 Y
b) Add for each additional 10,000 CY or fraction thereof $113 $118 Y c) Over 100,000 Cubic Yards $1,471 $1,535 Y
d) Over 100,000 Cubic Yards – add for each additional 10,000 CY or fraction thereof
$57 $59 Y
11 418
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

BUILDING SAFETY AND HOUSING - MISCELLANEOUS
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Charge Basis Y'rly
In'fltr NoteActivity Description
53 Inspection:
a) 0 - 10,000 Cubic Yards $749 $782 Y
b) Add for each additional 10,000 CY or fraction thereof $107 $112 Y c) Over 100,000 Cubic Yards $1,712 $1,786 Y
d) Over 100,000 Cubic Yards – add for each additional 10,000 CY or fraction thereof
$54 $56 Y
Site Improvement
54 Permit Issuance $183 $191 Y [e]
55 Plan Check
a) 0-50,000 SF $2,263 $2,361 Y
b) 50,001-100,000 SF $3,168 $3,305 Y
c) 100,001-500,000 SF $9,051 $9,444 Y
d) 500,001+ SF $1.36 $1.42 per 100 SF Y
56 Inspection
a) 0-50,000 SF $3,424 $3,573 Y
b) 50,001-100,000 SF $5,136 $5,359 Y
c) 100,001-500,000 SF $10,701 $11,165 Y
d) 500,001+ SF $1.78 $1.86 per 100 SF Y
Pools or Spas
57 Swimming Pool or Spa [f]
a) Private $972 $1,015 Y
b) Public $1,532 $1,598 Y
58 Spa - separate $972 $1,015 Y [c]
58 Swimming Pool and Spa Together [f]
a) Private $1,627 $1,697 Y [f]
b) Public $2,564 $2,675 Y [f]
59 Existing Pools / Spas – Repair or Renovation Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing - per trade$532 $555 per trade Y [f] Re-Roofing
60 Single-Family and Two-Family $627 $654 Y
61 Multi-Family, Residential, each building $1,007 $1,051 Y 62 Commercial/Industrial, each building ** $1,275 $1,330 Y 12 419
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

BUILDING SAFETY AND HOUSING - MISCELLANEOUS
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Charge Basis Y'rly
In'fltr NoteActivity Description
Miscellaneous Fee
63 Change of Address $624 $651 per request Y
64 Extension of Plan Check $92 $96 Y
65 Extension of Permit $92 $96 Y
66 Records Research $92 $96 Y
67 Records Research with Documentation, per Address $138 $144 per address Y 68 Report of Monthly or Yrly Bldg Permit Activity (no charge to public agencies) $92 $96 Y 69 Reprinting of Building Permit Cards $61 $64 Y
70 Alternative Materials or Methods of Construction $679 $708 Y Other Plan Check and Inspection Permit Fees
71 Inspection Investigation Fee (Construction w/o Permits, Per MMC) 100% of insp. Fee 100% of insp. Fee N 72 Reinspection Fee - per reinspection $321 $335 per reinspection Y 73 Demolition Permit $526 $549 Y
74 Revision / Deferred Submittal Plan Check - per hour $226 $236 per hour Y 75 Digitizing
a) Document Size up to 11"x17"
i) 1st 10 pages $1 $1 each N
ii) Each additional page 0.50 0.50 each N
b) Document Size Larger than 11"x17" $4 $4 per page N
Hourly Rates
76 Hourly Rates - Normal Business Hours
a) Plan Check $226 $236 Y
b) Inspection $214 $223 Y
77 Afterhours (Overtime) Hourly Rates
a) Plan Check $271 $283 Y
b) Inspection $255 $266 Y
Standard Permitting Fees
78 Community Planning Fee - % of Building Permit 5.00% 5.00% N 79 Technology Fee - % of Building Permit 3.80% 3.80% N
13 420
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

BUILDING SAFETY AND HOUSING - MISCELLANEOUS
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Charge Basis Y'rly
In'fltr NoteActivity Description

STATE FEES
Strong Motion Instrumentation and Seismic Hazard Mapping Fees: *** 80 Category 1 - Residential - Min Fee = $0.50 Val. x 0.00013 Val. x 0.00013 N 81 Category 2 - All Other Buildings - Min Fee = $0.50 Val. x 0.00028 Val. x 0.00028 N Building Standards Administration Special Revolving Fund: *** 82 Permit Valuation
a) $1-$25,000 $1 $1 N
b) $25,001 - $50,000 $2 $2 N
c) $50,001 - $75,000 $3 $3 N
d) $75,001 - $100,000 $4 $4 N
e) Every $25,000 or fraction thereof above $100,000 $1 $1 N

ELECTRICAL
83 Electrical Permit Issuance **** $183 $191 Y
84 Plan Check Fee - ( min. 1 hr) - per hour $226 $236 per hour Y 85 Receptacle Outlets, multiple on one circuit
a) First 20 $107 $112 Y
b) Each additional 20 $89 $93 Y
86 Receptacles or Junction box, fed from dedicated circuit - each $54 $56 each Y [f] 87 Switches, Dimmers, Occupancy sensors, Sensor Power Packs, etc. a) First 20 $107 $112 Y
b) Each additional 20 $89 $93 Y
88 Lighting Fixtures, Sockets
a) First 20 $107 $112 Y
b) Each additional 20 $89 $93 Y
89 Track lighting with fixtures - per linear feet $1.07 $1.12 Y 90 Pole/Platform-Mounted/Theatrical Fixtures - each $54 $56 each Y 91 Circuit Breaker Panel/Subpanel, Lighting Control Panel – each $89 $93 each Y 92 Residential Equipment, or Appliance, fed hardwired from dedicated circuit – each $54 $56 each Y 93 Commercial Equipment, or Appliance, fed hardwired from dedicated circuit – each $89 $93 each Y 94 Power pole for cubicles $54 $56 each Y
14 421
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

BUILDING SAFETY AND HOUSING - MISCELLANEOUS
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Charge Basis Y'rly
In'fltr NoteActivity Description
95 Generator
a) Portable $107 $112 each Y
b) 10 kW or less $107 $112 each Y
c) More than 10 kW $161 $167 each Y
96 Electrical vehicle charging station
a) Residential $54 $56 Y
b) Commercial $89 $93 Y
97 HEPA filter
a) First 20 $107 $112 Y
b) Each additional 20 $89 $93 Y
98 Time Clock $54 $56 each Y
99 Junction box, fed from dedicated circuit $54 $56 Y [c] 99 Sign, lighting systems from one branch circuit
a) First one $214 $223 Y
b) Each additional $107 $112 Y
100 Services
a) Not over 200 amps (new or change) – each $107 $112 each Y b) 201 amps - 1000 amps (new or change) $214 $223 each Y c) Over 1000 amperes (new or change) $268 $279 each Y
101 Power Apparatus (UPS) or Transformer $89 $93 each Y 102 Miscellaneous Apparatus, Conduits & Conductors $89 $93 each Y 103 Construction Temporary Power Pole with service panel, each pole $107 $112 Y 104 Elevator $214 $223 each Y
105 Special Circuitry, per circuit $89 $93 per circuit Y

MECHANICAL
106 Mechanical Permit Issuance **** $183 $191 Y
107 Plan Check Fee (min.1 hr) $226 $236 per hour Y
108 Install Furnace or Heater, Residential (not including duct work) $143 $149 Y 109 Install, Relocate, Replace Flue Vent (not including with appliance) $107 $112 Y 110 Install Hood with Mechanical Exhaust
a) Residential $89 $93 Y
b) Commercial $214 $223 Y
15 422
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

BUILDING SAFETY AND HOUSING - MISCELLANEOUS
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Charge Basis Y'rly
In'fltr NoteActivity Description
111 Duct Work per unit or VAV or Single Zone System $89 $93 Y 112 Install Industrial-type Incinerator $161 $167 Y
113 Install/Replace [f]
a) Boiler (each) $107 $112 each Y [f]
b) Condenser, VAV or Fan Coil 0-5 ton <2000 CFM (each) $107 $112 each Y [f] c) Condenser, VAV or Fan Coil Over 5 ton >2000 CFM (each) $214 $223 each Y 114 Roof-top HVAC package unit including duct work $214 $223 Y 115 Dryer vent
a) Dryer vent, residential $89 $93 each Y
b) Dryer vent, commercial $214 $223 each Y
116 Pump $161 $167 each Y
117 Install/Replace Fire or Fire/Smoke Dampers - 5 (or portion of) $107 $112 Y 118 Non-portable Evaporative Cooler $161 $167 Y
119 Single Bathroom Ventilation Fan and Duct $89 $93 Y
120 Ventilation System, not HVAC $107 $112 Y
121 Other Regulated Appliance $161 $167 Y
122 Process Piping
a) Hazardous process piping system
i) First 4 outlets $161 $167 Y
ii) Over 4 outlets - per outlet $89 $93 per outlet Y
b) Non-Hazardous process piping system
i) First 4 outlets $161 $167 Y
ii) Over 4 outlets - per outlet $89 $93 per outlet Y

PLUMBING
123 Plumbing Permit Issuance **** $183 $191 Y
124 Plan Check Fee (min. 1 hr) - per hour $226 $236 per hour Y 125 Plumbing Fixtures
a) First 5 traps (or portion of) $161 $167 Y
b) Each Additional trap $89 $93 Y
126 Building Drain or Sewer (New or Replacement) $161 $167 Y 127 Rain Water Drainage System $107 $112 Y
128 Water Heater and Vent $161 $167 Y
16 423
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

BUILDING SAFETY AND HOUSING - MISCELLANEOUS
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Charge Basis Y'rly
In'fltr NoteActivity Description
129 Gas Piping System - (each appliance) $107 $112 Y
130 Automatic Gas Shut-off Device (Seismic or Excess Flow) if not part of new gas piping system
$107 $112 Y
131 Industrial Waste Pre-Treatment System $214 $223 Y
132 Grease Trap $161 $167 Y
133 Grease Interceptor $214 $223 Y
134 Water System Installation
a) New $321 $335 Y
b) Re-pipe $214 $223 Y
135 Pump $161 $167 each Y
136 Repair/Alteration of Drain/Vent $161 $167 Y
137 Landscape Sprinkler System $161 $167 Y
138 Landscape Reclaim Water $268 $279 per valve Y
139 Backflow Protection
a) first 5 $161 $167 Y
b) each additional 5 (or portion of) $89 $93 Y
140 Reclaim Water System, No Irrigation $321 $335 Y
141 Private Sewage Disposal System $107 $112 Y
** Additional fees may be charged for roof penetrations and/or equipment installation. *** Fees set by the State of California and are subject to change. ***** Full permit fees of the main building permit shall be paid prior to issuance of the temporary building permit. [a] Not a new fee. Renaming shed to accessory structure to better encompass range of structures included in fee. [b] Not a new fee. Clarifying distinct fees for stand-alone kitchen remodel v. combined kitchen and bathroom remodel. Amount was incorrectly reflected in prior fee schedule. [c] Removing. Fee category not required. Amount collected via other fee in this schedule. [d] Not a new fee. Identifying in fee schedule for fee schedule clarity. [e] Not a new fee. Amount shown in prior schedule reflected a typographical error. Fee now aligns to other permit issuance fees listed in this schedule. [f] Not a new fee. Clarifying fee description.
**** Permit issuance fee. When more than one specialty permit (electrical, mechanical, plumbing) is concurrently issued to one applicant, only one permit issuance fee will be charged.
17 424
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

BUILDING SAFETY AND HOUSING - NEIGHBORHOOD BEAUTIFICATION FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Y'rly
In'fltr Note
1 1st Violation to Neighborhood Beautification Ordinance $100 $100 N 2 2nd Violation to Neighborhood Beautification Ordinance $200 $200 N 3 3rd or More Violations to Neighborhood Beautification Ordinance $500 $500 N 4 Delinquency Penalty on Neighborhood Beautification Ordinance $25 $25 N 5 Graffiti Abatement Actual Cost Actual Cost N
6 Public Nuisance Abatement As defined in
Municipal Code
Sections
As defined in
Municipal Code
Sections
N
Activity Description
18 425
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

ANIMAL REGULATION
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Charge Basis Y'rly
In'fltr Note
1 Animal Bites Penalty $200 $200 N
2 Animal Impoundment Hearing $50 $50 N
3 Animal Nuisance (e.g. barking) $100 $100 N
4 Animals in Excess of Maximum Allowed Penalty $50 $50 N 5 Failure to Apply for Annual Animal Facility Permit $20 $20 N 6 Inadequate Control or Confinement of Potentially Dangerous Animal Penalty $100 $100 N 7 Late Payments for Animal Fees 10% 10% 7 days N
8 Unlicensed dog or cat penalty $50 $50 N
9 Violation of Leash Law $25 $25 N
10 Dog License
a) Altered $25 $25 N
b) Late Fee $20 $20 N
c) Unaltered $65 $65 N
11 Cat License
a) Altered $15 $15 N
b) Late Fee $20 $20 N
c) Unaltered $35 $35 N
12 Dog Seller Fee
a) 1st Permit within Calendar Year $78 $81 Y
b) 2nd Permit within Calendar Year $156 $163 Y
13 Cat Seller Fee
a) 1st Permit within Calendar Year $52 $54 Y
b) 2nd Permit within Calendar Year $104 $109 Y
14 Animal Disposal Fee Actual Cost Actual Cost N
15 Quarantining Animal Fee Actual Cost Actual Cost N
16 Redemption of Impounded Animal Fee Actual Cost Actual Cost N 17 Annual Animal Adoption Permit Fee $52 $54 Y
18 Annual Animal Facility Permit Application Fee $52 $54 Y 19 Dangerous Animal Annual Permit Fee $156 $163 Y
20 Permit for Exception to Number or Type of Animals Allowed, Application Fee $21 $22 Y 21 Other Requested/Required Services - See City of San Jose (The City of Milpitas contracts with the City of San Jose for various Animal Regulation services)
See City of San Jose
fee schedule
See City of San Jose
fee schedule
N
Activity Description
19 426
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

PLANNING
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Y'rly
In'fltr Note
Special Events:
1 Application Fee
a) Minor Events $945 $253 Y [a]
b) Regular Events $945 $986 Y [a]
c) Major Events $5,787 $6,157 Y [a]
2 Conceptual Review - Planning Staff Only - per meeting $362 $378 Y Pre-Application Review:
3 Single Family $2,712 $2,948 Y
4 All Others $8,775 $9,392 Y
Tentative Maps:
5 Parcel Map $13,375 $13,955 Y
6 Tract Map $19,396 $20,238 Y
Minor Site Development:
7 Over the Counter Review $242 $253 Y
8 Staff Review Fee
a) Staff Review - Zoning Administrator $3,062 $3,313 Y
b) Staff Review Hill Side - Zoning Administrator $4,301 $4,606 Y 9 Requiring PC / CC Approval $9,158 $9,674 Y
Site Development:
10 New Development $16,174 $18,529 Y
11 Zoning Administrator $13,280 $14,328 Y
12 SB35 Housing Project $8,775 $10,809 Y
Minor Conditional Use Permit:
13 Staff Review - Zoning Administrator $1,230 $1,401 Y
14 Requiring PC / CC Approval $2,920 $3,164 Y
15 Telecommunications $945 $986 Y
Conditional Use Permit:
16 Single Family Districts $539 $681 Y
17 Temporary Use Permit $842 $878 Y
18 All Other CUPs $14,632 $15,739 Y
Signs:
19 Temporary (Including Banners) $114 $119 Y
20 Permanent (Including Wall Signs) $330 $344 Y
21 Freestanding signs over 6ft in height $558 $582 Y
Activity Description
20 427
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

PLANNING
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Y'rly
In'fltr NoteActivity Description
Variance:
22 Single Family $993 $1,036 Y
23 Signs $974 $1,017 Y
24 Multi-Family / Non-Residential $3,057 $3,189 Y
Special Use Permit:
25 Staff Review $945 $986 Y
26 Requiring PC / CC Approval $2,421 $2,526 Y
Short-Term Rental Permit
27 Short-Term Rental Permit - Initial $488 $509 Y
28 Short-Term Rental Permit - Renewal $488 $509 Y
Deposit-Based Fees:
29 Amendments, General Plan, Zoning, or Specific Plan (Map or Text) $20,000 $20,000 N 30 Development Agreements $20,000 $20,000 N
31 Environmental Review/CEQA clearance $35,000 $35,000 N 32 Planned Unit Development $20,000 $20,000 N
33 Billboards $2,500 $2,500 N
34 Initial Deposit to Offset Costs of Legal Review, Peer Review, Other Agency Review, etc. $5,000 $5,000 N [b] Miscellaneous Fees:
35 Amendments/Modifications to an Existing Permit 50% of permit 50% of permit N 36 Appeal To Planning Commission/City Council $1,933 $2,017 Y 37 Time Extensions $797 $832 Y
38 Noticing Fee $571 $595 Y
39 Copies - per page $0.10 $0.10 N
40 Planning Research - per hour $242 $252 Y
41 Zoning Conformance Letter $228 $238 Y
42 Home Occupation Permit / Business License Review $57 $59 Y 43 Tree Removal $231 $241 Y
44 Building Plan Check Support $242 $253 Y
45 Building Inspection Support $242 $253 Y
46 Certificate of Occupancy Review $121 $126 Y
47 Permit Compliance Review $483 $504 Y
48 Letter of Determination / Interpretation $965 $1,007 Y 49 Pass Through for Legal Fees Pass - Through Pass - Through N 50 Vendor Payment Processing Fees Pass - Through Pass - Through N [c] 21 428
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

PLANNING
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Y'rly
In'fltr NoteActivity Description
51 Technology Fee - % of Permit 3.80% 3.80% N
[b] This deposit will be collected in addition to any other deposits or fixed fees. Any unused deposit amounts will be returned to applicant. [c] For payments made using vendor portal services, applicant shall be responsible for processing fees charged by vendor, as applicable. * Applicants for full cost (deposit-based) submittals shall pay for all City staff and contract service provider time and materials required to process the application. Hourly rates for City staff time vary by position, as outlined in the City's full cost allocation plan. [a] Minor events are for permits issued over-the-counter for small private events. Regular events permits are typically issued for events less than four consecutive days, including block parties, or that require review by multiple departments. Major event permits are typically issued for events that exceed four consecutive days and/or anticipate crowds exceeding 1,000 people.
22 429
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

ENGINEERING
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Y'rly
In'fltr Note
1 Minor Encroachment Permit $1,113 $1,161 Y
2 Lot Line / Merger Adjustment $3,284 $3,427 Y [a]
3 Street / Alley Easement Vacation $2,385 $2,489 Y
Bldg Permit Reviews:
4 Single Family New Building / Addition $611 $637 Y
5 Commercial / Industrial New Building $2,036 $2,124 Y
6 Commercial / Industrial Tenant Improvement $204 $212 Y 7 Commercial / Industrial Site Improvement (including Grading) $1,832 $1,912 Y 8 All Other Permit Application Reviews (per hour) $204 $212 Y Engineering Plan Review: (Construction Cost Estimate)
9 Up to $50,000 $5,200 $5,426 Y
10 $50,001-$200,000 $10,400 $10,851 Y
11 $200,001-$500,000 $15,600 $16,277 Y
12 Over $500,001 $20,800 $21,703 Y
Engineering Inspection: (Construction Cost Estimate)
13 Up to $50,000 $5,200 $5,426 Y
14 Greater than $50,000 - % of Construction Cost Estimate 10% 10% N 15 Technology Fee - % of Permit 3.80% 3.80% N
[a] Fee includes Planning and Engineering review.

