Milpitas City Council
August 9, 2022

Kizer St
Rivera St
Heflin St
Columbus
Dr
N
Hillvie
w
Dr
Kizer St
Tic
e
Dr
Horcajo Cir
Rivera St
Heflin St
Hillview
Dr
Kevenaire Dr
r Ct
Horcajo St
H
orcajo
Cir
La Palma Pl
12 to 15
15 to 18
Legend
Storm Drain Structure
Modeled Storm Drain
River reach
CIP Priority
New High Priority SD
New Low Priority SD
Specific Plan SD Extension
Low Priority SD Replacement
High Priority SD Replacement
Vicinity Map
±
1 inch : 150 feet
*Pipe annotation: "a to b" where 'a' is
existing size and 'b' indicates proposed
1668
Item # 16.

Milpitas
Storm Drainage CIP
CAL_2
Jacklin Road
SD Improvements

Daniel Ct
Calle Oriente
Bonfare Market
Ct
Traughber St
Michael Ct
Daniel Ct
Calle Oriente
Evans Ct
N
P
ark
Victoria
Dr
Jacklin Rd
Evans Rd
36 Legend
Storm Drain Structure
Modeled Storm Drain
River reach
CIP Priority
New High Priority SD
New Low Priority SD
Specific Plan SD Extension
Low Priority SD Replacement
High Priority SD Replacement
Vicinity Map
±
1 inch : 200 feet
*Pipe annotation: "a to b" where 'a' is
existing size and 'b' indicates proposed
1669
Item # 16.

Milpitas
Storm Drainage CIP
CAL_3
Bayview Park Drive
SD Improvements

Ln
Old Evans Rd
Bayview Park Dr
Alexander Way
Evans Rd
Old Eva
Alexande
Evans
Rd
12 to 24
Legend
Storm Drain Structure
Modeled Storm Drain
River reach
CIP Priority
New High Priority SD
New Low Priority SD
Specific Plan SD Extension
Low Priority SD Replacement
High Priority SD Replacement
Vicinity Map
±
1 inch : 100 feet
*Pipe annotation: "a to b" where 'a' is
existing size and 'b' indicates proposed
1670
Item # 16.

Milpitas
Storm Drainage CIP
CAL_4
Wool Drive
SD Improvements

Traughber St
Burdett Way
N Hillview
Dr
Calle Oriente
Torres Ave
Printy
Av
e
Los Positos Dr
P
ark
Hill Dr
Tramway Dr
Kennedy Dr
Moretti Ln
Canada Dr
Tassasara Dr
Alcosta Dr
Wo
ol Dr
680
M
oretti Ln
Pacheco Dr
Las Lomas Dr
Stemel Way
Burdett Way
Prad
a
Dr
Brian Ct
Michael Ct
N
P
ark
Victoria
Dr
Torres Ave
To
ph
a
m
Ct
Prad
a
Dr
C
e
staric
Dr
Kennedy Dr
Park View Dr
F
anyon St
N
P
ark
Victoria
Dr
Cardoza Park
P
a
Park Heights Dr
F
anyon St
18 to 30
12 to 18
27 to 30
15 to 18
18 to 24
27 to 36
15 to 24
27 to 30
Legend
Storm Drain Structure
Modeled Storm Drain
River reach
CIP Priority
New High Priority SD
New Low Priority SD
Specific Plan SD Extension
Low Priority SD Replacement
High Priority SD Replacement
Vicinity Map
±
1 inch : 350 feet
*Pipe annotation: "a to b" where 'a' is
existing size and 'b' indicates proposed
1671
Item # 16.

Milpitas
Storm Drainage CIP
COCHES_5
Coches and Piedmont Creek
SD Improvements

De Los Coches
Ayer St
E Calaveras Blvd
Pizza Hut
Ocean
Supermarket
Golden Bakery
Savers
Executive Inn
Piedmont Creek
Edsel Dr
rigley Way
680
oods
Huntford
Printing
Arroyo De Los Coches
Ashland Dr
Jupiter Dr
Roswell Dr
Canton Dr
Dalton Dr
Bixby
Dr
C
arnegie
Dr
Findley Dr
P
erry
St
Wylie Dr
S
G
ad
sd
en Dr
Girard Dr
S
Te
m
ple
Dr
Burley Dr
Ellwell Dr
L
awton Dr
B
e
a
con Dr
Alexander Rose
Elementary
School
Piedmont Creek
Edsel Dr
ic Dr
Big Bend Dr
Lassen Ave
Crater Lake Ave
Everglades Dr
C
arne
gie
Dr
S
Te
m
ple
Dr
Shenandoah Ave
Mt Rainier Ave
S
Park Victoria
Dr
Yosemite Dr
Foothill Park
Murphy Park
Murphy School
Robert Randall
Elementary
School
54 36
18 60
24 21 to 36
30 to 36
18 to 36
12 to 54
27 to 36
42 to 30
33 to 60
12 to 18
42 to 30
24 to 36
12 to 24
12 to 36
New 36"
outfall to Los
Cotches Creek
New 60"
outfall to
Piedmont Creek
Reverse flow direction
away from creek
with pipe replacement
Legend
Storm Drain Structure
Modeled Storm Drain
River reach
CIP Priority
New High Priority SD
New Low Priority SD
Specific Plan SD Extension
Low Priority SD Replacement
High Priority SD Replacement
Vicinity Map
±
1 inch : 500 feet
*Pipe annotation: "a to b" where 'a' is
existing size and 'b' indicates proposed
1672
Item # 16.

Milpitas
Storm Drainage CIP
COCHES_8
Foothill Park
SD Improvements

Ro
s
well Dr
M
o
n
m
o
uth
Dr
Mo
n
m
o
uth
Dr
Stulm
a
n
Dr
Dalton Dr
Bixby
Dr
Wylie Dr
Girard Dr
S
Te
m
ple
Dr
Alexander Rose
Elementary
School
Edsel Dr
Ro
swell Dr
Bixby
Dr
H
olly
Wa
y
S
Te
m
ple
Dr
Foothill Park
30 12 to 24
Legend
Storm Drain Structure
Modeled Storm Drain
River reach
CIP Priority
New High Priority SD
New Low Priority SD
Specific Plan SD Extension
Low Priority SD Replacement
High Priority SD Replacement
Vicinity Map
±
1 inch : 200 feet
*Pipe annotation: "a to b" where 'a' is
existing size and 'b' indicates proposed
1673
Item # 16.

Milpitas
Storm Drainage CIP
BERRY_10
Ames Avenue
SD Improvements

semite Dr
Ames Ave
Berryessa Creek
S Milpi
Yosemit e Way
Ames Ave
Sin
clair Fro
nta
ge
Rd
Montague Ct
680
680
M
onta
gue
Creighton Park
D
e
m
pse
y
Rd
680
680
30 to 42
24 to 30
24 to 42
18 to 24
New 42" outfall to
Berryessa Creek
Legend
Storm Drain Structure
Modeled Storm Drain
River reach
CIP Priority
New High Priority SD
New Low Priority SD
Specific Plan SD Extension
Low Priority SD Replacement
High Priority SD Replacement
Vicinity Map
±
1 inch : 300 feet
*Pipe annotation: "a to b" where 'a' is
existing size and 'b' indicates proposed
1674
Item # 16.

Milpitas
Storm Drainage CIP
WF_11
Comet Drive
SD Improvements

Parc Place Dr
Sun Dance
Rain
Dance
Parc Metro
West
Serenity Pl
Parc Place Dr
Curtis Ave
Comet Dr
Great Mall Dr
Parc
Ln
Metropolitan Dr
Fire
Walk
Parc Metro
Center
12 to 24
Legend
Storm Drain Structure
Modeled Storm Drain
River reach
CIP Priority
New High Priority SD
New Low Priority SD
Specific Plan SD Extension
Low Priority SD Replacement
High Priority SD Replacement
Vicinity Map
±
1 inch : 100 feet
*Pipe annotation: "a to b" where 'a' is
existing size and 'b' indicates proposed
1675
Item # 16.

Milpitas
Storm Drainage CIP
LP_12
Main Street - Serra Way
SD Improvements

Serra Way
Serra Way
S
M
ain St
An-Jan Feed &
Pet Supply
12 to 18
12 to 18
Legend
Storm Drain Structure
Modeled Storm Drain
River reach
CIP Priority
New High Priority SD
New Low Priority SD
Specific Plan SD Extension
Low Priority SD Replacement
High Priority SD Replacement
Vicinity Map
±
1 inch : 100 feet
*Pipe annotation: "a to b" where 'a' is
existing size and 'b' indicates proposed
1676
Item # 16.

Milpitas
Storm Drainage CIP
WF_13
Railroad Avenue
SD Improvements

Marylinn Dr
ona
St
N
A
b
el St
ncia Creek
Penitencia St
N
Ab
el St
Railroad Ct
Almaden Ave
essa
St
Marylinn Dr
R
ailro
a
d
A
v
R
e
efle
ctions W
a
y
Dia
m
ond
W
a
y
Marylinn Dr 36
42 by 28 Rect Pipe
24 by
28 to
42 by 28
36 to 42
Legend
Storm Drain Structure
Modeled Storm Drain
River reach
CIP Priority
New High Priority SD
New Low Priority SD
Specific Plan SD Extension
Low Priority SD Replacement
High Priority SD Replacement
Vicinity Map
±
1 inch : 200 feet
*Pipe annotation: "a to b" where 'a' is
existing size and 'b' indicates proposed
1677
Item # 16.

Milpitas
Storm Drainage CIP
LP_14
North Abel Street
SD Improvements

Redwood Ave
Elm Ave
H
e
ath St
Chestnut Ave
Maple Ave
L
arch St
Willow Ave
880
Penitencia Creek
N
Abbott Ave
Penitencia St
42 12 to 42
12 to 24
24 to 36
21 to 42
18 to 42
12 to 15
24 to 42
15 to 30 21 to 30
15 to 24
21 to 42
15 to 42
Legend
Storm Drain Structure
Modeled Storm Drain
River reach
CIP Priority
New High Priority SD
New Low Priority SD
Specific Plan SD Extension
Low Priority SD Replacement
High Priority SD Replacement
Vicinity Map
±
1 inch : 200 feet
*Pipe annotation: "a to b" where 'a' is
existing size and 'b' indicates proposed
1678
Item # 16.

Milpitas
Storm Drainage CIP
LP_15
Main Street - Tom Evatt Park
SD Improvements

S
M
ain St
Corning Ave
S
Ab
el St
S
A
b
el St
New India
Bazar
Milan Indian
Cuisine
Americas Best
Value
Inn-Milpitas
John
McDermott
Park
S
M
ain St
t Park
H
a
m
m
ond
W
a
y
H
a
m
m
ond
W
a
y
18 Legend
Storm Drain Structure
Modeled Storm Drain
River reach
CIP Priority
New High Priority SD
New Low Priority SD
Specific Plan SD Extension
Low Priority SD Replacement
High Priority SD Replacement
Vicinity Map
±
1 inch : 200 feet
*Pipe annotation: "a to b" where 'a' is
existing size and 'b' indicates proposed
Under-served Area
1679
Item # 16.

Milpitas
Storm Drainage CIP
LP_16
Main Street
SD Improvements

Penitencia Creek
Serra Way
S
A
b
el St
ra Way
Elegant
Tailoring &
Bridal
An-Jan Feed &
Pet Supply
Junipero Dr
Ethyl Ct
S
Ethyl St
H
a
m
m
ond
W
a
y
S
A
ig Lots
St. John The
Baptist School
B
oth
elo
A
v
e
Sinnott Ln
18 Legend
Storm Drain Structure
Modeled Storm Drain
River reach
CIP Priority
New High Priority SD
New Low Priority SD
Specific Plan SD Extension
Low Priority SD Replacement
High Priority SD Replacement
Vicinity Map
±
1 inch : 200 feet
*Pipe annotation: "a to b" where 'a' is
existing size and 'b' indicates proposed
Under-served Area
1680
Item # 16.

Milpitas
Storm Drainage CIP
LP_17
Main Street - Sinnott Ln
SD Improvements

Carlo S
S
A
b
el St
237
Carlo St
Serra Way
S
A
b
el St
ant
ng &
al
S
M
ain St
Serra Way
S
M
ain St
An-Jan Feed &
Pet Supply
18 Legend
Storm Drain Structure
Modeled Storm Drain
River reach
CIP Priority
New High Priority SD
New Low Priority SD
Specific Plan SD Extension
Low Priority SD Replacement
High Priority SD Replacement
Vicinity Map
±
1 inch : 150 feet
*Pipe annotation: "a to b" where 'a' is
existing size and 'b' indicates proposed
Under-served Area
1681
Item # 16.

Milpitas
Storm Drainage CIP
LP_18
Main Street - Carlo Street
SD Improvements

A
b
el St
W Calaveras Blvd 237
237
Penitencia Creek
Serra Way
S
A
b
el St N
Ab
el St
237
Carlo St
Elegant
Tailoring &
Bridal
pitas Black
Bear Diner
An-Jan Feed &
Pet Supply
18 Legend
Storm Drain Structure
Modeled Storm Drain
River reach
CIP Priority
New High Priority SD
New Low Priority SD
Specific Plan SD Extension
Low Priority SD Replacement
High Priority SD Replacement
Vicinity Map
±
1 inch : 200 feet
*Pipe annotation: "a to b" where 'a' is
existing size and 'b' indicates proposed
Under-served Area
1682
Item # 16.

Milpitas Storm Drainage Master Plan October 1, 2021
Appendices
B-1
Appendix B Pump Station Recommendations
General recommendations for pump station design and operation, including upgrading and rehabilitating existing stations are contained in this appendix.

Pump Station Design Guidelines
These recommendations apply to the design of new or substantially renovated pumping facilities.

Capacity
Every pump station should be capable of discharging the 100-year runoff from its tributary area. A combination of pumping capacity and retention storage can accomplish this. Pump stations with lesser capacity (e.g., ten-year) should be considered only if there is a fail-safe way to overflow excess flows without causing property damage. Nearly all the pumping facilities within the city meet these criteria.

Table 6-1 indicates whether individual pump stations have sufficient capacity.

Number of Pumps
For redundancy, at least two identical pumps must be installed in every stormwater pump station. It is not unnecessary to include standby pumps because providing excess capacity is expensive and not justified by the relatively small risk of having a major storm event coincide with mechanical failure. (Schedule pump maintenance for the summer months as well.) However, installing a larger number of smaller pumps is generally better than a lesser number of large pumps for the same capacity. When individual pumps comprise a smaller percentage of overall pump station capacity, having one pump out is less detrimental. In terms of redundancy and ease of maintenance, all pumping units within one particular station should be identical.

No pumping station in Milpitas is equipped with fewer than two identical pumps. Most stations have three main pumping units, and the Jurgens Pump Station has four. All stations (except California Circle, Abbott, and Minnis) have a smaller electric dewatering pump to drain the wet well when water falls below the minimum allowable pumping level for the large stormwater pumps. Permanent retention ponds are maintained at the California Circle and Abbott stations, while the Minnis station utilizes submersible pumps capable of dewatering the wet well.

Pump and Driver Types
Pump selection is on a station-by-station basis and needs coordination with City operations staff for consistency with other similar pump stations. Prime power for new pumping stations should be by an electric motor rather than a direct drive engine if at all possible, particularly for frequent operation.

Electric motors are quieter, require less space and ventilation, and are not subject to tighter air quality restrictions in the future. Diesel engines drive most of the existing stormwater pumps in Milpitas. This pump driver style eliminates the need for standby power at most stations, and the City has generally experienced reliable operation.

While electric motors are recommended for new stations, the costs of adding power distribution and switching equipment, motor starters, and a standby engine-generator set to older stations generally preclude the replacement of engine drive units with electric motors. Hence, when old pumping units are upgraded or replaced, the type of replacement drive units should be consistent with existing equipment. 1683
Item # 16.

Milpitas Storm Drainage Master Plan October 1, 2021
Appendices
B-2
Pump Operation and Cycling
Lead and lag pumps should be automatically alternated on every start to minimize pump cycling and extend the operating life of the equipment. Sufficient operational wet well storage (Volp) must also be available to prevent excessive pump cycling for proposed operating levels:
where Volp = active sump volume per pump (cubic feet)
t = pump cycle time to fill and empty volume (minutes)
Qi = inflow into station (cubic feet per minute)
Qp = flow rate of pump (cubic feet per minute)
Differentiating the equation shows that the minimum pump cycle time occurs when flow into the pump station is exactly one-half the pumping rate. Required sump volume is determined by setting the maximum number of pumps starts per hour below the maximum criterion established by the pump, motor, or engine manufacturers. In the absence of specific data, the pump starts should be limited to six per hour. This criterion is based on general limits set by large electric motor manufacturers; diesel engine suppliers also recommend that engines should run at least five to ten minutes at full operating temperatures each time they’re started.

Pumping equipment must be specified so that motor or engine nameplate ratings are not exceeded at any point on the pump characteristic curve. Pump performance under different hydraulic conditions should be analyzed to ensure that pumps operate within manufacturers' recommended limits. Pumps must discharge their rated flow against the 100-year design tailwater elevation at the station outfall.

This criterion is evaluated on a station-by-station basis. Most of the control systems used by the City can automatically rotate lead and lag pump sequences.

Forebay, Intake and Wet Well Design
If retention storage is necessary, designing the pump station forebay provides access to that storage over the pumps' operating range. The design of the forebay also plays a role in whether the retention will be wet or dry. Certain three-dimensional hydraulic phenomena often present in large pump intakes must be avoided to minimize the potential for submerged vortices, free-surface vortices, stagnations and flow separations, uneven or unsteady flow distribution, swirl of flow entering the pumps, or air entrainment.

These phenomena can lead to the degradation of pump performance, including decreased pump capacity, reduced pump efficiency, excessive wear, and increased vibration and noise. Although quantifying this complex hydraulic behavior is virtually impossible without scaled physical model studies, pumping intakes and sumps designed in conformance with one of the following standards should perform at their optimal level under varying operating conditions:

British Hydromechanics Research Association (BHRA)
Hydraulic Institute
Pump manufacturer design guidelines
( Q - Q ) Q
Q
Vol =t
p i
p
i
p 





1684
Item # 16.

Milpitas Storm Drainage Master Plan October 1, 2021
Appendices
B-3
Failure to properly design intake configurations can lead to negative performance, as described above.

Since it is difficult to quantitatively analyze the three-dimensional flow phenomena associated with large pump intakes, any unusual intake, wet well, or sump designs that do not conform to an established standard are subject to physical model testing.

Most of Milpitas' pump stations are designed to house several pumps in the same wet well. Under these conditions, the primary objective in inlet design is still to provide an even, air-free flow distribution to each pump intake regardless of pump configuration or which pumps are operating. Given the difficulty of providing uniform flow distribution in multiple pump sumps, current design standards favor using a “unitized” wet well, whereby a number of single-pump sumps (pump cells) are placed side by side.

In Milpitas, only the Wrigley-Ford Pump Station utilizes this unitized sump approach and strictly meets current Hydraulic Institute standards for sump design. During individual pump station evaluations, inlet and sump dimensions are compared to recommended standards. Most station dimensions do not strictly match those standards. Correcting the deficiencies, however, can be extremely difficult and expensive.

Since most pump stations operate for only a limited number of hours in any year, and there has been no demonstrated catastrophic loss of efficiency, the master plan does not recommend correcting sump design deficiencies. In order to minimize problems caused by deficient sump inlet design, proper pump submergence must be maintained. This will lower intake velocities and help reduce the risk of vortex formation and air entrainment.

Pumping equipment that demonstrates excessive wear, vibration, noise, and particularly cavitation may be indicative of more serious hydraulic problems associated with the sump and intake. In those instances, physical model studies and sump rehabilitation is warranted.

Submergence
Established operating prevent excessive cycling and provide for adequate pump submergence, defined as the minimum allowable height of the low water level above the pump suction inlet. Inadequate submergence can lead to the inducement of free-surface and submerged vortices, the entrainment of air, a reduction in pumping capacity, and premature pump failure. Limited pump submergence can also potentially lead to pump cavitation, which may cause severe damage. As a rule of thumb, the minimum water depth should be two bell diameters over the wet well floor for submergence of one and a half bell diameters (BHRA guidelines). Recent design guidelines published by the Hydraulic Institute (1998) suggest the following formula for establishing minimum pump submergence:
where S = submence (feet)
D = pump bell diameter (feet)
FD = Froude number at pump inlet, given as:

V = velocity at the pump suction inlet (fps)
g = gravitational acceleration
S = D (1+2.3 F D )
(g D)
V
F D
=

0.5 1685
Item # 16.

Milpitas Storm Drainage Master Plan October 1, 2021
Appendices
B-4
Discharge Piping
Pump discharge piping must protect upstream systems and properties from damage caused by backwater from high tides or tailwater. Discharge flap gates or check valves should be provided, or pipe discharge elevations need to be three feet above the design tailwater level and/or one foot above protective levees.

Pump Testing
Station design should provide for the testing of pumps with water under non-storm conditions. A means for recirculating water, or some other method, can be provided to enable a test of reasonable duration (15 minutes). This may also be important since engines need exercise at least once a month and should be done so under load (see Chapter 9).

Most pump stations in the city do not have the means to recirculate water for testing. (Wrigley-Ford Storm Water Pump Station is a notable exception.) Those stations with large forebays – California Circle, Abbott, Penitencia, and Berryessa – can simply discharge water over an extended period without necessarily needing an influent runoff. For other stations, unfortunately, providing additional piping for testing is difficult.

Standby Power
An emergency engine-generator, capable of starting the largest motor while running all other motors and auxiliary loads, should be installed at each stormwater pump station that does not utilize engines for prime pump drivers. Diesel is the preferred fuel, but natural gas engines may be considered as an alternative since they are reliable and burn cleanly. Natural gas engines, however, tend to be underpowered compared to diesel engines. There is also a risk that the fuel will not be available when needed.

Gasoline is not an acceptable fuel for stationary engines because it is a fire and explosion hazard, and the allowable storage period is very short. Diesel fuel is much less hazardous and can be stored for up to a year in double-walled tanks meeting requirements set forth by the Fire Department. All fuel piping must be double contained.

Discussions with City operations and maintenance personnel indicate that a majority of the city's pumping stations have been upgraded to meet current fuel storage requirements, with double-walled tanks (about one-half of which are above ground), double-contained fuel piping, and leak detection.

Engine-generators should be housed in a sound-attenuated weatherproof enclosure or inside buildings meeting appropriate codes for such use. Proper ventilation will be provided for engine aspiration and cooling. Some means for exercising the engine-generator set under load must also be furnished, either through pump testing with water as described above, load banks, or a combination of both. Generators must be present on-site and connected to the power supply with an automatic transfer switch to be considered as available in an emergency. The use of portable generators, or even permanently parked generators with manual transfer switches, is not recommended since crews may not be able to respond to high water alarms, physically reach the pump station with a generator, and manually restore power before property damage has occurred. This is the current condition at the Spence Creek and Manor stations.

Small lift or pumping stations that generally handle “nuisance” flows (if the pump station were to fail to operate significant property damage does not occur) would not necessarily require a standby power source.
1686
Item # 16.

Milpitas Storm Drainage Master Plan October 1, 2021
Appendices
B-5
Controls and SCADA
The pump starts and stops using a programmable logic controller (PLC) or programmable pump controller. Pump station controls are tied into the City's Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) telemetry system. City operations and maintenance staff shall coordinate pump station controls and level monitoring systems regarding function and standardization. They must also provide control with standby power to ensure that the station can function even during prolonged power outages. The preferred mechanism for providing standby power to control systems is rechargeable batteries.