Activity Description
23 430
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

TRANSIT AREA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
FY 21/22
Fee
FY 22/23
Fee Unit Y'rly
In'fltr Note
Transit Area Development Impact Fee
1 Residential $44,009 $47,550 per unit Y [a];[b]
2 Commercial $28.79 $31.11 per square foot Y [a];[b]
3 Office $49.48 $53.46 per square foot Y [a];[b]
4 Hotel $0 $0 per room Y [a];[b]
5 Other Uses To Be Determined To Be Determined Y [a];[b] [a] Source: Resolution No. 8923.
* Incorporating into Master Fee Schedule for references purposes only. Fees are not being considered for update by City Council as part of this action.

Activity Description
[b] The Transit Area Development Impact Fee shall be automatically increased each fiscal year by the Finance Director or his or her designee in conjunction with the City's annual budget process. The percentage increase shall be based on the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area, as measured from the immediately preceding December and December of the prior year. 24 431
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

PUBLIC WORKS
FY 21/22 Fee / Rate FY 22/23 Fee / Rate Y'rly
In'fltr Note
Water
1 Water Meter Size
a) 5/8" $32.17 $34.10 N
b) 3/4" $48.25 $51.14 N
c) 1" $80.41 $85.24 N
d) 1-1/2" $160.83 $170.48 N
e) 2" $257.32 $272.76 N
f) 3" $482.48 $511.43 N
g) 4" $804.13 $852.38 N
h) 6" and above $1,608.26 $1,704.76 N
2 Fire Service Line Size
a) 2" $51.46 $54.55 N
b) 3" $96.50 $102.29 N
c) 4" $160.83 $170.48 N
d) 6" and above $321.65 $340.95 N
3 Volumetric Charge
a) Residential $6.32 $6.70 N
b) Commercial/ Industrial/ Institutional/ Construction Meter $6.32 $6.70 N c) Irrigation (potable) $6.32 $6.70 N
d) City Accounts (potable) $6.32 $6.70 N
e) Ed Levin Park $4.10 $4.47 N
f) Recycled
i) Recycled - Irrigation $4.25 $4.51 N
ii) Recycled - Industrial/ Dual Plumbed/ Construction Water $4.25 $4.51 N iii) Recycled - City Accounts (recycled) $4.25 $4.51 N
g) Capital Surcharge $1.08 $1.08 N
Water Meter
4 Water Meter Testing
a) Residential Deposit $110 $110 N [a]
b) Commercial Deposit $300 $300 N [a]
Activity Description
25 432
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

PUBLIC WORKS
FY 21/22 Fee / Rate FY 22/23 Fee / Rate Y'rly
In'fltr NoteActivity Description
Sewer
5 Flat Rate
a) Single-Family $118.34 $124.14 N
b) Multiple-Family $90.88 $95.34 N
c) Mobile Home Parks $74.66 $78.28 N
d) Non-Residential Flat Rate $26.55 $27.35 N
6 Quantity and Strength Charges
a )Motels, hotels & senior citizen housing developments $5.37 $5.75 N b) General offices, banks, government offices, general merchandise, retail, and shopping centers; building, hardware, and gardening material facilities; amusement centers, and theaters $6.14 $6.84 N
c) City of Milpitas $5.31 $5.80 N
d) Service stations, repair shops, and car washes $5.32 $5.70 N e) Eating and drinking establishments $8.73 $9.06 N
f) Convalescent hospitals, day care centers and health service facilities $5.23 $5.60 N g) Personal services - laundry, barber/beauty shops, cleaners $4.92 $5.31 N h) Electrical and electronics design, fabrication, assembly and storage facilities $6.04 $6.72 N i) Metal fabrication, machinery, and tool fabrication facilities $7.70 $8.43 N j) RockTenn (Jefferson Smurfit Corporation) $10.11 $10.46 N k) T. Marzetti Co. $11.48 $12.09 N
l) Prudential Overall Supply $7.66 $8.42 N
m) Siemens Water (previously US Filter) $6.36 $7.06 N
n) Elmwood Rehabilitation center $6.35 $6.69 N
o) Linear Technology Corporation $6.18 $6.88 N
p) DS Water $5.34 $6.04 N
q) Headway Technology Corporation $6.57 $7.32 N
r) Lucky Pure Water $4.91 $5.29 N
s) Milpitas Materials $4.91 $5.29 N
t) Union Pacific Railroad $6.63 $7.35 N
u) Cisco $6.04 $6.72 N
v) Lifescan $6.04 $6.72 N
x) Schools, colleges and churches $8.73 $9.99 N
7 City of San Jose - North McCarthy Properties
a ) Bimonthly for discharge up to 75,000 gallons per day (maximum flow) $555.00 $555.00 N b) Excess flow charge (for each 1,000 gallons per day in excess of the maximum flow or part thereof) $100.00 $100.00 N 26 433
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

PUBLIC WORKS
FY 21/22 Fee / Rate FY 22/23 Fee / Rate Y'rly
In'fltr NoteActivity Description
Utilities
8 Service Request and Basic Inspection $128 $134 Y
9 Discontinuance of Service $128 $134 Y
10 Meter Removal / Installation
a) Less than 2" $103 $107 Y
b) Greater than or Equal to 2" $304 $317 Y
11 Hydrant Flow Test
a) Two or Fewer Hydrants $635 $663 Y
b) Three Hydrants $659 $688 Y
c) Four Hydrants $686 $716 Y
12 Sewer Lateral Inspection
a) Visual Inspection $103 $107 Y
b) Video Inspection - Residential $448 $467 Y
c) Video Inspection - Commercial $670 $699 Y
13 Late Payment Penalty Fee (% of amount due) 5% 5% N
14 Final Notice Penalty 5% 5% N
15 Discontinuance of Service Warning Notice $10 $10 N
16 Restoration Fee - During Normal Operating Hours
a) Low Income $50 $50 N [b]
b) All Others $128 $128 N
17 Restoration Fee - During Non-Operational Hours
a) Low Income $150 $150 N [b]
b) All Others $337 $337 N
Notes
[a] If meter is not accurate, deposit is refunded. If meter has been tampered with, the resident or business is charged for the repair. [b] For residential customers who demonstrate to the City a household income below 200 percent of the federal poverty line, the City will limit any service restoration charges during normal operating hours to fifty dollars ($50), and during nonoperational hours to one hundred fifty dollars ($150) for 2020. The limits will only apply if the City’s service restoration charges actually exceed these amounts. These limits are subject to an annual adjustment for changes in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) beginning January 1, 2021.
27 434
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

PUBLIC WORKS
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Y'rly
In'fltr Note
Public Sewers
1 Delinquent Fees varies varies N [a]
2 Civil Penalties varies varies N [b]
3 Unmetered Wastes varies varies N [c]
4 Authority to Disconnect varies varies N [d]
5 Payment for Sewage Services varies varies N [e]
6 Inspection Fees varies varies N [f]
7 House Lateral Fee varies varies N [g]
8 Disbursements of Short Side Charges varies varies N [h] FOG and Stormwater Industrial/Commercial Violation [i]
9 First Citation $500 $500 N [i]
10 Second Citation $625 $625 N [i]
11 Third Citation $750 $750 N [i]
Water Service Charges
12 Construction Water $2,000 $2,000 N
13 Deposits for service $150 $150 N
Notes
[a]
[b]
[c]
Activity Description
See City of Milpitas Municipal Code Section VIII-2-5.33. Permit applications are due ninety (90) days prior to commencing discharge to the sanitary system or expiration of existing discharge permit. Any person who fails to file an application for a discharge permit prior to discharge shall be assessed a penalty for delinquent filing as follows: (1) Up to and including thirty (30) days delinquency, the penalty shall be fifty percent (50%) of the permit fee. More than thirty (30) days but less than one year delinquency, the penalty shall be one hundred percent (100%) of the permit fee. (3) More than one(1) year delinquency, the penalty shall be one thousand percent (1,000%) of the permit fee. (b) Such penalties shall be in addition to any other penalties or fines that may be levied, and in addition to any other remedies that the City may have with respect to the discharge.

See City of Milpitas Municipal Code Section VIII-2-5.50. Any person who intentionally, accidentally, or negligently violates any provisions of this Chapter, any provision of any permit issued pursuant to this Chapter, or who intentionally, accidentally, or negligently discharges waste or wastewater which causes pollution, or violates any effluent limitation, national standard of performance, or national pretreatment or toxicity standard, shall be civilly liable to the City in a sum up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the first day in which such violation occurs, up to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for the second day in which such violation occurs, and fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for each additional day.

See City of Milpitas Municipal Code Section VIII-2-6.02. Where rates are herein specified to be in accordance with the use of water, all such premises shall be separately metered. Where such metering is not provided, or for newly constructed units, the City shall make a reasonable estimate of the volume of water consumed to be used as a basis for sewer service charges.
28 435
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

PUBLIC WORKS
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Y'rly
In'fltr NoteActivity Description
[d]
[e]
[f]
[g]
[h]
[i] See City of Milpitas Municipal Code Section XI-16-14. Any person who intentionally or negligently violates any provision of this Chapter or any provision of any permit or certificate issued pursuant to this Chapter shall be civilly liable to the city in a sum not to exceed $25,000.00 per day for each day in which such violation occurs.

See City of Milpitas Municipal Code Section VIII-2-7.01. Each connector shall pay a fee to City for issuing of each permit, for the inspection of each house lateral, house sewer or side sewer, the sum of five dollars ($5). Where connector has on file with the City cash deposit for inspection of work, no inspection fee shall be required. In such case, all cost and expenses incurred by City in inspection of the connection shall be made from said deposit.

See City of Milpitas Municipal Code Section VIII-2-7.02. Before the issuance of a permit for the installation of a house lateral, connector shall pay City a fee which shall include the following: (A) An engineering charge to defray the cost of processing the permit application, which shall be an amount equal to forty cents ($0.40) times one- half the width of the street expressed in feet in which the house lateral is being constructed. (B) A short side charge shall be collected in all cases where the main or trunk to which connection is being made is located between the center line of the street and the property to be served. Said short side charge shall be an amount equal to four dollars and fifty cents ($4.50) times the distance in feet between the center line of the street and the main or trunk sewer to which the connection is being made.

The purpose of this charge is to equalize connection cost for property on both sides of the street.

See City of Milpitas Municipal Code Section VIII-2-7.03. The City Council may disburse to connectors whose house laterals connect to a main or trunk sewer at a point beyond the center line of the street an amount equal to $4.50 times the distance in feet between the center of the street and the main or trunk sewer to which said connection was made.

See City of Milpitas Municipal Code Section VIII-2-6.03. In the event of a failure to pay the charges as provided for sewage service, the City is authorized to disconnect sewer or water service, or both.

See City of Milpitas Municipal Code Section VIII-2-6.04. All accounts are due and payable within fifteen (15) days of the date of the bill. Accounts shall become delinquent and a late fee equal to five percent (5%) of the amount due shall be imposed of a payment has not been received by 5:00 p.m. on the due date. 29 436
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas
FIRE
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee
Charge Basis Y'rly
In'fltr Note

FIRE INVESTIGATION/ENFORCEMENT/RESPONSE
1 Emergency Response – Haz Mat Calls, Minimum 1-hr HR(s) * hourly rate HR(s) * hourly rate N 2 Response to DUI HR(s) * hourly rate HR(s) * hourly rate N 3 Non-Milpitas Response HR(s) * hourly rate HR(s) * hourly rate N 4 Response/Investigation Fee HR(s) * hourly rate HR(s) * hourly rate N 5 Referral Inspection (Life/Safety) 2 hrs minimum charge HR(s) * hourly rate HR(s) * hourly rate N 6 Referral Inspection (Haz Mat) 2 hrs minimum charge HR(s) * hourly rate HR(s) * hourly rate N 7 Fire Code Chapter 50 (Haz Mat) - Release Cleanup 2hrs minimum charge HR(s) * hourly rate HR(s) * hourly rate N 8 Enforcement Cost Recovery HR(s) * hourly rate HR(s) * hourly rate N

FALSE ALARM
9 False Alarm
a) First two in 12 month time-frame no charge no charge N b) 3rd occurrence $300 $300 N
c) 4th occurrence $600 $600 N
d) 5th or more $900 $900 N

MISCELLANEOUS
10 Data input (HMBP/HMIS), Minimum of 2 hours HR(s) * hourly rate HR(s) * hourly rate N 11 Late fee – over 60 days Collection Cost Collection Cost N 12 Failure to obtain a permit Double permit fee Double permit fee N 13 Weed Abatement. Fee = (hrs * $/HR), minimum 1-hr HR(s) * hourly rate HR(s) * hourly rate N 14 Fire Watch, Fee = (hrs * hourly rate). Std. or OT rate HR(s) * hourly rate HR(s) * hourly rate N [a] 15 Pre-inspection (residential care facilities) Per Code Per Code N 16 Confined Space permits HR(s) * hourly rate HR(s) * hourly rate N 17 Electronic Archive, per permit $25 $25 N
18 Use of Trailer $60 $60 per hour N
19 Administrative Fee $70 $70 per hour N
20 Instructor Actual Cost Actual Cost N
21 Fire Reports $13 $13 N
22 Other Services Not Listed HR(s) * hourly rate HR(s) * hourly rate N Activity Description
30 437
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas
FIRE
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee
Charge Basis Y'rly
In'fltr NoteActivity Description

FIRE PREVENTION

ANNUAL OPERATIONAL PERMITS
23 A-1 Occupancy (theaters and other small viewing halls) $1,160 $1,207 Y 24 A-2 Occupancy (Food & Drink Establishment) $877 $912 Y 25 A-3 Occupancy (Worship, recreation, or amusement) $877 $912 Y 26 A-4 & A-5 Occupancy (indoors or outdoors sport event structures) $2,009 $2,091 Y 27 High Piled Storage $1,160 $1,207 Y
28 Malls
a) Small (0 to 50,000 s.f.) $863 $898 Y
b) Medium (50,001 to 100,000 s.f.) $1,443 $1,502 Y
c) Large (over 100,000 s.f.) $2,009 $2,091 Y
29 Combustible Dust Producing Facility $580 $603 Y
30 Motels $877 $912 Y
31 Hotels & Multi-Story Structures
a) <5 stories $1,726 $1,796 Y
b) 5+ stories - per floor $290 $302 Y
32 Commercial Daycare
a) Small (<100 children or elderly) $566 $589 Y
b) Large (100+ children or elderly) $1,132 $1,178 Y
33 Residential Daycare
a) Small Family Daycare (8 or fewer children) $0 $0 N
b) Large Family Daycare (9-14 children) $0 $0 N
c) Elderly Care (6 or fewer people) $0 $0 N
34 Small Apartments (3-4 units) $284 $296 Y
35 Medium Apartments (5-15 units) $1,132 $1,178 Y
36 Large Apartments (more than 15 units) $1,699 $1,768 Y 37 Small Chemical User (Example: doctor/dentist, dry cleaner, photo shop, graphic design, print shop, automobile engine repair, propane, CO2 beverage dispensing system, battery systems, emergency generators, pools, etc.) $594 $618 Y
38 Medium Chemical User (Example: automobile body shop, research and design, analytical labs, pool supplies, big-box retail stores)
$1,470 $1,530 Y
39 Large Chemical User (Semiconductor or similar facilities) $2,320 $2,414 Y 40 Plating Shops $1,754 $1,825 Y
31 438
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas
FIRE
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee
Charge Basis Y'rly
In'fltr NoteActivity Description
41 Toxic Gas
a) Small Toxic Gas - Annual Monitoring Certification $1,132 $1,178 Y b) Large Toxic Gas - Annual Monitoring Certification $2,265 $2,357 Y 42 Mobile Fueling
a) Vendor $1,470 $1,530 Y
b) Site $1,470 $1,530 Y
43 Underground Tanks $892 $928 Y
44 Urban Runoff Inspections
a) Industrial $594 $618 Y
b) Restaurants (once every 2 years) $594 $618 Y
45 Other Miscellaneous Annual Inspections Fee - per hour HR(s) * hourly rate HR(s) * hourly rate N

CONSTRUCTION REVIEW / PERMIT / INSPECTION
Building Life / Safety:

Demolition Fees:
46 Interior or Partial Building or Misc. Demolition $567 $590 Y 47 Complete Building with or without Site Demolition $851 $886 Y 48 Grading Fees: These are only assessed if permits are submitted separately to Building Department from new construction or remodel permits. a) Less than 1 acre $567 $590 Y
b) 1-5 acres $851 $886 Y
c) Greater than 5 acres $1,135 $1,181 Y
49 Site Improvement Fees: These are only assessed if permits are submitted separately to Building Department from new construction or remodel permits. a) Less than 1 acre $851 $886 Y
b) 1-5 acres $1,702 $1,771 Y
c) Greater than 5 acres $284 $296 per acre Y
50 New Building – Shell:
a) Less than 5,000 sq. ft. $851 $886 Y
b) 5,000-25,000 sq. ft. $1,702 $1,771 Y
c) 25,000-50,000 sq. ft. $2,553 $2,657 Y
d) 50,000+ sq. ft. – per sq. ft. $0.06 $0.062 per sq ft Y 32 439
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas
FIRE
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee
Charge Basis Y'rly
In'fltr NoteActivity Description
51 New Building – New Construction:
a) Less than 5,000 sq. ft. $851 $886 Y
b) 5,000-25,000 sq. ft. $2,269 $2,361 Y
c) 25,000-50,000 sq. ft. $4,255 $4,428 Y
d) 50,000+ sq. ft. – per sq. ft. $0.09 $0.094 per sq ft Y 52 Additions, Alterations, and Tenant Improvements:
a) Less than 5,000 sq. ft. $541 $562 Y
b) 5,000-25,000 sq. ft. $2,136 $2,223 Y
c) 25,000-50,000 sq. ft. $3,990 $4,152 Y
d) 50,000+ sq. ft. – per sq. ft. $0.09 $0.094 per sq ft Y 53 Missed Plan Check by Appointment $284 $296 Y
54 Revision to Project Fee - per hour (min 1 hr) HR(s) * hourly rate HR(s) * hourly rate N 55 Tents, Canopies, or Membrane Structures:
a) 4 or less $850 $885 Y
b) 5+ $1,134 $1,180 Y
56 Temporary Assembly (Indoors or outdoors), with or w/out tent a) Occupancy 50-299 $850 $885 Y
b) Occupancy 300-999 $1,417 $1,475 Y
c) Occupancy 1000+ $2,268 $2,360 Y
Fire Extinguishing Systems: These are typically deferred submittals and reviewed and inspected after building plan submittals.
57 Fire Service Underground:
a) New or Replace - each $1,417 $1,475 Y
b) Repairs $567 $590 Y
58 Fire Sprinkler Systems:
a) Less than 2,000 sq. ft $824 $857 Y
b) 2,000+ sq. ft. – per sq. ft., fee = Base Fee + [(project sq. ft. - 2,000 sq. ft.) * per sq. ft. fee]
$0.21 $0.22 Y
59 Hood & Duct Systems – Each $1,134 $1,180 Y
60 FM 2000 (under floor systems, etc.) each $1,134 $1,180 Y 61 Other (deluge, foam, preaction, etc.) each $1,134 $1,180 Y Fire Alarm Systems:
33 440
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas
FIRE
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee
Charge Basis Y'rly
In'fltr NoteActivity Description
62 Additions, Alterations, or Repairs: If more than 10 devices then the New Fire Alarm fee applies.
a) 1-5 Devices $567 $590 Y
b) 6-10 Devices $1,134 $1,180 Y
63 New Fire Alarm:
a) Less than 5,000 sq. ft. $1,134 $1,180 Y
b) 5,000+ sq. ft. – per sq. ft., fee = Base Fee + [(project sq. ft. - 5,000 sq. ft.) * per sq. ft. fee]
$0.19 $0.20 Y
64 Hazardous Materials - Building Construction:
a) Small TI without process piping or tools. (Example: registration form, inert compressed gas system installations, CO2 for beverage, small auto repair or retail).
$575 $598 Y
b) Medium TI (Construction not otherwise classified as Small or Large TI. Example:
emergency generator, lift stations, aboveground tanks, treatment systems, battery systems, CO2 beverage dispensing system, propane system, large tank installations)
$1,440 $1,498 Y
c) Large TI (H Occupancy, Plating) $2,589 $2,694 Y
b) Facility TI with process piping or tanks < 4,000 sq. ft. (Example: H or F Occupancy, Plating Facility, chemical bunker). Does not include tools (tool fee is extra).
$1,184 Y
c) Facility TI with process piping or tanks > 4,000 sq. ft. (Example: H or F Occupancy, Plating Facility, chemical bunker). Does not include tools (tool fee is extra).
$0.300 per sq ft Y
65 Toxic Gas Tools (furnaces, implanter, reactors) $2,305 $2,398 Y 65 Tools with Hazardous Materials (Example: emergency generator, lift stations, aboveground tanks, treatment systems, battery module per 50KWh, propane system, large tank installations).
a) Up to Two Tools $1,184 up to 2 tools Y
b) Each Additional Tool $444 per tool Y
66 Closure - process / tools $865 $900 each Y
67 Closure - Facility
a) Small TI $433 $450 Y
b) Medium TI $865 $900 Y
c) Large TI $1,440 $1,498 Y
a) Small TI without process piping or tools. (Example: registration form, inert compressed gas system installations, CO2 for beverage, small auto repair or retail).
$598
b) Facility TI with process piping or tanks < 4,000 sq. ft. (Example: H or F Occupancy, Plating Facility, chemical bunker). Tools included. $1,184 Y
c) Facility TI with process piping or tanks > 4,000 sq. ft. (Example: H or F Occupancy, Plating Facility, chemical bunker). Tools included. $0.300 per sq ft Y
34 441
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas
FIRE
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee
Charge Basis Y'rly
In'fltr NoteActivity Description
68 Underground Tank Installation:
a) 4 Tank System or less $5,177 $5,388 Y
b) Each additional tank $581 $605 Y
69 Underground Tank Removal:
a) 2 Tank System or Less $2,311 $2,405 Y
b) Each additional tank $291 $302 Y
70 CERS & APSA - Fee no longer applicable
a) CERS - Fee no longer applicable $0 $0 N
b) APSA - Fee no longer applicable $0 $0 N
MISCELLANEOUS FEES:
71 After Hours or Fast-Track Plan Check, Inspection - 3 hrs min at OT Rate $999 $1,040 Y [a] 72 Alternate Materials & Methods Review $1,030 $1,071 Y 73 New Occupancy (new business)
a) No Hazardous Materials $284 $296 Y
b) With Hazardous Materials $566 $589 Y
74 Smoke Detectors Verifications (new owner) $284 $296 Y 75 Title 19 5-year automatic fire sprinkler certification a) Commercial, Industrial, Mixed Use, Hotel/Motel, Apartments, Condomimiums, etc.i. Building less than or equal to 50,000 sq. ft. $568 $591 Y ii. Building over 50,000 sq. ft.
a) First 50,000 sq. ft. $568 $591 Y
b) Each additional 50,000 sq. ft. or fraction thereof $284 $296 Y b) Townhome Buildings
i. Building less than or equal to 25,000 sq. ft. $284 $296 Y ii. Building over 25,000 sq. ft.
a) First 25,000 sq. ft. $284 $296 Y
b) Each additional 25,000 sq. ft. or fraction thereof $284 $296 Y 76 Failure to cancel a scheduled inspection 24 hrs. prior $284 $296 Y 77 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $142 $147 Y
78 Standard Hourly Rate - per hour $284 $296 Y
79 Overtime Hourly Fee - per hour $333 $347 Y
80 Other activities not listed - per hour $284 $296 Y
35 442
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas
FIRE
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee
Charge Basis Y'rly
In'fltr NoteActivity Description
81 Additional Plan Review Time - Std. or OT per hr. HR(s) * hourly rate N 82 Additional Inspection Time - Std. or OT per hr. HR(s) * hourly rate N 83 Fire Department Technology Fee - % of permit 3.80% 3.80% N 84 Emergency Response Mapping - new projects - per hour $257 $268 Y [a] Minimum 3 hours.
36 443
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

AMBULANCE
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Charge Basis Y'rly
In'fltr Note

SERVICE FEES
1 ALS-1 (Advanced Life Support) $1,710.12 $1,960.82 N
2 ALS-2 (Advanced Life Support) $1,710.12 $1,960.82 N
3 BLS $1,568.66 N
4 Mileage $55.42 $63.55 N
5 Hourly Ambulance Standby $216.41 $248.14 N
6 Hourly Paramedic – Individual $108.21 $124.07 N
7 Hourly EMT – Individual $72.14 $82.71 N

EQUIPMENT/SUPPLIES
8 Airway/Nasal $33.25 $38.13 N
9 Airway/Oral $18.14 $20.80 N
10 Bag Valve Mask $110.34 $126.51 N
11 Bandage, Elastic $8.91 $10.22 N
12 Bandages Triangular $15.11 $17.33 N
13 Bed Pan $15.11 $17.33 N
14 Blanket, Disposable $36.28 $41.59 N
15 Blood Glucose Test $30.23 $34.66 N
16 Burn Sheet $55.92 $64.12 N
17 Cervical Collar $108.83 $124.78 N
18 Cold/Hot Pack $22.67 $26.00 N
19 Cpap Procedure $468.56 $537.25 N
20 Defib Pads $66.50 $76.25 N
21 Dressing - Major $15.11 $17.33 N
22 Dressing - Minor $15.11 $17.33 N
23 Ekg Electrodes $28.72 $32.93 N
24 Ekg Monitor 12 Lead $143.59 $164.64 N
25 Emesis Basin/Bag $11.78 $13.51 N
26 Endotracheal Tube Introducer/Gum Elastic Bougie $100.97 $115.77 N 27 Headbed Immobilizer $25.69 $29.46 N
28 Hepa Mask $37.79 $43.33 N
29 Hood, Spit Sock $24.89 $28.53 N
30 Intravenous Saline Lock $79.58 $91.25 N
31 Intravenous Infusion Set $134.52 $154.24 N
Activity Description
37 444
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

AMBULANCE
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Charge Basis Y'rly
In'fltr NoteActivity Description
32 Intravenous Start Kit $60.41 $69.27 N
33 Intubation Supplies $68.02 $77.99 N
34 IO Supplies $450.42 $516.45 N
35 King Vision Video Larynoscope Channel Blade $25.00 $28.67 N 36 Lma Supreme - Supraglottic Airway $30.00 $34.40 N
37 Meconium Aspirator $13.44 $15.41 N
38 Nebulizer $71.04 $81.46 N
39 Non-Rebreather Mask $16.63 $19.06 N
40 O2 Cannula With End-Tidal $51.35 $58.87 N
41 O2 Mask/Cannula $34.76 $39.86 N
42 OB Pack $120.92 $138.64 N
43 Patient Mover $48.51 $55.62 N
44 Plueral Decompression $102.85 $117.92 N
45 Pulse Oximetry $63.48 $72.79 N
46 Razor, Disposable $1.26 $1.44 N
47 Splint Arm $22.67 $26.00 N
48 Splint Leg $22.67 $26.00 N
49 Splinting (Extremity) $108.83 $124.78 N
50 Strap, 5 Foot Immobization $16.73 $19.18 N
51 Suction Tube $46.86 $53.72 N
52 Suctioning $95.22 $109.18 N
53 Temperature Measurement $25.52 $29.26 N
54 Tourniquet, Combat $90.88 $104.20 N
55 Universal Precautions $42.32 $48.53 N
56 Urinal $15.11 $17.33 N
38 445
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

AMBULANCE
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Charge Basis Y'rly
In'fltr NoteActivity Description

MEDICATIONS
57 Acetaminophen (Ofirmev) $183.00 $209.83 N
58 Activated Charcoal $30.71 $35.22 N
59 Adenosine $87.67 $100.52 N
60 Albuterol $36.28 $41.59 N
61 Amiodarone $58.31 $66.85 N
62 Asprin $9.07 $10.40 N
63 Atrophine $25.69 $29.46 N
64 Atrophine High Dose $121.21 $138.98 N
65 Benadryl $25.69 $29.46 N
66 Calcium Chloride $25.69 $29.46 N
67 Dextrose 10% 25G In 250Ml Bag $36.63 $42.01 N
68 Dopamine Drip $81.62 $93.58 N
69 Duodote Autoinjector $75.95 $87.09 N
70 Epi 1:1,000 1Mg/1Cc $42.32 $48.53 N
71 Epi 1:10,000 $42.32 $48.53 N
72 Glucagon $430.77 $493.92 N
73 Glucose Paste $13.16 $15.09 N
74 Lidocaine 2% $33.25 $38.13 N
75 Midazolem $2.40 $2.76 N
76 Morphine $25.69 $29.46 N
77 Narcan $48.37 $55.46 N
78 Nitroglycerin Tablet $1.29 $1.48 N
79 Nitropaste $11.77 $13.50 N
80 Normal Saline Flush Pls 10Cc $22.60 $25.91 N
81 Normal Saline 1000Cc $146.61 $168.11 N
82 Ondansetron Injectable $52.60 $60.31 N
83 Ondansetron Oral Dissolving Tablet $43.44 $49.81 N
84 Sodium Bicarb $45.34 $51.99 N
85 Sterile Water $36.28 $41.59 N
86 Tranexamic Acid 1,000mg $9.89 N
* These fees are intended to mirror fees authorized by the Santa Clara County Emergency Services Agency. If Santa Clara County EMS updates fees subsequent to the adoption of this schedule, this schedule shall be presumed to reflect updated amounts. In the case of discrepancies, fee amounts authorized by Santa Clara County EMS shall supersede the amounts listed above. The City will periodically examine costs to ensure that fees collected do not exceed the City's program costs of service. 39 446
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas
POLICE
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Charge Basis Y'rly
In'fltr Note
Citations
1 Citation Sign off for Non Milpitas Residents $20 $20 N 2 Parking Citations $65 - $280 $65 - $280 N [a]
3 Copy of Traffic & Parking citations $5 $5 N
Alarm Fees and Fines
4 Alarm Permit
a) Alarm Permit - Initial $40 $42 per year Y [b]
b) Alarm Permit - Renewal $20 $21 per year Y [b]
c) Alarm Permit - Late Filing Fee 50% of permit fee 50% of permit fee N 5 False Alarm Response (per calendar year)
a) First No Charge No Charge Y
b) Second No Charge No Charge Y
c) Third $75 $78 Y
d) Fourth $125 $130 Y
e) Fifth $250 $260 Y
f) Sixth or More $250 $260 per response Y
6 False Alarm Response - Additional Fee for Unregistered Alarm $25 $26 per response Y Miscellaneous
7 Fingerprints
a) Ink Card Up to (2) Cards $25 $25 N
b) Ink Card Over (2) Cards $5 $5 Each Additional Card N c) Live Scan plus DOJ and FBI fees $25 $25 N
8 Subpoenas
a) Officer $275 $275 N
b) Records $15 $15 N
9 Booking Fee $139 $139 N [c]
10 Administrative Tow Fees
a) Impound $346 $346 N
b) Stored $50 $50 N
11 Repossession Fee $15 $15 N
Activity Description
40 447
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas
POLICE
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Charge Basis Y'rly
In'fltr NoteActivity Description
12 Incident (Log Event) Reports $5 $5 N
13 Photos on CD / Digital Media $15 $15 N
14 Police Reports
a) Up to (10) Pages $13 $13 N
b) Police Reports Over (10) Pages $1 $1 per page N
15 US Investigative Request for Law Enforcement Data $15 $15 N 16 Videos / Digital Reproduction $50 $50 N
17 Massage Permits $1,000 $1,000 N
[a] Amounts vary depending on citation type.
[b] Alarm permits are issued per calendar year. Permits will expire annually on December 31st. [c] Pursuant to AB 1869, effective September 18, 2020, this fee shall remain in effect only until July 1, 2021, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute that is enacted before July 1, 2021, deletes or extends that date.
41 448
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

ADULT RECREATION
Adult Enrichment Fees
1 Sports League (full season)
a) per team $500 $520 per season Y
b) Additional fee per non-resident player $10 $10 per season Y 2 Garden Plots (Residents Only) $60 $60 per year N

AQUATICS
2 Recreational Swim $2 - $5 $2 - $5 per person Y
3 Swimming Lessons Group
a) Residents $75 - $85 $80 - $90 per session Y
b) Non-Resident $95 - $105 $100 - $110 per session Y
4 Semi-Private/Private Swimming Lessons
a) Residents $38 $40 per half hour lesson Y
b) Non-Resident $58 $60 per half hour lesson Y
5 Parent-Tot Drop-in swim pass
a) Residents $15 $16 per 5 visits Y
b) Non-Resident $35 $36 per 5 visits Y
6 Monthly Swim Club Fee Development Group
a) Residents $68 - $88 $71 - $92 per month Y
b) Non-Resident $108 - $128 $111 - $132 per month Y
7 Monthly Swim Club Juniors/Intermediate
a) Residents $78 - $98 $81 - $102 per month Y
b) Non-Resident $118 - $138 $121 - $142 per month Y
8 Monthly Swim Club-Senior
a) Residents $88 - $108 $92 - $113 per month Y
b) Non-Resident $128 - $148 $132 - $153 per month Y
9 CLASSES Instructor:
hrs. * hourly rate
Instructor:
hrs. * hourly rate
N
Activity Description
42 449
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

MEMBERSHIP
Senior Enrichment Fees(50+ years of age)
10 Senior Center Membership
a) Residents $12 $13 per year Y
b) Non-Resident $30 $31 per year Y
Sports Center Membership
11 Fitness Passes- Per Visit Packages
a) 5 visits $25 $26 per visit Y
b) 10 visits $50 $52 per visit Y
c) 15 visits $75 $156 per visit Y
d) 20 visits $100 $624 per visit Y
12 Fitness Passes Senior (50+)- Per Visit Packages
a) 5 visits $15 $16 per visit Y
b) 10 visits $30 $32 per visit Y
c) 15 visits $45 $96 per visit Y
d) 20 visits $60 $384 per visit Y
13 Drop-In Fee $7 - $12 $8 - $13 per visit Y
14 Sports Center Unlimited Packages
a) Monthly $60 $65 Y
b) 3 Months $180 $195 Y
c) 6 Months $280 $295 Y
d) 12 Months $480 $495 Y
15 Sports Center Unlimited Packages - Senior (50+)
a) Monthly $38 $40 Y
b) 3 Months $85 $90 Y
c) 6 Months $135 $140 Y
d) 12 Months $235 $245 Y
16 Annual Non-Resident Fee $50 - $100 $52 - $104 Y
43 450
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

RECREATION
Legend for Recreation Fees: Priority II= Milpitas Public Schools, Chamber, and Gov. Agencies; Priority III= Resident Non-Profits; Priority IV= Milpitas Residents; Priority V= Non-Resident FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Charge Basis Y'rly
IY'fltr NoteActivity Description
Department General Fees
17 General Internal Class Program Fees Staff time + Materials Staff time + Materials Y 18 Membership Card replacement fee $5 $5 Y
19 Transaction Fee $1 - $3 $1 - $3 per receipt Y
20 Trips Actual cost to City +
Trip Admission Fee
Actual cost to City +
Trip Admission Fee
Y
21 General Non-Resident Fees $20 - $30 $21 - $31 per person/class/ month/program or trip
Y
Artificial Turf Field
22 Deposit (Football/Soccer)
a) Priority II & III n/a n/a N
b) Priority IV & V $1,000 $1,000 N
23 Deposit (Soccer/Volleyball)
a) Priority II & III n/a n/a N
b) Priority IV & V $750 $750 N
24 Artificial Turf Football/Soccer w/o lights
a) Priority II & III n/a n/a Y
b) Priority IV $150 $155 per hour Y
c) Priority V $300 $310 per hour Y
25 Artificial Turf Football/Soccer w/ lights
a) Priority II & III n/a n/a Y
b) Priority IV $160 $165 per hour Y
c) Priority V $320 $330 per hour Y
26 Artificial Turf Volleyball/Soccer w/o lights
a) Priority II & III n/a n/a Y
b) Priority IV $100 $105 per hour Y
c) Priority V $200 $210 per hour Y
27 Artificial Turf Volleyball/Soccer w/ lights
a) Priority II & III n/a n/a Y
b) Priority IV $110 $115 per hour Y
c) Priority V $220 $230 per hour Y
44 451
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

RECREATION
Legend for Recreation Fees: Priority II= Milpitas Public Schools, Chamber, and Gov. Agencies; Priority III= Resident Non-Profits; Priority IV= Milpitas Residents; Priority V= Non-Resident FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Charge Basis Y'rly
IY'fltr NoteActivity Description
28 Tournament: Field w/o lights (Football)
a) Priority II & III n/a n/a Y
b) Priority IV $210 $220 per hour Y
c) Priority V $315 $330 per hour Y
29 Tournament: Field w/ lights (Football)
a) Priority II & III n/a n/a Y
b) Priority IV $220 $230 per hour Y
c) Priority V $330 $345 per hour Y
30 Tournament: Field w/o lights (Small)
a) Priority II & III n/a n/a Y
b) Priority IV $160 $165 per hour Y
c) Priority V $240 $248 per hour Y
31 Tournament: Field w/ lights (Small)
a) Priority II & III n/a n/a Y
b) Priority IV $170 $175 per hour Y
c) Priority V $255 $263 per hour Y
Community Center Rentals
32 Application Fee (non-refundable) $20 - $30 $21 - $31 per rental Y 33 Rental Deposits: Classroom/Conference Room $200 $200 per rental N 34 Rental Deposits: Auditorium $500 $500 per rental N
35 Rental Deposits: Auditorium Screen $250 $250 per rental N 36 Auditorium (3 hr. minimum)
a) Priority II no fee no fee Y
b) Priority III $100 $105 per hour Y
c) Priority IV $200 $210 per hour Y
d) Priority V $260 $270 per hour Y
37 Conference Room (2 hr. minimum)
a) Priority II no fee no fee Y
b) Priority III $35 $37 per hour Y
c) Priority IV $70 $74 per hour Y
d) Priority V $130 $134 per hour Y
45 452
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

RECREATION
Legend for Recreation Fees: Priority II= Milpitas Public Schools, Chamber, and Gov. Agencies; Priority III= Resident Non-Profits; Priority IV= Milpitas Residents; Priority V= Non-Resident FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Charge Basis Y'rly
IY'fltr NoteActivity Description
38 Dance Studio. Craft Classroom (2 hr. minimum)
a) Priority II no fee no fee Y
b) Priority III $20 $21 per hour Y
c) Priority IV $40 $42 per hour Y
d) Priority V $100 $102 per hour Y
39 Facility Attendant Fees
a) Priority II,III, IV $30 $31 per hour Y
b) Priority V $60 $62 per hour Y
40 Piano
a) Priority III, IV $20 $21 per day Y
b) Priority V $80 $84 per day Y
41 Auditorium Sound System (includes staff time) $50 $53 per hour Y Field Rentals
42 Application Fee (non-refundable) $20 - $30 $21 - $31 Y [a] 43 Rental Deposits
a) Priority II & III n/a n/a N
b) Priority IV & V $750 $750 N
44 Cricket Pitch
a) Priority II & III n/a n/a Y
b) Priority IV $30 $31 per hour Y
c) Priority V $60 $62 per hour Y
45 Soccer Field w/o lights (2hr. Minimum)
a) Priority II & III n/a n/a Y
b) Priority IV $30 $31 per hour Y
c) Priority V $60 $62 per hour Y
46 Soccer Field w/ lights (2hr. Minimum)
a) Priority II & III n/a n/a Y
b) Priority IV $40 $42 per hour Y
c) Priority V $80 $84 per hour Y
46 453
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