Equipment Housing
All electrical equipment in or open to the wet well must be explosion-proof and placed a minimum of one foot above the base flood elevation (BFE). Submersible motors should also be explosion-proof. Control panels must not be located so they are subject to possible flooding. All equipment must be housed in NEMA-rated weatherproof enclosures or in buildings. Sufficient lighting (including back-up battery power) should be provided so that crews may work on equipment during the night. Also, access must be provided that will allow for the removal and reinstallation of all equipment.

Consider noise abatement, visual impacts, and odor control when locating a pump station and designing the equipment housing. This is particularly important where the installation of engine units are near residential areas.

Ventilation
Good ventilation is important to maintaining a dry, benign environment for mechanical and electrical equipment within a pump station. Proper ventilation helps reduce the deterioration of equipment due to condensation and provides better working conditions for City crews. Without adequate ventilation, enclosures below grade may be classified as confined spaces, requiring special permits and rescue equipment for anyone entering them. Explosive gases from illegally dumped flammable liquids may also accumulate in wet wells and ancillary spaces. Many deaths and illnesses have been attributed to poor ventilation at pump stations.

Wet wells can intentionally be designed as a confined space, particularly if there is no regular need for personnel to enter them. (The only equipment allowed in such a wet well includes explosion-proof measuring devices and submersible pumps.) However, proper ventilation should be provided for pump station buildings, particularly those housing engines or engine-generators.

All heating, ventilating, and cooling systems should be designed in conformance with city ordinances; uniform building, fire, mechanical, plumbing, and energy codes; the National Electric Code and NFPA; EPA regulations; Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) requirements; and ASHRAE design standards.

Radiator exhaust ducts should be designed based on actual airflow requirements, but in general, they need to discharge at air velocities no greater than 800 to 1500 feet per minute. Intake louvers that bring air into the pump station should be designed with sufficient free area to maintain velocities of 250 to 400 feet per minute. This helps keep the rain out of the pump station when the engines are operating.

Low Flow Bypass
If conditions permit, a gravity outflow pipe that bypasses the pump station should be installed. During low tailwater conditions, a substantial savings in pumping costs can be realized. Pumping stations with bypass capability include Penitencia, Wrigley-Ford, Spence Creek, and Manor. 1687
Item # 16.

Milpitas Storm Drainage Master Plan October 1, 2021
Appendices
B-6
Pump Station Operation and Maintenance Guidelines
These general recommendations apply to all pumping facilities as appropriate.

Pumps
Large axial flow pumps with right angle gear drives, which are the predominant pump type in the systefm, actually require fairly little maintenance. Shafts and bearings need to be periodically balanced and/or replaced. The frequency of inspection (pumps will need to be pulled out of the building) will vary depending upon the “L-10” bearing life rating of the pump in question. Average bearing life is defined as the operating hours at which half of the group of bearings fails, and the rest continue to operate. AFBMA (the Anti-Friction Bearing Manufacturers Association) defines average life statistically as three to five times the L-10 life. (For example, the Wrigley-Ford pumps have 50,000-hour bearings.) Although grease is the most maintenance-free bearing lubricant, most of the pumps in Milpitas have drip fee oil systems, which ensure the lowest bearing operating temperature. Consequently, the oiling reservoir needs to be checked on a routine basis and topped off as necessary
Engines
Manufacturers’ maintenance instructions should be followed to the letter, particularly when the engine is still under warranty. Maintenance schedules depend somewhat on whether the engine is used as the prime pump driver (as in most stations) or is on standby (such as for power generation).

A typical schedule of maintenance based on references provided by Cummins/Onan (Sanks, 1989) is provided as Table B-1, giving both operating hours and calendar time.

Diesel engines should be operated at full power for at least 15 to 30 minutes after reaching operating temperatures once a month to eliminate carbon deposits. Unfortunately, without significant stormwater inflow to the station, pump engines cannot be run under load for any significant length of time (the water quickly runs out). Wrigley-Ford Pump Station is equipped both with a resistive load bank to provide a working load for automatic exercise and a discharge pipe system to recirculate available water back into the forebay. The pumps can be tested and exercised without large amounts of inflow.

Other stations with permanent water storage (California Circle Lagoon, Abbott Lagoon, Hall Memorial Park lagoon, and Hidden Lake) could be run for 15 minutes every month, although lagoon levels will not necessarily return to normal quickly. Unless provisions for the recirculation of test water at the other pump stations are made, those engines cannot be exercised under load during the summer months.

Providing for test water recirculation has not been included in the Capital Improvement Program because retrofitting existing stations to operate in this manner is difficult.

Diesel oil is safer to store than most fuels and is easy to obtain and transport, but diesel deteriorates in storage and must be turned over every six months to one year.

Table B-1: Typical Maintenance Frequency for Engines and EG-Sets Maintenance Task Operating
Time
Calendar
Time
Inspect fuel, oil level, coolant
Inspect air cleaner, battery
Clean governor linkage, breather, air cleaner
Clean fuel filter, replace oil filter, change crankcase oil, check switchgear
8 hr
50 hr
100 hr
200 hr
1 m
1 yr
1 yr
1 yr
1688
Item # 16.

Milpitas Storm Drainage Master Plan October 1, 2021
Appendices
B-7
Maintenance Task Operating
Time
Calendar
Time
Clean commutator, collector rings, relays, cooling
system; inspect brushes, valve clearances,
starting and stopping systems, water pump
Check injectors, grind valves (if required), remove
carbon, clean oil passages, replace secondary fuel
filter, clean generator, grease bearings
500 hr
1000 hr
1 yr
----
Assumed Pump Operating Levels
Operating levels are assumed at individual pumping facilities for storm drain master plan modeling. It is noted that the City changes these levels depending upon station operating needs, including repair and maintenance. Actual operating levels and station operation manual guidelines supersede the levels provided herein. All levels are feet NAVD with distance above the wet well floor in parentheses.

California Circle Pump Station (SD-1)
Current pump operating levels are:
#3 ON 9.3 feet NAVD
#2 ON 7.5
#1 ON 5.8
PUMPS OFF 4.5
When the pump settings listed above are analyzed, the maximum one-percent lagoon level is 11.0 feet NAVD. Although this is less than the minimum elevation on California Circle, it is only 0.8 feet lower than the one-percent water surface elevation in Lower Penitencia Creek. To minimize pond fluctuations while beginning pumping in time to accommodate inflow during heavy runoff periods, the pump-on levels for the second and third pumps in the rotation could be lowered during the rainy season. Since a large volume of storage is available, the pump set points can be set closer together without excessive cycling, which is assumed for storm drain master plan modeling.

HI ALARM 11.0 (17.0')
#3 ON 7.5 (15.5')
#2 ON 6.5 (12.5')
#1 ON 5.5 (11.5')
#3 OFF 5.0 (11.0')
#2 OFF 4.7 (10.7')
#1 OFF 4.5 (10.5')
LOW ALARM 1.5 (7.5')
1689
Item # 16.

Milpitas Storm Drainage Master Plan October 1, 2021
Appendices
B-8
Jurgens Pump Station (SD-2)
To minimize pump cycling the following operating levels are assumed.

HI ALARM 9.5 (19.0')
#4 ON 8.0 (17.5')
#3 ON 7.5 (17.0')
#2 ON 7.0 (16.5')
#1 ON 5.0 (14.5')
#4 OFF 1.5 (11.0')
#3 OFF 1.0 (10.5')
#2 OFF 0.5 (10.0')
#1 OFF 0.0 (9.5')
LOW ALARM -1.0 (8.5')
McCarthy Pump Station (SD-3)
To enhance operational efficiencies and minimize pump cycling, however, it is recommended that pump starts rotate and the following operating levels are assumed. Pumps will start no more than five times per hour.

HI ALARM 2.0 (19.0')
#3 ON 1.5 (18.5')
#2 ON 1.0 (18.0')
#1 ON 0.5 (17.5')
#3 OFF -4.5 (12.5')
#2 OFF -5.0 (12.0')
#1 OFF -5.5 (11.5')
LOW ALARM -6.0 (11.0') Drainage Pumps
JOCKEY ON -15.5 (1.5')
JOCKEY OFF -17.0 (-0.5')
LOW ALARM -17.5 (-1.0') Jockey Pump
Abbott Pump Station (SD-4)
These operating levels are sufficient to prevent pump cycling, while maintaining the aesthetic function of the lagoon. (Elevations are given as feet NAVD with distance above the wet well floor in parenthesis.

HI ALARM 11.0 (16.0')
#2 ON 9.5 (14.5')
#1 ON 9.0 (14.0')
#2 OFF 8.5 (13.5')
#1 OFF 8.0 (13.0')
LOW ALARM 6.0 (11.0')
1690
Item # 16.

Milpitas Storm Drainage Master Plan October 1, 2021
Appendices
B-9
Minnis Pump Station (SD-5)
The following operating levels allow for eight starts per hour in alternation, since wet well storage is very limited. Pump settings are provided in feet NAVD with the distance from the wet well floor in parentheses.

HI ALARM 5.0 (12.0')
#2 ON 4.5 (11.5')
#1 ON 4.0 (11.0')
#2 OFF -3.5 (3.5')
#1 OFF -4.0 (3.0')
LOW ALARM -4.5 (2.5')
Penitencia Pump Station (SD-6)
Original pump operating levels are assumed per record plans.

HI ALARM 12.0 (12.2')
#3 ON 9.8 (10.0')
#2 ON 8.3 (8.5')
#1 ON 6.3 (6.5')
ALL OFF 5.3 (5.5')
SUMMER WSEL 6.4 (6.6')
Wrigley-Ford Pump Station (SD-7)
Minimum individual pump cycle times (based on pump rotation) and settings are given below.

HI ALARM 13.7 (17.0')
#3 ON 13.2 (16.5') 2 starts per hour
#2 ON 12.7 (16.0') 2 starts per hour
#1 ON 12.2 (15.5') 1 start per hour
#3 OFF 12.0 (15.3')
#2 OFF 11.7 (15.0')
#1 OFF 11.2 (14.5')
JOCKEY ON -5.5 (1.0')
JOCKEY OFF -6.5 (-0.5')
Berryessa Pump Station (SD-8)
City staff has provided current pump settings, which are indicated below as referenced from the pump station sump floor (elevation -6.0 feet NAVD). The resulting 100-year water surface elevation of 10.7 feet would not cause spill out of the lake or property damage in the absence of Calera Creek overflows, and with overflow from Calera Creek, the resulting flood level of 15 feet remains below the pumping equipment flood-proof elevation. (Levels have been referenced to feet NAVD with distance above the wet well floor given parenthetically.)
1691
Item # 16.

Milpitas Storm Drainage Master Plan October 1, 2021
Appendices
B-10
HI ALARM 10.0 (16.0')
#3 ON 9.5 (15.5')
#2 ON 9.0 (15.0')
#1 ON / #3 OFF 8.5 (14.5’)
#2 OFF 8.0 (14.0’)
#1 OFF 7.0 (13.0')
SUMMER WSEL 9.0 (15.0')
Manor Pump Station (SD-9)
The assumed design operating levels are sufficient to prevent pump cycling, while maintaining minimum pump submergence levels.

HI ALARM 7.7 (12.5')
#3 (NEW) ON 6.7 (11.5')
#2 ON 6.2 (11.0')
#1 ON 5.7 (10.5')
#3 (NEW) OFF 2.7 (7.5')
#2 OFF 1.7 (6.5')
#1 OFF 0.7 (5.5')
LOW ALARM -0.7 (4.5') Stops Drainage Pumps
JOCKEY ON -3.8 (1.0')
JOCKEY OFF -6.8 (-2.0')
LOW ALARM -7.3 (-2.5') Stops Jockey Pump
Spence Creek Pump Station (SD-10)
The design operating levels are sufficient to prevent pump cycling, while maintaining minimum pump submergence levels. Spence creek itself also provides storage volume that helps limit pump starts. (All levels are referenced to feet NAVD with distance from wet well bottom indicated parenthetically.) HI ALARM 14.2 (10.5')
#3 ON 14.0 (10.3’)
#2 ON 13.7 (10.0')
#1 ON 11.7 (8.0')
#3 OFF 11.2 (7.5’)
#2 OFF 10.2 (6.5')
#1 OFF 9.2 (5.5')
LOW ALARM 8.2 (4.5') Stops Drainage Pumps
JOCKEY ON 4.7 (1.0')
JOCKEY OFF 1.7 (-2.0')
LOW ALARM 1.2 (-2.5') Stops Jockey Pump
1692
Item # 16.

Milpitas Storm Drainage Master Plan October 1, 2021
Appendices
B-11
Bellew Pump Station (SD-11)
HI ALARM 15.0 (19.0')
#3 ON 14.0 (18.0')
#2 ON 13.5 (17.5')
#1 ON 13.0 (17.0')
#3 OFF 8.0 (12.0')
#2 OFF 7.5 (11.5')
#1 OFF 7.0 (11.0')
LOW ALARM 6.5 (10.5') Drainage Pumps
JOCKEY ON -2.5 (1.5')
JOCKEY OFF -4.1 (-0.1')
LOW ALARM -17.5 (-1.0') Jockey
Murphy Pump Station (SD-12)
HI ALARM 19.2 (16.2')
#3 ON 19.0 (16.0')
#2 ON 18.5 (15.5')
#1 ON 18.0 (15.0')
#3 OFF 14.0 (11.0')
#2 OFF 13.5 (10.5')
#1 OFF 13.0 (10.0')
LOW ALARM 11.5 (8.5') Drainage Pumps
JOCKEY ON 4.0 (1.0')
JOCKEY OFF 2.8 (-0.2')
LOW ALARM 2.5 (-0.5') Jockey Pump
Oak Creek Pump Station (SD-13)
HI ALARM 20.0 (14.0')
#3 ON 19.5 (13.5')
#2 ON 19.0 (13.0')
#1 ON 18.5 (12.5')
#3 OFF 17.0 (11.0')
#2 OFF 16.5 (10.5')
#1 OFF 16.0 (10.0')
LOW ALARM 15.5 (9.5') Drainage Pumps
JOCKEY ON 7.0 (1.0')
JOCKEY OFF 5.8 (-0.2')
LOW ALARM 5.5 (-0.5') Jockey Pump
1693
Item # 16.

Milpitas Storm Drainage Master Plan October 1, 2021
Appendices
C-1
Appendix C Stormwater Financial Plan Report
1694
Item # 16.
5619 DTC Parkway, Suite 850, Greenwood Village, CO 80111 www.raftelis.com
Project Memo
DATE: June 8, 2022
TO: Tony Ndah
Public Works Director
FROM: Todd Cristiano
Senior Manager
SUBJECT: Stormwater Financial Plan
Introduction
The City of Milpitas retained Raftelis to complete a comprehensive financial planning forecast for their water, wastewater, and stormwater utilities1. Separate financial plans and memorandums were developed for each utility and this memorandum summarizes the stormwater financial plan results for the study period FY 2024
2 through FY 2040. The financial plan cash flow tables are attached at the end of this memo. The analysis included the following:

1. Sources of funds. Includes the projection of transfers required from the general fund to meet annual operation and maintenance expenses and capital projects identified in the stormwater master plan.

2. Expenditures forecast. Includes the projection of operation and maintenance expenses, transfers to the general fund, payments on existing debt service, and capital projects identified in the most recent master plan documents.

Stormwater Utility Findings
Per the City’s Fiscal Policies, the City endeavors to transfer $500,000 annually from the General Fund to the Storm Drain Fund for the purpose replacing and repairing storm drain pump stations. In addition, the City receives stormwater impact fee revenues. The impact fee revenues, however, are variable and not predictable.

In recent years, the City has not been able to achieve the goal of a $500,000 general fund revenue transfer. Even if fully funded, $500,000 is insufficient to fund capital projects described in the master plan. In addition, City staff has identified $2.5 to $3 million in reasonable O&M expenses for the system that are currently being funded by the General Fund. A preliminary stormwater financial plan is presented below in Table 1.
1 Stormwater activities are currently within the general fund and is not a stand-alone utility. For the purposes of this study, we created a cash flow consolidating the O&M costs aggregated from the various areas in the general fund and projects identified in the most recent master plan. 2 It is assumed this stormwater funding strategy would begin in FY 2024. 1695
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas, CA
Stormwater Summary
2 Raftelis recommends that the City formally examine options to provide $5 million per year for stormwater O&M, capital costs and proposed debt service.

While one such option could be to continue funding stormwater from the general fund at an increased level, the City could develop another, dedicated funding source to supplement or supplant the current funding method. Since funding stormwater from the general fund at an increased level would have impacts upon the ability of the City to provide other needed services, a dedicated revenue source is preferable, if can be achieved. The dedicated revenues can be housed in a separate storm drainage utility fund, a proprietary fund similar to the water and sewer funds. The revenues could be used to fund operation and maintenance, PAYGO capital and debt service on bond-funded capital.

The two primary options for a dedicated funding source are a property-related fee or a special parcelbased tax. Either of these would require public approval, however, which could be obtained through a balloting process.

Either a new dedicated funding source, described above, or general fund revenues could be used to pay debt service on bond-funded capital improvements. If capital improvements are financed through bonds, instead of cash-funded, the annual revenue requirements can be kept at lower, more manageable levels, allowing for lower rates. In addition, financed capital promotes intergenerational equity since both current and future rate or taxpayers will pay for the capital improvements, not just today’s customers.

Stormwater Funding Source Development Process
Current stormwater revenues fall short of program needs and will be outpaced by growing program and regulatory requirements in the coming years.

The process of developing a dedicating funding source is a process with several major components:

1. determining current and future stormwater program funding needs,

2. evaluating alternative implementation approaches,

3. developing an implementation process, and finally

4. implementing fees designed to sustainably support the program Phase 1: Determining Program Funding Needs – the Stormwater Cost of Service and Rate Study
Stormwater Financial Planning
Revenue Requirement Analysis
Initially, the City will need to build upon the prepared Expenditures of Funds projections provided as an appendix, refining or capturing any additional revenue requirements over a planning period of five to ten years, focusing on system operational and maintenance costs, regulatory costs, indirect operational costs, capital costs as defined in the recent stormwater system infrastructure assessment, and related categories.

It would also be appropriate to capture any nuanced impacts to revenue requirements such as uncollectable debt and revenues from miscellaneous sources, such as its developer fees, that could offset 1696
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas, CA
Stormwater Summary
3 the requirement. The plan can include scenarios for debt-funding capital improvements.

Cost of Service Analysis and Rate Structure Review
Next, a cost of service evaluation should be conducted using a cost allocation methodology based on industry best practices. Program components such as water quality and flood control services are evaluated with respect to the primary cost drivers behind them, to determine a fair basis for cost recovery.

Once costs are categorized, they can then be appropriately allocated to unique customer classes based on their individual costs of service, pursuant to Proposition 218 proportionality requirements. Based on the plan and cost of service evaluation, the City can review the fairness and proportionality of a proposed structure or structures. The most common rate structure is one based on measured or estimated impervious area rate structure, while other components can be considered such as gross land area, land use, fixed charges, and others. In this step, a preliminary rate structure should be agreed upon.

Development of Data to Support Rate Structure
If data are not already available to support the selected rate structure, data to support the rate structure will need to be developed. Under an impervious area rate structure, the process begins with developing impervious area data for statistically significant sample residential customers to determine the appropriate stormwater fee billing unit, the equivalent residential unit (ERU). Next, the number of impervious area billable units throughout the entire service area should be determined. The results of the rate design analysis will be incorporated into the model to estimate monthly stormwater fees and project stormwater fee revenues over the planning period.

Proposed Rates over Five-Year Planning Period
Based on the five- or ten-year revenue requirements and the cost of service analysis, stormwater fees and stormwater fee revenues can be projected. Proposed rates should be calculated to sustain the program throughout the planning period and adhere to financial policies and goals of the City.

Phase 2: Evaluating Alternative Implementation Approaches In conjunction with the foregoing work, the City must evaluate funding options and determine a path forward. A critical part of this evaluation includes implementation time, effort, and cost considerations given current staff availability, the regulatory and political climate, public opinion, and advantages and disadvantages associated with implementing the funding alternatives. Two funding alternatives, balloted property-related fees and balloted parcel-based special taxes are discussed below. 3 The process for
financing the capital program through a General Obligation bond is not discussed specifically in this section, since issuing GO bonds is a process more familiar to the City than the development of a stormwater parcel-related fee or a parcel special tax.

Balloted Property-Related Fee
Public approval is required for property-related fees through both a public hearing and a ballot process.

The process beings with a public notice sent to all property owners, 45 days before a public hearing. At 3 California Stormwater Quality Association and SCI Consulting Group. “Stormwater Funding Barriers and Opportunities” (2017): A.1-1-A.1-2, A.1-5-A.1-7.
1697
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas, CA
Stormwater Summary
4 the public hearing the property owners have the opportunity to protest the proposed fee, and should a majority of property owner protest, the fee would not be sent to ballot. Following the public hearing, the local agency determines whether the fee is submitted to balloting of all registered voters or just those property owners that would be subject to the proposed fee, which is the option that is more often selected.

Balloting can commence at least 45 days after the public hearing. The ballot is required to have specific information about the proposed fee including the amount, basis for calculation, and reason for the fee.

Approval of the fee when just property owners are balloted is determined by a simple majority of the ballots cast by the property owners.

Required Documents for a property-related fee:
• Fee Report
• Resolution Calling for Mailing of Notices
• Resolution Calling for Mailing of Ballots
• Ballots
• Resolution Directing Fees to be Charged
Balloted Parcel-Based Special Tax
Unlike property-related fees, parcel-based special taxes are always voted on by all registered voters and require a two-thirds instead of a simple majority to approve. Special taxes can be voted on in person during primary or general elections or through single issue special tax mailed ballots. Mailed ballots for special taxes are required to have a ballot question (75 words or less), the full ballot text (300 words or less), and pro and con arguments.

Required Documents for a parcel-based special tax
• Ordinance or Resolution stating tax type, rates, collection method, election date, and service provided
• Notice to the Register of Voters of Measure Submitted to Voters • Measure Text including Ballot Question, Full Ballot Text, and Arguments in favor or against Comparison of Property-Related Fee and Parcel-Based Special Tax Property-related fees are most commonly used for stormwater programs, but special taxes have also been successfully implemented for stormwater programs because the process is familiar to Californians who are used to other special taxes. While special taxes are less commonly used for stormwater programs, in general, property owners are more familiar with the special tax process than with the property fee process.

Property-related fees require a standardized methodology for charging all properties, which can have a major impact on large public properties with substantial impervious area. Special taxes are usually parcel based, but allow for the option to determine rates based on features of the property such as use or size.

Both funding options have strong legal ground and have not faced significant legal challenges, although the Proposition 218 requirements must be carefully followed for the property-related fee process.

Property-related fees only require a 50% majority as opposed to the two-thirds majority required by 1698
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas, CA
Stormwater Summary
5 special taxes, and are often voted on just by property owners. Therefore, property-related fees can be less politically challenging.

Phase 3: Developing an Implementation Approach:

Public Polling and Research
Given the expense of taking a balloted measure out to the public, agencies often elect to gather public opinions to help inform their approaches. Opinion research can help shape elements such as the timing of a measure, and ballot measure wording.

Research may range from:
• Meta-analysis of existing opinion data for the area regarding storm drainage • Online survey
• Mailed survey
• Telephone survey
• Focus groups
The first two (relying on existing data or an online survey) may sacrifice some clarity in the results either because they do not perfectly address the City’s key questions or because of they may not provide statistically significant results, respectively. On the other hand, a mailed or telephone survey or a focus group are more effort and expense to administer.