RECREATION
Legend for Recreation Fees: Priority II= Milpitas Public Schools, Chamber, and Gov. Agencies; Priority III= Resident Non-Profits; Priority IV= Milpitas Residents; Priority V= Non-Resident FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Charge Basis Y'rly
IY'fltr NoteActivity Description
47 Softball/ Baseball Field w/o lights (2hr minimum)
a) Priority II & III n/a n/a Y
b) Priority IV $20 $21 per hour Y
c) Priority V $40 $42 per hour Y
48 Softball/ Baseball Field w/ lights (2hr minimum)
a) Priority II & III n/a n/a Y
b) Priority IV $30 $31 per hour Y
c) Priority V $60 $62 per hour Y
49 Tournaments: Field w/o lights
a) Priority II & III n/a n/a Y
b) Priority IV $60 $63 per hour Y
c) Priority V $120 $126 per hour Y
50 Tournaments: Field w/ lights
a) Priority II & III n/a n/a Y
b) Priority IV $80 $83 per hour Y
c) Priority V $160 $166 per hour Y
Gym, Courts & Pool Rentals
51 Application Fee (non-refundable) $20 - $30 $21 - $31 Y 52 Rental Deposit
a) Priority II & III n/a n/a N
b) Priority IV & V $750 $750 N
53 Large Gymnasium (3 hr. minimum)
a) Priority II & III n/a n/a Y
b) Priority IV $80 $85 Y
c) Priority V $160 $170 Y
54 Tournaments: Large Gymnasium (3 hr. Minimum)
a) Priority II & III n/a n/a Y
b) Priority IV $140 $145 Y
c) Priority V $220 $225 Y
47 454
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

RECREATION
Legend for Recreation Fees: Priority II= Milpitas Public Schools, Chamber, and Gov. Agencies; Priority III= Resident Non-Profits; Priority IV= Milpitas Residents; Priority V= Non-Resident FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Charge Basis Y'rly
IY'fltr NoteActivity Description
55 Training Pool (2hr. minimum)
a) Priority II & III n/a n/a Y
b) Priority IV $50 $52 per hr + 2 guards Y
c) Priority V $100 $104 per hr + 2 guards Y
56 Yard Pool (2 hr. minimum)
a) Priority II & III n/a n/a Y
b) Priority IV $60 $65 per hr + 2 guards Y
c) Priority V $120 $130 per hr + 2 guards Y
57 Meter Pool (2 hr. minimum)
a) Priority II & III n/a n/a Y
b) Priority IV $70 $75 per hr + 2 guards Y
c) Priority V $140 $150 per hr + 2 guards Y
58 Facility Attendant/Scorekeeper (per attendant) [a]
a) Priority II & IV $30 $31 per hour Y
b) Priority V $60 $62 per hour Y
59 Lifeguard Fees (per Lifeguard) [a]
a) Priority II & IV $15 $16 per hour Y
b) Priority V $30 $32 per hour Y
Higuera Adobe
60 Application Fee (non-refundable) $20 - $30 $21 - $31 Y [b] 61 Rental Deposit $750 $500 N [b]
62 Auditorium (3hr. Minimum)
a) Priority II no fee no fee Y
b) Priority III $50 $52 per hour Y
c) Priority IV $100 $104 per hour Y
d) Priority V $160 $164 per hour Y
63 Facility Attendant Fees (per attendant)
a) Priority II, III, & IV $30 $31 per hour Y
b) Priority V $60 $62 per hour Y
48 455
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

RECREATION
Legend for Recreation Fees: Priority II= Milpitas Public Schools, Chamber, and Gov. Agencies; Priority III= Resident Non-Profits; Priority IV= Milpitas Residents; Priority V= Non-Resident FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Charge Basis Y'rly
IY'fltr NoteActivity Description
Mobile Stage Rental
64 Deposit (All Priorities) $1,000 $1,000 N
65 Rental (All Priorities) $1,250 - $2,500 $1,300 - $2,600 per day Y 66 Light Package $100 - $1,000 $105 - $1,050 per rental Y [c] 67 Light Mixer $100 - $400 $105 - $420 per rental Y [d] 68 Light Tech $30 - $100 $31 - $103 per hour Y [e]
69 Stage Extentions/Stage Risers $100 - $500 $105 - $525 per rental Y [c] 70 Staff Fee $30 - $100 $105 - $2,625 per hour Y [f]
71 Sound Package $100 - $2,500 $105 - $2,625 per rental Y [c] 72 Sound Tech $30 - $100 $31 - $103 per hour Y [e]
73 Audio Mixer $100 - $400 $105 - $420 per rental Y [d] 74 Mileage $0.30 - $2.00 $0.50 - $3.50 per mile
outside City
Y [g]
75 ADA Ramp $250 $260 Y
76 Truss Roof Cover/ Banner Support $100 - $400 $105 - $420 per rental Y [c] Picnic Area Rentals
77 Application Fee (non-refundable) $20 - $30 $21 - $31 Y 78 Rental Deposit: Large Picnic Area $250 $250 N
79 Small Parks with Restrooms (50 or less capacity)
a) Priority III & IV $80 $85 per day per area Y [b]
b) Priority V $140 $150 per day per area Y [b]
80 Small Parks without Restrooms (50 or less capacity)
a) Priority III & IV $60 $65 per day per area Y [b]
b) Priority V $120 $130 per day per area Y [b]
81 Medium Parks 50 to 100 or less capacity
a) Priority III & IV $140 $145 per day per area Y [b]
b) Priority V $200 $205 per day per area Y [b]
82 Large Parks More than 100+ capacity
a) Priority III & IV $320 $330 per day per area Y [b]
b) Priority V $380 $390 per day per area Y [b]
49 456
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

RECREATION
Legend for Recreation Fees: Priority II= Milpitas Public Schools, Chamber, and Gov. Agencies; Priority III= Resident Non-Profits; Priority IV= Milpitas Residents; Priority V= Non-Resident FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Charge Basis Y'rly
IY'fltr NoteActivity Description
Sal Cracolice Facility Rental
83 Application Fee (non-refundable) $20 - $30 $21 - $32 Y 84 Rental Deposit Meeting Room $200 $200 per rental N [h] 85 Rental Deposit Auditorium $750 $500 N [h]
86 Auditorium w/kitchenette (3hr. Minimum)
a) Priority II no fee no fee Y
b) Priority III $80 $85 per hour Y
c) Priority IV $160 $170 per hour Y
d) Priority V $220 $230 per hour Y
87 Facility Attendant Fees (per attendant)
a) Priority II, III, & IV $30 $31 per hour Y
b) Priority V $60 $62 per hour Y
88 Amphitheatre
a) Priority II, III, & IV $120 $125 per day Y
b) Priority V $180 $185 per day Y
89 Meeting Room (2 hr Minimum)
a) Priority II no fee no fee Y
b) Priority III $45 $47 per hour Y
c) Priority IV $90 $94 per hour Y
d) Priority V $150 $154 per hour Y
Senior Center Rentals
90 Application Fee (non-refundable) $20 - $30 $21 - $32 per hour Y 91 Rental Deposits: Auditorium $750 $500 per hour N [h] 92 Rental Deposits: Classrooms
a) Priority II no fee no fee N
b) Priority III $75 $200 per hour N
c) Priority IV $150 $200 per hour N
d) Priority V $240 $200 per hour N
50 457
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

RECREATION
Legend for Recreation Fees: Priority II= Milpitas Public Schools, Chamber, and Gov. Agencies; Priority III= Resident Non-Profits; Priority IV= Milpitas Residents; Priority V= Non-Resident FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Charge Basis Y'rly
IY'fltr NoteActivity Description
93 Community Room Auditorium ( 3hr. Minimum)
a) Priority II no fee no fee Y
b) Priority III $90 $95 per hour Y
c) Priority IV $180 $190 per hour Y
d) Priority V $240 $250 per hour Y
94 Classroom 140 and 141 (Full) (2 hr. Minimum)
a) Priority II no fee no fee Y
b) Priority III $45 $47 per hour Y
c) Priority IV $90 $94 per hour Y
d) Priority V $150 $154 per hour Y
95 Classroom 140 and 141 (Half)
a) Priority II no fee no fee per hour Y
b) Priority III $25 $26 per hour Y
c) Priority IV $50 $52 Y
d) Priority V $110 $112 Y
96 Facility Attendant Fees (per attendant) per hour
a) Priority II, III, & IV $30 $31 per hour Y
b) Priority V $60 $62 per hour Y
97 Dance Studio
a) Priority II no fee no fee Y
b) Priority III $20 $21 Y
c) Priority IV $40 $42 Y
d) Priority V $100 $102 Y
Senior Enrichment Fees(50+ years of age)
Community Garden
98 Garden Plots (Residents Only)
a) Potable Water Community Gardens $15 per year $.75 -$ 1.15 per sq. foot Y b) Recycled Water Community Gardens $15 per year $.15 - $.55 per sq. foot Y 51 458
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

SENIORS
Department General Fees
106 Milpitas Resident Senior Citizen Discount (50 years+) 25% off any non- senior center based
25% off any non-
senior center based
Y
52 459
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

SPECIAL EVENTS
Special Event Fees
112 Special Event Entrance Fee $0 - $50 $0 - $52 Y
113 Special Events Activity Fee $0 - $15 $0 - $16 Y
114 Special Event Vendor Fees $100-$500 $105 - $520 per space OR 5% - 20% net sales
Y
115 Special Event Non-Profit Vendor Fees $0 - $250 $0 - $260 per space OR 0% - 10% net sales
Y
YOUTH
Youth Enrichment Fees
116 Youth Sports User Fee
a) Outdoor $10 $10 per player per season Y
b) Indoor $20 $21 per player per season Y
117 Junior Warriors Basketball League $129-$160 $135 - $165 per player per season Y 118 After School Program
a) Residents $8 - $12 $8 - $13 per day for residents Y
b) Non-residents $8 - $12
with add'l $20/year
$8 - $13 day for non-residents
with add'l $20/year
Y
119 Late fee for After-School/Day Camp Programs
a) 1st offense & 2nd offense $10 $10 per each 10 minutes Y b) 3rd offense or more $25 $26 per each 10 minutes Y
120 Day Camp (Regular Day) – Staff Run $175 - $195 $185 - $205 per week Y 121 Trip Week Day Camp $299 - $350 $310 - $365 per week Y 122 Extended Care Day Camp $40 $42 per week Y
53 460
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

RENTALS
Special Event Venue/Open Space
123 Application Fee (non-refundable) $30 $31 per application Y 124 Rental Deposits $1,000 $1,000 per day N
125 Rental Fee
a) Priority II & III $990 $1,033 per day Y
b) Priority IV $1,980 $2,066 per day Y
c) Priority V $2,970 $3,099 per day Y
126 Facility Attendant Fees (per attendant) $30 $31 per hour Y Notes:
[a] No fee for Priority III.
[b] No fee for Priority II.
[c] Based on needs and packages.
[d] Based on needs and days.
[e] Based on cost of tech.
[f] Based on needs, actual costs of staff used in rental, time for load in/out and transportation. [g] Based on current gas prices.
[h] No fee for Milpitas residents.
[i] Depending on trip costs.
[j] Includes holiday dinner, tea parties, cooking classes, dances, misc. activities.

Additional Notes:
* Recreation Fees recovery goals may be adjusted/balanced based on "market factors". 54 461
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

FINANCE
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Charge Basis Y'rly
In'fltr Note
1 Bond Payoff Calculation $172 $179 Y
2 Business License
a) New Application Processing Fee $50 $50 per year N
b) Processing Fee (renewal) $25 $25 per year N
3 Phone Check Fee (User Fee - Finance) $15 $15 N
4 Property Damage Invoice Processing Fee $30 $30 plus replacement cost N 5 Credit Card Transaction Processing Fee (for payments greater than $10,000)

2.4% 2.4% % of amount paid by credit card N [a]
Activity Description
[a] Fee will only apply when credit card is used for payment of fees in excess of $10,000 for development/fire-related fees, permits, plan review, etc. 55 462
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

CITY CLERK
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Charge Basis Y'rly
In'fltr Note
Miscellaneous
1 Campaign Late Filing Fees (per day. Set by State of California) $10 $10 per day N 2 Bingo License Renewals (Municipal Code) $50 $50 N
3 Passport Application/Execution Fee (set by U.S. Government) $35 $35 N 4 Requests Requiring Special Programming or Formatting Actual Cost Actual Cost per hour / T&M N Activity Description
56 463
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas

INFORMATION SERVICES
FY 21/22 Fee FY 22/23 Fee Charge Basis Y'rly
In'fltr Note
1 Digital Media Reproduction $20 $20 per flash drive/DVD, etc. N 2 Requests Requiring Special Programming or Formatting Actual Cost Actual Cost per hour / T&M N Activity Description
57 464
Item # 17.

User and Regulatory Fees
Fee-Related Cost of Service Analysis Supporting FY 22/23 Proposed Fee Adjustments 465
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas
Fee Schedule Update - FY 22/23
Cost of Service Calculation for Fee Adjustments
Fee Description
Labor
Hours
Hourly
Rate *
Cost of
Service Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery
Targeted Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed Fee
Structure
1 Special Event Permit Fee
a) Commercial, Industrial, Mixed Use, Hotel/Motel, Apartments, Condomimiums, etc. a) Minor Events 1.0 x $253 = $253 $986 390% 100% $253 fixed fee b) Regular Events 3.9 x $253 = $987 $986 100% 100% $986 fixed fee c) Major Events 23.9 x $253 = $6,047 $6,039 100% 100% $6,039 fixed fee * Hourly rate based on results calculated in most recent comprehensive study, with annual inflationary adjustments. 466
Item # 17.

City of Milpitas
Fee Schedule Update - FY 22/23
Cost of Service Calculation for Fee Adjustments
Fee Description
Current
Proposed
Fee
Add: Bldg
Time
Hourly
Rate *
Bldg Cost of
Svc New Total
Targeted Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed Fee
Structure
2 Special Event Permit Fee
Major Events $6,039 0.5 x $236 = $118 $6,157 100% $6,157 fixed fee 3 Pre-Application Review:

Single Family $2,830 0.5 x $236 = $118 $2,948 100% $2,948 fixed fee All Others $9,156 1.0 x $236 = $236 $9,392 100% $9,392 fixed fee 4 Minor Site Development Review
Staff Review - Zoning Administrator $3,195 0.5 x $236 = $118 $3,313 100% $3,313 fixed fee Staff Review Hill Side - Zoning Administrator $4,488 0.5 x $236 = $118 $4,606 100% $4,606 fixed fee Requiring PC / CC Approval $9,556 0.5 x $236 = $118 $9,674 100% $9,674 fixed fee 5 Site Development
New Development $16,876 7.0 x $236 = $1,653 $18,529 100% $18,529 fixed fee Zoning Administrator $13,856 2.0 x $236 = $472 $14,328 100% $14,328 fixed fee SB35 Housing Project $9,156 7.0 x $236 = $1,653 $10,809 100% $10,809 fixed fee 6 Minor Conditional Use Permit:

Staff Review - Zoning Administrator $1,283 0.5 x $236 = $118 $1,401 100% $1,401 fixed fee Requiring PC / CC Approval $3,046 0.5 x $236 = $118 $3,164 100% $3,164 fixed fee 7 Conditional Use Permit:

Single Family Districts $563 0.5 x $236 = $118 $681 100% $681 fixed fee All Other CUPs $15,267 2.0 x $236 = $472 $15,739 100% $15,739 fixed fee * Hourly rate based on results calculated in most recent comprehensive study, with annual inflationary adjustments. 467
Item # 17.

INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENT CALCULATION
Increase In Total Employee Compensation
Year Misc Employee RateSafety Employee Rate
2019 4.00% 4.00%
2020 0.00% 0.00%
2021 4.34% 4.06%
FY 21/22 Forecast Miscellaneous Safety
Personnel Expenses $42,071,724 $56,424,016
FTE 225.25 209.00
Cost Per FTE 186,777.91 269,971.37
FY 22/23 Forecast
Personnel Expenses $41,411,774 $58,153,554
FTE 212.50 207.00
194,878.94 280,935.04
Year-to-Year Change 4.34% 4.06%
Rounded Year-to-Year Change4.34% 4.06%
468
Item # 17.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Homelessness Task Force Options (Staff Contact: Ashwini Kantak, Assistant City Manager, 408-586-3053 and Sharon Goei, Building Safety and Housing Director, 408- 586-3260)
Category: Community Development

Meeting Date: 4/19/2022
Recommendation: Receive staff report related to the Homelessness Task Force recommendations and provide direction to staff on next steps.

Background
To address the issues of homelessness, an Ad Hoc Homelessness Task Force was approved in January 2021 and established in March 2021. The Task Force, comprising of seven members, held ten monthly meetings from March 2021 through January 2022 and developed recommendations, which were presented to the City Council on February 1, 2022. The February 1 agenda report (Attachment 1) provides background information and an overview of the Homelessness Task Force recommendations. An accompanying PowerPoint presentation (included with Attachment 1) was presented to the City Council that delineated the Task Force’s program ideas in greater detail. The Task Force recommendations to assist the unhoused and at-risk populations in the City are grouped in five program categories:

1. Milpitas Homelessness Help Center

2. Temporary Housing

3. Homelessness Prevention

4. Work and Self-Sufficiency

5. Accountability

On March 1, 2022, the City Council further discussed the report and recommendations from the Homelessness Task Force. Although no specific direction was given by the full Council, individual Councilmembers expressed interest in various approaches to assist the unhoused population, including: a homelessness help center; a recreational vehicle (RV) safe parking program; and homelessness prevention programs particularly for McKinney-Vento individuals, defined by the California Department of Education as “homeless children and youths as individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.” Support was expressed for preparing a feasibility study for a navigation center which would provide temporary housing and wrap-around supportive services for the unhoused population. Support was also expressed for a day worker/help center to assist individuals in finding work and gaining self-sufficiency. Additionally, several Councilmembers supported public health and sanitation measures to address basic needs and improve quality of life for the unhoused population, such as expanding mobile shower and laundry services and providing dumpsters or trash bins at locations where the unhoused are gathering in the City. Support was not expressed for creating a Local Oversight Committee to approve expenditures for homelessness programs as this was seen as a City Council function.

Analysis

Based on the Homelessness Task Force’s recommendations and feedback from the City Council, staff conducted research on similar programs in other jurisdictions and developed some information for Council to 469
Item # 18.

consider potential project and program options for assisting the unhoused and at-risk populations in the City.

A summary and comparison of the below projects and programs are shown in Attachment 2. Further information on each option is included in the worksheets in Attachment 3 including reference to models from other cities These worksheets are based on interviews with staff in other cities and service providers regarding program objectives, facility and set-up costs, ongoing operating costs, services provided, population served, lessons learned, and best practices.

1. Expanded Shower and Laundry Services: Expand current mobile shower and laundry service to twice a week to provide essential sanitation services for unhoused residents. This service started as a 6-month pilot program with $21,372 grant dollars in March 2021. In September 2021, the City continued funding weekly services for an additional 12 months, utilizing a total grant of $71,500. The mobile shower and laundry program has been serving an average of 23 individuals per session, with about 43% of the individuals affiliated with Milpitas. With recent changes in the City’s unhoused population, the current number of individuals using this service is about 19 per session. In the most recent sessions, about 30% of the individuals are affiliated with Milpitas, with 70% of the individuals receiving services being affiliated with other cities. Another consideration is the location of the mobile services.

Given the recent decrease in the number of unhoused individuals in the vicinity of the current site, an alternate location for this service may need to be explored.

Estimated Costs: Current contract for once a week service goes through September 2021 and has been funded through this time. An annual contract cost for twice a week service is approximately $105,000 (double current cost) assuming the City continues contracting with WeHOPE to provide this service. Funding for this service could come from grants or General Fund.

Potential Next Steps: If Council wishes to move forward with the expansion of this service, staff will need to identify funding and potentially, an alternate location based on the current status of the unhoused population in Milpitas.

2. Trash Collection Service: Place dumpsters or trash bins at homeless encampments to minimize illegal dumping, remove debris and blight, and address public health hazards.

This type of service may be considered if there are one or two locations where the unhoused population is congregating. This service is not feasible if the unhoused individuals are dispersed throughout the City. Additionally, placing a dumpster at a designated location along with shower and laundry services could prompt the establishment of a homeless encampment. Dumpsters placed at an unsecure location also result in illegal dumping by the community at large.

Estimated Costs: The estimated cost for placing dumpsters or trash bins at two locations is $8,000 per year if weekly service is provided by Milpitas Sanitation Inc. (MSI); and an estimated $125,000 per year to remove and dispose biohazardous waste or hauling away illegally dumped items at the bin site. This brings the estimated costs for this service to $133,000 per year; this could go up to $400,000 per year if an additional route is required depending on type of truck, bins, and number of stops needed to service the route. Alternatively, if the City contracts with a separate vendor for weekly service, the estimated cost is $317,000 per year. Funding for this service could come from grants or the General Fund.

Potential Next Steps: If Council wishes to move forward with this service, staff will need to identify funding and potentially, and potential locations based on the current status of the unhoused population in Milpitas.

3. Day Worker/Help Center: Establish a clearinghouse and resource center to connect day workers to short-term jobs from residents and businesses.

470
Item # 18.

The facility would also function as a community and support center for clients with training classes and employment services. No overnight accommodations would be provided. Day worker centers in other cities predominately serve clients who already have housing and are pre-screened for employment.

Estimated Costs: Depending on the services and number of clients served, a day worker/help center could cost about $250,000 annually if modeled after the successful Worker Resource Center managed by Samaritan House in San Mateo. Operating costs can vary significantly. For instance, a more expansive program operated by Day Worker Center of Mountain View has an annual budget of about $800,000. An initial feasibility study is estimated to cost approximately $50,000 to $75,000. Funding for this service could come from grants, donations, or the General Fund.

Potential Next Steps: If the Council desires to consider a day worker/help center, a feasibility study is recommended to define a program scope, estimate facility and operating costs, identify possible sites, and explore potential service providers and funding sources.

4. Navigation Center: Conduct a feasibility study for a Navigation Center, which is a rapid rehousing facility (congregate living) for the unhoused population with case management and wrap-around services to transition participants from homelessness to transitional or permanent housing.

The scope of the feasibility study could include evaluating various options for sheltering the unhoused population, determining facility and site requirements, evaluating potential sites and conducting community outreach, identifying potential services providers, identifying programs and services to be offered, and identifying funding for capital improvement and operating costs.

Per state law (Senate Bill 48/Assembly Bill 101), the use is allowed by right in any zoning district where residential or mixed use is allowed. Navigation centers in Fremont and Hayward can serve 45-60 individuals at one time with maximum 6-month occupancy allowed. Sleeping arrangements are typically in a congregate setting. Both facilities are operated by Bay Area Community Services (BACS), which also manages other navigation centers. Additionally, a San Mateo County navigation center is under construction in Redwood City with 240 living units (capacity for 260 clients) that will be operated by LifeMoves. Predominate funding for capital improvements and operations is through a Homekey grant.

Estimated Costs: A feasibility study is estimated to cost approximately $110,000, which would include up to $100,000 for consultant services and $10,000 for staff. Funding for the feasibility study could come from the Housing Authority Fund. Health and Safety Code allows up to $250,000 per fiscal year of Housing Authority (former Redevelopment Agency) Funds be used to help individuals secure temporary or permanent housing. Based on the type of facility desired costs could range from $1-$1.2 million annually for operating expenses. The one-time costs to establish the facility could vary widely depending on the identified location and available infrastructure.

Potential Next Steps: If the Council wishes to proceed with a feasibility study staff would need to identify funding and secure a consultant to perform the study. The study would take about 6-9 months to complete; however, given the current status of staffing, the study would likely only commence in summer 2022 and continue into 2023. At the conclusion of the feasibility study, staff would return to the Council for direction on implementing a navigation center. If the Council decides to move forward with establishing a navigation center, additional funds for project implementation would need to be estimated and identified.

5. RV Safe Parking Program: Provide a site for temporary RV parking as an alternative to on-street parking.

Similar to a navigation center, a maximum 6-month stay is typically stipulated, and case management and wrap-around support services are provided to transition program participants to transitional or 471
Item # 18.

permanent housing. RV safe parking programs have allowed for overnight parking only, although 24- hour parking can be considered. The viability of this option depends on the number individuals living in RVs in the City and their willingness to participate in the program. Stepped up enforcement of illegal on- street parking may be necessary in order to increase program participation. A half-acre site can accommodate about 15 RVs depending on the size of vehicles with allowance for on-site facilities, vehicle separation, and emergency access. According to the County’s Homeless Engagement and Access Team, there were approximately 26 individuals living in vehicles at the time of their assessment. Their data does not distinguish between cars, vans, trucks, versus RVs. As an alternative, Council could also consider a safe parking program that accommodates both RVs and passenger vehicles.

Estimated Costs: Site preparation costs would depend on the selected site; operating costs for about 15 RVs could be $300,000 or more per year depending on scope of services and assistance offered. A feasibility study is estimated to cost approximately $50,000 to 75,000, which would include assessing potential sites and preparing a conceptual site plan and cost estimate for a preferred site.

Potential Next Steps: If the Council desires to consider a RV safe parking program, a feasibility study could be considered to define a program model, estimate facility and operating costs, identify and assess possible sites, and explore potential service providers and funding sources.

6. Tiny Home Village: Explore a Tiny Home Village, which is another rapid rehousing model for the unhoused population with case management and wrap-around services to transition participants to transitional or permanent housing.

The program objective is the same as a Navigation Center with the purpose of transitioning participants from homelessness to transitional or permanent housing. Length of occupancy is also set at maximum six months but could be extended for certain clients. The primary difference is the type of shelter offered. Tiny home villages offer smaller or individual modular living units to allow for more private and secure accommodations, which may be more attractive for women and families with children. However, cooking and sanitation facilities are typically shared as in a navigation center. The navigation center under construction in Redwood City is an enhanced tiny homes model with a private restroom in most of the units. While the individual modular units are affordable, overall capital improvement costs are generally higher than a navigation center with a modular structure or building for congregate living.

Program operating costs could be similar as a navigation center.

Estimated Costs: Site preparation and capital improvement costs would vary, depending on the selected site. Program operating costs would be similar to a Navigation Center at approximately $1- $1.2 million. A feasibility study is estimated to cost approximately $100,000 but if incorporated in the feasibility study for a navigation center, the estimated cost is $150,000 for a combined study. Funding for the feasibility study could come from the Housing Authority Fund. Health and Safety Code allows up to $250,000 per fiscal year of Housing Authority (former Redevelopment Agency) Funds be used to help individuals secure temporary or permanent housing.

Potential Next Steps: If the Council desires to consider a Tiny Home Village, this model can be included in the scope of the feasibility study for a navigation center or a separate feasibility study could be conducted. This would entail identifying funding and securing a consultant to perform the study.

The following table indicates the programs areas that each project/program option addresses. In addition to the four program ideas suggested by the Homelessness Task Force, a fifth category has been added, Public Health and Sanitation, in response to Council comments.

472
Item # 18.

Homelessness Programs and Projects

Program Areas
Project/Program Options Public Health
& Sanitation
Homelessness
Help Center
Temporary
Housing
Homelessness
Prevention
Work & Self-
Sufficiency
Expanded Shower and
Laundry Services √
Trash Collection Service √
Day Worker/Help Center √ √
Navigation Center √ √
RV Safe Parking √ √
Tiny Home Village √ √

Considerations for Homelessness Program Options
Since implementing the above options to assist the unhoused population will be financially challenging for the City and will inevitably require trade-offs, the City Council might prioritize factors when selecting a program or project to implement. Factors to consider include the following:

1. Unhoused Population Service Needs:

The unhoused population is diverse both demographically and in terms of supportive services needed.

A primary consideration is creating programs or projects that match the characteristics and level of need among the unhoused population in Milpitas. For context, some of the cities researched had considerably larger unhoused populations than Milpitas based on the last point-in-time homeless count conducted in January 2019, such as: Hayward – 487, Mountain View – 606, and Fremont – 608. In comparison, Milpitas had 125 unhoused individuals based on the 2019 homeless count. These statistics are not to suggest that Milpitas should minimize its homelessness concerns, but that programs and projects should be scaled to address the unmet needs.

Council might prioritize a segment of the unhoused population when selecting a project or program to explore and implement. For example, a navigation center primarily serves an adult male population, but this does not preclude configuring a facility with case management services for McKinney-Vento families. Shelter accommodations can include private living units with childcare services in addition to a mobile structure for congregate living which are more suitable for adults. However, the unhoused population in Milpitas are predominately single adults and households without children, comprising 94% of the unhoused population based on recent Santa Clara County data. Households with children only comprise 6% of the unhoused population, but these numbers do not account for McKinney-Vento households that have shelter or housing but are at-risk of homelessness.

In assessing the viability of a RV safe parking program, the number of unhoused who are living in RVs on city streets or other properties should be determined. According to the County’s Homeless Engagement and Access Team, there were approximately 26 individuals living in vehicles at the time of their assessment. Their data does not distinguish between cars, vans, trucks, versus RVs. With recent changes in the City’s unhoused population, the number of RV dwellers is likely a relatively low number, and it may not be cost effective to establish a central RV site. Securing agreements to park RVs on private property throughout the city, such as religious assembly sites, may be a better approach if there are receptive property owners.

Temporary housing and rapid rehousing models primarily benefit unhoused individuals and households that are willing to accept assistance and are capable of eventually living in transitional or permanent supportive housing. Conversely, public health and sanitation facilities offer basic services to all unhoused individuals, but they do not provide rapid rehousing or case management services to transition individuals out of homelessness.
473
Item # 18.

Providing dumpsters or trash bins at homeless encampments is an expensive option if there are multiple encampments in the city. While the unhoused population has congregated at only a few locations in Milpitas, the encampments are relatively small with about 6-12 individuals each up until March. Since then, individuals have been dispersed throughout the City. The cost of providing and servicing a dumpster for a small population may not be cost-effective relative to other longer-term homelessness solutions. As stated earlier, dumpsters also become magnets for illegal dumping.

Day worker/help centers do not preclude serving the unhoused, but centers operating in other cities (e.g., Mountain View, San Mateo, and Oakland) offer services and training for a broader population in the community that are capable of employment. Most participants also have some form of housing.

Therefore, a day worker/help center model may not benefit the unhoused population unless services are expanded to include homeless prevention and support services, or a partnership occurs with another service provider to accept homeless referrals.

2. Funding Availability:

Public and private sources that are available for each homelessness option continue to evolve. Each option typically involves combining a variety of public and private sources with some funds earmarked for one-time facilities costs, while other funding sources support ongoing operational costs and specific supportive services (e.g., rental assistance, case management, wrap-around services, meals, wellness and medical services, and transportation).

Formulating a financing plan and securing funding requires pursuing multiple sources. Counties and large cities typically fund their navigation centers through multiple sources, including federal Homeless Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), state Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) grants, and county public health, mental health, and social service funds. Usually, only counties and large cities are eligible for these types of funding. Funding commonly includes additional contributions from cities, charitable organizations, non-profit foundations, and/or private donors (e.g., gift campaigns). Grant programs are typically very competitive with specific eligibility criteria and reporting requirements and may be temporary such as emergency sources to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The state has recently earmarked significant funds to address homelessness and program objectives and criteria for these funds are under development.

3. Availability and Selection of Service Providers:

An important consideration is identifying possible service providers for the project and program options.

For navigation centers, surrounding cities (e.g., Fremont, Hayward, Oakland, Berkeley, and Monterey/Salinas) have contracted with Bay Area Communities Services (BACS) to operate these facilities and coordinate wrap-around services. While other service providers are qualified, BACS would be a logical agency to consider if the City were to establish a navigation center. They work with a network of other service providers to provide case management and wrap-around support services.

Other projects and programs may require wider solicitation to find a qualified and willing service provider. For instance, some programs have been spearheaded by faith-based or community-based organizations such as the Day Worker Center of Mountain View and the Samaritan House Worker Resource Center in San Mateo. Tiny home villages have been established by non-profit organizations with substantial public funding (e.g., examples in Los Angeles County). Alternatively, cities have often taken a lead role to establish a RV safe parking program, although service providers are contracted to operate the facilities and coordinate supportive services.

4. City Staffing for Program Oversight:

Milpitas Housing staff can oversee the contracts and monitor the service providers but would not have the staff capacity or in-house expertise to directly administer the programs. While the City would rely on service providers, expanding homeless and housing programs will require supplemental City staffing for 474
Item # 18.

program administration. Additional staff support should be assumed for each homelessness option and would vary depending on the effort required for planning, design, and implementation, service provider oversight, grant administration, financial management and reporting, and performance assessment and accountability.

5. Planning, Design, and Implementation:

Consideration should be given to planning and design requirements, facility and implementation costs, and the relative benefits and objectives of each project and program option. For instance, increasing the frequency of shower and laundry service is a relatively easy option to implement since a service provider is already under contract. Providing dumpsters or trash bins can also be implemented relatively quickly to address immediate public health risks but does not achieve the objective of transitioning unhoused individuals and families from homelessness to stable housing and self- sufficiency.

Alternatively, options such a navigation center, RV safe parking program, and tiny home village are rapid rehousing solutions with comprehensive case management services to transition individuals and families out of homelessness. However, these options require more lead time to implement, typically 9 to 15 months if a site is available. A significant commitment of resources is necessary with investment of one-time costs for facilities and site improvements. Because a site is typically required for these options, additional time and effort for site selection and community outreach should be included to plan and implement these projects.

Funding Opportunities
Based on Council comments at the March 1st meeting, staff have taken the opportunity to seek additional funds to assist the unhoused population and households at-risk of homelessness:

1. Housing staff started preparing in February and applied in March for a $150,000 grant from the Emergency Food and Shelter Program to extend funding for the City’s rent relief program.

2. Housing staff also investigated applying for additional funds for rental housing assistance through the State’s share of federal HOME program funds. A Notice of Availability (NOFA) was issued late last year by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) with applications due in March 2022. After consulting with HCD staff, it was advised that the City would be in a better position to apply for HOME funds through a second NOFA that is expected to be issued this summer. Staff plans to submit an application for the second NOFA.

3. A request was submitted to Assemblymember Alex Lee in March 2022, for homelessness prevention and unhoused services totaling $1,500,000 to be included in the FY 2022-23 State budget. The funds are requested for three purposes: a) expanding mobile shower and laundry services to twice a week for three years ($300,000); b) establishing a Milpitas Resource Center (day worker/help center) as a two- year pilot program ($500,000); and 3) providing rent relief to vulnerable Milpitas residents ($700,000).

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving the report. Based on Council direction, each of the program options would require additional funding, which Council may wish to consider as a part of the fiscal year 2022- 23 budget development.

California Environmental Quality Act:

staff will conduct a CEQA analysis, or verify the applicability of a CEQA exemption, prior to any discretionary action to approve or move forward with any recommendation.

Per Senate Bill 48/Assembly Bill 101, a Low Barrier Navigation Center is defined as “housing or shelter in which a resident who is homeless or at risk of homelessness may live temporarily while waiting to move into permanent housing.” The use is allowed by right in any zoning district where residential or mixed use is allowed. A use permit or other discretionary approval cannot be required and, as a ministerial approval, the project is exempt from CEQA.

Recommendation:

Receive staff report related to the Homelessness Task Force recommendations and provide direction to staff on next steps.

Attachments:

1. February 1, 2022 Council Agenda Report with attached Homelessness Task Force Presentation

2. Summary and Comparison of Homelessness Program and Project Options

3. Worksheets for Homelessness Program and Project Options 1) Expanded Shower and Laundry Services
2) Trash Collection Service
3) Day Worker/Help Center
4) Navigation Center Feasibility Study
5) RV Safe Parking
6) Tiny Home Village
476
Item # 18.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Receive report from Homelessness Task Force Category: Community Development
Meeting Date: 2/1/2022
Staff Contact: Sharon Goei, Building Safety and Housing Director, 408-586-3260 Robert Musallam, Housing and Neighborhood Services Administrator, 408-586-3275 Recommendation: Receive report from Homelessness Task Force.

Background:

At the December 15, 2020 City Council meeting, at the request of the Mayor, Council directed staff to place an item on the January 5, 2021 Council meeting agenda related to creating a Homelessness Task Force. At the January 5, 2021 City Council meeting, Council approved the establishment of a new ad hoc Homelessness Task Force. The task force would be comprised of up to ten resident members. Its purpose is to expand resident participation in addressing homelessness issues within the City and provide solutions, feedback, and input that will contribute to improving the quality of life of the Milpitas community, neighborhoods, and residents.

Ten members were appointed to the task force by the Mayor with input from the Council. Appointed to the task force were the following members: William Lam, Sanae Alexander, Jeremy Bevington, Ferdie Centeno, Ricky Davis, Martha Lamdin, Norma Morales, Lisa Moreno, Barbara Jo Navarro, and Tingna Xu. The following three members subsequently resigned from the task force: Ricky Davis, Martha Lamdin, and Lisa Moreno.

Ten monthly meetings have been held by the task force from March 2021 through January 2022, with the exception of July 2021. Staff has been serving in a facilitator role to coordinate meetings, assist task force members during discussions, and provide updates related to unhoused services. The analysis section below summarizes the task force discussions during those meetings.

Analysis:

The first task force meeting was held on March 10, 2021. The task force voted to select William Lam as the Chair and Sanae Alexander as the Vice Chair. Overall, the first meeting provided an opportunity for members to introduce themselves to the community, discuss the role of the task force, and begin initial logistical discussions as to how to best maximize their use of time and resources.

Subsequent meetings in April and May 2021 allowed staff to provide the task force with information about compliance with the Brown Act and the City’s Open Government Ordinance. The task force discussed member availability and decided to meet on a monthly basis. During April and May, staff provided information and resources on homelessness, including the City’s programs on homeless response and prevention. Additionally, staff invited the Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing to give a presentation on the 2020-2025 Santa Clara County Community Plan to End Homelessness. County representatives also shared information regarding their Homeless Engagement and Access Team for homeless outreach and assessment. Through these initial meetings and information gathering sessions, the task force began to explore possible areas of focus. Examples of the ideas and areas the task force desired to explore are listed below:

 Housing (both permanent affordable housing and temporary housing/shelters)  Food and clothing
477
Item # 18.

 Education and job training
 Substance abuse rehabilitation services
 Homelessness prevention
 Helping people access benefits and resources
 Community safety
 Litter and pollution
 At-risk youth and McKinney-Vento students
 Multi-lingual social/emotional services for individuals experiencing homelessness

Task force members also discussed goals and objectives for the Homelessness Task Force:

 Help the unhoused move into housing for the homeless
 Provide resources, support, restore dignity and plan for prevention through our unhoused services  Find cost effective solutions for the unhoused to create a safer community  Provide input/feedback on the challenges faced by families and students and find a sustainable and innovative solution to help the unhoused and McKinney-Vento students in Milpitas

From June through September 2021, the task force synthesized their ideas into program areas that would then become the basis of the Homelessness Task Force’s plan. The plan created program areas of outreach and community communication, temporary housing, prevention program, work program, and accountability and community safety.