A polling team can design, produce, and assist the City with administering and analyzing the results of a survey that explores perceptions of a potential stormwater fee, stormwater program effectiveness, stormwater needs, communication strategy effectiveness, and community desires as they related to stormwater management, as well as gauging the feasibility of other potential funding measures.

Community Outreach
Public polling and research results will influence the City’s engagement and communication program that must accompany a balloted measure. These actions, goals and objectives should be documented in a rate communication work plan. The work plan will guide education and outreach efforts and ensure internal stakeholders are in agreement about the goals, objectives, responsibilities and timelines associated with stormwater fee communication. Key elements of the work plan will include:
• Accounting for the City’s existing branding, outreach and education activities, policies and projects, while acknowledging specific stakeholder audiences. • Outlining outreach and education goals and objectives. • Identifying audiences and stakeholders, and methods for reaching the audiences. • Developing key messages that clarify purpose, need and objectives.

The City would need to prepare materials and messaging that effectively convey the reasons for the rate structure and rate changes. Some potential communications materials may include collateral such as fact sheets, that are accessible to different audiences and address key concerns and information needs across a varied knowledge base. The goals for the materials are ones that are understandable, visually appealing, and optimized for effective digital and printed distribution. 1699
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas, CA
Stormwater Summary
6 Outreach activities should include City-wide engagement and participation forums and formats for public meetings.

Phase 4: Funding Measure Implementation
As described above, if the City moves forward with a balloted measure on stormwater funding, the next steps would include drafting ballot language informed by polling results (if applicable), develop public hearing information, and conduct public hearing meetings with the City. The City would also then administer ballot-related activities such as: creating, printing, and mailing notices; designing, printing, and mailing ballots, and; tabulating and reporting results.

Assuming that the funding measure is successful, additional activities to finalize and implement billing of the fee would be needed, as follows.

Stormwater Billing Methodology
The City’s means for conveying the fee would need to be evaluated and modified as necessary to convey the fee. The City should consider its current utility and tax billing systems and how the systems could convey the stormwater charge on bills for existing utility or tax accounts and new accounts created for customers who only have stormwater service (either non-utility parcels or tax-exempt property owners).

The City will need to carry out implementation and ongoing billing maintenance processes steps such as uploading stormwater fee information and creating new accounts, as well as the options for collections, including establishing a payment hierarchy, separating and remitting stormwater fee payments, and pursuing enforcement action for nonpayment will need to be developed and implemented. The City will also need to be prepared to provide customer service associated with the new fee.

Stormwater Funding Considerations
There are a number of important considerations which factor into the decision to establish a dedicated stormwater funding source.

1. Reliable funding

2. Equitable cost recovery

3. Fee transparency

4. On-site customer parcel mitigation

5. Administrative burdens

6. Prop 218 requirements
Reliable Funding. As an infrastructure program, stormwater services require a reliable and dedicated funding source to support planning, capital and operation and maintenance to, in turn, provide stormwater services to Milpitas customers in a way that protects public health and safety.

Equitable Cost Recovery. As noted above, stormwater fees generally charge customers based on its demand upon the stormwater system, most often, based on measured impervious area or a surrogate for impervious area. This may be more equitable compared to funding a stormwater program through property taxes because parcels with high assessed value may, or may not, have large amounts of 1700
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas, CA
Stormwater Summary
7 impervious area and vice versa. Note that a parcel-related fee would be charged to all customers, including tax-exempt and government-owned properties. Finally, residential properties, which currently face a wide-range of property tax impacts, would likely see that impact narrow under a stormwater fee because these fees are generally flat (same for all single family residential properties) or tier based (falling into 2 or 3 “ranges” of impervious area).

Fee Transparency. The current approach to funding stormwater costs through property taxes means the program is funded through general fund sources such as property taxes. A dedicated fee, coupled with a robust public engagement and education process, could be an opportunity to have a broader conversation around the importance of stormwater management and how to fairly recover the associated costs. A stormwater enterprise fund would have a dedicated source of funding with transparent cost recovery from those who most intensely use the system, which may improve support for the program.

Recognize private investment and demand. Unlike a general funded stormwater program, a parcelrelated fee provides a means, a credit program, for recognizing private investments to treat stormwater that result in a property’s reduced demand upon the stormwater system. A credit program allows properties a reduced fee if they have implemented specific stormwater practice on their sites. The credit program would reinforce the City’s environmental goals and policies.

Administrative effort. Since a fee would rely on data that needs to be maintained over time, the City would incur some additional administrative effort associated with its establishment and maintenance over time. The City can include consideration of this factor during the development and implementation process, balancing administrative burden with equity in selection of the rate structure, along with other factors. In addition, as described above, the process of implementing a dedicated funding source requires investment and effort by the City. The return for the effort would be a more stable, predictable and reliable funding source for stormwater, however, to support an infrastructure program that requires planned, funded investments over time.

Reliance on City Provided Data
During this project, the City (and/or its representatives) provided Raftelis with a variety of technical information, including cost and revenue data. Raftelis did not independently assess or test for the accuracy of such data – historic or projected. Raftelis has relied on this data in the formulation of our findings and subsequent recommendations, as well as in the preparation of this memorandum.

There are often differences between actual and projected data. Some of the assumptions used for projections in this memorandum will not be realized, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur. Therefore, there are likely to be differences between the data or results projected in this memorandum and actual results achieved, and those differences may be material. As a result, Raftelis takes no responsibility for the accuracy of data or projections provided by or prepared on behalf of the City, nor do we have any responsibility for updating this report for events occurring after the date of this memorandum.
1701
Item # 16.

Table C-1
City of Milpitas, CA
Stormwater Cash Flow
Line
No. Description
Sources of Funds
1 Beginning Balance
2 Proposed Bonds
3 General Fund Transfer
4 Subtotal: Sources
Uses of Funds
5 O&M
6 CIP Projects
7 Debt Service
8 Subtotal: Uses
9 Ending Balance
CIP Adjustments
10 Completion Percentage
11 Annual Cost Inflation
12 Cumulative Inflation Rate
Projected
FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ - $ 304,661 $ 669,823 $ 868,470 $ 1,397,652 $ 2,122,048 $ 1,814,729 $ 765,632 $ (3,375,367) $ (8,723,094) $ 13,000,000 $ 20,000,000
$ 5,000,000- $ 5,000,000- $ 5,000,000- $ 5,000,000- $ 5,000,000- $ 5,000,000- $ 5,000,000- $ 5,000,000- $ 5,000,000- $ 5,000,000- $ 5,000,000 $ 5,304,661 $ 18,669,823 $ 5,868,470 $ 6,397,652 $ 27,122,048 $ 6,814,729 $ 5,765,632 $ 1,624,633 $ (3,723,094) $ 2,818,927 $ 2,931,685 $ 3,048,952 $ 3,170,910 $ 3,297,746 $ 3,429,656 $ 3,566,843 $ 3,709,516 $ 3,857,897 $ 4,012,213 $ 1,876,412 $ 1,703,153 $ 14,752,401 $ 322,051 $ - $ 20,899,804 $ - $ 2,949,229 $ 4,007,575 $ 1,885,896 $ -
- $ -- $ -- $ 977,858- $ 977,858- $ 977,858- $ 2,482,255- $ 2,482,255- $ 2,482,255- $ 2,482,255- $ 4,695,339 $ 4,634,837 $ 17,801,353 $ 4,470,819 $ 4,275,604 $ 25,307,318 $ 6,049,097 $ 9,141,000 $ 10,347,727 $ 8,380,363 $ 304,661 $ 669,823 $ 868,470 $ 1,397,652 $ 2,122,048 $ 1,814,729 $ 765,632 $ (3,375,367) $ (8,723,094) $ (12,103,457) 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

6.0% 6.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
112.4% 119.1% 123.9% 128.8% 134.0% 139.3% 144.9% 150.7% 156.7% 163.0% Draft-For Discussion Purposes Only
1702
Item # 16.

Table C-1
City of Milpitas, CA
Stormwater Cash Flow
Line
No. Description
Sources of Funds
1 Beginning Balance
2 Proposed Bonds
3 General Fund Transfer
4 Subtotal: Sources
Uses of Funds
5 O&M
6 CIP Projects
7 Debt Service
8 Subtotal: Uses
9 Ending Balance
CIP Adjustments
10 Completion Percentage
11 Annual Cost Inflation
12 Cumulative Inflation Rate
Projected
FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 FY 2039 FY 2040 FY 2041 FY 2042 FY 2043 FY 2044 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ (12,103,457) $ (16,991,135) $ (20,852,783) $ (24,969,608) $ (29,351,815) $ (34,684,284) $ (44,414,422) $ (51,867,486) $ (49,009,007) $ (79,504,711) $ (97,281,353) $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 - - - - - - - - - - - $ (7,103,457) $ (11,991,135) $ (15,852,783) $ (19,969,608) $ (24,351,815) $ (29,684,284) $ (39,414,422) $ (46,867,486) $ (44,009,007) $ (74,504,711) $ (92,281,353) $ 4,172,701 $ 4,339,609 $ 4,513,194 $ 4,693,721 $ 4,881,470 $ 5,076,729 $ 5,279,798 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,232,722 $ 2,039,785 $ 2,121,376 $ 2,206,231 $ 2,968,744 $ 7,171,154 $ 4,691,011 $ 2,141,521 $ 35,495,704 $ 22,776,642 $ - $ 2,482,255 $ 2,482,255 $ 2,482,255 $ 2,482,255 $ 2,482,255 $ 2,482,255 $ 2,482,255 $ - $ - $ - $ - - - - - - - - - - - -
$ 9,887,678 $ 8,861,649 $ 9,116,824 $ 9,382,207 $ 10,332,469 $ 14,730,137 $ 12,453,064 $ 2,141,521 $ 35,495,704 $ 22,776,642 $ - $ (16,991,135) $ (20,852,783) $ (24,969,608) $ (29,351,815) $ (34,684,284) $ (44,414,422) $ (51,867,486) $ (49,009,007) $ (79,504,711) $ (97,281,353) $ (92,281,353) 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 200.0% 300.0% 400.0% 500.0%

4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
169.5% 176.3% 183.4% 190.7% 198.3% 206.2% 214.5% 223.1% 232.0% 241.3% 250.9% Draft-For Discussion Purposes Only
1703
Item # 16.

March 11, 2022
Tony Ndah, P.E., Public Works Director, City of Milpitas Harris Siddiqui, P.E., Principal Engineer, City of Milpitas Alisa Moore, Project Director
Meryka Dirks, Project Manager,
Deja Newton, Deputy Project Manager
City of Milpitas Utility Master Plans – Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update (SCH# 2020070348)

1.0 Introduction
This memorandum serves as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addendum (Addendum) to the Milpitas General Plan Update EIR (Milpitas GP EIR; State Clearinghouse No. 2020070348). The City of Milpitas (City) adopted the Milpitas GP EIR for the on March 9, 2021.

The CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15162 and 15164) require that a lead agency prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions to the environmental evaluation of a project are necessary, but none of the following occurs:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous Environmental Impact Report due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous Environmental Impact Report due to involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous Environmental Impact Report was adopted, shows any of the following:

1. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Environmental Impact Report;

2. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous Environmental Impact Report;
1704
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas Utility Master Plans – Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update (SCH# 2020070348) 2 3. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or

4. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous Environmental Impact Report would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

This Addendum summarizes the Milpitas Utility Master Plans (the Plans) as considered in the Certified Milpitas General Plan EIR (GP EIR), describes additional changes to the Plans made since the certification of the GP EIR, and analyzes any change in environmental effects associated with those changes. As discussed further in section

4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations’, the Plans would not result in any new significant impacts not previously disclosed in the circulated EIR; nor would it result in a substantial increase in the magnitude of any significant environmental impact previously identified. For these reasons, an addendum to the certified EIR is sufficient to meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. An addendum need not be circulated for public review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, but can be included in or attached to the final certified EIR. The City must consider the addendum with the certified EIR prior to making a decision on the Plans. This Addendum also serves as documentation that the Plans’ changes do not trigger any of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162; therefore, a subsequent EIR is not required. 1705
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas Utility Master Plans – Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update (SCH# 2020070348) 3 2.0 Project Description

2.1 Project Location
Milpitas is located near San Francisco Bay in what is colloquially referred to as Silicon Valley (refer to Figure 1). Downtown San José is eight miles to the south of Milpitas; San Francisco is about 45 miles to the northwest.

The boundary that separates Santa Clara County from Alameda County also forms the northern border between Milpitas and neighboring Fremont. Incorporated Milpitas encompasses 13.5 square miles, all within the 315 square mile Coyote Creek watershed.

2.2 Milpitas General Plan Update and EIR
In March of 2021, the City adopted the Milpitas General Plan Update (hereon as the Milpitas GP) (City of Milpitas, 2021). The City prepared the Milpitas GP to identify the community’s vision for the future and provide a framework that guides decisions on growth and resources that are consistent with the quality of life desired by the city's residents and businesses. The Milpitas GP carries forward some of the major goals of the 1994 General Plan, but has been substantially updated and reorganized to address current local conditions and the city’s goals.

The City was the lead agency for the Milpitas GP EIR. The EIR evaluated potential environmental impacts that could occur as a result of implementing the Milpitas GP. The EIR included a program-level analysis, which considers broad environmental effects. The impact analysis is intended to programmatically cover the construction and operation of actions to be taken under the Milpitas GP, such as new utilities and other elements of utilities master plans. However, the Milpitas GP EIR also acknowledges that individual projects that fulfil implementation of the Milpitas GP may require separate CEQA analysis at the time they are proposed.

The Milpitas GP includes policies and actions designed to minimize potential adverse effects, including those associated with new utilities (i.e., stormwater conveyance) and updates to the City utilities master plans. The Milpitas GP EIR incorporated these policies and actions to reduce impacts, including the following:
 Action UCS 3a: periodically review and update the Sewer Master Plan and the Sewer System Management Plan.  Action UCS 2a: Periodically review and update the City’s Water Master Plan and Urban Water Management Plan in order to meet regulatory requirements and to ensure the documents address existing and projected demand.  Action UCS 4a: Regularly review and update the Storm Drainage Master Plan.  Action UCS 4c: Identify which stormwater drainage facilities are in need of repair and address these needs through the City’s Capital Improvement Program.

Since completion of the Milpitas GP and the EIR, the City has prepared updated utility master plans for sewer, water and storm drainage as required in the Milpitas GP. 1706
Item # 16.
101
680
880
880
280
680
101
82 87
84 262
238
17 85
237
Fremont
Newark
Milpitas
Sunnyvale
San Jose
Cupertino
Campbell
Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\2021xxx\D202100828 - Milpitas Utility\Fig 1 ProjectLoc.mxd, RTeitel 1/5/2022 Napa
Tracy
Vallejo
Antioch
Oakland
Fremont
San
Francisco
Stockton
San Jose
Fairfield
Vacaville
Area of
Detail
N
0 2
Miles
SOURCE: ESRI
Planning Area
Figure 1
City of Milpitas Utility Master Plan Addendum
1707
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas Utility Master Plans – Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update (SCH# 2020070348) 5 2.3 Utility Master Plans
Storm Drain Master Plan
The City of Milpitas completed its first storm drain master plan in 2001, which was last updated in 2013.

The 2013 updated plan comprehensively evaluated storm drain system performance in addition to flood hazard mapping. This effort utilized work completed with Santa Clara Valley Water District as part of the Cooperating Technical Partner program sponsored by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The 2021 draft master plan focuses on storm drainage infrastructure. The 2021 draft master plan is intended to serve as a guide for the City to implement a prioritized capital improvement program (CIP) and secure sufficient funds for annual operation and maintenance, and long-term system replacement. The 2021 draft master plan includes a list of potential projects, but does not propose or approve their implementation. If they are carried forward, they may require individual CEQA coverage.

Sewer Master Plan
The City’s wastewater system infrastructure was first constructed in the 1950s when the City was established, and it was expanded with the growth of the City. The most recent sewer master plan was completed in 2002 with a revision completed in 2004 and an update completed in 2009. The 2021 master plan develops a CIP to address physical and hydraulic deficiencies. The purpose of the 2021 master plan is to perform a condition assessment on the collection system and evaluate the hydraulic performance of the system under current and projected future conditions. The 2021 master plan identifies hydraulic capacity deficiencies and pipes in poor condition. The 2021 draft master plan includes a list of potential projects to improve the City’s sewer system, but does not propose or approve their implementation. If they are carried forward, they may require individual CEQA coverage.

Water Master Plan
The City’s last Water Master Plan was completed in 2002 and was then updated in 2009 to incorporate an analysis of the impacts of the City’s Milpitas Metro Specific Plan (then known as the Transit Area Specific Plan). The City is currently in the process of updating its General Plan and two key specific plans, Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (formerly known as the Midtown Specific Plan) and Milpitas Metro Specific Plan. The purpose of the 2021 Water Master Plan is to evaluate the existing system infrastructure and incorporate impacts of short-term and long-term planned growth under the Milpitas GP to develop a comprehensive plan for implementation of the City’s Water System CIP. The 2021 Water Master Plan includes a list of potential projects to improve the City’s water system, but does not propose or approve their implementation. If they are carried forward, they may require individual CEQA coverage.

2.4 References
De Novo Planning Group, 2021. City of Milpitas General Plan 2040. March 2021.

De Novo Planning Group, 2020. City of Milpitas Draft Environmental Impact Report. November 2020.

HydroScience, 2021. City of Milpitas Sewer Master Plan 2021. January, 2021.

Schaaf & Wheeler, 2021. City of Milpitas Storm Drain Master Plan 2021. August 20, 2021 West Yost, 2021. City of Milpitas Water Master Plan 2021. March 2, 2021. 1708
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas Utility Master Plans – Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update (SCH# 2020070348) 6 3.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures This chapter describes any relevant changes that have occurred in the existing environmental conditions within and near the Planning area as well as environmental impacts associated with the Plans, compared to the evaluations presented in the Milpitas GP EIR. Impacts are addressed below to all resource areas in accordance to Appendix G of the CEQA Checklist, and as organized in the Milpitas GP EIR.

3.1 Aesthetics
The Plans are located within the Milpitas GP planning area. The setting of the Milpitas GP area was described in the Milpitas GP EIR, and for the purposes of aesthetics analysis the setting has not changed. While the Milpitas Planning Area contains numerous areas and viewsheds with relatively high scenic value, there are no officially designated scenic vista points in the planning area. There are no officially designated scenic highways located in the vicinity of Milpitas. Significant visual resources include Mission Hills, Monument Peak, and Mount Diablo.

The primary sources of daytime glare are generally sunlight reflecting from structures and other reflective surfaces and windows. The primary sources of nighttime lighting are generally from exterior building lights, street lights, and vehicle headlights.

Findings of Certified EIR
The Milpitas GP EIR identified the following impacts related to aesthetic and visual resources:
 Less-than-significant impacts related to the scenic vista and scenic resources.  Less-than-significant impacts to non-urbanized areas.  Less-than-significant impacts related to the creation of new sources of nighttime lighting and daytime glare Discussion
The Milpitas GP EIR concluded that with implementation of the policies and actions contained in the Milpitas GP, new non-residential development located in and around existing urbanized areas would be developed to be visually compatible with nearby open space resources, and these policies and actions would further ensure that new development is designed in a way that enhances the visual quality of the community, compliments the visual character of the city, and that adverse effects on public views are minimized. No new designated scenic vistas or scenic resources have been identified in the Plans vicinity since adoption of the Milpitas GP EIR. The Plans would be implemented consistent with the policies and actions contained in the Milpitas GP. The Milpitas GP EIR consulted that no adopted State scenic highways are located within the Milpitas GP area, and no scenic highways provide views of the area. No new adopted scenic highways have been identified in the Plans’ vicinity since adoption of the Milpitas GP EIR. The Plans do not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP, and as noted, no new scenic vistas and resources have been identified since the approval of the Milpitas GP. Therefore, potential impacts on scenic vistas and scenic resources that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in the certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

The Milpitas GP EIR determined that the City is mapped and designated as an urbanized area. Policies in the Milpitas GP are intended to complement and further the intent of the City’s provisions regulating scenic quality 1709
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas Utility Master Plans – Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update (SCH# 2020070348) 7 and resources.
1 Any development occurring under the Milpitas GP would be subject to compliance with these guidelines. The Milpitas GP EIR concluded that with compliance of the guidelines, as well as implementation of policies and actions contained in the Milpitas GP, the Milpitas GP would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the Milpitas GP area. The Plans do not propose actions that are beyond that described in the Milpitas GP or that could require non-compliance with the policies and guidelines in the Milpitas GP. Therefore, potential impacts related to conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in the certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

The Milpitas GP EIR concluded that the Milpitas GP would increase the amount of daytime glare in existing urbanized areas, and increased nighttime lighting could reduce visibility of the night sky; generally detracting from the quality of life in Milpitas. Future development under the Milpitas GP would be required to be consistent with the Milpitas GP policies, as well as lighting and design requirements in the Milpitas Municipal Code, which would ensure that new development projects utilize appropriate building materials that do not result in significant increases in unusual glare. The Plans do not include structures or activities that would require lighting or glare beyond that described in the Milpitas GP or that could require non-compliance with the policies in the Milpitas GP and design requirements in the Milpitas Municipal Code. Therefore, potential impacts related to new sources of nightime lighting and daytime glare that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in the certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

Conclusion
The impacts to scenic and visual resources with implementation of the Plans would be the same as that analyzed in the Milpitas GP EIR. No new or more significant impacts beyond those identified in the certified Milpitas GP EIR would result. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [Less than Significant])

3.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
There are no lands within the Plans’ area that are designated for agricultural use on the existing or proposed Milpitas GP Land Use Map. There are no agricultural lands identified by the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program within the Milpitas GP area. There are no lands within the Milpitas GP area that are currently under a Williamson Act contract, or forest lands or timber lands.

Findings of Certified EIR
The Milpitas GP EIR identified the following impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources:
 Less-than-significant impacts to existing zoning for agricultural use, Williamson Act contracts, loss of forest land, and conversion of farmlands.

Discussion
The state and local land use and zoning designations with respect to agricultural and forest resources have not changed for the Plans’ site and surroundings, and agricultural or forest use of the site has not commenced since

1 Zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality applicable to the City of Milpitas include the Design Guidelines and Plan Review Checklist and the City of Milpitas Master Streetscape Master Plan, and Measures I, J, and K. 1710
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas Utility Master Plans – Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update (SCH# 2020070348) 8 adoption of the Milpitas GP EIR. Thus, there has not been a substantial change in the circumstances involving agricultural and forest resources at the site or surrounding areas. The Plans do not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP. Therefore, potential impacts on agricultural and forestry resources that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in the certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

Conclusion
The impacts to agricultural and forestry resources with implementation of the Plans would be the same as that analyzed in the Milpitas GP EIR. No new or more significant impacts beyond those identified in the certified Milpitas GP EIR would result. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [Less than Significant])

3.3 Air Quality
The Planning Area is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) attains and maintains air quality conditions in the SFBAAB through a comprehensive program of planning, regulation, enforcement, technical innovation, and promotion of the understanding of air quality issues. The air quality setting relevant to the Plans’ site, including applicable regulations and air quality conditions, has not appreciably changed since the certification of the Milpitas GP EIR.

Findings of Certified EIR
The Milpitas GP EIR identified the following impacts related to air quality:
 Less-than-significant impacts for the potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutant;  Less-than-significant impacts for the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and
 Less-than-significant impacts for the potential to result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people).