The task force assigned members to program areas in June. In August and September, task force members explored their program ideas, conducted research, presented on program topics, and gave one another feedback. The task force was asked to identify resources that would be required for each program idea.

Members noted that resources, including funding and personnel, would need to be determined depending on program direction. The task force also discussed the format of the task force report presentation to the City Council.

From October 2021 through January 2022, the task force held robust discussions on their program areas and report presentation slides to the City Council. Task force members reviewed and edited slides, providing further input on program areas in each meeting. The task force approved the slide presentation and selected task force members to deliver the presentation to the City Council. The task force outlined their presentation into the following main program areas:

 Milpitas Homelessness Help Center
 Temporary Housing Programs
 Homelessness Prevention Programs
 Work and Self-Sufficiency Programs
 Accountability

Please refer to Attachment 1 for the presentation of the Homelessness Task Force report that delineates the program areas in detail.

At the February 1, 2022 City Council meeting, the Homelessness Task Force will provide its report and presentation to the City Council.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact to receive a report from the Homelessness Task Force. However, depending on Council feedback on the report, there may be future fiscal impact in terms of funding or personnel cost to conduct research or implementation. It is important to note that the current low staffing capacity has necessitated focus on work plan items associated with federal or state requirements. Additional staffing resources will be required to conduct any further research or implementation related to the Homelessness Task Force.

478
Item # 18.

California Environmental Quality Act:

The action being considered, the mere acceptance of a report, has no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). If the City Council is inclined to explore any of the recommendations made in the report, staff will conduct a CEQA analysis, or verify the applicability of a CEQA exemption, prior to any discretionary action to approve or move forward with any recommendation.

Recommendation:

Receive report from Homelessness Task Force.

Attachment:

1. Presentation of Homelessness Task Force Report
479
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
455 E. Calaveras Blvd., Milpitas, CA 95035
www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov • (408)-586-3000
City Council Meeting
Homelessness Task
Force Report
February 1, 2022
1 480
Item # 18.

Presentation Outline
2 • Homelessness in Milpitas
• Task Force Overview, Goals, Members
• Task Force Program Ideas
• Receive Report from Task Force
481
Item # 18.

Milpitas Affiliated Households Waiting for Housing
3 • 6,298 households in the Community Queue (Countywide) • 180 households are “affiliated” with Milpitas
• 169 households scored in the RRH or PSH range
Source: Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing (August 2021) 482
Item # 18.

Homelessness Task Force Overview
4 • On January 5, 2021, the City Council, upon the request of Mayor Tran, approved the establishment of a new Ad Hoc
Homelessness Task Force with up to ten community
members.
• The purpose of the Task Force is to expand resident
participation and provide solutions, feedback, and input that will contribute to improving the quality of life of the Milpitas community, neighborhoods, and residents.
• Monthly meetings except July
• Staff facilitates meetings and provides updates on programs 483
Item # 18.

Homelessness Task Force Overview
5 • March: Welcome, introductions, selection of Chair and Vice Chair, role of the task force, logistics
• April: Brown Act training, possible areas of focus, staff shared resources on homelessness
• May: Presentation by County Office of Supportive
Housing, task force goals and objectives
• June-Sept: Explore programs focused on outreach and
community communication, temporary housing,
homelessness prevention, work and self-sufficiency
program, accountability and community safety
• Oct-Jan: Review, edit, and approve slides to be
presented to City Council, and select Task Force
representatives to deliver the presentation
484
Item # 18.

Homelessness Task Force Goals
6 • Help the unhoused move into housing for the
homeless
• Provide resources, support, restore dignity and plan
for prevention through our unhoused services
• Find cost effective solutions for the unhoused to
create a safer community
• Provide input/feedback on the challenges faced by
families and students and find a sustainable and
innovative solution to help the unhoused and
McKinney-Vento students in Milpitas
485
Item # 18.

Homelessness Task Force Members
7 Chair William Lam
Vice Chair Sanae Alexander
Jeremy Bevington
Ferdie Centeno
Ricky Davis
Martha Lamdin
Norma Morales
Lisa Moreno
Barbara Jo Navarro
Tingna Xu
Members that resigned from Task Force:

Martha Lamdin, Lisa Moreno, and Ricky Davis
486
Item # 18.

Homelessness Task Force Report
8 • Plan Overview (Chair Lam)
• Program Ideas:
– Milpitas Homelessness Help Center (Chair Lam)
– Temporary Housing (Vice Chair Alexander)
– Homelessness Prevention (Vice Chair Alexander)
– Work and Self-sufficiency (Chair Lam)
– Accountability (Chair Lam)
487
Item # 18.

Milpitas Homelessness Task Force Plan Overview
9 488
Item # 18.

Milpitas Homelessness Help Center
10 • Purpose: increase public information on homelessness resources, programs, and concerns
• Staff person at City Hall who can respond to questions and receive community feedback with language accommodation (e-mail, hotline, or walk-in)
• Webpage with local and county resources, oversight committee schedule
• Create a new category on the MyMilpitas App to facilitate outreach to the unhoused
• Community involvement and awareness of programs
• Example: Resource fairs and pop-up events
489
Item # 18.

Temporary Housing Programs
11 • City-sanctioned encampment or safe parking areas
– Purpose: Transition to permanent housing. Assistance with self- reliance, self-esteem, pride, dignity, etc.
– Safer, more stable alternative to encampments; transitional – RVs and tents with showers, toilets, laundry, running water, garbage pick-up and food service
– Assessment and case management
– Example: City of Fremont, Mountain View, Union City
490
Item # 18.

Temporary Housing Programs
12 • Temporary shelter and resource center with giving priority to families, seniors, working individuals, and youth aging out of foster care system (17.5 to 22 years of age)
– Purpose: Transition to permanent housing. To build independence, quality of life, self-reliance, hope
– Create a new congregate shelter with beds, food, daycare, employment resources, financial coaching and more
– Possibly use an abandoned church building or vacant warehouse – Assessment and case management
– Public-private sector collaboration
– Example: St. Mary’s Center in Oakland
491
Item # 18.

Temporary Housing Programs
13 • “Tiny home” transitional housing
– Purpose: Transition to permanent housing. Assistance with self- reliance, self-esteem, pride, dignity, etc.
– Faster to construct and much lower cost than permanent housing (shipping containers can be prefabricated, are movable and scalable) – Non-congregate housing allows for more privacy and security – On-site services, assessment, case management, amenities – Explore subsidy for homeowners who host unhoused in Accessory Dwelling Units
– Explore funding for homeowners or organizations to build tiny homes on their property
– Example: City of Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle’s “The BLOCK Project”
492
Item # 18.

Prevention Programs
14 • Connect with McKinney-Vento households; expand childcare – Purpose: Identify and assist at-risk residents, youth, and MUSD McKinney-Vento households and increase child-care options – More robust outreach to McKinney-Vento households
– More connections to services and organizations like LifeMoves – More outreach in various languages
– Expand day care options so parents can go back to work and avoid falling into homelessness
– Example: After the Bell and YMCA after school programs 493
Item # 18.

Work and Self-Sufficiency Programs
15 • Rewards for litter pick-up and job training
– Purpose: Create a work program to help with self-reliance, self- esteem, pride, dignity and to beautify the City.
– Stage 1: Provide gift cards or food vouchers to unhoused residents who clean their own encampments, parks, freeway entrances, and other key areas
– Stage 2: Motivated candidates are referred to SCC work program to train for professional skills
– Reach out to neighborhoods, corporations, local organizations to volunteer and support the program
– Refer workers to programs through NovaWorks, Goodwill, Downtown Streets Team and more
– Example: City of Elk Grove 494
Item # 18.

Accountability
16 • Local Oversight Committee
– Purpose: Ensure tax dollars are spent efficiently on unhoused programs
– Create a 7-9 member committee to oversee City spending on homelessness
– Committee approval for all expenditures
– Review 911 calls and crime reports related to unhoused residents 495
Item # 18.

Recommendation
17 • Receive report from Homelessness Task Force
496
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
455 E. Calaveras Blvd., Milpitas, CA 95035
www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov • (408) 586-3000
18 497
Item # 18.

Project/Program
Expanded Mobile
Shower and Laundry
Services
Trash Collection
Service
Day Worker/
Help Center Navigation Center RV Safe Parking Tiny Home Village Program Area Public Health and
Sanitation
Public Health and
Sanitation
Work and Self-
Sufficiency/
Help Center
Temporary Housing/
Homelessness
Prevention
Temporary Housing/
Homelessness
Prevention
Temporary Housing/
Homelessness
Prevention
Program Objective Expand current
mobile shower and
laundry service to
provide essential
sanitation services for
unhoused residents.

Dumpsters or trash
bins placed at
homeless
encampments to
minimize illegal
dumping, remove
debris and blight, and
address public health
hazards.

Clearinghouse and
resource center to
connect day workers
to short-term jobs
from residents and
businesses;
community and
support center; no
overnight facilities
Rapid rehousing for
the unhoused
population with case
management and
wrap-around services
to transition
participants to
transitional or
permanent housing.

Temporary parking for
RVs as an alternative
to on-street parking,
case management and
support services to
transition participants
to transitional or
permanent housing.

Rapid rehousing for
the unhoused
population with case
management and
wrap-around services
to transition
participants to
transitional or
permanent housing.

Assumed Annual
Population Served
20 per session/
40 per week
up to 30 at two sites Varies by service 50 with turnover (max. 6-month stay)
25 with turnover
(max.6-month stay)
50 with turnover
(max. 6-month stay)
Program Options Increase to
twice/week
Number of sites Expand scope to
provide homeless
services
Congregate living
Smaller living units
Hotel rooms
Day center only
24-hour parking
Overnight parking only
Passenger vehicles
Scattered sites
Navigation center
Family households
Potential Funding City General Fund
County Assistance
City General Fund Charitable groups
Foundations
Private Donations
City General Fund
City General Fund
Housing Authority
Fund
(up to $250k per FY)
County assistance
State/federal grants
Charitable groups
Foundations
City General Fund
County Assistance
Non-Profit Partners
City General Fund
Housing Authority
Fund
(up to $250k per FY)
County assistance
State/federal grants
Charitable groups
Foundations
Attachment 2
Summary and Comparison of Homelessness Options
498
Item # 18.

Project/Program
Expanded Mobile
Shower and Laundry
Services
Trash Collection
Service
Day Worker/
Help Center Navigation Center RV Safe Parking Tiny Home Village Potential Service Provider WeHOPE Milpitas Sanitation or private vendor
to be determined Bay Area Community
Services
to be determined to be determined
Time for Implementation 1-2 months 1-2 months 9-15 months 6-9 months (feasibility study only) 3-6 months (scattered
small sites)
9-15 months (central
site)
9-15 months
Models from other Cities Various Various Mt. View, San Mateo, Oakland, San
Francisco, Santa Cruz
San Francisco,
Berkeley, Oakland,
Hayward, Fremont,
Salinas, Contra Costa
County, Los Angeles
Mountain View,
Berkeley, Oakland,
East Palo Alto
San Jose, Oakland,
Livermore, San
Francisco, Los Angeles
Preliminary Cost
a) One-time Set-up Minimal Minimal $100,000-$150,000 $110,000 (feasibility study)
Allow $600,000 for
facilities and site
preparation
$50,000-$250,000 $450,000 (facilities)
Allow $300,000 (site
preparation)
b) Ongoing Operations $105,160/year for
2 sessions/week
For two sites:
$133,000/year
(Milpitas Sanitation
w/o new route)
$317,000/year
(private vendor)
$200,000/year $1.0-$1.2 million/
year
$300,000/year $1.0 -$1.2 million/
year
c) Unit Cost $51/person/session $4,300 - $10,600/
person/year
Varies by service $20,000-$24,000/
client (not including
one-time facility/site
preparation costs)
$12,000/RV
(not including one-
time site preparation
and case management
costs)
$20,000-$24,000/
client (not including
one-time facility/site
preparation costs)
499
Item # 18.
1 ATTACHMENT 3
Homelessness Program/Project Worksheets

1. Expanded Shower and Laundry Services

2. Trash Collection Service

3. Day Worker/Help Center

4. Navigation Center Feasibility Study

5. Recreational Vehicle (RV) Safe Parking

6. Tiny Home Village

500
Item # 18.
2 PROGRAM/PROJECT TITLE 1. EXPANDED SHOWER AND LAUNDRY SERVICES

PROGRAM AREA PUBLIC HEALTH AND SANITATION
Program Objective Expand current mobile shower and laundry service to further improve quality of life for unhoused residents.

Program Description Current mobile shower and laundry service is provided every Sunday. This proposal would increase the service to twice a week.

Primary Issues Direct response to improve immediate quality of life for the unhoused, but does not provide remedy for ending homelessness or addressing the permanent needs of the unhoused population.

Service Options Amend contract with WeHOPE to increase mobile shower and laundry service to more than once a week. Determine frequency and day of the week to expand service. Proposed option is to expand service to twice a week – every Wednesday and every Sunday. The service would be provided at the current location to begin with and other locations would be explored.

Estimated Lead/Start-up Time After approval and authorization by the City Council, amend contract with WeHOPE. Coordinate with WeHOPE to implement expanded service and conduct outreach to the unhoused and at-risk individuals in the community and nonprofit partners. Estimated start-up time is one to two months.

Total Estimated Project/Program Budget One-time Costs: Staff cost to amend contract, implement service, and conduct outreach is approximately $2,500 (~20 hours).

On-going Operating Costs:

Service provider WeHOPE cost is $965 per session.

Current service: For service once a week, or 52 sessions per year, the service provider cost is $50,180 per year.

Expanded service: For service twice a week, or 104 sessions per year, the service provider cost is $100,360 per year.

Staff cost is approximately $400 per month, or $4,800 per year, for reviewing monthly data, monitoring contract, and communicating with WeHOPE regarding services.

Total annual cost:

Current service: For service once a week, total annual cost is $54,980.

Expanded service: For service twice a week, total annual cost is $105,160.

Project/Program Term Annual. Monitor for adjustment of services as needed.

Number of Potential Clients/Households Once-a-week mobile shower and laundry has served 20 unduplicated individuals on average per session. Increasing the service to twice a week would approximately double the individuals served.

Cost Effectiveness - Unit Cost $51/individual/session
Other Performance Measures Number of showers provided; number of loads of laundry provided Potential Funding Sources City General Fund or other grants/funding sources Potential Service Providers WeHOPE
Models from Other Cities Various cities
501
Item # 18.
3 PROGRAM/PROJECT TITLE 2. TRASH COLLECTION SERVICE

PROGRAM AREA PUBLIC HEALTH AND SANITATION
Program Objective Provide trash collection service to minimize illegal dumping, remove debris and blight, and address environmental, public health and safety hazards.

Program Description Distribute trash bags at no cost to the unhoused population to dispose in a trash bin placed near the homeless encampment. Weekly collection service would be scheduled. Currently, two potential locations in the City need to be identified.

Considerations Direct response to immediate public health and safety problems, but does not provide remedy for ending homelessness or addressing the human service needs of the unhoused population.

Trash bins tend to attract illegal dumping from the general public and could create greater eyesore, increase disposal and clean-up costs, and pose a fire hazard. Could require more frequent service. Enforcement can be pursued to address illegal dumping, but very difficult to determine violators.

Trash bins and other accommodations can create a sense of permanency for the homeless encampment and unhoused population.

Extra cost would be necessary to separate and dispose of solid waste comingled with bio-waste, medical, and other hazardous waste.

Cost would be borne by the City’s General Fund; unlikely to find alternative funding sources.

Service Options Option A: Contract with a private vendor to provide trash bags for the unhoused population. A trash bin would be placed at a designated location for weekly pick-up and disposal.

Option B: Contract with City’s solid waste/recycling franchisee (Milpitas Sanitation) to place a trash bin for scheduled weekly pick-up service. Cost would depend on whether bin can be serviced along an existing route or will need a new or modified route.

Estimated Lead/Start-up Time Option A: Obtain a private vendor to provide trash collection services.

This will require developing a proposal, soliciting bids, and then awarding the contract. Once authorized by the City Council, allow 30-60 days to secure a contract and implement the service.

Option B: Once authorized by the Council, this option can be implemented immediately if trash bin can be serviced along an existing route. Additional time required if a route needs to be modified or a new 502
Item # 18.
4 route must be established, which will require negotiations with Milpitas Sanitation.

Total Estimated Project/Program Budget One-time Costs: Staff cost to contract with a private vendor or existing franchisee to provide service would be approximately $10,000 (estimate 80+ hours). One-time material costs minimal, other than cost of complementary trash bags. Assumes trash bins will be part of operating costs and do not need to be purchased.

On-going Operating Costs: 2-3 hours per week for staff administration and inspections ($250-$400/week or $13,000-$20,800/year).

Option A: Private vendor: Estimate $6,100 for weekly trash collection service at two locations. Assumes minimum four hours to perform weekly collection at each site. Total estimated annual cost for weekly service:
$317,000 (not based on an actual bid so cost could be lower after receiving proposals.)

Option B: Assuming no special route is necessary, weekly service for two bins (four cubic yards each) would cost $660 per month or approximately $8,000 annual cost. Does not include extra costs for disposal of illegal dumping and biohazardous waste; this cost is difficult to project but allow $125,000 per year contingency for two locations. Significant additional cost (up to $400,000) if an additional route is required. Total estimated annual cost for weekly service: $133,000 (without special route).

Project/Program Term (per estimated
budget)
Flexible, monitor for adjustment of service as needed.

Number of Potential Clients/Households Two sites: assume up to 15 individuals per location (up to 30 total)

Cost Effectiveness - Unit Cost Option A: $11,960/person/year Option B: $4,904/person/year (without special route)

Other Performance Measures Cubic yards of waste removed.

Potential Funding Sources City General Fund
Other potential sources?

Potential Service Providers Private vendor or Milpitas Sanitation

Models from Other Cities and
Organizations
Various cities

503
Item # 18.
5 PROGRAM/PROJECT TITLE 3. DAY WORKER/HELP CENTER

PROGRAM AREA WORK AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY/HELP CENTER
Program Objective Clearinghouse and resource center to connect dayworkers to short-term job requests from residents and businesses. Other possible services include: 1) classes and workshops on ESL, health/wellness, lifestyle, labor laws, and computer literacy; and 2) supportive services to address medical, legal rights, immigration, translation, employment applications, and housing assistance. Facility can also function as a community and support center with mailboxes and meals.

Program Description The program could be modeled after the Day Worker Center of Mountain View (MV Center) and the Samaritan House Workers Resource Center in San Mateo (WRC). These facilities are similar to other dayworker/help centers in the Bay Area. The MV Center and WRC are primarily an employment center for day workers. They accept applications for day work, screens applicants for work skills and language competency, and maintains a database of job seekers. Job requests are received from residents and businesses for short-term work and staff matches or refers day workers to area residents and businesses. Minimum wage standards are set for the program. No referral fees or commissions are charged to the day workers or residents/businesses, but donations are accepted.

Day worker/help centers also function as a support and learning center for day workers. Both facilities actively engage day workers to shape their program services. MV Center include representatives from the Day Labor Collective (dayworkers) on their Board. Day workers include unhoused and transient individuals, so services such as mailboxes, sanitation facilities, and storage are available as space permits. The MV Center includes a commercial kitchen to prepare and serve two meals a day (1,500-2,000 meals per month pre-COVID), while the WRC provides a basic kitchen and brings in meals. During COVID, the MV Center was closed and pivoted to virtual operations, but WRC was able to continue operations because they had a large outdoor space.

Considerations The MV Center and WRC had modest beginnings before moving to their current locations. Following a similar progression, a day worker/help center in Milpitas might initially be located in a church or other donated space for free or at a nominal cost. A start-up facility might need about 1,000-1,500 square feet of space. The MV Center, which has operated for over 25 years, currently operates in an approximately 3,000 square-foot building located near downtown Mountain View that was purchased in 2008 with multiple funding sources. The WRC operates in a similar sized building. Both sites have good transit access, which should be an essential criterion for selecting a site in Milpitas.

Establishing a day worker/help center in Milpitas requires a group or organization to step forward to spearhead the effort. The best candidate 504
Item # 18.
6 to lead the effort might be a faith-based organization. It is not feasible for the City to manage this program without additional staff and volunteers.

Hiredaylaborer.org is a national association of day worker centers and could provide advice and referrals on starting a day worker center in Milpitas.

Funding for a day worker/help center can come from multiple government and private sources. The MV Center and WRC rely primarily on grants from foundation, contributions from business and corporations, and private donations to fund their program.

Both centers have identified the importance of gaining community trust and support for their services and countering fears and misperceptions about day workers. They have developed an excellent reputation for providing businesses, contractors, and residents with trustworthy and reliable day workers and seek feedback from customers to improve their services.

Community outreach will be necessary if the day worker center will be located near residences and businesses. Likely concerns will be over potential loitering and perceived impacts on the surrounding area. Issues concerning workers congregating outside the MV Center’s first office was an initial concern because the space was small with no gathering space.

Ideally, the facility should be sufficient in size with indoor and/or outdoor space for dayworkers to assemble while seeking jobs and other on-site services. However, both facilities are daytime help center only and not overnight shelters.

Program Options While the primary of purpose of the day worker/help center is to provide a convenient and accessible employment office to match and refer individuals to day worker jobs, other services can be offered in an expanded facility, such as:
• Support services for unhoused population (referrals to other service providers)
• Community room for workers to socialize and provide peer support
• Drop-in offices for individual counseling and medical services (or outdoor space for mobile van)
• Classroom for training and workshops
• Mailboxes and storage lockers
• Sanitation and laundry facilities (or space for a mobile van) • Kitchen to prepare meals on-site

Estimated Lead/Start-up Time The primary factor affecting the start-up time is having a project sponsor or organizer that is willing to implement a day worker center. The time required to secure start-up funding and finding a location for the facility can vary widely. Preliminarily, allow 9-12 months to pursue funding, find a location, and establish an initial modest facility.
505
Item # 18.
7 Total Estimated Project/Program Budget One-time Costs: Costs can be offset if rental space with existing parking and office furniture and equipment are donated. Assuming a 1,500-2,000 square-foot space and up to $100/sf for modest tenant improvements and other costs, a one-time facilities budget of $150,000-$200,000 might be considered.

On-going Operating Costs: The MV Center has expanded over the years and the current annual operating budget is approximately $800,000 with 7-17 full-time and part-time staff and volunteers. The WRC is a more modest program (budget unavailable). For an initial facility in Milpitas, a pilot program is suggested with a two-year budget of $500,000 for employment and homeless services. This cost should include exploring funding from state, county, and private sources to leverage and reduce the City’s financial commitment.

Project/Program Term Consider a minimum two-year pilot period with option for extension to allow for sufficient time to establish the use and attract future funding.

Cost Effectiveness - Unit Cost Difficult to calculate cost effectiveness since the program would also include training and support services for day workers and the unhoused population.

Other Performance Measures Number, demographics, and characteristics of clients served Percent local clients (Milpitas)
Number of jobs created or referred
Total value of work or income generated
Participants in classes and workshops
Supportive services: number of participants, services provided, outcomes, and evaluation from participants

Potential Funding Sources Foundation grants
Faith-based and charitable organizations
Private donations
County, State and federal grants
City General Fund

Potential Service Providers No organization currently identified Models from Other Cities Mountain View, San Mateo, Oakland, San Francisco, Santa Cruz

506
Item # 18.
8 PROGRAM/PROJECT TITLE 4. FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR NAVIGATION CENTER

PROGRAM AREA TEMPORARY HOUSING/HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION
Program Objective Conduct feasibility study for a navigation center to shelter the unhoused population and transition individuals from homelessness to a stable, financially secure, and sustainable living condition with wrap-around services and exit assistance.

Program Description Phase I Feasibility Study would evaluate the following program items:

1. Reach out to the unhoused population, services providers, and advocates to provide input on priority needs and supportive services for a navigation center.

2. Evaluate suitable models from other communities, including different options for sheltering the unhoused populations, such as congregate living, smaller individualized units, motel rooms, or a combination.

3. Site and Facility Assessment:
a. Determine facility requirements (e.g., in-take center, staff office, on-site and mobile supportive services, number of beds and living configuration, showers/laundry facility, storage lockers/bins, and outdoor space), and an approximate size for the site;
b. Identify and evaluate suitable sites in the City for a navigation center with consideration of transit or shuttle needs;
c. Conduct community outreach on selected site options to surrounding residents and businesses, service providers, and the unhoused population; and
d. Select one or two preferred site options and prepare conceptual site plans, identify facility requirements, assess necessary site improvements and utility upgrades, and prepare a preliminary cost estimate.

4. Program Assessment:
a. Identify possible service provider(s) to operate the navigation center and provide support services;
b. Identify case management and other assistance to be available to clients while at the navigation center and after they exit the facility; and
c. Establish a preliminary staffing level and estimated operating budget for the navigation center.

5. Identify possible public and private funding for one-time facility and on-going operating costs.

6. Provide direction from Council on implementing a navigation center, including selecting a preferred site and service model.

If the Council decides to move forward with establishing a navigation center, Phase II would be the implementation phase:

1. Apply for and solicit funds, including leveraging any contribution from the City.
507
Item # 18.
9 2. Secure a lease or license agreement for the selected site, if required.

3. Obtain a primary service provider to operate the navigation center and administer case management services and define the scope of services.

4. Develop operating and in-take procedures, including preference guidelines, and rules and regulations for client participation in the navigation center program.

5. Authorize design and construction funds and prepare engineering drawings, specifications, and a final cost estimate.

6. Release for bids and award the site improvement contract.

Allow a minimum of 6 to 9 months to complete the Phase I Feasibility Study. Implementation (Phase II) will depend on the selected site, financing, and facility and program criteria determined in Phase I.

Estimated Cost Phase I: Allow up to $110,000 for Phase I Feasibility Study (up to $100,000 for consultant services, $10,000 for staff costs)
Phase II: Depends on outcome of Phase I
Considerations Facility: The site is usually owned by a public agency or charitable organization. The site is typically one-half acre or larger and depends on the number of beds and services proposed for the facility. Convenient transit access or a shuttle service should be available. Modular buildings or prefabricated structures are typically installed. Facilities range from 30 to over 100 beds and include common restrooms, laundry facilities, communal space, landscaped areas, and offices for on-site management, health services, and case management services. Basic common cooking facilities are provided with meals typically delivered to the site. A navigation center includes 24-hour staffing and security.

Operations: Maximum occupancy is typically six months. Clients are screened and must agree to accept case management services and abide by occupancy rules during their stay. During the six-month or shorter period, the goals are to stabilize the client’s financial situation, secure suitable housing, and address other medical and living needs to transition individuals from homelessness to self-sufficiency. Clients typically receive support after they leave the navigation center such as rental assistance or continuing support services through a “flex fund” administered by the service provider or support agencies.

Cost of navigation centers in Hayward and Fremont (45-60 beds):
• Development costs - $1.5 to $2.8 million
• Annual operating budget - $2.1 to $2.3 million. (About half of this amount was spent in 2021 due to reduced occupancy to comply with COVID-19 health and safety protocols.) Includes “flex fund” of $500,000-$630,000 for post-stay assistance.

Milpitas can consider a smaller facility and operating budget based for unhoused population. For comparison, per last point-in-time homeless 508
Item # 18.
10 count in 2019, Milpitas had 125 unhoused individuals, while Hayward and Fremont had 487 and 608 unhoused individuals, respectively.

Shelter Crisis Declaration (AB 2553): Council can adopt resolution declaring shelter emergency which would suspend certain state and local laws, regulations, and ordinances, including those prescribing standards of housing, health, or safety, to the extent that strict compliance would prevent, hinder, or delay the mitigation of the effects of the shelter crisis.

By-Right Use: Per Senate Bill 48/Assembly Bill 101, a Low Barrier Navigation Center is defined as “housing or shelter in which a resident who is homeless or at risk of homelessness may live temporarily while waiting to move into permanent housing.” The use must be allowed by right in any zoning district where residential or mixed use is allowed. A use permit or other discretionary approval cannot be required and, as a ministerial approval, the project is exempt from CEQA. Objective standards can be established but are limited to items such as: size of the facility, number of beds, on-site management, maximum length of stay, location of waiting and intake areas, proximity to similar facilities, and lighting.

Public Outreach: The location of a navigation center can raise community concerns and opposition. A public education and outreach strategy should be formulated to assess potential sites and to respond to neighboring resident and business concerns such as public safety, traffic, noise, parking, and proximity to schools and parks.

Program Options Facility Options: Configuration of living accommodations vary and can consist of:
• Congregate Living Space: Multiple beds placed in a common sleeping area, such as a large modular building. (San Francisco, Berkeley, Hayward, Fremont)
• Smaller group or individual living units (e.g., “tiny homes”): Can be basic living units or can be larger units with more amenities. (Oakland) • Combination: Mixed congregate and private units to accommodate diverse shelter needs among the unhoused population.
(Monterey/Salinas)
• Motel Rooms: Lease rooms with on-site navigation center. Less upfront costs and faster start-up time, but operating costs could be higher depending on room rates. (Hayward Annex)
• No Overnight Accommodations: Day-use facility only consisting of intake office, case management services, medical clinic, employment office, showers, laundry facilities, and storage. (North Hollywood)

Client Profile: Navigation centers vary in the screening criteria for client in-take with referrals from local police departments, county health and social service agencies, and community social service providers. 509
Item # 18.
11 • Most facilities cater to individuals that are capable of transitioning to independent living or self-sufficiency with support services. However, a navigation center can include respite or recuperative care services also (Oakland Fairmont Campus).
• Facilities include both men and women, with typically a higher proportion of men; some facilities can accommodate families. • Length of stay is typically 3 to 6 months and vary by facility based on client needs.
• Preference can be given to clients with a local address subject to fair housing laws and funding sources.

Potential Funding Sources City General Fund, Housing Authority Fund up to $250,000 per fiscal year State grant programs
Federal funds
Foundation grants
Private donations
Potential Service Providers Bay Area Community Services (BACS) operates navigation centers in Berkeley, Oakland, Hayward, Fremont, and other Bay Area cities.

However, other operators and services providers include charitable organizations and other non-profits. County public health, mental health, and housing agencies are integrally involved in providing support services.

Models from Other Cities San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, Hayward, Fremont. Salinas/Monterey, Contra Costa County

510
Item # 18.
12 PROGRAM/PROJECT TITLE 5. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE (RV) SAFE PARKING

PROGRAM AREA TEMPORARY HOUSING/HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION
Program Objective Provide a safe and secure site for parking of recreational vehicles (RVs) by individuals and households living in RVs. Goal is to provide an alternative to parking RVs on public streets by providing an off-street option.

Participants engage in case management services to address financial and living needs with objective of transitioning to permanent stable housing.

Program Description A site is designated temporarily to allow RVs to park overnight only or for 24 hours for a limited term, typically three to six months, with extensions for unusual circumstances. The number of RVs accommodated depends on the size of the site. Sites could be an existing public or private parking lot that might hold 15-30 RVs, or smaller sites scattered throughout the city that accommodate a few vehicles each, such as church sites. On larger sites, circulation for emergency vehicle access is usually required which impacts the number of RVs that can be accommodated on the site.

Portable toilets and trash bins can be provided on-site. On-site staffing and 24-hour security are common for larger sites. The site is typically fenced with controlled user and visitor access. Mobile meals and showers and laundry facilities can be delivered to the site. Case management services are provided at the site or at a nearby facility. Participants are screened and must agree to operating rules while participating in the program, such as a nightly curfew and a limitation on outdoor cooking. A user fee has been considered for sites that allow 24-hour parking.

Considerations On-Street Parking Restriction: An RV Safe Parking Program is unlikely to succeed unless illegal on-street parking (over 72 hours) is enforced by the City with potential of hauling away parked vehicles with repeated violations. Otherwise, there may be little incentive for RV owners to move their vehicles to a RV Safe Parking site unless 24-hour parking is allowed.

Some cities have enacted a prohibition on overnight parking by “oversized” vehicles in public rights-of-way to assist with enforcement (e.g., between the hours of 2:00 am – 6:00 am.)

Condition of RVs: RVs are generally required to be in operating condition with no leaking tanks and safety hazards. The Safe Parking Program can include funds to assist RV owners to fix their vehicle to be operable, to register their vehicle and obtain insurance, and to remedy outstanding parking or vehicle citations.

Public Outreach: The location of a RV Safe Parking site can raise community concerns and opposition. A public education and outreach strategy should be prepared to assess potential sites and to respond to neighboring resident and business concerns such as public safety, traffic, noise, parking, and proximity to schools and parks.

511
Item # 18.
13 Program Options Central or Dispersed Sites: Instead of a central location, cities have approached churches and other private property owners on their willingness to allow a limited number of RVs to park on their property if space is available. This would disperse RV parking throughout the city rather than concentrated at one or a few public sites. The City of Mountain View has allowed a non-profit group, MOVE Mountain View, to managed RV parking on private property. Scattered sites throughout the city lessen the impact on any one area; downside is that it may be less efficient to deliver services to program participants. Dispersing RVs to private sites would be the most cost-effective approach for Milpitas if the number of RVs is not significant, but it requires willing property owners.

Overnight or 24-hour Parking: Facilities have allowed for either overnight parking only or 24-hour parking. For overnight parking only, vehicles can enter the site each day at a designated time (e.g., 5:00 pm) and must leave the site the next day by a certain time (e.g., 8:00 am). Overnight parking would only require minimal facilities such as portable toilets.

Water, sewer, and electrical hook-ups are only provided for the mobile shower/laundry van. RV owners are provided vouchers to dispose their sanitary and solid waste at an off-site dump station.

A 24-hour facility typically requires more site improvements such as water, sanitary sewer, and electrical hook-ups for each RV space, trash bins, and improved lighting. While 24-hour parking is considered a temporary transient use, neighbors and users may view the facility as similar to a residential RV or trailer park. Conversely, a facility for overnight parking only is primarily characterized as a reserved parking lot for a temporary limited use.

Passenger Vehicles: Safe parking programs have also allowed for parking of passenger vehicles and in addition to RVs. Allowing for passenger vehicles would require consideration of additional basic services such as sanitation, water, waste disposal, and electricity.

Estimated Lead/Start-up Time If churches or private property owners volunteer to accept a limited number of RVs on their property, a RV Safe Parking Program could conceivably be implemented in 3 to 6 months. Alternatively, if a public parking lot or other vacant site is sought, it could take 9 to 15 months to implement the program depending on the site selection and public outreach process and the amount of site improvements that would be required to prepare the property for RV parking.

Estimated Budget Assume a ½-acre site that can accommodate up to 15 RVs for overnight parking only.

One-time Costs: Allow $50,000-$75,000 for program development, legal services, engineering, and community and RV owner outreach. Allow $100,000 to $200,000 for site improvements (primarily parking lot paving 512
Item # 18.
14 and repairs, surface preparation, utility hook-ups for mobile van only, fencing, and lighting as needed.) Cost would be higher if individual utility hook-ups are provided to each RV space.

On-going Operating Costs: Allow $300,000 annual operating costs which would cover obtaining a service provider to cover costs for program administration and enforcement, management of in-take and screening process, 24-hour security, utility costs, mobile showers/laundry facilities, and coordination with supportive service providers. Budget also includes limited “flex funds” to assist with vehicle repairs and other eligibility prerequisites. Estimated budget does not include additional costs for meals or case management services and post-stay assistance (e.g., rent subsidies and continuing supportive services.) Operating costs would be higher (primarily more staffing) for a 24-hour facility.

Project/Program Term Allow a minimum one-year pilot term with option for renewal.

Number of Potential Clients/Households For a ½-acre site, approximately 15 RVs can be accommodated. The site capacity depends on factors such as site configuration, length of the RVs, spacing requirements, reserved space for a mobile service van, and required emergency access.

Cost Effectiveness - Unit Cost Assuming up to 25 RVs annually (6-month parking term each), $12,000 per RV (not including one-time costs)

Other Performance Measures Number, demographics, and characteristics of clients served Percent local clients (Milpitas)
Percent obtaining employment
Percent obtaining alternative housing
Neighborhood complaints
Other services/assistance provided: number of participants, cost effectiveness, and evaluation from participants

Potential Funding Sources City General Fund
Foundation grants
Faith-based and charitable organizations
Private donations
State and federal grants

Potential Service Providers Faith-based organizations, WeHOPE

Models from Other Cities Mountain View, Berkeley, Oakland, East Palo Alto

513
Item # 18.
15 PROGRAM/PROJECT TITLE 6. TINY HOME VILLAGE

PROGRAM AREA TEMPORARY HOUSING/HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION
Program Objective Provide a low-cost rapid rehousing solution or transitional housing for the unhoused population with supportive services that can be implemented quickly to respond to the shelter and housing crisis.

Program Description Project typically identifies a government-owned parcel for placing individual modular or prefabricated units for housing individuals and families. Units are small and include basic necessities such as a bed, storage space, heat, air conditioning, electricity, and wifi service. Pallet, a popular manufacturer of tiny homes, produces a 64-square-foot modular shelter for one individual, and a 100-square-foot modular shelter for two individuals. Both units comply with California Building and Fire Code regulations. Tiny homes are growing in popularity and acceptance and are often preferred to congregate living arrangements because the individual units are perceived to be more secure (lockable), comfortable, and private and can offer a residential-like setting.

Common restroom, shower, and laundry facilities are provided onsite. A tiny home village also typically includes an onsite office and a community room with basic kitchen for preparing meals. Tenants are also offered case management, medical, meals, and other support services from service providers.

Considerations Management: Tiny home villages for the unhoused population have been established by local governments, non-profit organizations, and faith- based organizations. A service provider is commonly obtained to manage the project. Supportive services are offered to tenants similar to a navigation center. A combination of local funding, state grants, and private sources have commonly been obtained to establish tiny home villages.

Client Base: Because of the considerable lack of affordable housing and the large unhoused population in communities, project sponsors may choose to target a tiny home village to a particular population, such as local residents, women, households with children, at-risk young adults, veterans, disabled individuals, or seniors. Tenants are previously unhoused or at-risk of homelessness and are extremely low income (below 30 percent area median income.)

Length of Occupancy: Tiny homes have been used as shelter for a navigation center where the length of stay would be based on the operating regulations of the center (typically six month maximum). Tiny homes have also been installed as transitional housing where the length of stay might be longer but with the same objective of moving tenants to permanent housing.

514
Item # 18.
16 Because tiny homes can be used as short-term shelter for navigation centers and longer-term transitional housing, there have been confusion from tenants on the maximum length of occupancy. Service providers have advised that it is important to clarify upfront to tenants the occupancy terms for residing in the project.

Site Selection: The size of the project and number of living units are dictated by the available sites, funding, and community need. Tiny homes villages have ranged from a small facility with about 25 tiny homes to a large facility with over 200 tiny homes. A facility for Milpitas could be located on a 15,000-square-foot site to accommodate up to 25 tiny homes with an office and common sanitation, community, and basic kitchen facilities. A site with good transit access or walkable to community amenities such a grocery store is essential.