Discussion
The Milpitas GP EIR concluded that the Milpitas GP would be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan and all future development projects would be subject to the Milpitas GP’s policies, goals, and actions. The Milpitas GP would further the fundamental goals of BAAQMD in reducing emissions of criteria air pollutant and would increase opportunities for transit ridership. Exposure to toxic air contaminants (TAC) and PM2.52 concentrations within the City would be minimized with the implementation of policies and actions to under the Milpitas GP. Individual projects subject to the Milpitas GP are required to have environmental assessments to determine health impacts from construction and operation and implement mitigation measures to reduce exposure. The Milpitas GP does not propose any land use that could be a potential source of objectionable odors. Future sewer, water and storm drainage improvements under the Plans would have to comply with the air quality management plans (AQMP), state implementation plan (SIP), California Air Resources Board (CARB), and BAAQMD regulations, as well as, Title 24 energy efficiency regulations, and the Milpitas GP policies and actions to minimize impacts.

2 PM2.5 is particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (known as fine particulate matter). 1711
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas Utility Master Plans – Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update (SCH# 2020070348) 9 Because the Plans do not include utility development beyond the general types and scope that are described in the Milpitas GP, the Plans would not result in new or increased impacts from that disclosed in the Milpitas GP EIR.

Therefore, potential impacts to air quality resources that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in the certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

Conclusion
The impacts to air quality with implementation of the Plans would be the same as that analyzed in the Milpitas GP EIR. No new or more significant impacts beyond those identified in the certified Milpitas GP EIR would result. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [Less than Significant])

3.4 Biological Resources
The biological resources setting relevant to the Plans’ site has not appreciably changed since the adoption of the Milpitas GP EIR. This includes applicable regulations and the existing condition of sensitive biological resources, such as wetlands, natural communities, and habitats that support special-status plant and wildlife species.

Findings of Certified EIR
The Milpitas GP EIR identified the following impacts on biological resources:
 Less-than-significant impacts related to sensitive natural communities, protected wetlands, species identified by California Fish and Wildlife and U.S. Fish Wildlife Service, local policies, and provisions approved by local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans, and wildlife movement corridors.

Discussion
The Milpitas GP concluded that while subsequent development under the Milpitas GP could result in direct loss of habitat areas associated with special status animal species, the Milpitas GP includes numerous policies and actions intended to avoid and reduce impacts to special status species. In addition to policies detailed in the Milpitas GP, special status species also receive protection from federal endangered species act (FESA), California endangered species act (CESA), and various other biological resource protection laws.

The Milpitas GP EIR itself does not approve physical changes to the environment. However, subsequent approved projects that are consistent with the buildout of the Milpitas GP could have indirect changes on the physical environment. The Milpitas GP outlines minimization measures future projects will be required to comply with to protect riparian habitat, other sensitive natural communities and the numerous federally and state protected wetlands and other jurisdictional waters found at the Plans’ site. Additionally, subsequent approved projects would be required to comply with relevant Federal, State, and local regulations. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), for example, requires any project to obtain a permit that authorizes the disturbance to a wetland or water of the U.S.

The regulatory process through section 404 of the CWA ensures no “net loss” of wetlands or jurisdictional waters.

The Milpitas GP EIR concluded that because the Milpitas GP will not result in any physical changes to the environment, adoption of the Milpitas GP will not result in direct impacts to the environment. Subsequent individual projects could impact movement corridors; however, each project would require a detailed and site-specific review of the site to determine the presence or absence of movement corridors on the project site. Federal and State laws implemented through the project approval and permit process require measures to reduce, avoid, or compensate 1712
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas Utility Master Plans – Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update (SCH# 2020070348) 10 for impacts to these resources. Future projects will be required to comply with the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan as not to conflict with existing provisions of adopted local, regional, or state conservation plans.

The Plans would not exacerbate or result in new impacts to the Plans’ site. Because the Plans do not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP, the Plans would not result in new or increased impacts from that disclosed in the GP EIR. Therefore, potential impacts to biological resources that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in the certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

Conclusion
The impacts to biological resources with implementation of the Plans would be the same as that analyzed in the Milpitas GP EIR. No new or more significant impacts beyond those identified in the certified Milpitas GP EIR would result. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [Less than Significant])

3.5 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
The cultural resources and tribal cultural resources setting relevant to the Plans’ site has not appreciably changed since the adoption of the Milpitas GP EIR. Thirty-three cultural resources are listed in the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) database as previously recorded within the Milpitas GP area. These resources consist of historic buildings and railroads, prehistoric villages, prehistoric artifacts, and refuse deposits. In addition, twenty-five buildings are listed on the Santa Clara County Historic Property Data File Directory. Twenty-three of these buildings are also included on the list of resources on file with the NWIC.

Findings of Certified EIR
The Milpitas GP EIR identified the following impacts related to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources:
 Less-than-significant impacts related to a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical and archaeological resource.
 Less-than-significant impact related to the disturbance of and human remains.  Less-than-significant impacts related to substantial adverse changes in the significance of a tribal cultural resource.

Discussion
The Milpitas GP EIR does not propose any action that would result in adverse changes to cultural resources, however future development could affect historical resources and archaeological resources under the Milpitas GP. As future development and infrastructure projects are considered, each project will be evaluated for compliance with the Milpitas GP and applicable local and state regulations. The General Plan includes policies and actions that would reduce impacts to cultural, historical, and archaeological resources, as well as policies and actions for the conservation of cultural, historical, and archaeological resources. In addition, in the event of a resource discovery, the Milpitas GP requires all ground disturbing activity and construction to halt until a qualified expert is able to analyze the project site and determine appropriate mitigation. The Plans do not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP. Therefore, potential impacts on historical and archaeological resources that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in the certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.
1713
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas Utility Master Plans – Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update (SCH# 2020070348) 11 The Milpitas GP requires that discovered human remains are treated in compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

The Plans do not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP. Therefore, potential impacts to human remains that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in the certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

The Milpitas GP also requires tribal consultation with tribes that may be impacted by development. The Plans would be required to follow development requirements, including compliance with local policies, ordinances, and applicable permitting procedures related to protection of tribal cultural resources. The Plans do not propose actions that could require non-compliance with the regulations. Therefore, potential impacts to tribal cultural resources that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in the certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

Conclusion
The impacts to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources with implementation of the Plans would be the same as that analyzed in the Milpitas GP EIR. No new or more significant impacts beyond those identified in the certified Milpitas GP EIR would result. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [Less than Significant])

3.6 Geology
The geology and soils setting relevant to the Plans’ site, including applicable regulations and geologic conditions, has not appreciably changed since the certification of the Milpitas GP EIR. Seismic hazard zones are currently mapped in Milpitas and include areas mapped for liquefaction and earthquake induced landslide hazards. The most prominent areas of the City susceptible to liquefaction are located along Coyote Creek. Soils and geologic conditions in the Plans’ area have the potential for landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. The National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) collected erosion data for the City and concluded that the susceptibility of soil to sheet fill and erosion by water was moderately low, with a moderate potential for soil erosion.

Findings of Certified EIR
The Milpitas GP EIR identified the following impacts related to geology:
 Less-than-significant impacts related to the potential to expose people or structures to potential adverse effects from earthquake faults, seismic shaking, seismic-induced ground failures, unstable geologic units, soils or expansive soils, or the potential to destroy paleontological resources.

Discussion
The nature, scale, and timing of the Plans have not changed in a manner that would exacerbate existing geologic and seismic hazards at the Plans’ site. Ground disturbance associated with the Plans would be limited to shallow surface fill and soils in areas that are already developed.

There are faults within the Plans’ area which could cause considerable seismic shaking. The Plans are required to comply with provisions of the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), policies in the Milpitas GP associated with seismic events, and State and City codes where applicable, as well as complete a design level 1714
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas Utility Master Plans – Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update (SCH# 2020070348) 12 geotechnical investigation. With the implementation of these provisions, policies and codes, potential impacts associated with ground instability, expansive soils, and exposing people and structures to adverse effects would be reduced. The Plans do not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP. Therefore, potential impacts associated with geologic conditions that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in the certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

Because the majority of the city limits contains existing urban uses, the erosion potential is considered to be low.

Limited development could occur within the Milpitas hillside areas. As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the CBSC, Milpitas GP, Zoning Ordinance, and other regulations. The Plans do not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP, and does not propose actions that could require non-compliance with the regulations. Therefore, potential impacts on geologic resources that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in the certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

The Milpitas GP EIR determined that construction within the city limits allowed by the Milpitas GP would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems; limited use of septic tanks may be required within hillside areas outside the City limits. Implementation of the Sewer System Management Plan and the potential CIP under the Milpitas GP ensure adequate system capacity.

Ground disturbance associated with the Plans would be limited to shallow surface fill and soils in areas that are already developed. Although there could be fossils of potential scientific significance and other unique geologic features that remain undiscovered or are not recorded, implementation of the Milpitas GP policies and actions would ensure steps would be taken to minimize impacts to paleontological resources in the event that they are discovered. The Plans do not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP. Therefore, potential impacts to paleontological resources that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in the certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

Implementation of the Plans would not result in new or increased impacts from that disclosed in the GP EIR because the Plans does not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP. Therefore, potential impacts associated with septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as the those identified in the certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

Conclusion
The impacts to geologic resources with implementation of the Plans would be the same as that analyzed in the Milpitas GP EIR. No new or more significant impacts beyond those identified in the certified Milpitas GP EIR would result. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [Less than Significant])

3.7 Greenhouse Gases. Climate Change, and Energy
The greenhouse gases (GHG), climate change, and energy setting relevant to the Plans’ site, including applicable regulations, has not appreciably changed since the certification of the Milpitas GP EIR. 1715
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas Utility Master Plans – Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update (SCH# 2020070348) 13 Findings of Certified EIR
The Milpitas GP EIR identified the following impacts related to greenhouse gases and energy:
 Less-than-significant impacts related to the potential to generate GHG emissions that could have a significant impact on the environment;
 Less-than-significant impacts related to the potential to conflict with adopted plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions; and,  Less-than-significant impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, or conflicting with or obstruct state to local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Discussion
The Milpitas GP EIR concluded that implementation of the Milpitas GP would result in an increase in overall GHG emissions but they would be minimized through implementation of the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP).

Short term and long term emissions would result from future development projects. Implementation of the Milpitas GP is expected to increase the population of Milpitas, thus increase emissions from vehicles, indirect use of electricity for water usage, and solid waste. Land use modifications and policies identified in the Milpitas GP minimize per capital vehicle miles traveled and per service vehicle miles traveled. The City’s CAP would minimize emissions community-wide and streamline review of future development projects. The CAP requires the City to achieve GHG reduction target for 2030 and 2050. The Milpitas GP is consistent with the City’s CAP, which has been established to satisfy GHG reduction requirements. The Milpitas GP would not conflict with adopted plans, policies, or applicable regulations related to GHG reductions, because the Milpitas GP includes comprehensive policy approaches. In addition, the Milpitas GP would not conflict with the implementation of regional transportation related GHG targets outlined in Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG’s) Plan Bay Area 2040 because the land use modifications contained in the Milpitas GP, and the corresponding reduction in vehicle miles traveled result in lower emissions than those forecasted in the Plan Bay Area 2040. Implementation of the Plans would result in the same impacts as the approved Milpitas GP EIR because the Plans does not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP, and does not propose any actions that would conflict with the CAP. Therefore, potential impacts associated with greenhouse gases, climate change, and energy that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

Buildout of the Milpitas GP would use energy resources for the operation of buildings, for on-road vehicle trips, and from off-road construction activities. Each of these activities would require the use of energy resources.

Developers of individual projects within the Milpitas GP area would be responsible for conserving energy, to the extent feasible, and would rely heavily on reducing per capita energy consumption to achieve this goal, including through Statewide and local measures. Additionally, energy-saving regulations, including the latest State Title 24 building energy efficiency standards (“part 6”), would be applicable to the projects developed under the Milpitas GP. Buildout of the Milpitas GP would be consistent with applicable federal, state, and regional regulations regulating energy usage. Buildout of the Milpitas GP would not be expected cause an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources nor conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Implementation of the Plans would result in the same impacts as the approved Milpitas GP EIR because the Plans do not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP, or proposed actions that would obstruct plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, potential 1716
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas Utility Master Plans – Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update (SCH# 2020070348) 14 impacts related to energy resources that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

Conclusion
The impacts associated with greenhouse gases, climate change and energy with implementation of the Plans would be the same as those analyzed in the Milpitas GP EIR. No new or more significant impacts beyond those identified in the certified Milpitas GP EIR would result. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [Less than Significant])

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The hazards and hazardous materials setting relevant to the Plans’ site, including applicable regulations, has not appreciably changed since the certification of the Milpitas GP EIR. The state and local land use plans, policies, and regulations applicable have not materially changed since adoption of the Milpitas GP EIR. Hazardous materials are monitored by BAAQMD, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Department of Toxic Substances (DTSC) and Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA). The Milpitas GP area does not contain airports and therefore does not include actions that would impact air hazards or safety.

Findings of Certified EIR
The Milpitas GP EIR identified the following impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials:
 Less-than-significant impact for the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine use or accidently release of hazardous materials, emit hazardous emissions, have projects located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials compiled by Government Code, be located within an airport land use plan, or have the potential to interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan.

Discussion
Individual projects approved under the Milpitas GP would be required to comply with federal and state Regulations, the Municipal Code, and policies and actions in the Milpitas GP that ensure potential hazards and hazardous materials are identified and projects that are in areas where exposure to hazards or hazardous materials could occur can be mitigated. Future projects that establish business that would emit, or handle hazardous materials would be handled in accordance to federal, state and county requirements. Compliance with federal and state regulations would reduce hazardous conditions on future project sites. Implementation of the Plans would be the same as the approved Milpitas GP EIR because the Plans do not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP, or proposed actions that would obstruct plans and regulations for handling hazardous materials. Therefore, potential impacts related to hazardous materials and resources that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

The Milpitas GP may result in increased population in Milpitas. Milpitas is a partner of the Santa Clara County Operation Areas and the Santa Clara County Emergency Management Organization, which provide mutual aid to Milpitas. The City’s emergency operation plan (EOP) addresses its emergency planning and response. The Milpitas GP includes goals to enhance safety and ensure emergency procedures are regularly reviewed and up to date. Implementation of the Plans would not result in new or increased impacts from that disclosed in the GP EIR because the Plans do not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP, nor would it conflict 1717
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas Utility Master Plans – Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update (SCH# 2020070348) 15 with the provisions in the City’s EOP. Therefore, potential impacts to emergency access that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

Conclusion
The impacts to hazardous resources with implementation of the Plans would be the same as that analyzed in the Milpitas GP EIR. No new or more significant impacts beyond those identified in the certified Milpitas GP EIR would result. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [Less than Significant])

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
The hydrology and water quality setting relevant to the Plans’ site, including applicable regulations, has not appreciably changed since the certification of the Milpitas GP EIR. The City is not at significant risk from a dam failure and Santa Clara Water Valley District (Valley Water) Dam Safety Program ensures operation of its 10 major dams in the county. The Milpitas GP area contains manmade lakes with shallow surface areas that would not create devastating seiches. The City is also not a tsunami hazard areas and would not be subject to substantial impacts from seiches.

Findings of Certified EIR
The Milpitas GP EIR identified the following impacts related to hydrology and water quality:
 Less-than-significant impacts related to violation water quality standards or degrading water quality, depletion of groundwater supplies, altering existing drainage, and releasing pollutants.

Discussion
The Milpitas GP EIR concluded that compliance with Federal, State, and local codes would reduce potential impacts to hydrology and water quality. Existing regulatory requirements that manage water quality include requirements to obtain approval from the RWQCB, obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, develop stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPP) and water quality management plans (WQMPs), and implementing best management practices. The Milpitas GP includes policies and actions to enhance stormwater quality, infiltration, and review development projects to identify potential impacts to hydrology and water quality, including stormwater quality and infiltration. Implementation of the Plans would be the same as the approved Milpitas GP EIR because the Plans do not propose actions that would be in non-compliance with existing regulatory requirements. Therefore, potential impacts related to water quality and stormwater infiltration that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

Buildout and implementation of the Milpitas GP would not significantly add to the volume of impervious surfaces in the Milpitas GP area when compared to the overall size of the regional basin recharge area. Though no mitigation is required, the Milpitas GP includes policies to support the use of permeable surfaces with recycled water for non-potable use and coordination with local water districts. The Milpitas GP is consistent with the Groundwater Management Plan. Implementation of the Plans would be the same as the approved Milpitas GP EIR because the Plans does not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP. Therefore, potential impacts related to stormwater runoff and groundwater recharge that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP. 1718
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas Utility Master Plans – Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update (SCH# 2020070348) 16 The Valley Water is responsible for regional flood control planning within the County. The Milpitas GP includes policies to reduce flooding and stormwater pollution from new development and enhance natural storm drain features.

Implementation of the Plans would not result in new or increased impacts from that disclosed in the GP EIR because the Plans do not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP. Therefore, potential impacts on hydrology and water quality resources that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

Conclusion
The impacts to hydrology and water quality resources with implementation of the Plans would be the same as that analyzed in the Milpitas GP EIR. No new or more significant impacts beyond those identified in the certified Milpitas GP EIR would result. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [Less than Significant])

3.10 Land Use Planning and Population/Housing
The state and local land use plans, policies, and regulations applicable at land use and planning, and population and housing have not materially changed since adoption of the Milpitas GP EIR.

Findings of Certified EIR
The Milpitas GP EIR identified the following impacts related to land use planning and population/housing:
 Less-than-significant impacts related to physically dividing an established community, inducing substantial unplanned population growth in the area, and displacing substantial number of existing people or housing.

Discussion
The Milpitas GP EIR determined that the land uses allowed under the proposed Milpitas GP provide opportunities for cohesive new growth at in-fill locations within existing urbanized areas of the city, and would not create physical division within the community. New development and redevelopment projects would be designed to complement the character of the existing community and neighborhoods and provide connectivity between existing development and new development. The Milpitas GP includes policies to ensure that future development is compatible with adjacent communities and land issues. Implementation of the Plans would be the same as the approved Milpitas GP EIR because the Plans do not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP, or propose actions that would conflict with land use polices. Therefore, potential impacts related to physically dividing an established community that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

The Milpitas GP EIR determined that the Milpitas GP would not conflict with continued application of State land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted to avoid or mitigate environmental effects. Subsequent development and infrastructure projects would be required to be consistent with all applicable policies, standards, and regulations, including those land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted to mitigate environmental effects by the City as well as those adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over components of future development projects. The Milpitas GP includes policies to ensure that the Milpitas GP does not conflict with any and use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Implementation of the Plans would be the same as the approved Milpitas GP EIR because the Plans do not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP, or propose actions that would conflict with polices for avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, potential impacts related to conflicting with any land use plan, policy, or 1719
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas Utility Master Plans – Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update (SCH# 2020070348) 17 regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

The Milpitas GP EIR concluded that with implementation of Milpitas GP policies and actions intended to guide growth to appropriate areas and provide services necessary to accommodate growth, the land uses allowed under the proposed General Plan, the infrastructure anticipated to accommodate proposed land uses, and the goal and policy framework would not induce growth that would exceed adopted thresholds, beyond those disclosed and analyzed throughout the Milpitas GP EIR. The majority of developed land in the Milpitas GP area is comprised of residential uses, which are not anticipated to undergo significant land use changes under the proposed Milpitas GP. The Milpitas GP Land Use Map was developed to preserve existing neighborhoods throughout the City. Additionally, the Land Use Element includes policies and actions aimed at preserving housing options, and providing attainable housing opportunities for all residents. Implementation of the Plans would be the same as the approved Milpitas GP EIR because the Plans does not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP. Therefore, potential impacts related to growth that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

Conclusion
The impacts to land use planning/population/ housing with implementation of the Plans would be the same as that analyzed in the Milpitas GP EIR. No new or more significant impacts beyond those identified in the certified Milpitas GP EIR would result. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [Less than Significant])

3.11 Mineral Resources
The mineral resources setting relevant to the Plans site, including applicable regulations, has not appreciably changed since the certification of the Milpitas GP EIR. The Milpitas GP area contains four areas identified by the State Geologist as containing Regionally Significant Construction Aggregate Resources. These areas, located in the foothills outside City limits, are part of the South San Francisco Bay Production‐Consumption Region and contain sandstone deposits. All of the areas are being currently quarried.

Findings of Certified EIR
The Milpitas GP EIR identified the following impacts related to mineral resources:
 Less-than-significant impacts related to loss of availability mineral or locally- important mineral resources.

Discussion
The Milpitas GP EIR determined that proposed new urban uses available for development are within the City limits and would not be developed within an identified regional mineral resource area or mining operation and therefore would not preclude mineral extraction within existing mineral resources area. Access to mineral resource areas would be considered on a project specific basis. Implementation of the proposed Milpitas GP would not result in the loss of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan, as the proposed Milpitas GP don’t not re‐designate any new lands for urban development within the hillside areas. Implementation of the Plans would be the same as the approved Milpitas GP EIR because the Plans do not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP. Therefore, potential impacts related to mineral resources that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.
1720
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas Utility Master Plans – Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update (SCH# 2020070348) 18 Conclusion
The impacts to mineral resources with implementation of the Plans would be the same as that analyzed in the Milpitas GP EIR. No new or more significant impacts beyond those identified in the certified Milpitas GP EIR would result. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [Less than Significant])

3.12 Noise
The noise setting relevant to the Plans’ site, including applicable regulations, has not appreciably changed since the certification of the Milpitas GP EIR. Noise exposure in the City is associated with traffic and railroad operation, as well as stationary sources (i.e., parking lots, loading docks, parks, schools, and other commercial/retail use noise sources). One notable fixed noise source in Milpitas is the Milpitas Materials Company concrete plant.

Findings of Certified EIR
The Milpitas GP EIR identified the following impacts related to noise:
 Significant-and-unavoidable impact related to exposure to significant traffic noise sources.  Less-than-significant impact due to excessive railroad noise sources.  Less-than-significant impact due to excessive stationary noise sources.  Less-than-significant impact due to increased construction noise sources.  Less-than-significant impact due to construction vibration or exposure to ground borne vibration.

Discussion
Buildout of the Milpitas GP may result in an exceedance of the City’s transportation noise standards. Policies are included in the Milpitas GP to minimize exposure to excessive noise, including noise associated with traffic; however, even with implementation of the Milpitas GP policies, increased traffic noise under full buildout would exceed applicable noise exposure criteria. The Milpitas GP EIR concluded that this impact is significant and unavoidable.