Public Outreach: The location of a tiny home village can raise community concerns and opposition. A public education and outreach strategy should be implemented to respond to neighboring resident and business concerns and misconceptions about the facility and the characteristics of the population to be housed.

Estimated Lead/Start-up Time The primary factor affecting the start-up time is having a project sponsor or provider that is willing to implement and manage a tiny home village.

The time required for securing the start-up funding and finding a location for the facility can vary widely. Preliminarily, allow 9-15 months to pursue funding, find a location, and establish a modest facility.

Estimated Budget One-time Costs: Based on the costs from Pallet, a 64-square-foot unit would cost about $10,000 each, and a 100-square-foot unit would cost about $12,500 each. A 400-square-foot office is about $50,000, and a two-bathroom unit is about $35,000. A building with common kitchen and community room would cost about $100,000. Site preparation, fencing, lighting, and utility connections (water, electricity, sewer, site drainage) would depend on existing site conditions, but allow $300,000 for a small site for up to 25 tiny homes. Budget should allow $750,000 for total development costs; cost would be higher if new site paving/repaving and on-site stormwater treatment are required, utility service upgrades are necessary, or additional amenities are proposed.

On-going Operating Costs: A tiny home village might have similar goals as a navigation center since the units are intended to provide an interim shelter solution only. Program goal are to stabilize the client’s financial situation, secure permanent housing, and address other needs to transition individuals from homelessness to self-sufficiency. Clients might need support after they leave the navigation center such as rental assistance or continuing support services. Assuming a small facility for about 25 clients, allow an annual budget of $1 to $1.2 million for annual operating costs, which includes a “flex fund” for post-stay assistance. 515
Item # 18.
17 Project/Program Term Consider a minimum two-year period with extension option to allow sufficient time to establish the use and amortize the development costs to construct a tiny home village. Since tiny homes are modular, they can be moved and reused at another location if the site is only available for a limited time. Note additional costs would occur to identify, move to, and develop another site.

Number of Potential Clients/Households Recommend minimum 25 tiny homes on a site for economic and operational efficiency.

Cost Effectiveness - Unit Cost Assuming a facility with 25 tiny home and 50 tenants annually (average six-month occupancy), annual unit operating cost would be $20,000- $24,000 per client not including one-time development costs.

Other Performance Measures Number, demographics, and characteristics of clients served Percent local clients (Milpitas)
Percent transitioned to permanent housing
Supportive services provided: type of services, number of participants, cost effectiveness, and evaluation from participants
Neighborhood response

Potential Funding Sources City General Fund, Housing Authority Fund up to $250,000 per fiscal year Foundation grants
Faith-based and charitable organizations
Private donations
State and federal grants

Potential Service Providers No organization currently identified

Models from Other Cities San Francisco, Oakland, Livermore, San Jose

516
Item # 18.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Receive Report on Recommended Changes to the Municipal Code to Remove and Prohibit Property in Public and Provide Direction to Staff (Staff Contact: Christopher J. Diaz, City Attorney, 408-586-3040)
Category: Community Development
Meeting Date: 4/19/2022
Recommendation: Receive report on recommended changes to the Municipal Code to remove and prohibit property in public and provide direction to staff.

Background:

At the March 15, 2022 City Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to return with recommendations regarding proposed amendments to the Milpitas Municipal Code to address homeless encampment cleanups in the City.

Analysis:

Camping on public property can create an unsanitary and unhealthy environment for the persons engaged in the camping, as well as persons coming into contact with the campers. Both campers and the general public can be affected by the unsafe and potentially disorderly environment. This is further exacerbated due to public health and safety concerns under COVID-19. In addition, some camping may interfere with the rights of others to use the areas for their intended purposes and important federal regulations such as providing a clear path of travel on sidewalks under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Furthermore, camping can contribute to blight and cause damage to public property.

Notwithstanding these issues, municipalities are obligated to follow federal and state law which define the parameters of what can and cannot be done when addressing the impacts of homelessness. As it relates to public camping and storage of personal property on public property, the limitations currently facing the City’s ability to respond include:

 Martin v. City of Boise - the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that local governments are prohibited from criminalizing homelessness, and that cities must allow individuals to sleep on public property when there is no shelter available to them. The court held that prosecution under such circumstances amounted to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Importantly, the court limited its decision in several ways. The court made it clear that its ruling would not apply to individuals who can pay for temporary shelter and choose not to, or to individuals who have realistic access to free shelter and choose not to use it. Similarly, the court noted that a jurisdiction may, in certain circumstances, criminalize the act of sleeping outside, for example, at particular times or in particular locations.

 Lavan v. City of Los Angeles - Before Lavan, the City of Los Angeles summarily confiscated and destroyed the possessions of homeless persons. The plaintiffs in Lavan claimed this practice violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The court recognized the existence of a constitutionally-protected property right for homeless individuals to leave possessions unattended on public sidewalks and determined that the city’s summary confiscation and destruction of the possessions of homeless persons violated their due process rights. 517
Item # 19.

 Garcia v. City of Los Angeles - The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that municipalities may not summarily seize and destroy even “bulky” items of personal property left on city property. The court observed that the facts of Lavan were similar to the facts in this case, i.e., in both cases, city employees acting pursuant to a city ordinance seized and summarily destroyed homeless individuals’ property that was momentarily unattended. The court concluded that it saw no meaningful distinction between the destruction of property enjoined in Lavan and the destruction of property under the bulky items provision of the city’s municipal code.

Current Regulations Under the Milpitas Municipal Code

Chapter 10 of Title X (Structures or Objects on Sidewalks or Public Ways) of the Milpitas Municipal Code (MMC) prohibits storage of personal property in public. MMC section X-10-1.00 provides that “it shall be unlawful for any person to erect, maintain, place or leave any structure or other object (including, but not limited to, containers for the collection of newspapers for recycling) upon any public street, or sidewalk, or within the right-of-way thereof or within or upon any public easement or public property (including but not limited to public parks and landscaped areas) within the City of Milpitas.” Provisions for removal of personal property include: no-notice, summary removal of structures or objects stored in the public is authorized;1 if the owner and contact information of the owner of the seized property is ascertainable, the City must notify the owner of the seizure and the procedure and deadline for recovery;2 if the owner and contact information of the owner of the seized property is not ascertainable, the City must post a notice at the location and at City Hall notifying the owner of the seizure and the procedure and deadline for recovery;3 and within 31 days of notice of the seizure, if the property is not reclaimed, the City may dispose of it; or, the City may retain the property for an additional three months before disposing of it.4

As currently constructed, the aforementioned code provisions may be construed to prohibit the storage of personal property everywhere in the City. As such, to align with the Boise decision, the City should consider updating its Municipal Code by adopting time, place, and manner restrictions, in addition to its general storage prohibition, to identify allowable places, times, and manners for involuntary camping. Further, staff recommends that Chapter 10 of Title X be amended to codify practices concerning the removal and storage of personal property that are consistent with Lavan and Garcia (e.g., 72 hours’ advance notice of the cleanup, storage for 90 days). A code amendment relating to camping and storage of personal property on public property to provide greater clarity, while remaining consistent with the City’s homelessness initiatives and balancing public health and safety concerns, would be beneficial for the Milpitas community, neighborhoods, and residents.

Staff has reviewed other cities’ efforts to further define criteria surrounding lawful and unlawful camping, including restrictions on time, place, and manner, to better protect those that are experiencing homelessness as well as the community at large, which are detailed further below:

City of Los Angeles

In July 2021, the City of Los Angeles modified its existing anti-camping law5 to prohibit sitting, sleeping, lying, storing personal property or otherwise obstructing the public right-of-way in certain areas of the city, including within two feet of any fire hydrant or fire plug; within five feet of any operational or utilizable entrance or exit; within 10 feet of a loading dock or driveway; in a manner that interferes with any activity for which the city has issued a permit or restricts accessible passage as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act; or anywhere within a street, including bike paths.

The city’s ordinance, which took effect in September 2021, also protects the public right-of-way within 500 feet of a "sensitive" facility including schools, day care facilities, parks and libraries. Under the ordinance, the city

1 MMC, §§ X-10-3.00, X-10-4.01.
2 MMC, § X-10-4.02.
3 MMC, § X-10-4.03.
4 MMC, § X-10-4.08.
5 Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC), § 41.18. 518
Item # 19.

must also pass a resolution to designate a specific area for enforcement, post signage, and give notice of the date that the ordinance will be enforced for the area. Areas include:

 Up to 500 feet of a designated overpass, underpass, freeway ramp, tunnel, bridge, pedestrian bridge, subway, wash or spreading ground, railroad track or where lodging unsheltered or in tents is unhealthy, unsafe and incompatible with safe passage
 Up to 1,000 feet of a facility opened after January 1, 2018, that provides shelter, safe sleeping, safe parking or navigation centers for persons experiencing homelessness

The ordinance also allows the city to prevent encampments for a period of no longer than one year in areas (e.g., street, sidewalk, or other public right-of-way) designated by resolution to be an ongoing threat to public health or safety, including due to: death or serious bodily injury of any person at the location due to a hazardous condition; repeated serious or violent crimes or threats of serious or violent crimes, including human trafficking; or the occurrence of fires that resulted in a fire department response to the location.

Additionally, as noted above, Los Angeles has enacted regulations concerning the storage of personal property in response to Lavan.6 These include 72-hour pre-removal notice, storage for 90 days, and no-notice removal and destruction of contraband or anything that constitutes an immediate threat to the health or safety.

City of Oakland

The City of Oakland currently has an Encampment Management Policy, first drafted in 2017 and recently updated after the COVID-19 local emergency declaration,7 that assesses encampments on a case-by-case basis, prioritizes encampments for intervention based on their health, safety, and location impacts, and targets limited resources to the highest priority encampments.

The policy designates two distinct areas – high and low sensitivity – with respect to presumed health and safety concerns related to vehicle and street encampments. Some aspects include:

 High-sensitivity areas: High-sensitivity areas are formally designated by the city council and can include parks, particularly those with playground structures or tot lots, protected waterways, and other public lands. High-sensitivity areas are locations where the health and safety impacts of homeless encampments are heightened due to the potential degradation of critical infrastructure, restriction of public amenities or services, or significant obstructions to residences, businesses, emergency routes and rights-of-way. In these locations, the city would prioritize maintaining the areas free of encampments. The policy establishes the following public property locations as high-sensitivity areas:

o All vehicular traffic lanes, bike lanes, and sidewalks (at least on one side of the street) must comply with American Disabilities Act sidewalk and street requirements and must allow for passage of emergency vehicles.
o Locations designated as High Fire Severity Zones by the Oakland Fire Department and/or CalFIRE.
o Within 150 feet of an elementary, middle, pre-school or child care center, and 100 feet from a high school.
o Within 50 feet of a protected waterway as established by any governing body. o Within 50 feet of a residence.
o Within 50 feet of a retail business, and 50 feet from the main entrance and any emergency exits from all other businesses, including places of worship. o Within 50 feet of a city park or other public land that has a children’s playground, play structure, tot lot, or recreation center in which children participate in citv-sponsored proqrams/classes.

 Low-sensitivity areas: Under the city’s policy, all other areas not included high-sensitivity areas are low- sensitivity areas. The following standards apply to all encampments in these locations:

6 LAMC, § 56.11.
7 Oakland City Council Resolution No. 88341, Exhibit A. 519 Item # 19.

o Shall be limited to one side of the street.
o Shall not impede vehicle, bike, or pedestrian traffic (on at least one side of the street). o Shall not impede ADA access points, consistent with goal of limiting encampments to one side of the street. Shall not impede emergency ingress/egress routes. o Compliance with applicable and generally enforced state codes and local ordinances. o Encampment footprint shall not exceed 12 x 12 sq. ft per person. o Area directly adjacent to a vehicle dwelling must remain clear at all times. o No gray or black water dumping.
o No illegal electrical or water taps.
o No storage of tires, gasoline, generators, or propane tanks, or unsafe storage of combustible materials or accumulation of combustible waste.
o Structures, tents, and vehicle dwellings shall maintain not less than six (6) feet distance between one another.

 Storage of individuals’ property: The policy also specifies that the city will respect and protect individuals’ rights to their property while also following applicable local, state, and federal laws.

According to the policy, the city will explore reasonable methods of safe, secure, property storage potentially available to the city, including, but not limited to, the city’s public works storage facility; self- storage; and partnering with other public agencies or businesses to develop storage capacity.

Overall, staff is seeking City Council direction on changes to the Municipal Code to remove and prohibit property in public to address homeless encampment cleanups in the City. As exemplified by the cities of Los Angeles and Oakland, and consistent with current law, the recommended changes would include modifications to the Municipal Code that define criteria surrounding lawful and unlawful camping, including restrictions on time, manner, and place, as well as procedures for removal and storage of personal property. As with those jurisdictions, the purpose of the proposed updates to the City’s Municipal Code would be to establish clear camping prohibitions in order to best serve the health, safety, and general welfare of all Milpitas residents, including individuals experiencing homelessness. Further, the intent of such an ordinance would be to avoid unsafe and potentially unsanitary and unhealthful conditions, and the degradation or destruction of open spaces and facilities within the City, while also balancing public health and safety with the rights and unique needs of individuals experiencing homelessness who are camping by necessity. Without proper safety measures in place, involuntary camping can interfere with the rights of others to use the areas for their intended purposes and is deleterious to the public, health, safety, and welfare.

Fiscal Impact:

Depending on Council direction on staff’s recommendations, there may be future fiscal impact in terms of staff time to develop and implement an ordinance to remove and prohibit property in public .

California Environmental Quality Act:

The action being considered has no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). If the City Council is inclined to move forward with any of staff’s recommendations, after staffing resources are secured, staff will conduct a CEQA analysis, or verify the applicability of a CEQA exemption, prior to any discretionary action to approve or move forward with any recommendation.

Recommendation:

Receive report on recommended changes to the Municipal Code to remove and prohibit property in public and provide direction to staff.
520
Item # 19.
19 CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Review the Proposed Streets, Parks and Facilities Naming Policy, the current City Naming Lists, Authorize the Process for naming McCandless Park and Provide Feedback to Staff (Staff Contact: Renee Lorentzen, Recreation and Community Services Director, 408-586-3409)
Category: Community Services and Sustainable Infrastructure Meeting Date: 4/19/2022
Recommendation: (1) Review the Proposed Streets, Parks and Facilities Naming Policy and Provide Feedback to Staff; (2) Review City Naming Lists and Provide Feedback to Staff; and (3) Authorize Staff to begin process for naming McCandless Park.

Background:

On April 21, 2006, the City Council adopted Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for naming City streets, parks and facilities through Council Subcommittee recommendation and Council action. After naming several streets and facilities, the Council at that time discontinued the subcommittee. On January 7, 2016, the then City Council established a Streets, Parks and Facilities Naming S ubcommittee that made recommendations to the existing Naming Policy, the Naming Lists, and naming several City streets, parks and facilities. This Subcommittee met through November 8, 2017.

On February 26, 2019, City Council sunset the Streets, Parks and Facilities Naming Subcommittee and directed staff to assign naming recommendations for streets to the Planning Commission and for parks and facilities to the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Commission. Based on the City Council direction and the input from the previous Naming Subcommittee, staff is bringing forward an updated policy in the new City Council Policy format for naming streets, parks and facilities.

Analysis:

This staff report provides a summary of the attached draft City Streets, Parks and Facilities Naming Policy (Policy), discusses the current naming list and provides the information regarding the naming of McCandless Park.

Draft Policy Summary
Below, please find highlights of the Policy from the Purpose, Policy, and Procedure sections.

The Purpose of the Policy is to establish the guidelines, criteria and processes for naming City streets, parks and other facilities.

For naming of facilities, the draft Policy requires that

- The Planning Commission shall evaluate names of City streets and shall make recommendations to the City Council.
- The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Commission shall evaluate names of City parks and facilities and shall make recommendations to the City Council. - Naming recommendations are made from City established and City Council approved Naming Lists. - The Policy does not prohibit the duplicative use of a name on a street, park or facility, but does not allow duplication within an asset type such as street, park or facility.

The draft Policy also allows for the consideration to rename a City asset per the policy statement as follows:

521
Item # 20.

A deliberative process by City staff will be conducted to ensure that renaming of a street, park and facility will not diminish the original justification for the name or the prior contributors. Parks and facilities named after individuals shall not be changed unless it is found that because of the individual’s character the continued use of their name would not be in the best interest of the community. Parks that have been named by deed restriction shall not be considered for renaming.

Further, the policy recommends that when naming parks and facilities near schools that the naming effort is coordinated with the Milpitas Unified School District when possible.

The draft Policy identifies criteria and guiding factors for naming or renaming a street, park or facility as follows:

1. Neighborhood or geographical identification, such as street, school, or other descriptive names;

2. Natural or geological features of the area;

3. Historical or cultural significance: the name of a historical figure can be considered if the figure had a significant and extraordinary historical influence on the area, state, national or international level;

4. The name of any person or family that has made a significant impact in the community and/or in development of the street, park, facility;

5. An individual or organization that contributed significantly to the acquisition or development of the park or facility to be named. This can include either a deed or substantial monetary contribution, or contribution toward acquisition and/or development of the park or facility. (Naming rights are not guaranteed if the donation is a dedication as required by the subdivision.

6. The articulated preference of residents of the neighborhood surrounding the street, park, facility;

7. A name should represent community values and consider future generations and ethnic diversity; If the name of an individual or family is to be considered, the use of such name shall have the approval of the individual (or his/her surviving family) or family when reasonably possible.

8. Avoid confusing or similar sounding names. (Public Safety Dispatch test)

9. Avoid changing street names along any continuous alignment. (Continuity test)

The draft Policy procedures implement the policy statements such as maintaining Naming Lists, the recommendation process from the Planning and Parks and Recreation and Cultural Resources Commission, and the steps for renaming streets, parks or facilities.

Naming Lists
The City currently has three (3) naming lists (attached) covering three naming categories with approved naming areas (streets, parks and/or facilities). Those lists are:

Naming List Category Approved Naming Area
California Native Plants, Flowers, Trees Streets
U.S. Presidents Streets, Parks
Influential People Streets, Parks
Milpitas Historical Names Streets, Parks, Facilities

Naming lists were last updated in 2017. Feedback from the City Council on the lists is requested, including new names to add to the existing lists or creating additional lists through new Naming criteria genres.

Naming of McCandless Park
The new City park on McCandless Drive is anticipated to have a partial opening of its playgrounds, picnic areas, and community garden in late summer or early fall of 2022. This 4-acre park, adjacent to the new Mabel Mattos Elementary School, will also have in later park development phases, dog park areas, and lit field for sports use.

This park is not currently named. Signage for the park requires ordering by early spring 2022 so that it can be installed before the park opens.

To keep with the park project timeline, staff is seeking the approval of City Council to move forward with the process to name the park based on the Naming Policy feedback received at this meeting.

Next Steps
After receiving Council input, staff will return with a final Policy no later than the second Council meeting in May.
522
Item # 20.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.

California Environmental Quality Act:

By the definition provided in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, this action does not qualify as a “project” for the purpose of CEQA as this action has no potential to result in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

Recommendation:

1. Review the Proposed Streets, Parks and Facilities Naming Policy and Provide Feedback to Staff.

2. Review City Naming Lists and Provide Feedback to Staff.

3. Authorize Staff to begin process for naming McCandless Park.

Attachments:

1. Proposed Streets, Parks, and Facilities Naming Policy

2. City Naming Lists – President List

3. City Naming Lists – Milpitas Historical Names

4. City Naming Lists – California Native Plant, Flower, Tree 523
Item # 20.

CITY OF MILPITAS
Revision Date
Original 04/21/2006

CITY COUNCIL POLICY

Page 1 of 3 ends

Milpitas City CouncilApril 19, 2022

Milpitas City Council
April 19, 2022