Implementation of the Plans would essentially be the same as under the approved Milpitas GP because the Plans would not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP. Therefore, potential impacts related to traffic noise that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

Development under the Milpitas GP would not be expected to exceed noise levels associated with railroad operations that would be in excess of the City’s standards. The Milpitas GP does allow for extension of railroad noise contours for railroad lines. Future development along these lines could be exposed to elevated railroad noise levels. The Milpitas GP includes polices to minimize exposure to excessive noise and support noise-compatible land uses in the vicinity of railroad noise sources. Implementation of the Plans would be the same as the approved Milpitas GP EIR because the Plans do not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP, or propose actions that would conflict with the applicable Milpitas GP polices. Therefore, potential impacts related to railroad noise that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

The Milpitas GP EIR found that the Milpitas GP could result in future non-transportation development of land use that would generate noise in excess of the City’s noise standards. The Milpitas GP includes measures for 1721
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas Utility Master Plans – Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update (SCH# 2020070348) 19 noise from stationary sources such as air conditioning/heating systems, car washes, daycare facilities, and recreational uses. These policies require commercial studies for commercial and industrial development and project-specific mitigation in noise attenuation. The policies comply with the City’s noise standards and would reduce potential exposure to excessive noise from future development. Construction noises from development would also be subject to policies in the Milpitas GP that reduce construction noise. Noise from construction would be temporary and not ongoing. Demolition and excavation of project sites could cause excess noise; however, the Milpitas GP also has measures to ensure administrative controls and notify neighbors of scheduled construction activities. The Plans would have the same impacts related to noise as those identified in certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP because the Plans do not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP, nor would it conflict with policies to address noise exceedances. Therefore, potential impacts associated with exposure to noise in excess of City’s standards that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

The Milpitas GP EIR found that the construction activities facilitated by implementation of the Milpitas GP may result in vibrational noise. The Milpitas GP includes policies and actions for administrative controls during construction to ensure perceptional vibrational impact be kept to a minimum, such as notifying neighbors of scheduled construction activities and scheduling construction with the highest perceptible vibration during hours with the least potential to affect nearby business. The Milpitas GP EIR found that development of the Milpitas GP could expose persons to excessive ground borne vibration from railroad trains. The Milpitas GP requires development projects to undergo project-specific environmental review and address potential impacts associated with ground borne vibration and the railroad. Policies require development within 100 feet of rails to ensure vibration experienced by residents would not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines. The Plans would have the same impacts related to vibration as those identified in certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP because the Plans does not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP, nor would it conflict with policies to address ground borne vibration. Therefore, potential impacts associated with construction vibration and ground borne vibration that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

Conclusion
The noise and vibration impacts with implementation of the Plans would be the same as that analyzed in the Milpitas GP EIR. No new or more significant impacts beyond those identified in the certified Milpitas GP EIR would result. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [Less than Significant])

3.13 Public Services and Recreation
The public services and recreation setting relevant to the Plans’ site, including applicable regulations, has not appreciably changed since the certification of the Milpitas GP EIR. The Milpitas Fire Department is responsible for fire suppression, emergency medical services, rescue services, coordination of City-wide disaster response efforts, enforcement of fire and life safety codes, enforcement of State and Federal hazardous materials regulations, and investigation of fire cause, arson and other emergency events for cause and origin. The Milpitas Police Department provides law enforcement services for the City. Parks, trails, and recreational facilities in the City are managed by the Recreation and Community Services Department and maintained by the Public Works Department.

The City has 38 parks and a total of approximately 177.8 park acres. In addition, 183 acres of open space owned by the City are publicly accessible. The Milpitas Public Library is the only public library located in the City. The City also has a community center, a senior center and a sports center. 1722
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas Utility Master Plans – Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update (SCH# 2020070348) 20 Findings of Certified EIR
The Milpitas GP EIR identified the following impacts related to public services and recreation:
 Less-than-significant impacts related to adverse physical impacts on the environment associated with the need for new government facilities, and physical impacts associated with deterioration of parks and recreation facilities.

Discussion
The Milpitas GP EIR concluded that new facilities will be needed to serve growth contemplated in the Milpitas GP.

The Milpitas GP includes a range of policies and actions to ensure that public services adequately accommodate growth, maintain community services and facilities, and that new development funds its fair share of services.

Any new parks or recreational facilities that may be constructed in the future would be primarily provided on sites with land use designations that allow such uses and the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the parks and recreational facilities would likely be similar to those associated with new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects under the Milpitas GP. Implementation of the Plans would be the same as the approved Milpitas GP EIR because the Plans do not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP.

Therefore, potential impacts related to public services and recreation that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

Conclusion
The impacts to public services with implementation of the Plans would be the same as that analyzed in the Milpitas GP EIR. No new or more significant impacts beyond those identified in the certified Milpitas GP EIR would result. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [Less than Significant])

3.14 Transportation
The transportation setting relevant to the Plans’ site has not appreciably changed since the certification of the Milpitas GP EIR. The City adopted a vehicles miles traveled (VMT) policy in May 2021. 3 Findings of Certified EIR
The Milpitas GP EIR identified the following impacts related to transportation facilities:
 Less-than-significant impacts related to 1) potential to conflict with programs, plans, ordinances, or policies, addressing the circulation system; 2) potential to substantially increase hazards due to geometric design features; and 3) potential to result in inadequate emergency access.  Potentially significant impact relating to conflicting with or being inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3.

Discussion
The Milpitas GP contains a number of minimization measures that focus on multimodal transportation in Milpitas and support a variety of transportation plans and the Plans. Policies included minimize the negative impacts improvements on mode of transportation may have on another. Implementation of the Plans would be the same as

3 https://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Final-VMT-Policy-with-Reso-and-Heat-Maps-1.pdf 1723
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas Utility Master Plans – Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update (SCH# 2020070348) 21 the approved Milpitas GP EIR because the Plans do not propose any actions that would conflict with polices addressing the circulation system. Therefore, potential impacts related to multimodal transportation that would be associated with the Plans as modified in the Plans would be the same as the approved Milpitas GP. The Milpitas GP EIR determined that because the City has not adopted a standard of significance for evaluating VMT at the time the Milpitas GP EIR was prepared, guidance provided by the California Governors’ Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, 2018, was used.

Average residential VMT per capita was below the threshold of significance identified in the technical advisory.

Average employee VMT per employee was found to be above the threshold of significance. The Milpitas GP includes a number of goals, policies, and actions to reduce VMT. Future projects would be required to complete their own VMT analyses based on VMT policies and thresholds. Because these impacts cannot be guaranteed to be less than significant, the Milpitas GP EIR concluded that this impact is significant and unavoidable.

Implementation of the Plans would be the same as the approved Milpitas GP EIR because the newly adopted City VMT guidance is generally consistent with OPR’s guidance, and would not change the conclusions of the Milpitas GP EIR, and the Plans do not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP. Therefore, potential impacts related to VMT that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

At such time as the facilities presented in the Milpitas GP are implemented, they would be required to meet applicable City, federal, and state design standards. The Milpitas GP also includes policies to emphasize consideration of the needs of all transportation users, including safety as well as comfort, which may exceed minimum design requirements. Implementation of the Plans would be the same as the approved Milpitas GP EIR because the Plans do not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP. Therefore, potential impacts related to design hazards that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

The Milpitas GP would include modifications to the existing transportation network which would potentially affect emergency access response times. Future development under the Milpitas GP would be subject to the City’s Design and Construction Standards, which includes requirements for emergency access, and would be reviewed by public safety officials as part of the City’s project entitlement process. The Milpitas GP also includes policies to focus on the need to consider safety needs as part of planning and implementing transportation improvements. Implementation of the Plans would be the same as the approved Milpitas GP EIR because the Plans do not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP. Therefore, potential impacts related to emergency access that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

Conclusion
The impacts to transportation resources with implementation of the Plans would be the same as that analyzed in the Milpitas GP EIR. No new or more significant impacts beyond those identified in the certified Milpitas GP EIR would result. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [Significant and Unavoidable]) 1724
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas Utility Master Plans – Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update (SCH# 2020070348) 22 3.15 Utilities and Services Systems
The utilities and services systems setting relevant to the Plans’ site, including applicable regulations, has not appreciably changed since the certification of the Milpitas GP EIR.

Findings of Certified EIR
The Milpitas GP EIR identified the following impacts related to utilities and service systems:
 Less-than-significant impacts related to the potential to result in sufficient water supplies available to serve the City and reasonable foreseeable future development.  Less-than-significant impacts relate to the construction of new water, wastewater, and storm drainage treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities.  Less-than-significant impacts for complying with federal, state, and local solid waste management regulations.

Discussion
Implementation of the Milpitas GP would allow population growth, which would increase the demand for additional water supplies. When comparing potable water demand to the supply available, the Milpitas GP EIR determined that the City would have ample water supply to serve buildout of the Milpitas GP. The Milpitas GP includes plans and policies to ensure adequate and cleans sources of potable water. The projected 2040 waters supplies are sufficient to support demand that would be generated from population increase in Milpitas. Wastewater generation associated with the Milpitas GP would not exceed projected wastewater generation volumes in the 2016 City Sewer System Management Plan and the 2020 urban water management plan (UWMP). Though the individual projects may result in increased areas of impervious surfaces throughout Milpitas, resulting in demand for stormwater drainage, conveyance, and retention infrastructure, the Milpitas GP includes policies and actions to ensure adequate infrastructure is available for stormwater conveyance, and to minimize potential adverse impacts. The Milpitas GP does not result in a need for new or and expansion of existing water, wastewater, or storm water drainage facilities, however future projects will have to be in conformance with the Milpitas GP, Municipal Code and applicable regulations. The City’s buildout of the Milpitas GP is within the permitted capacity of the Newby Island landfill nearby, thus the Milpitas GP would not generate waste in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure. Future projects within the Milpitas GP area would be required to comply with applicable state and local requirements including those pertaining to solid waste, construction waste diversion, and recycling. While there is adequate permitted landfill capacity to accommodate future growth, the proposed Milpitas GP includes actions to further reduce the project’s impact on solid waste services. Implementation of the Plans would not result in new or increased impacts from that disclosed in the GP EIR because the Plans do not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP. Therefore, potential impacts on utilities and service systems that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

Conclusion
The impacts to utilities and service system resources with implementation of the Plans would be the same as that analyzed in the Milpitas GP EIR. No new or more significant impacts beyond those identified in the certified Milpitas GP EIR would result. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [Less than Significant]) 1725
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas Utility Master Plans – Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update (SCH# 2020070348) 23 3.16 Wildfire
The wildfire setting relevant to the Plans’ site, including applicable regulations, has not appreciably changed since the certification of the Milpitas GP EIR. The City or the general vicinity is not categorized as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone by CalFire. Areas east of the City within the sphere of influence are designated as High Fire Hazard Severity Zone by Calfire.

Findings of Certified EIR
The Milpitas GP EIR identified the following impacts related to wildfire:
 Less-than-significant impact related to impairing adopted emergency response plans, exacerbating wildfire risks, requiring installation of associate infrastructure, and exposing people or structures to significant risks.

Discussion
The Milpitas GP includes policies to ensure that the City maintains adequate emergency access as well as staffing, training, station locations, emergency response. Important new critical facilities would also be located to ensure resiliency and functionality in the event of a natural disaster. Implementation of the Plans would not result in new or increased impacts from that disclosed in the GP EIR because the Plans do not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP, nor would it conflict with the provisions in the City’s EOP. Therefore, potential impacts related to impairing an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

As indicated in the Milpitas GP EIR, the Plans’ site is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

Nothing in the Milpitas GP will substantially alter the slope, prevailing winds, or other factors that would increase exposure to Milpitas residents, employees or visitors to increased pollutant concentrations from wildfire or result in the uncontrollable spread of a wildfire. Development of such infrastructure may increase wildfire risks in the affected areas. The Milpitas GP includes policies and actions related to minimizing wildfire risk.

Development allowed under the Milpitas GP would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of the California Building Code (CBC), and CA Fire Code (CFC). Implementation of the Plans would not result in new or increased impacts from that disclosed in the GP EIR because the Plans do not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP. Therefore, potential impacts related to wildfire risk plan would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

The Milpitas GP would allow development and improvement projects that would involve some land clearing, grading, and other ground-disturbing activities that could temporarily increase soil erosion rates during and shortly after project construction. The topography in the urban portions of the Milpitas GP area is considered relatively flat and would generally not be subject to debris flows. portions of the sphere of influence may be exposed to potential risks associated with landslides, debris flows, and flooding in the weeks, months following the fire as a result in changes to the vegetative cover of the land and the rain absorption capacity of the soil. The Milpitas GP includes policies and actions related to minimizing exposure of people or structures to significant risks. Each subsequent development project or improvement project would be evaluated for conformance with the CBC, Zoning Ordinance, and other regulations, and will require an approved SWPPP that includes best management practices for grading and preservation of topsoil. Implementation of the Plans would not result in 1726
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas Utility Master Plans – Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update (SCH# 2020070348) 24 new or increased impacts from that disclosed in the GP EIR because the Plans do not include development beyond that described in the Milpitas GP, nor would it conflict with regulations for managing risks. Therefore, potential impacts related to significant risks that would be associated with the modified Plans would be the same as those identified in certified EIR for the approved Milpitas GP.

Conclusion
The impacts to wildfire resources with implementation of the Plans would be the same as that analyzed in the Milpitas GP EIR. No new or more significant impacts beyond those identified in the certified Milpitas GP EIR would result. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [Less than Significant]) 1727
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas Utility Master Plans – Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update (SCH# 2020070348) 25 4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
As discussed in the Introduction section, the CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15162 and 15164) require that a lead agency prepare an addendum to a previously Certified EIR if some changes or additions to the environmental evaluation of a project are necessary, but none of the following occurs:

1. There are no substantial changes in the project which require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. There are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which require major revisions to the previous EIR due to involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

3. No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, which shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; The project will result in impacts substantially more adverse than those disclosed in the EIR; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

CEQA Guidelines section 15164 requires that an addendum include a brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 pertaining to subsequent EIRs indicates that:
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
1728
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas Utility Master Plans – Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update (SCH# 2020070348) 26 (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. (b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a).

Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.
(c) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency’s role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions described in subdivision (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this situation no other responsible agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted. (d) A subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration shall be given the same notice and public review as required under Section 15087 or Section 15072. A subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall state where the previous document is available and can be reviewed.

Environmental review of the Plans, along with environmental review prepared for the Certified Milpitas GP EIR have led the City to conclude that the Plans would not result in any new impacts not previously disclosed in the Certified EIR; nor would it result in a substantial increase in the magnitude of any significant environmental impact previously identified. For these reasons, an addendum to the Certified EIR would be sufficient to meet the requirements of CEQA Section 15164 and that an addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR. This Addendum also serves as documentation that the proposed Plan changes do not trigger any of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162; therefore, a subsequent EIR is not required.
1729
Item # 16.

RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF'THE CITY OF MILPITAS,

ADOPTING THE WATER MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Milpitas (“City”) owns and operates the water utility system contained within the City limits; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of a Water Master Plan is to evaluate the existing system infrastructure and incorporate impacts of short-term and long-term planned growth to develop a comprehensive road map for the City’s Water System Capital Improvement Program (CIP); and
WHEREAS, the City’s last Water Master Plan was completed in 2002 and was then updated in 2009 to incorporate an analysis of the impacts of the City’s Milpitas Metro Specific Plan (then known as the Transit Area Specific Plan); and WHEREAS, the City is continuing to experience significant growth and has adopted a 2040 General Plan and two key specific plans, Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (formerly known as the Midtown Specific Plan) and Milpitas Metro Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, since the completion of the 2009 Water Master Plan Update, the State endured five years of drought starting in 2012, including the driest four consecutive years in California history; and WHEREAS, these unprecedented conditions led to statewide mandated water conservation, significant surface water supply reductions and curtailments, and legislation establishing new statewide water efficiency standards and contributing to new water use patterns and trends, and
WHEREAS, these factors make it critical to both reassess the City’s water needs, priorities, and strategies and reevaluate water system infrastructure improvements, with a goal of ensuring a safe and reliable water supply for the City’s residents and businesses; and
WHEREAS, the objective of the update to the City’s Water Master Plan is to review and make recommendations on how the current water system can be upgraded within the City to best suit the water system management needs of the City in the future; and
WHEREAS, staff completed an environmental review of the update to the City’s Water Master Plan in accordance with CEQA, and recommends that the City Council determine this project is consistent with the program of activities identified in the City’s 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2020070348) certified by the City Council in March 2021; and
WHEREAS, The City Council received the draft Water Master Plan on May 18, 2021.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Milpitas hereby finds, determines, and resolves as follows:

1. 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.

Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

2. The City Council hereby approves the 2021 Water Master Plan. 1730
Item # 16.

Resolution No. ___2
PASSED AND ADOPTED this _______ day of ________, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Suzanne Guzzetta, Interim City Clerk Rich Tran, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Michael Mutalipassi, City Attorney
1731
Item # 16.

RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF'THE CITY OF MILPITAS,

ADOPTING THE SEWER MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Milpitas (“City”) owns and operates the sewer utility system contained within the City limits; and
WHEREAS, the City’s wastewater system infrastructure was constructed in the 1950s when the City was established, and it was expanded with the growth of the City, and WHEREAS, the purpose of a Sewer Master Plan is to evaluate the existing system infrastructure and incorporate impacts of short-term and long-term planned growth to develop a comprehensive road map for the City’s Sewer System Capital Improvement Program (CIP); and
WHEREAS, the City’s last Sewer Master Plan was completed in 2002, with a revision completed in 2004 and an update in 2009; and
WHEREAS, the City is continuing to experience significant growth and has adopted a 2040 General Plan and two key specific plans, Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (formerly known as the Midtown Specific Plan) and Milpitas Metro Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the objective of the update to the City’s Sewer Master Plan was to evaluate the hydraulic performance of the sewer system under current conditions and under projected future conditions to identify any hydraulic capacity deficiencies or pipes in poor condition, and to develop a CIP to address physical and hydraulic deficiencies; and WHEREAS, staff completed an environmental review of the update to the City’s Sewer Master Plan in accordance with CEQA, and recommends that the City Council determine this project is consistent with the program of activities identified in the City’s 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2020070348) certified by the City Council in March 2021, and
WHEREAS, The City Council received the draft Sewer Master Plan on May 18, 2021.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Milpitas hereby finds, determines, and resolves as follows:

1. 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.

Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

2. The City Council hereby approves the 2021 Sewer Master Plan.

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
1732
Item # 16.

Resolution No. ___2
ATTEST: APPROVED:

Suzanne Guzzetta, Interim City Clerk Rich Tran, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Michael Mutalipassi, City Attorney
1733
Item # 16.

RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF'THE CITY OF MILPITAS,

ADOPTING THE STORM MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Milpitas (“City”) owns and operates the storm system contained within the City limits; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of a Storm Master Plan is to evaluate the existing system infrastructure and incorporate impacts of short-term and long-term planned growth to develop a comprehensive road map for the City’s Storm System Capital Improvement Program (CIP); and
WHEREAS, the City’s first comprehensive storm master plan was completed in 2001 and updated in 2013; and WHEREAS, the City is continuing to experience significant growth and has adopted a 2040 General Plan and two key specific plans, Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (formerly known as the Midtown Specific Plan) and Milpitas Metro Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the objective of the update to the City’s Storm Master Plan was to update the geographical information systems (GIS) to include pipelines 12 inches and greater in diameter throughout the entire city to reflect all storm drain projects and operational improvements completed by the end of 2020, as well as any changed land uses; and WHEREAS, the update to the City’s Storm Master Plan provides an updated CIP that remediates identified system deficiencies and provides for underserved areas within the Specific Plan Areas of Milpitas Metro and Main Street Gateway (previously TASP and Midtown); and
WHEREAS, staff completed an environmental review of the update to the City’s Storm Master Plan in accordance with CEQA, and recommends that the City Council determine this project is consistent with the program of activities identified in the City’s 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2020070348) certified by the City Council in March 2021, and
WHEREAS, the City Council received the draft Storm Master Plan on November 2, 2021.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Milpitas hereby finds, determines, and resolves as follows:

1. 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.

Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

2. The City Council hereby approves the 2021 Storm Master Plan.

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
1734
Item # 16.

Resolution No. ___2
ATTEST: APPROVED:

Suzanne Guzzetta, Interim City Clerk Rich Tran, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Michael Mutalipassi, City Attorney
1735
Item # 16.

Resolution No. ____
RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MILPITAS ADOPTNG

AN ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
MILPITAS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE (SCH# 2020070348) IN ACCORDANCE WITH

THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, on March 9, 2021, the City Council of the City of Milpitas (“City Council”), by Resolution No. 9047, certified the General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) and adopted the new Milpitas City General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the General Plan are comprised of changes made since the certification of the General Plan EIR as a result of the Milpitas Utility Master Plans (“Plans”) and analyzes any change in environmental effects associated with those changes; and WHEREAS, the Plans would not result in any new significant impacts not previously disclosed in the circulated EIR; nor would it result in a substantial increase in the magnitude of any significant environmental impact previously identified; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, an addendum is appropriate in order to explain why no changes or additions to the General Plan EIR are necessary and why none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred; and
WHEREAS, an addendum need not be circulated for public review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, but can be included in or attached to the final certified EIR; and WHEREAS, the City must consider the addendum with the certified EIR prior to making a decision on the Milpitas Utility Master Plans; and
WHEREAS, the Milpitas Utility Master Plans’ changes do not trigger any of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162; therefore, a subsequent EIR is not required.; and WHEREAS, the Addendum is included as an attachment to the agenda report; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Milpitas hereby finds, determines, and resolves as follows:

1. 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. Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

2. The City of Milpitas is the lead agency under CEQA for preparing the Addendum, and is the entity with final decision-making authority, as defined in Section 15356 of the CEQA Guidelines, with regard to approval of the Amendments.

3. The Addendum was prepared in accordance with all legal requirements, including CEQA Guidelines section 15164.
1736
Item # 16.

Resolution No. ____

4. Based on substantial evidence in the record, the Amendments are within the scope of the previously certified General Plan EIR. The mitigation measures and Statement of Overriding Considerations associated with certification of the General Plan EIR address the environmental effects of the Amendments. Accordingly, with the approval of the Amendments, all applicable mitigation measures and the Statement of Overriding Considerations are hereby reconfirmed and readopted.

5. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Addendum, the General Plan EIR itself and other information in the entire record and has considered the information contained therein, including the written and oral comments received, prior to acting upon or approving the Amendments.

6. Based on substantial evidence in the record, the proposed Amendments are within the scope of the previously certified General Plan EIR for the purposes of CEQA.

7. Based on the analysis incorporated into the Addendum, none of the conditions described in Public Resources Code §15162 or Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration have occurred.

8. The Addendum shall be included and attached to the General Plan EIR.

9. This Resolutions shall be effective immediately upon adoption by the City Council.

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Suzanne Guzzetta, Interim City Clerk Rich Tran, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Michael Mutalipassi, City Attorney
1737
Item # 16.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)
Item Title: Conduct a Public Hearing and Introduce an Ordinance Amending Sections of Chapter 10, Title XI of the Milpitas Municipal Code Relating to Non-Residential Building Heights (Staff Contact: Ned Thomas, Planning Director, 408-586-3273) Category: Public Hearings-Community Development
Meeting Date: 8/9/2022
Recommendation: (1) Conduct a public hearing and move to close the hearing following comments; (2) City Attorney shall read aloud title of the Ordinance; (3) Move to waive the first reading beyond the title and introduce an Ordinance amending sections of Chapter 10 of Title XI of the Milpitas Municipal Code relating to Non-Residential Building Heights and determine that the Municipal Code amendment is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a General Plan) and 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption).

BACKGROUND:

The proposed ordinance provides greater clarity and guidance regarding standards for maximum height for non-residential buildings in three of the city’s commercial zones: General Commercial (C2), Highway Services (HS) and Town Center (TC). The Zoning Ordinance does not currently state the maximum allowable height for buildings in these zones – the Commercial Zone Development Standards table (Table XI-10-5.03-1) shows the maximum height for primary buildings in these zones as “None.” In practice, the height of proposed new buildings or modifications to existing buildings in these zones is reviewed and determined through the Site Development Permit process; however, the lack of specific standards for building height creates uncertainty not only for project applicants, but also for property owners and residents in the vicinity of proposed development sites. It could also put the Planning Commission in a difficult and complicated position if an applicant were to propose a very tall building that was significantly out of scale with its surroundings and not consistent with the context of the surrounding area, because the Zoning Ordinance does not currently provide clear guidance as to how an appropriate building height should be determined or what factors should be considered as part of this decision.

To rectify these circumstances, Planning staff proposes to add a specific maximum height (by right) of 35 feet or three stories for primary buildings in the General Commercial, Highway Services, and Town Center zones as standards in the Commercial Zone Development Standards table. For properties in these zones that are located within 100 feet of the boundary of a Single Family Residential (R1) or One and Two-Family Residential (R2) zone, the building height would be limited to 30 feet or two stories, consistent with the maximum height in those residential zones.

In addition, staff proposes to allow additional building height through discretionary review in the Industrial Park (MP), General Commercial (C2), and Town Center (TC) – up to 75 feet or six stories – with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (note: this provision would not apply to properties located within 100 feet of the boundary of a low-density residential zone (R1 or R2)). The Zoning Ordinance currently allows additional height beyond three stories or 35 feet, with no maximum height specified, in the MP and TC districts with approval of a CUP. The proposed ordinance would add C2 to the zones where additional height may be conditionally permitted and set the 75-foot/six-story maximum). Specific new findings that would apply to a CUP requesting building height in excess of the by-right standard are also included in the proposed amendments.

The Planning Commission considered the proposed ordinance for Zoning Code Amendments at its meeting on June 8, 2022. Following public comment, the Planning Commission requested that staff make minor changes 1738 Item # 17.
to the Zoning Code Amendments to further limit non-residential building heights within 100 feet of the boundary of a low-density residential zone (R1 or R2) to two stories or 30 feet, and then unanimously adopted Resolution 22-006 (Attachment B) recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance (with the suggested changes).

On June 14, 2022, the City Council held a discussion about the draft zoning amendments relating to nonresidential building heights. Members of the Council supported the Planning Commission’s recommendations and directed staff to revise the draft zoning amendments accordingly, and to bring forth the proposed Ordinance to the City Council for formal action and adoption.

Changes to Draft Ordinance Based on Council Direction
During the discussion on the draft ordinance at the June 14, 2022, City Council meeting, members of the Council requested that Planning staff incorporate changes to the proposed zoning amendments to add a maximum primary building height of 30 feet or two stories for properties in the C2, HS, and TC zones that are located within 100 feet of the boundary of a R1 or R2 zone. Council further directed staff to include a provision in the draft ordinance stating that properties in the C2 and TC zones that are within 100 feet of the boundary of an R1 or R2 zone are not eligible to request a discretionary increase in building height through a CUP. These changes are reflected in the current version of the draft ordinance.

Overview of Draft Ordinance (Reviewed and Accepted on June 14, 2022) The proposed ordinance includes amendments to the following sections of the Zoning Code (Title XI, Chapter 10 of the Milpitas Municipal Code):

Commercial Zone General Development Standards (XI-10-5.03): The Commercial Zone Development Standards table (Table XI-10-5.03-1) would be amended to add a maximum height of 35 feet or three stories for primary buildings in the General Commercial (C2), Highway Services (HS), and Town Center (TC) zones (except for properties within 100 feet of an R1 or R2 residential zone, where the maximum building height would be 30 feet or two stories). The maximum primary building height in the Neighborhood Commercial (C1) zone is also proposed to be changed from 35 feet or 2.5 stories to 35 feet or three stories, for consistency with the standards for other commercial zones.

Footnote number 1 to the development standards table would apply to both the C2 and TC zones, and the existing footnote text would be amended to reference the provisions in the Commercial Zone Special Development Standards and Conditional Use Permit sections of the Zoning Code that allow for additional primary building height subject to a CUP.

Commercial Zone Special Development Standards (XI-10-5.04): A new Subsection (D) would be added and would include language outlining guidance on criteria the Planning Commission should consider when reviewing a request for additional building height pursuant to a CUP. The proposed criteria focus on site-specific conditions and design elements such as the width of the right-of-way of the principal street; the proximity of the subject site to low-or medium-density residential districts R1, R2, and R3; building setbacks as they relate to the proposed building height beyond 35 feet; and upper story building stepbacks. These criteria are intended to provide clear and objective direction about the factors that should inform a decision about a CUP application for additional building height.

Conditional Use Permits and Minor Conditional Use Permits (XI-10-57.04): As noted above, Table XI-10-57.04- 1 in the Conditional Use Permits section of the Zoning Code currently includes a provision allowing for consideration of additional building height beyond 35 feet or three stories in the MP and TC zoning districts. The proposed ordinance would make the provision also applicable in the C2 zone and would amend it to add a maximum building height standard of 75 feet or six stories with a CUP (except that the provision for a discretionary increase in building height with a CUP would not apply to properties within 100 feet of an R1 or R2 residential zone).

A note would also be added to the table referencing the criteria discussed above (in Subsection XI-10-5.04) that apply to requests for a CUP for excess building height and the specific findings for approval for this type of CUP, which appear below in Table XI-10-57.04-2 in this subsection. The findings would be amended to eliminate the 1739 Item # 17.
existing language related to “exceptional architecture and aesthetic merit,” which is highly subjective, and to add new, more subjective findings related to the proposed building’s compatibility with the surrounding area. The proposed new findings would consider factors such as the design, location, size, and bulk of the proposed building; the transition in scale between the proposed building and structures in adjacent residential districts; and shadow impacts of the proposed building on adjacent parcels, public sidewalks, and public open spaces.

Definitions (XI-10-2.03): As part of the proposed zoning amendments for non-residential building heights, a minor amendment is included to the definition of the term “Floor Area Ratio” (FAR). The language allowing for increased FAR with approval of a Use Permit would be deleted. The purpose of this proposed change is twofold: first, to eliminate potential conflicts and confusion that may arise if a project applicant were to file a request for additional height and additional FAR (which are related but different); and second, because such a provision for a discretionary increase to the maximum allowed FAR would be more appropriately located as part of development standards elsewhere in the Zoning Code, rather than as part of the definition of the term FAR.

Through the process of preparing these proposed zoning amendments, staff has discussed the issue of discretionary increases to maximum FAR, and whether and how the City’s Zoning Code should address them.

Typically when a jurisdiction allows for a discretionary increase in allowable FAR, it is used as an incentive, so the City receives something in return from the project (e.g. affordable housing, public open space, or other public amenities, etc.). Staff determined that for the sake of simplicity, for now the provision for increased FAR should be eliminated from the Zoning Code, and the issue should be revisited in more detail as part of the forthcoming comprehensive zoning update.

Policy Alternative:

Alternative: Do not adopt the ordinance amending regulations for non-residential building heights in Title XI, Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code. There would continue to be no stated maximum height for primary buildings in the C2, HS, and TC zones. When a development application is submitted, any building height could theoretically be proposed, and Planning staff would review and make a determination about appropriate building height as part of the Site Development Permit review process.

Pros: Continuation of status quo (no new regulations for the City or developers to follow; maximum flexibility in interpreting development standards for commercial building height).

Cons: Lack of clarity and predictability for Planning staff and developers; lack of clear criteria or findings on which the Planning Commission may base a decision about building height.

Reason not recommended: It is to the City’s advantage to have clear and specific standards and review procedures pertaining to building height in commercial areas. Because the Zoning Code does not currently provide clear guidance as to how to determine what building height would be appropriate for a specific context, there is a risk that an applicant could propose an excessively tall building that would be significantly out of scale with its surroundings, and that may create negative impacts on adjacent properties related to shadows and solar access, views, and/or general neighborhood character and compatibility. In such a case, Planning staff and the Planning Commission may not have a strong and defensible foundation on which to base a decision requiring the applicant to reduce the building height.

Fiscal Impact:

The proposed zoning ordinance amendments will establish a maximum height for buildings in three of the city’s commercial zones: General Commercial (C2), Highway Services (HS) and Town Center (TC). This change in development regulations will have no fiscal impact on the City.

California Environmental Quality Act:

The proposed text amendments to the Milpitas Municipal Code are exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183 (Projects Consistent with a General Plan) and Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption).

The proposed ordinance would result in the adoption of new development standards for building height as well 1740 Item # 17.
as review criteria and findings for approval for discretionary increases in building height. It would provide City staff and the Planning Commission with specific tools to use to ensure that the scale and design of new development is compatible with surrounding areas and does not create adverse effects on other properties.

These regulations would help to promote good development that fits well with its surroundings and relates well to other buildings in the area and public spaces in terms of size and design. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance in question would have a significant effect on the environment; accordingly, the ordinance is exempt from CEQA review.

Recommendations:
1) Conduct a public hearing and move to close the hearing following comments. 2) City Attorney shall read aloud title of the Ordinance. 3) Move to waive the first reading beyond the title and introduce an Ordinance amending sections of Chapter 10 of Title XI (Zoning) of the Milpitas Municipal Code relating to Non-Residential Building Heights and determine that the Municipal Code amendment is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183 (Projects Consistent with a General Plan) and 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption.

Attachments:

1. Draft Ordinance

2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-006
1741
Item # 17.

PLEASE NOTE:

This copy of Ordinance No. XX.XXX is a “redlined” version for your convenience. Text additions are designated by an underline and text deletions are designated with a strikethrough.
1742
Item # 17.
2 Ordinance No. XX.XXX

REGULAR
NUMBER: XX.XXX
TITLE: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MILPITAS AMENDING SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 10 OF TITLE XI OF THE MILPITAS MUNICIPAL CODE TO

MODIFY AND ADD REGULATIONS RELATING TO MAXIMUM HEIGHTS FOR

NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN CERTAIN COMMERCIAL ZONES, AND

MAKING FINDINGS OF CEQA EXEMPTION
HISTORY: This Ordinance was introduced (first reading) by the City Council at its meeting of ____________________, 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:
________________________________
Michael Mutalipassi, City Attorney
1743
Item # 17.
3 Ordinance No. XX.XXX
RECITALS AND FINDINGS:

WHEREAS, the City of Milpitas, California (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65800 et seq. authorizes the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities as a means of implementing the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, clear and specific zoning regulations, including development standards and findings for project approval, are important elements in a municipal government’s process of encouraging and approving high-quality development projects that are compatible with surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the City’s Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 10 of Title XI of the Milpitas Municipal Code, does not currently include standards for the maximum height of primary buildings in the General Commercial (C2), Highway Services (HS), or Town Center (TC) zoning districts; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to enact appropriate regulations applying to the maximum height of primary buildings in the C2, HS, and TC zones, and further to conditionally allow additional building height in the C2 and TC zones, when such buildings are appropriately located and well designed to avoid negative impacts on surrounding properties and public spaces; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Zoning Amendment (“Amendment”) to the City’s Municipal Code, including Section 2.03 (“Definitions”), Section 5.03 (“Commercial Zone General Development Standards”), Section 5.04 (“Commercial Zone Special Development Standards”), and Section 57.04 (“Conditional Use Permits and Minor Conditional Use Permits”), of Title XI, Chapter 10–Zoning; and WHEREAS, on June 8, 2022, the Planning Commission for the City of Milpitas held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed Amendment, take public testimony, and make a recommendation to the City Council on the project; and WHEREAS, on June 14, 2022, the City Council of the City of Milpitas held a study session to consider the proposed Amendment and to provide comments and direction to Planning Department staff; and WHEREAS, this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”), each as a separate and independent basis, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (projects consistent with the General Plan) and Section 15061(b)(3) (no possibility of significant environmental effect).

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. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
1744
Item # 17.
4 Ordinance No. XX.XXX
Based on its review of the entire record, including the staff report, public comments and testimony presented to the Planning Commission and City Council, and the facts outlined below, the City Council hereby finds and determines that this ordinance is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3), also known as the “common sense exemption”, which exempts from CEQA any project where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. A “significant effect on the environment” means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project.

This ordinance would enact new building height regulations for non-residential development in the General Commercial (C2), Highway Services (HS), and Town Center (TC) zoning districts. Since there are currently no maximum building heights specified in the development standards for these zones, the ordinance would create and apply new standards that are more specific and robust that those that currently govern new development. In addition, new regulations are proposed that would apply in circumstances where a project applicant proposes a greater building height than the 35 feet or three stories that is allowed by right in the C2 and TC zones. These draft standards would encourage good design and improve project compatibility with surrounding areas, thereby eliminating or mitigating potential negative effects. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this Ordinance would have a significant effect on the environment; accordingly, this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA review.

Moreover, the City Council hereby finds that the introduction and adoption of this Ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning). Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that projects that are consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan or Zoning for which an EIR has been certified “shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.” These proposed zoning amendments serve to implement policies and guidelines in the Community Design Element of the Milpitas General Plan because they would add development standards, design criteria, and findings for approval for non-residential buildings to ensure that any proposed building that is taller than the maximum height allowed by right is designed to fit in well with existing neighborhood context and to minimize impacts on surrounding properties. Therefore, the proposed Amendment is consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Accordingly, this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, each as a separate and independent basis.

SECTION 3. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The Community Design Element of the City’s General Plan includes policies and guidelines that require development projects to (1) incorporate context-sensitive design approaches, respecting and responding to the scale and character of adjacent land uses as well as surrounding neighborhoods; and to (2) reinforce desirable design elements of the surrounding area, such as scale and setback patterns. This zoning Amendment would set maximum by-right height for primary buildings in three commercial zoning districts, where no maximum height standards are currently stated. The proposed zoning changes provide specific and detailed guidance about how a request for additional conditionally permitted height should be evaluated and what factors should form the basis of a decision on such a request. Moreover, the Amendment includes well-crafted language for findings for approval of conditional requests for additional building height, which would serve to ensure that contextual factors (e.g. neighborhood scale and width of primary street right-of-way) and project-specific design factors (such as building setbacks and upper story building stepbacks) are considered as part of development projects involving taller buildings in commercial areas. In this way, the proposed Amendment would serve to implement several policies of the General Plan.
1745
Item # 17.
5 Ordinance No. XX.XXX
SECTION 4. AMENDMENT OF MILPITAS MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE XI, CHAPTER 10, SECTION 2
Title XI, Chapter 10, Section 2 ( Definitions ), Subsection XI-10-2.02 ( General Definitions ) of the Milpitas Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

XI-10-2.03 Definitions
"Floor Area Ratio (FAR)" is defined for nonresidential Zoning Districts as the maximum permitted ratio of gross floor area to site area and is calculated as follows:

FAR = Total of Gross Floor Area for All Structures on Site Site Area
Increases above the maximum permitted FAR for any district can be allowed with approval of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission. This can be considered when the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed development will (1) generate low peak-hour traffic; (2) will not create a dominating visual prominence. Examples of such uses include wholesaling, distribution and hospitals. In each case where an increase in the maximum permitted FAR has been allowed, all other development standards for the site must be met.

SECTION 5. AMENDMENT OF MILPITAS MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE XI, CHAPTER 10, SECTION 5
Title XI, Chapter 10, Section 5 ( Commercial Zones and Standards ), Subsection XI-10-5.03 ( Commercial Zone General Development Standards ) of the Milpitas Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

XI-10-5.03 Commercial Zone General Development Standards The following minimum requirements shall be observed, except where increased for conditional uses.

The minimum requirement shall be one of the following for the district classification as designated on the zoning map.

Table XI-10-5.03-1
Commercial Zone Development Standards
Standard CO C1 C2 HS TC
Lot Area,
minimum
None None 10,000 s.f. Fronting
major street
(4 or more
lanes): 1.5 ac.

Fronting all
other streets
(two lanes):
20,000 s.f.

None.

Lot Width,
minimum
None None 100 ft. Fronting
major street:
250 ft.

Fronting all
other streets:
125 ft.

None
1746
Item # 17.
6 Ordinance No. XX.XXX
Front Yard
Setback,
minimum
10 ft. 20 ft. 0 ft. Major street:
50 ft.

All other
streets: 0 ft.
20 ft.
35 ft. along E.

Calaveras
Blvd.

Side Yard
Setback
(Interior),
minimum
10 ft. 0 ft.
15 ft. when
abutting R
District
0 ft.
15 ft. when
abutting R
District
0 ft.
15 ft. when
abutting R
District
0 ft.
15 ft. when
abutting R
District
Street Side
Yard
Setback,
minimum
10 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. 20 ft.
35 ft. along E.

Calaveras
Blvd.

Rear Yard
Setback,
minimum
10 ft.

When abutting
residential, not
less than R
District
required
setback
0 ft.
15 ft. when
abutting R
District
0 ft.
15 ft. when
abutting R
District
0 ft.
15 ft. when
abutting R
District
0 ft.
15 ft. when
abutting R
District
Building
Height,
maximum
Primary
building
35 ft. or 3
stories
35 ft. or 2.53
stories
None 35 ft. or
3 stories1,2
None35 feet
or 3 stories2
None1 35 feet
or 3 stories1,2
Accessory
building
25 ft. or 2
stories
25 ft. or 2
stories
Parking Refer to
Section 53,
Off Street
Parking, of
this Chapter.

Lot
Coverage
None None None None None
Floor Area
Ratio

0.50 0.35 0.50 0.50 0.85
Landscaping None None None 25% of front
yard setback
All required
setback areas
and the ends
of each
parking
aisle23
1 Refer to Subsections XI-10-5.04(D) and XI-10-57.04(C)(1), Applicability, of this Chapter for additional requirements. 2 For properties that are located within 100 feet of the boundary of a Single Family Residential (R1) or One and Two-Family Residential (R2) zone, the maximum height of a primary building shall be limited to 30 feet or two stories. 23 The Planning Commission shall determine the size of the planters through site and architectural review. 1747
Item # 17.
7 Ordinance No. XX.XXX
Title XI, Chapter 10, Section 5 ( Commercial Zones and Standards ), Subsection XI-10-5.04 ( Commercial Zone Special Development Standards ) of the Milpitas Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

XI-10-5.04 Commercial Zone Special Development Standards A. All Zones.

1. Areas for Collecting and Loading Recyclable Materials. There shall be provided areas for collecting materials in accordance with Subsection 54.12, Areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials, of this Chapter.

2. All outdoor storage areas of such things as trash and materials shall be within a completely enclosed building or behind a visually obscure solid wall or tight board fence a minimum six (6) feet in height and shall not be located within any front or street side yard setback area.

3. Such uses, operations or products shall not be objectionable due to odor, dust, smoke, noise, vibration or other similar causes.

B. TC Zone.

1. Setbacks for Residential Projects. Except for the Calaveras Boulevard setback, all other setbacks shall be determined through a Site Development Permit.

C. Neighborhood Commercial (C1) Zone. Thrift stores shall comply with each of the following standards:

1. Signage prohibiting dumping of merchandise during non-business hours shall be installed in conspicuous locations to the satisfaction of the Planning Director indicating penalties and fines for such activity. Signage shall include daytime collection hours for donated goods.

2. A designated area inside the building shall be established for the receipt, sorting and processing of goods. Donated goods shall be accepted only inside the building and during regular business hours; no donated goods shall be left outside. Loading and unloading must take place in a designated area that shall be cleared, cleaned and maintained before closing of business each day.

3. The storefront windows shall be permanently maintained as displays of merchandise in a professional and attractive manner (i.e., unsightly clothing racks and displays shall not be placed adjacent to the windows).

4. Any goods or materials left outside of the store overnight shall be removed immediately upon the thrift store opening the next business day.

5. Outdoor storage or display of donated goods or merchandise shall not be permitted.

6. The subject property shall be maintained free of trash, debris, any all other goods at all times.

7. Thrift stores shall not be located closer than one thousand (1000) feet from another thrift store.

D. General Commercial (C2) and Town Center (TC) Zones.

1. In deciding whether to grant a request for additional building height through the Conditional Use Permit process pursuant to Section XI-10-57.04(C)(1), the Planning Commission shall consider site conditions, design elements, and other factors including but not limited to (a) width of rightof-way of principal street; (b) proximity of the site to low- or medium-density residential districts (R1, R2, and R3); (c) building setbacks in relation to proposed building height in excess of 35 feet; and (d) upper story stepbacks.
1748
Item # 17.
8 Ordinance No. XX.XXX
SECTION 6. AMENDMENT OF MILPITAS MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE XI, CHAPTER 10, SECTION 57
Title XI, Chapter 10, Section 57 ( Applications ), Subsection XI-57.04 ( Conditional Use Permits and Minor Conditional Use Permits ) of the Milpitas Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

XI-10-57.04 Conditional Use Permits and Minor Conditional Use Permits A. Purpose and Intent.

1. The purpose and intent of the Conditional Use Permit process is to provide a review of land uses which would not otherwise be permitted as a matter of right in a zoning district because of their nature, have an impact on the surrounding environment and for the determination of whether or not the proposed use is appropriate for its proposed location.

The Conditional Use Permit process is intended to encourage uses to be located in a manner that is:
a. Consistent with the City's zones;
b. Sensitive to community and neighborhood identity; and c. Minimizes impacts to adjacent uses, including traffic flow; circulation; safety for vehicular and pedestrian traffic; imposition of noises, odors and health and safety hazards upon nearby residential area; provision of adequate light, air and reasonable access; securing safety from fire and other dangers; prevent overcrowding of land; facilitating adequate provision for transportation and in general, to promote the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and welfare; prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight; the objectives of zoning and planning in the community and the effect upon the City's general welfare of this proposed use in relation to surrounding uses and the community. Review of a use may require the consideration of site plan issues related to the use, as well.

2. It is the purpose of the Minor Conditional Use Permit process to provide for the streamlined review of uses that may have an impact on the surrounding environment and require discretionary review, but due to their nature, scale or location, do not require discretionary consideration by the full Planning Commission. Either the Zoning Administrator or Planning staff has the authority to review Minor Conditional Use Permits. The Minor Conditional Use Permit process has as its purpose the same goals for uses described for the Conditional Use Permit process above.

B. Authority.

1. Conditional Use Permits. The Planning Commission has the authority to approve Conditional Use Permits, subject to concurrent review and appeal provisions of Section XI-10-64, Development Review Process, of this Chapter.

2. Minor Conditional Use Permits. Minor Conditional Use Permits may be approved either by the Zoning Administrator or administratively by Planning staff. a. Review by the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator has the authority to approve Minor Conditional Use Permits for those uses listed in the use tables of the Zoning Ordinance.

Such approvals shall be subject to the concurrent review and appeal provisions of Section XI10-64, Development Review Process, of this Chapter. b. Review by Planning staff. Planning staff has the authority to administratively approve Minor Conditional Use Permits for those uses listed in the use tables of the Zoning Ordinance. Such approvals shall be subject to concurrent review and appeal provisions of Section XI-10-64, Development Review Process, of this Chapter. Planning staff-level issued Minor Conditional Use Permits shall not require a public hearing or notice. 1749
Item # 17.
9 Ordinance No. XX.XXX
C. Applicability.

1. Conditional Use Permits. Conditional Use Permits are required as indicated by the use tables in Residential, Mixed Use, Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, Park and Open Space, and other land use districts of this Chapter. Conditional Use Permits are also required for the following requests:

Table XI-10-57.04-1
Use/Modifications As provided for in: Notes
Height
Height. For buildings that exceed three
stories or 35 feet, up to a maximum of
six stories or 75 feet, within the MP,
C2, and TC districts.

Table XI-10-7.03-1, Industrial Zone
Development Standards and Table XI10-5.03-1 Commercial Zone Development Standards
See Table XI-10-

57.04-2 and Section
XI-10-5.04(D)(1)
See footnote 1
Height. For buildings that exceed six
stories or 85 feet within the -OO
overlay district up to a maximum of
eight stories or 115 feet in height.

Section XI-10-12.02, Gateway Office
(-OO) Overlay District
Height. Permit in R2 and R3 districts,
schools, hospitals, sanitariums,
institutions, churches and other similar
uses allowed under the use regulations
of this Chapter, to be erected to a
height not exceeding six stories or 75
feet, provided, that the front and side
yard requirements for such buildings in
the "R3" District are complied with.

Non-conforming
Nonconforming buildings and
structures
Section XI-10-56.02(C), Additions to,
enlargements and moving of
nonconforming buildings and
structures
See footnote 12
Nonconforming uses, change of use Section XI-10-56.03, Nonconforming use of buildings and structures
Parking
Parking location Section XI-10-53.13(A), Location of
Parking
Tandem parking Section XI-10-53.07(D), Tandem
Parking Spaces and Section XI-10-

53.13(B), Parking Space Size
Parking Structures Section XI-10-53(H)(4), Parking
Structures
Temporary Uses and Structures
Temporary buildings and structures Section XI-10-13.11(H), Temporary Uses and Structures.

Other
Certain industrial uses within
commercial districts
Table XI-10-5.02-1, Commercial Zone
Uses.
1750
Item # 17.
10 Ordinance No. XX.XXX
Exceptions to performance standards See the zoning districts use standards in XI-10-05, Residential Zones, XI-10-
06, Mixed Use Zones, and XI-10-07,
Industrial Zones.

Lot width reduction
Wireless telecommunications facilities Section XI-10-13.09, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, of this
Chapter, for specific standards and
exempted facilities.
1 Properties that are located within 100 feet of the boundary of a Single Family Residential (R1) or One and Two-Family Residential (R2) zone shall not be eligible for a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow height exceeding the maximum standard for primary buildings as shown in Table XI-10-5.03-1 – Commercial Zone Development Standards. 12 In addition, the cumulative floor area included in all such additions or enlargements since the adoption of Ord. No. 38.760 (September 17, 2002) shall not exceed thirty (30%) percent of the floor area contained in said building or structure. Floor area, for the purposes of this Subsection, shall include all habitable space associated with a residential use and shall mean gross floor area associated with any non-residential use. These criteria are established so as not to prolong the life of the original building or structure.
a. Other Uses. The Planning Commission may, after a public hearing, permit the following uses in districts from which they are prohibited by this Chapter where such uses are deemed essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare and are in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the General Plan.

However, any of the following uses which are marked with an asterisk shall not be allowed in the designated Hillside Combining District.
i. Helicopter pads for medical evacuation purposes.
ii. Development of natural resources (excluding the drilling for or producing of oil, gas or other hydrocarbon substances) together with the necessary buildings, apparatus, or appurtenances incident thereto.
iii. Library or museum, public.
iv. Park, playground, or recreational or community center. v. Public utility and public service use or structure.
vi. Radio or television transmitter.
vii. Reverse vending machines or mobile recycling units except where the lot is being used for residential purposes.

2. Minor Conditional Use Permits. Minor Conditional Use Permits are required as indicated by the use tables in Residential, Mixed Use, Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, Park and Open Space, and other land use districts of this Chapter.

D. Submittal Requirements. Refer to the most recent submittal requirements required by the Planning Division.

E. Review Procedures.

1. Conditional Use Permits.
a. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on said application upon such notice as is required in Section XI-10-64, Development Review Process, of this Chapter. b. After the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission may approve the application, approve it subject to such conditions as the Planning Commission may impose, or disapprove the application.
1751
Item # 17.
11 Ordinance No. XX.XXX
i. The Planning Commission may impose such conditions as it deems necessary to protect the best interests of the surrounding property, of the neighborhood, and as it deems in conformity with the requirements of the General Plan.

2. Minor Conditional Use Permits.
a. Review by Planning Commission Subcommittee. The Planning Commission Subcommittee shall consider a Minor Conditional Use Permit application when authorized to do so under the use tables of the Zoning Ordinance and hold a public hearing on application upon such notice as is required in Section XI-10-64, Development Review Process, of this Chapter. i. After the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission Subcommittee may approve the application, approve it subject to such conditions as the Planning Commission Subcommittee may impose, or disapprove the application. a) The Planning Commission Subcommittee may impose such conditions as it deems necessary to protect the best interests of the surrounding property, of the neighborhood, and as it deems in conformity with the requirements of the General Plan.
b) If the Planning Commission Subcommittee members disagree on a decision for a project, then the project will be placed on the agenda for Planning Commission review, with no additional fees required.
b. Review by Planning staff. The Planning Division shall administratively consider a Minor Conditional Use Permit when authorized to do so under the use tables of the Zoning Ordinance. Planning staff shall investigate as necessary to determine whether or not the proposed project conforms or may be conditioned to conform fully to the intent of this Chapter. No public hearing or notice shall be required for an administrative level Minor Conditional Use Permit.

If the project does not comply, a notice of correction shall be prepared and returned to the applicant.

If the applicant resubmits for review and the project still does not comply with the required regulations or is not in accordance with the approved conditions of approval, the Planning Division shall deny the application.

F. Required Findings for Conditional Use Permits and Minor Conditional Use Permits.

1. General Findings. Approval may be granted by the appropriate decision-making body, of a Conditional Use Permit or Minor Conditional Use Permit application in accordance with this Chapter if all of the following findings are made, based on the evidence in the public record:
a. The proposed use, at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity nor to the public health, safety, and general welfare; b. The proposed use is consistent with the Milpitas General Plan; and c. The proposed use is consistent with the Milpitas Zoning Ordinance.

In the case of a project located within a Specific Plan, the following additional finding shall be made:
d. The proposed use is consistent with the Specific Plan.

2. Specific Findings. In addition to the general findings required in Subsection (F)(1), above, specific findings shall be made prior to the approval of an application for a Conditional Use Permit for the following requests:

Table XI-10-57.04-2
Use/Modification Specific Findings
1752
Item # 17.
12 Ordinance No. XX.XXX
Height
Height. For buildings that exceed three (3)
stories or thirty-five (35) feet within the MP, C2,
and TC districts.

The project exhibits exceptional architecture and
aesthetic merit to warrant the excess height.

1. The design, location, size, and bulk of the
proposed building is compatible with the
existing and allowed future land uses in the
vicinity.

2. The building’s design provides an appropriate
transition in scale to structures in adjacent
residential districts.

3. The building’s design minimizes shadows on
public sidewalks, public open spaces, and
solar facilities on adjacent parcels through
stepbacks at upper levels or other design
elements.

Height. For buildings that exceed six (6) stories
or eight-five (85) feet within the -OO overlay
district up to a maximum of eight (8) stories or
one hundred fifteen (115) feet in height.

The project exhibits exceptional architecture and
aesthetic merit to warrant the excess height.

Other
Certain Industrial Uses within Commercial
Districts
The site is within close proximity to industrial
uses or districts and is suitable for the type and
intensity of use that is proposed.

G. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit or Minor Conditional Use Permit Pending Zoning Amendment. Upon the close of a public hearing before the Planning Commission on the question of a Zoning Amendment to change property from one zone to another, and upon favorable report thereon by the Commission, the Commission may consider such matters and regulations as are set forth in Subsection XI-10-57.04, Conditional Use Permits and Minor Conditional Use Permits, of this Chapter.

The Commission may conditionally impose such requirements and regulations upon the subject property and use as the Commission is authorized to impose by Subsection XI-10-57.04, Conditional Use Permits and Minor Conditional Use Permits, of this Chapter, and may conditionally approve Conditional Use Permits; said requirements and regulations shall be imposed and said approval shall be granted upon the express condition that said property shall be rezoned in accordance with the specific recommendation of the Planning Commission relating to zoning and shall not take effect unless and until said property is rezoned in accordance with specific recommendation of the Planning Commission and until the Ordinance amending this Chapter in accordance with the specific recommendation of the Planning Commission shall take effect.

H. Appeals. An appeal of the action on a Conditional Use Permit or Minor Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed in accordance with Section XI-10-64, Development Review Process, of this Chapter.

I. Modifications Requested by the Applicant. Projects shall be developed in conformity with project approvals. If the applicant wishes to modify the project, as approved, the applicant shall submit revised plans and any other applicable information to the City for review by the Planning Division.

The Planning Division staff shall make one of the following determinations regarding the request:

1. Insignificant Modifications. If the Planning Division determines that the modifications are minor, the modifications may be approved administratively.
1753
Item # 17.
13 Ordinance No. XX.XXX

2. Significant Modifications With or Without Public Impact or Concern. If the Planning Division determines that the modifications are significant enough to warrant discretionary review and have the potential for public impact or concern, then the modifications shall be referred to the final decision-making authority for the original project in the case of non-staff level issued permits, or to the Planning Commission in the case of staff-level issued Minor Conditional Use Permits. If the original application for a project required a public hearing, then the final decision-making authority's review of modifications shall require a public hearing, in accordance with Section XI10-64, Development Review Process, of this Chapter.

J. Modifications, Suspensions and/or Revocations Initiated by the City. Refer to Section XI-10-63.06, Revocation, Suspension, Modification, of this Chapter.

K. Approval Runs with the Land. The approval of a Conditional Use Permit or Minor Conditional Use Permit shall run with the land, and shall continue to be valid upon a change of ownership of the site to which it applies, unless the decision-making authority places limits on the effective time of the approval.

SECTION 7. SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this Ordinance are separable, and the invalidity of any phrase, clause, provision, or part has no effect on the validity of the remainder.

SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING
In accordance with Section 36937 of the Government Code of the State of California, this Ordinance takes effect 30 days from the date of its passage. The City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to cause this Ordinance or a summary thereof to be published in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California.
1754
Item # 17.

RESOLUTION NO. 22-006

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MILPITAS

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ZONING TEXT
AMENDMENT ZA22-0002 AMENDING SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 10 - ZONING OF

THE MILPITAS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO MAXIMUM HEIGHTS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN CERTAIN COMMERCIAL ZONES; AND

DETERMINING THE ORDINANCE TO BE EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15061(B)(3) AND 15183 WHEREAS, the City of Milpitas, California (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65800 et seq. authorizes the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations by cities as a means of implementing the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, clear and specific zoning regulations, including development standards and findings for project approval, are important elements in a municipal government’s process of encouraging and approving high-quality development projects that are compatible with surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 10 of Title XI of the Milpitas Municipal Code, does not currently include standards for the maximum height of primary buildings in the C2 General Commercial, HS Highway Services, or TC Town Center Zoning Districts; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to enact appropriate regulations applying to the maximum height of primary buildings in the C2, HS, and TC zones, and further to conditionally allow additional building height in the C2 and TC zones, when such buildings are appropriately located and well designed to avoid negative impacts on surrounding properties and public spaces; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Zoning Amendment (“Amendment”) to the City’s Municipal Code, including Section 2.03 (“Definitions”), Section 5.03 (“Commercial Zone General Development Standards”), Section 5.04 (“Commercial Zone Special Development Standards”), and Section 57.04 (“Conditional Use Permits and Minor Conditional Use Permits”), of Title XI, Chapter 10–Zoning; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes and accepts as its own the findings set forth in this resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the project is exempt from further CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption); and
DocuSign Envelope ID: F0D0646D-FCB5-4BD3-AC5A-D573016297CB 1755
Item # 17.

Resolution No. 22-006 Page 2
WHEREAS, as a separate and independent basis, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the project is exempt from further CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15183 (projects consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan or Zoning); and WHEREAS, on June 8, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, at which all those in attendance were given the opportunity to speak on the Zoning Text Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all the written and oral testimony presented at the public hearing in making its decision; and NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas hereby finds, determines, and resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals
The Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission. Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. CEQA Finding
The Planning Commission finds, under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3), that this Ordinance is exempt from further environmental review because it is the adoption of an ordinance amending zoning regulations but would not permit any particular project. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance in question may have a significant effect on the environment; accordingly, the Ordinance is not subject to review under CEQA. As a separate and independent basis, the Project is also exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning).

SECTION 3. Findings for Zoning Amendment (Milpitas Municipal Code, Subsection XI-10-57.02(G)(3))
The Planning Commission makes the following findings based on the evidence in the public record in support of Zoning Text Amendment No. ZA22-0002:

1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

The proposed zoning amendments are consistent with the Milpitas General Plan.

Specifically, they would serve to implement several policies in the Community Design Element that relate to good design, context-sensitive development, and compatibility of new development with surrounding areas. The amendments set maximum by-right height for primary buildings in three commercial zoning districts, where no maximum height standards are currently stated. They provide specific and detailed guidance about how a DocuSign Envelope ID: F0D0646D-FCB5-4BD3-AC5A-D573016297CB 1756
Item # 17.

Resolution No. 22-006 Page 3
request for additional conditionally permitted height should be evaluated and what factors should form the basis of a decision on such a request. Moreover, the amendments include well-crafted language for findings for approval of conditional requests for additional building height, which would serve to ensure that contextual factors (e.g. neighborhood scale and width of primary street right-of-way) and project-specific design factors (such as building setbacks and upper story building step-backs) are considered as part of development projects involving taller buildings in commercial areas, as demonstrated in Table 1.

Table 1: General Plan Consistency
Policy Conformance
Community Design Element
Policy CD 1-1(B):

Require development projects
to…incorporate a context-sensitive
design approach that considers the
scale and existing and desired character
of adjacent uses and the surrounding
neighborhood or district.

The proposed zoning amendments would
allow additional building height in some
commercial zones (C2 and TC) subject to
a CUP – up to 35 feet or three stories
more than what is currently permitted by
right. It is very important to ensure that
proposed development projects
involving taller buildings are designed to
respect and fit well with the existing area
context and to maximize compatibility
with surrounding buildings, streets, and
open spaces.

These zoning amendments are drafted to
include specific and detailed guidance
about how a request for additional
building height should be considered.

The criteria and findings for review and
approval focus on context sensitivity
(e.g. transitions to nearby lower-density
residential areas, size, and scale of
proposed buildings in relation to
surrounding streets and buildings) and
design treatments that minimize or avoid
shadows or other negative impacts on
surrounding properties.

DocuSign Envelope ID: F0D0646D-FCB5-4BD3-AC5A-D573016297CB 1757
Item # 17.

Resolution No. 22-006 Page 4
Policy Conformance
Community Design Element
Policy CD 2-2:

Continue to develop and implement
design standards and guidelines for
residential, non-residential, and
infrastructure development…to provide
design and site planning
approaches….and site planning criteria
that will add design excellence, visual
quality and interest to the community.

The proposed amendments would add
design standards for non-residential
development to the Zoning Code,
allowing for additional discretionary
building height (where appropriate).

These draft standards emphasize good
design for taller buildings and would
encourage buildings that are welldesigned in relationship to their surroundings, which would enhance the
visual quality of the built environment.

Community Design Element
Policy CD 3-3:

Ensure that new development and
redevelopment reinforces desirable
elements of its neighborhood, district, or
center, including architectural style,
scale, and setback patterns.

The proposed amendments, including
development standards, design criteria
for taller buildings, and findings for
approval for discretionary additional
building height, are intended to promote
compatible building scale and encourage
new development that fits well with the
surrounding neighborhood or district.

Community Design Element
Policy CD 5-1:

Design new development to reflect the
character of the predominant existing
character of the same type in the
surrounding area through the regulation
of lot size, street frontage, height,
building scale, siting/setbacks, and
building orientation.

While the proposed amendments would
conditionally allow for greater building
heights than are currently allowed by
right in certain commercial zoning
districts, the underlying goal and purpose
of the draft changes is to address building
height and scale as they relate to and
affect the character of the surrounding
area. By tying approval of a request for
discretionary additional building height
to consideration of site-specific
conditions such as street frontage,
setbacks, and the scale and height of
adjacent structures, the proposed
amendments seek to maintain and protect
the character of existing non-residential
areas as well as that of adjacent
residential areas.

DocuSign Envelope ID: F0D0646D-FCB5-4BD3-AC5A-D573016297CB 1758
Item # 17.

Resolution No. 22-006 Page 5

2. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare.

The proposed zoning amendments are intended to promote the public interest by ensuring that proposed taller commercial buildings have minimal or no negative impacts on adjacent neighborhoods and commercial districts in terms of scale, bulk, shadows, etc.

Requiring proposed new buildings with height exceeding the maximum allowed by right (35 feet or three stories) to respond well to the context of surrounding development, and to incorporate design solutions that help them fit in well with adjacent areas, will not result in adverse effects on public health, safety, or welfare.

SECTION 4: Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas hereby adopts Resolution No. 22-006 recommending that the City Council adopt Zoning Text Amendment ZA22-0002 based on the above Findings. The Planning Commission also recommended that the City Council consider adding a provision to the proposed text amendments to limit the height of buildings located within 100 feet of a lower-density residential neighborhood to two stories or 30 feet, which is consistent with the maximum permitted height of buildings in the City’s lower-density residential zoning districts (R1 and R2). In addition, the Planning Commission recommended that discretionary approval of additional building height in the C2, HS and TC zones (i.e., with approval of a CUP) should not apply within 100 feet of any boundary with a R1 or R2 residential zone.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas on June 8, 2022.

Bill Chuan, Planning Commission Chair
DocuSign Envelope ID: F0D0646D-FCB5-4BD3-AC5A-D573016297CB Jun-10-2022
1759
Item # 17.

Resolution No. 22-006 Page 6
TO WIT:

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the following resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas on June 8, 2022, and carried by the following roll call vote:

COMMISSIONER AYES NOES ABSENT ABSTAIN
Mercedes Albana
Dipak Awasthi
Bill Chuan
Larry Ciardella
Alexander Galang
Sonia Medina-Ashby
Zeya Moshin
DocuSign Envelope ID: F0D0646D-FCB5-4BD3-AC5A-D573016297CB 1760
Item # 17.
1 CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)
Item Title: Conduct a Public Hearing and Introduce an Ordinance Amending Sections of Chapter 10, Title XI (Zoning) and sections of Chapter 213, Title V (Noise Abatement) of the Milpitas Municipal Code Relating to Outdoor Music in Bars and Restaurants and Review and Permitting Requirements for Special Events (Staff Contact: Ned Thomas, Planning Director, 408-586-3273) Category: Public Hearings-Community Development
Meeting Date: 8/9/2022
Recommendations: (1) Conduct a public hearing and move to close the hearing following comments.
(2) City Attorney shall read aloud title of the Ordinance. (3) Move to waive the first reading beyond the title and introduce an Ordinance amending sections of Chapter 10 of Title XI (Zoning) and Chapter 213 of Title V (Noise Abatement) of the Milpitas Municipal Code relating to Outdoor Music in Bars and Restaurants and Review and Permitting Requirements for Special Events and determine that the Municipal Code amendment is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183 (Projects Consistent with a General Plan) and 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption).

Background:

The purpose of the proposed ordinance is to allow outdoor music as an accessory use to restaurants and bars in most commercial and mixed-use zones throughout the city. In addition, the ordinance includes various minor revisions to the Special Events and Activities section of the Zoning Ordinance, related to amplified music and other amplified sound as well as types of special events and review/permitting requirements for each.

City Councilmembers directed staff to streamline and simplify rules and procedures for hosting live and recorded music at restaurants and bars. Allowing these businesses to offer music for the entertainment of customers on patios, decks, or other outdoor spaces without the need for a permit from the Planning Department will not only help to support restaurants and bars, but also it will support local musicians in Milpitas. In addition, it will promote an atmosphere of cultural vitality in the city.

This series of amendments to the Milpitas Municipal Code (MMC) includes the addition of a new definition for “outdoor music” in the Zoning Ordinance (MMC Title XI, Chapter 10) and changes to the use tables for commercial and mixed-use zones to allow music (both indoor and outdoor) as an accessory use to restaurants and bars that are principal permitted or approved conditional uses, subject to certain standards.

Those standards, which include allowed hours for outdoor music as well as noise level limits and standards to restrict noise impacts for properties in residential zones are articulated through amendments to the Noise Abatement Ordinance (MMC Title V, Chapter 213).

The zoning amendments related to Special Events and Activities (MMC Title XI, Chapter 10, Section 15) 1761
Item # 18.
2 focus mainly on creating a new category of “Minor Events,” with the category currently referred to in the code as “Minor” proposed to be renamed as “Regular Events.” The new category of Minor Events is intended to apply to small, simple events that do not warrant the level of review and permit fee cost that are currently required. The new “Minor Events” category corresponds to a new, lower Special Event Permit fee category that was added as part of the City’s FY 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule. Other refinements are also proposed to the thresholds for the three categories of special events defined in the Zoning Ordinance (Minor, Regular, and Major), and a new definition is included for the term “amplified sound,” related to the zoning amendments for outdoor music.

Overview of Draft Ordinance:

The proposed ordinance includes amendments to the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance (Title XI, Chapter 10 of the Milpitas Municipal Code) and the Noise Abatement Ordinance (Title V, Chapter 213):

Definitions (XI-10-2.02)
The term “Outdoor Music” would be added to the General Definitions section of the Zoning Ordinance. The definition would encompass both acoustic and amplified music, including individual musicians, bands, and disc jockeys (DJs) performing in outdoor spaces such as patios or decks. It would also refer to recorded background music played outdoors by businesses such as restaurants, bars, and retail stores.

Commercial Zone Use Regulations (XI-10-5.02) and Mixed Use Zone Use Regulations (XI-10-6.02) At present, live entertainment and dancing at restaurants are not permitted in the Administrative and Professional Office (CO) Zone or the Neighborhood Commercial (C1) Zone and are conditionally permitted in the General Commercial (C2), Highway Services (HS), Town Center (TC), and all Mixed Use (MXD, MXD2, and MXD3) Zones. The current requirement for a restaurant to obtain a conditional use permit (CUP) in order to host live music is expensive and time-consuming. The Zoning Ordinance does not specifically address live entertainment at bars and nightclubs; however, these uses require a CUP in most zones (other than those where they are prohibited) and thus any proposed live entertainment would be reviewed as part of the CUP review process.

The City recognizes the value of facilitating the process for restaurants to offer live music in terms of quality of life and access to entertainment for the Milpitas community. To this end, Planning staff proposes to amend the zoning regulations for music as an accessory use to restaurants and bars so that both indoor and outdoor music, whether live or recorded, would be permitted without further City review. For restaurants that are a permitted use in a particular zoning district, indoor and outdoor music would also be permitted by right; for restaurants and bars that have an approved CUP as required per zoning regulations, indoor and outdoor music would be permitted without the need to amend their CUP. These changes would apply in the C1, C2, TC, MXD, MXD2, and MXD3 Zones (no changes are proposed to current requirements for indoor/outdoor music in the CO Zone (not permitted) or the HS Zone (conditionally permitted).

Per the proposed regulations, other forms of live entertainment at restaurants (e.g. stand-up comedy, theatrical shows, karaoke) as well as social dancing would continue to follow existing regulations and permit requirements. Other live entertainment and dancing at bars and nightclubs would continue to be subject to review through the CUP process that is required for all such uses citywide.

Commercial Zone Special Development Standards (XI-10-5.04) and Mixed Use Zone Special Development Standards (XI-10-5.04)
The Special Development Standards sections of the Zoning Ordinance for commercial and mixed-use zones would be amended to add standards that apply specifically to outdoor music at restaurants and bars.

Outdoor music would be permitted between 9:00 am and 11:00 pm, and a noise level limit of 70 to 90 1762
Item # 18.
3 decibels1(dB) would be established. Larger outdoor music events that are open to the general public (as opposed to music events offered for customers of a single establishment) would continue to require a Special Event Permit.

In addition, the standards would state that recorded background music may be played outdoors on public sidewalks and in other public areas (such as plazas). The intent of this change is to allow businesses to play recorded music for customers’ enjoyment on sidewalks and other public areas, as long as it complies with other standards in the Zoning and Noise Abatement Ordinances.

Special Events and Activities (XI-10-15)
The current zoning regulations for Special Events define two types of events, Minor and Major, with different review procedures and permit fees for each. Existing criteria and thresholds that correspond to Minor Events include: four consecutive days or less, with or without amplified sound, and 1,000 people or less in attendance. Block parties on residential streets are also specified as Minor Events. Major Events are currently defined as those lasting more than four consecutive days, with or without amplified sound and street closures, or events having more than 1,000 attendees.

In response to recent incidents in which small community events in parks and other public places were required under the City’s Special Event regulations to apply for a Minor Event permit, which had a fee of $945 per the Master Fee Schedule (Fiscal Year 2021-22), staff proposes creating a new category for smaller special events. Under the proposed zoning amendments, the new category would be called “Minor Events,” and the existing Minor Events category would be renamed as “Regular Events.” This new classification for Minor Events would apply to single-day events with fewer than 250 participants and no street closures or amplified sound. The permit fee for Minor Events per the updated Master Fee Schedule for FY 2022-23 is $253. For context, the permit fee for Regular Events will be $986, and the permit fee for Major Events will be $6,157.

The category proposed to be called “Regular Events” would include those meeting one or more of the following thresholds: Between one and four days in duration, with 250 to 1,000 participants, and with or without amplified sound. Residential block parties would be considered Regular Events. Major events would be defined by any of the following thresholds: Between four and seven days, with more than 1,000 participants, with or without amplified sound, and requiring street closures (other than residential block parties).

In addition, in connection with the draft zoning regulations for outdoor music that would require a Special Event permit for larger, public music events, the proposed amendments to the Special Events section include a revised, more specific definition for “amplified sound.” The new language would define this term as “the use of any loudspeaker, public address system, amplifier, or any other device which electronically or mechanically increases the volume of the human voice, music, or any other sound.” Noise Abatement (V-213):

The Noise Abatement chapter of the Milpitas Municipal Code currently includes a section regarding “disturbing noise” in residential zones. A “disturbing noise” is defined as “any sound or vibration caused by sound which occurs with such intensity, frequency, or in such manner as to disturb the peace and quiet of a person of normal sensitivity residing in that area.” MMC Section V-213-2.03 provides specific examples of different types of disturbing noises. The City’s current regulations set forth a noise level limit in all residential zones of 65 decibels (dB) measured from the property line of the noise source. The noise limit serves to maintain a quiet atmosphere in the city’s residential areas and restrict louder noise sources that may disturb people while in their homes.

1 For reference, the noise level for a typical classical music concert is 70-90 dB, and rock concerts in outdoor venues typically range between 90-100 dB. Sources: www.earpros.com/blog/how-loud-are-concerts and www.decibelpro.app/blog/how-loud-is-a-rock-concert.
1763
Item # 18.
4 The proposed amendments would update the Noise Abatement Ordinance to include new rules and standards for outdoor music in restaurants and bars in commercial and mixed-use zones, as allowed per the zoning changes discussed above. Outdoor music played or performed in compliance with the new standards in the Noise Abatement Ordinance would be specifically excluded from the definition of “disturbing noise.”
A new subsection (V-213-3(b)) would be added, stating the same operational standards that are included in the Special Development Standards sections for commercial and mixed use zones in the Zoning Ordinance: permitted hours for outdoor music at restaurants and bars are 9:00 am to 11:00 pm, and the noise level limit is 70-90 dB (measured from any property line on the parcel where music takes place). For consistency with other standards in the Noise Abatement Ordinance regarding noise levels in residential zones, the proposed new standards would require outdoor music at a restaurant or bar within 100 feet of a parcel in a lower-density, single-family residential zone (R1 or R2) to maintain a noise level limit of 65 dB as measured at the property line of the parcel with the noise source. Thus, while outdoor music at restaurants and bars would generally be handled as an exception to the “disturbing noise” regulations that apply to residential zones and different hours would apply, the new noise standards for outdoor music at restaurants and bars would also incorporate protections for single-family residential areas (R1 and R2 zones) in order to maintain the same standard for noise levels as currently applies.

This subsection would also stipulate that for residential uses in the mixed-use zones (MXD, MXD2, and MXD3), ambient noise from outdoor music permitted as an accessory use to a restaurant or bar is not subject to the general noise restrictions pertaining to residential uses. The reason for this provision is that residences in higher-density mixed use areas are understood to be part of an active urban environment where noise levels are expected to be higher than in single-family residential areas.

Policy Alternative:

Alternative: Do not adopt the ordinance adding and amending regulations for outdoor music and special events in Title V, Chapter 213 and Title XI, Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code. Live music at restaurants and bars would continue to be prohibited in the Neighborhood Commercial (C1) zone and would continue to be conditionally permitted in the C2, TC, MXD, MXD2, and MXD3 zones. Business owners of bars and restaurants wanting to offer live music indoors or outdoors would be required to apply for a Conditional Use Permit (or amend an existing approved Conditional Use Permit). The FY22-23 permit fee for a new CUP is $15,739 and the fee to an amend an existing CUP is $7,870. For special events, small and simple events would continue to require a permit with a corresponding fee of $986.

Pros: The City would retain a relatively high level of discretion and scrutiny over live music performed indoors and outdoors at restaurants and bars. A higher level of City review and discretion would also be retained for small and simple special events. The City would continue to collect relatively high permit fees for applications for live music at bars/restaurants and small special events.

Cons: Small business owners of restaurants and bars in Milpitas wishing to offer live music, and community members proposing to organize small and simple events in City parks and other public areas, would continue to face substantial administrative burdens and high permit fees (which may be cost prohibitive in many cases) in order to obtain the necessary City approvals for these activities.

Reason not recommended: If the proposed ordinance is not adopted, the City would miss an opportunity to reduce the cost and the burden of time and effort for business owners and citizens to organize and host musical entertainment and small community gatherings. These types of activities support a lively and vibrant community, help small businesses to thrive, and improve the quality of life for Milpitas residents.

Fiscal Impact:

Amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow outdoor music may increase restaurant and bar revenues and therefore increase sales tax revenue that the City receives from these businesses. The amount of increase 1764
Item # 18.
5 is unknown. Amending the Zoning Ordinance to establish three categories of special events (i.e., minor, regular, and major events) helps to align with the City master fee schedule and enhance the City’s cost recovery.

California Environmental Quality Act:

The proposed text amendments to the Milpitas Municipal Code are exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183 (Projects Consistent with a General Plan) and Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption).

The proposed ordinance would create new regulations related to outdoor music at restaurants and bars as well as new regulations for the review and permitting of small special events. The outdoor music regulations include provisions to maintain appropriate sound levels, thereby avoiding environmental impacts relating to noise. None of the proposed amendments would directly or indirectly result in physical changes to the environment. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance in question would have a significant effect on the environment; accordingly, the ordinance is exempt from CEQA review.

Recommendations:
1) Conduct a public hearing and move to close the hearing following comments. 2) City Attorney shall read aloud title of the Ordinance. 3) Move to waive the first reading beyond the title and introduce an Ordinance amending sections of Chapter 10 of Title XI (Zoning) and Chapter 213 of Title V (Noise Abatement) of the Milpitas Municipal Code relating to Outdoor Music in Bars and Restaurants and Review and Permitting Requirements for Special Events and determine that the Municipal Code amendment is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

Attachments:

A) Draft Ordinance
B) Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-007
1765
Item # 18.

PLEASE NOTE:

This copy of Ordinance No. XX.XXX is a “redlined” version for your convenience. Text additions are designated by an underline and text deletions are designated with a strikethrough.
1766
Item # 18.
2 Ordinance No. XX.XXX

REGULAR
NUMBER: XX.XXX
TITLE: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MILPITAS AMENDING SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 10 OF TITLE XI AND CHAPTER 213 OF TITLE V OF THE

MILPITAS MUNICIPAL CODE TO MODIFY AND ADD REGULATIONS RELATING

TO OUTDOOR MUSIC IN BARS AND RESTAURANTS AND REVIEW AND

PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL EVENTS, AND MAKING FINDINGS

OF CEQA EXEMPTION
HISTORY: This Ordinance was introduced (first reading) by the City Council at its meeting of ____________________, 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:
________________________________
Michael Mutalipassi, City Attorney
1767
Item # 18.
3 Ordinance No. XX.XXX
RECITALS AND FINDINGS:

WHEREAS, the City of Milpitas, California (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65800 et seq. authorizes the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities as a means of implementing the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to encourage and allow outdoor live and recorded music at restaurants and bars as a way to encourage a vibrant city, provide accessible arts and entertainment for Milpitas residents and visitors, and support local business and musicians; and WHEREAS, clear and specific land use and noise regulations, including operational standards such as noise level limits, permitted hours, and protections against disturbing noise for residential neighborhoods are important elements in a municipal government’s process of allowing and encouraging outdoor music; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to simplify and facilitate the process of approving small special events of limited scale that do not create negative impacts on surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to reduce the cost of obtaining a Special Event Permit for applicants proposing to hold small and simple special events of limited scale; and WHEREAS, the City’s Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 10 of Title XI of the Milpitas Municipal Code, currently includes land use regulations for the location and approval procedures for special events generally as well as for live entertainment associated with restaurants and bars in commercial and mixed-use zoning districts; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Noise Abatement Ordinance, Chapter 213 of Title V of the Milpitas Municipal currently includes requirements and standards for noise levels in residential zones that serve to protect these areas from disturbing noise and maintain peaceful, favorable living environments; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Zoning Amendment (“Amendment”) to the City’s Municipal Code, including Section 2.03 (“Definitions”), Section 5.02 (“Commercial Use Regulations”), Section 5.04 (“Commercial Zone Special Development Standards”), Section 6.02 (“Mixed Use Regulations”), Section 6.06 (“Mixed Use Special Development Standards”), and Section 15 (“Special Events and Activities”) of Title XI, Chapter 10–Zoning; and including Section 213-2 (“Definitions”) and Section 213-3 (“Unlawful to Create or Permit Disturbing Noise”) of Title V, Chapter 213–Noise Abatement; and WHEREAS, on June 22, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed Amendment, take public testimony, and make a recommendation to the City Council on the project; and WHEREAS, this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”), each as a separate and independent basis, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (projects consistent with the General Plan) and Section 15061(b)(3) (no possibility of significant environmental effect).

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Milpitas does ordain as follows:
1768
Item # 18.
4 Ordinance No. XX.XXX
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. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Based on its review of the entire record, including the staff report, public comments and testimony presented to the Planning Commission and City Council, and the facts outlined below, the City Council hereby finds and determines that this ordinance is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3), also known as the “common sense exemption”, which exempts from CEQA any project where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. A “significant effect on the environment” means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project.

This ordinance would create new regulations related to outdoor music at restaurants and bars as well as new regulations for the review and permitting of small special events. The outdoor music regulations include provisions to maintain appropriate sound levels, thereby avoiding environmental impacts relating to noise. None of the proposed amendments would directly or indirectly result in physical changes to the environment. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this Ordinance would have a significant effect on the environment; accordingly, this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA review.

Moreover, the City Council hereby finds that the introduction and adoption of this Ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning). Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that projects that are consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan or Zoning for which an EIR has been certified “shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.” These proposed zoning amendments serve to implement several goals and policies in the Economic Development, Noise, Utilities and Community Services, and Parks, Recreation & Open Space Elements by supporting and encouraging small live music events at food and beverage businesses throughout the city while also establishing rules and standards that would limit hours and noise levels to protect residential areas from disturbing noise. In this way, the amendment would strike a positive balance between supporting arts, entertainment and economic development and preserving the quiet enjoyment of residential areas in Milpitas. Therefore, the proposed Amendment is consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Accordingly, this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, each as a separate and independent basis.

SECTION 3. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The Economic Development, Noise, Utilities and Community Services, and Parks, Recreation & Open Space Elements of the City’s General Plan include several policies and actions related to supporting small business in Milpitas, encouraging a vibrant arts and cultural scene, making arts and entertainment events accessible to everyone in the community, and maintaining clear standards to restrict noise levels and protect residential areas from disturbing noise. The proposed municipal code amendments would serve to implement these General Plan policies and actions because they would strike a positive balance between supporting arts, entertainment and economic development and preserving the quiet enjoyment of residential areas in Milpitas. 1769
Item # 18.
5 Ordinance No. XX.XXX
SECTION 4. AMENDMENT OF MILPITAS MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE V, CHAPTER 213, SECTIONS 2 AND 3
Title V, Chapter 213 ( Noise Abatement ), Section 2 ( Definitions ) of the Milpitas Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

V-213-2 – Definitions

2.04 "Disturbing Noise" as used herein in this Chapter means any sound or vibration caused by sound which occurs with such intensity, frequency or in such a manner as to disturb the peace and quiet of reasonable person of normal sensitivity residing in that area. It shall include, but not be limited to noise from the following sounds (this enumeration not being exclusive but only illustrative):
(1) The use, operation, playing of any radio, television, musical instrument or instruments, phonograph, stereo, loud speaker, sound amplifier or other device for the production or reproduction of sound with louder volume than is necessary for hearing for any person or persons who are in the room, vehicle or chamber in which such machine or device is operated and who are voluntary listeners thereto. Outdoor music played or performed in compliance with Subsection V213-3(b) shall not be construed as disturbing noise. (2) The sounding of any horn or signal device or siren except as a danger warning. (3) The operation of any machinery or tool.
(4) The continuous or recurrent acceleration of a motor vehicle or other engine while stationary ("revving" the engine).
(5) Yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling, singing, or similar types of noise.

Title V, Chapter 213 ( Noise Abatement ), Section 3 ( Unlawful to Create or Permit Disturbing Noise ) of the Milpitas Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

V-213-3 – Unlawful to Create or Permit Disturbing Noise (a) Residential Zone Regulations.

3.01 Except as permitted in Section V-213-3(b), iIt shall be unlawful for any person in any district zoned for residential use (under the provisions of Chapter 10, Title XI of the Milpitas Municipal Code) to make, continue, maintain, permit or cause to be made, continued, maintained, or permitted any Disturbing Noise that increases the noise exposure level by three dB over the local ambient noise level measured from the property line of the noise source, or more than 65 dB measured from the property line of the noise source, whichever is more restrictive.

3.02 Except as permitted in Section V-213-3(b), iIt shall be unlawful for any person who owns, possesses, or controls any real property in any district zoned for residential use (under the provisions of Chapter 10, Title XI of the Milpitas Municipal Code) to make, continue, maintain, permit or cause to be made, continued, maintained or permitted any Disturbing Noise that increases the noise exposure level by three dB over the local ambient noise level measured from the property line of the noise source, or more than 65 dB measured from the property line of the noise source, whichever is more restrictive.

3.03 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter and in addition thereto, iIt is unlawful for any person or any person who owns, possesses, or controls real property in any district zoned for residential use (under provisions of Chapter 10, Title XI of the Milpitas Municipal Code) to make, continue, maintain, permit, or cause to be made, continued, maintained or permitted any Disturbing Noise. It shall be prima facie violation of this Section if any Disturbing Noise is audible during the hours 1770
Item # 18.
6 Ordinance No. XX.XXX
of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. from a distance of 50 feet from the property line of the noise source or from a distance of 100 feet from any nonstationary noise source. It shall also be prima facie violation of this Section if any Disturbing Noise is audible during the hours of 7:01 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. from a distance of 100 feet from the property line of the noise source or any nonstationary noise source.

3.04 The above prohibition against making, continuing, maintaining or permitting any Disturbing Noise in any district zoned for residential use shall not apply to the authorized collection of solid waste, recyclables, and/or yard trimmings by an authorized collector beginning at 6:00 a.m. (b) Outdoor Music Regulations for Commercial and Mixed Use Zones.

3.05 Outdoor music shall be permitted on real property in the C1, C2, TC, MXD, MXD2, and MXD3 zoning districts (per Chapter 10, Title XI of the Milpitas Municipal Code) as an accessory use to a restaurant or bar that is a principal permitted use or approved conditional use. Outdoor music shall be permitted between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.

3.06 Except as provided below in Subsection V-213-3(b) 3.06(1), noise levels for outdoor music as an accessory use shall not exceed 70-90 dB measured from the property line of the parcel on which the outdoor music occurs. See also Table XI-10-5.02-1 – Commercial Zone Uses in Title XI, Chapter 10, Section 5.02 and Table XI-10-6.02-1 – Mixed Use Zone Uses in Title XI, Chapter 10, Section 6.02. (1) For any parcel in a C1, C2, TC, MXD, MXD2, or MXD3 zoning district that is located within 100 feet of a parcel in a R1 or R2 zoning district, noise levels for outdoor music as an accessory use shall not exceed 65 dB measured from the property line of the parcel on which the outdoor music occurs.
(2) For residential uses in the MXD, MXD2, and MXD3 zoning districts, it is recognized that ambient noise from outdoor music that is permitted as an accessory use to a restaurant or bar is a normal condition inherent to a mixed-use, urban living environment; therefore accessory outdoor music at a restaurant or bar shall not be subject to the noise restrictions in Section V-213-3(a)

3.01 and 3.02 in the case of residential uses in the MXD, MXD2, and MXD3 zones. (b)(c) Site Construction Regulations.

3.0507 No person shall engage or permit others to engage in construction of any building or related road or walkway, pool or landscape improvement or in the construction operations related thereto, including, delivery of construction materials, supplies, or improvements on or to a construction site except within the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and weekends. No construction work shall be conducted or performed on the holidays indicated in Section V-213-2-2.05 of this Chapter.

3.0608 Exemption from Off-Site Construction Regulations. Exempt from the Off-Site Construction Regulations of this article are as follows:
(1) Emergency construction and repair that is necessary for protection of life and property, (2) Operation preempted from local regulation by state law, such as construction of public school buildings,
(3) Furnishing utility-type service including construction and maintenance of utility facilities, (4) Any work on an existing single-family or duplex (two-family) dwelling undertaken by the property owner,
(5) Operation to construct and maintain facilities within the public right-of-way as deemed necessary by the Public Works Director, and
(6) Any other circumstances where the City Manager deems that an exemption would be appropriate. 1771
Item # 18.
7 Ordinance No. XX.XXX
SECTION 5. AMENDMENT OF MILPITAS MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE XI, CHAPTER 10, SECTION 2
Title XI, Chapter 10, Section 2 ( Definitions ), Subsection XI-10-2.02 ( General Definitions ) of the Milpitas Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

XI-10-2.03 Definitions
"Outdoor Music" means live music, both acoustic and amplified, including live individual musicians, bands, and disc jockeys (DJs), but not including karaoke, that takes place on a patio or other outdoor space. Outdoor music as defined and regulated in this Chapter shall also include recorded background music played outdoors at a public establishment such as a restaurant, bar, retail store, or other business.

SECTION 6. AMENDMENT OF MILPITAS MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE XI, CHAPTER 10, SECTION 5
Title XI, Chapter 10, Section 5 ( Commercial Zones and Standards ), Subsection XI-10-5.02 ( Commercial Use Regulations ) of the Milpitas Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

XI-10-5.02 Commercial Use Regulations
A. Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses.

1. Primary uses. The uses identified in Table 5.02-1, Commercial Zone Uses, shall be the primary uses allowed to occur on a property. All uses except for those noted shall be conducted within enclosed structures. The primary uses identified in Table 5.02-1 shall be permitted or conditionally permitted, as indicated:

P Where the symbol "P" appears, the use shall be permitted.

MCS Where the symbol "MCS" appears the use shall be permitted subject to the issuance of a Minor Conditional Use Permit by staff, in accordance with Subsection 57.04, Conditional Use Permits and Minor Conditional Use Permits, of this chapter.

P/C Where the symbol "P/C" appears the use may be permitted if certain criteria is met or otherwise a Conditional Use Permit shall be required, in accordance with Section XI-10-57.04, Conditional Use Permits, of this Chapter.

C Where the symbol "C" appears, the use shall be permitted subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, in accordance with Subsection 57.04, Conditional Use Permits and Minor Conditional Use Permits, of this Chapter.

MC Where the symbol "MC" appears, the use shall be permitted subject to the issuance of a Minor Conditional Use Permit, in accordance with Subsection 57.04, Conditional Use Permits and Minor Conditional Use Permits, of this chapter.

O Where the symbol "O" appears, the use is subject to an alternative review process described in a subsequent footnote.

B. Prohibited Uses. The following uses are prohibited:

1. Uses where the symbol "NP" appears within Table 5.02-1.

2. Uses that have been excluded from Table 5.02-1, unless they are found by the City to be similar to permitted or conditionally permitted uses in accordance with C below. 1772
Item # 18.
8 Ordinance No. XX.XXX

3. Any residential uses in the Town Center Zone shall strictly be prohibited provided residential uses constructed on or before February 17, 2015 or any project securing an approved tentative map or site development permit for construction of residential uses on or before February 17, 2015 shall be exempt from this prohibition and Milpitas Zoning Code Section 56, Nonconforming Buildings and Uses.

C. Other Uses. Any other uses may be considered by the Planning Commission that are similar in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Subsection 10-54.02, Other Uses Permitted by Commission, of this Chapter.

Table XI-10-5.02-1
Commercial Zone Uses
Use CO C1 C2 HS TC

1. Commercial Uses
Alcoholic beverage sales C
6 C C NP C
Art/photography studio or gallery NP P P P P
Bookstore NP P P P P
Commercial services1 P P P NP P
Funeral home or mortician NP NP C C NP
Furniture sales NP P P P P
Grocery store (supermarkets)
Within 1,000 ft. of residential zone NP C C C C
Not within 1,000 ft. of residential zone NP P P P P
Head/smoke/tobacco shop NP C C NP C
Home improvement (hardware, blinds, interior
decorating, etc.)

NP P P C P
Not fully enclosed operation NP C C C C
Household appliance store7 NP NP P P NP
Small appliance repair NP NP MCS P NP
Large appliance repair NP NP NP P NP
Janitorial services NP NP P P NP
Newsstand
Indoor P P P NP P
Outdoor C C C NP C
Nursery (flower or plant)
Indoor NP NP P
2 P P
Outdoor NP NP C P NP
Office supply sales (stationery, equipment) P P P P P
Paint and wallpaper stores NP NP P P P
Pawnshops NP NP C NP NP
Pet stores NP NP P P P
Printing (newspaper, publishing) NP NP P P P
Rentals (medical supplies, costumes, party
equipment, office equipment)

NP NP P P P
Retail stores, general merchandise NP P P NP P
Tanning salon NP NP P NP P
Thrift store3 NP C P P P

2. Entertainment and Recreation
Adult business4 NP NP NP P NP
1773
Item # 18.
9 Ordinance No. XX.XXX
Bowling alley NP NP P P P
Commercial athletic facilities
Indoor NP C P P P
Outdoor NP NP NP C NP
Motion picture theater (See 7 below)
Recreation or entertainment facility NP C C C C
Shooting range, indoor NP NP NP C NP

3. Health and Veterinarian Uses
Animal grooming (no boarding) NP P P P P
Hospital C NP C C C
Kennel NP NP C NP NP
Massage establishment15 NP NP MC MC MC
Massage establishment, accessory15 NP NP MCS MCS MCS
Medical and dental office P P P NP P
Medical and dental clinic P C C NP P
Medical support laboratories P C C C C
Optician and optometrist shop P P P NP P
Pharmacy or drug store NP P P P P
Sauna and steam bath NP NP NP P NP
Veterinary clinic NP NP P P P

4. Industrial Uses5
Assembly from pre-processed materials NP NP C NP NP
Commercial fueling facility NP NP NP C NP
Commercial laboratory NP NP C P NP
Contractor's yards and offices NP NP C C NP
Disinfection and extermination business NP NP C P NP
Dry cleaning plant NP NP NP P NP
Food storage locker NP NP NP P NP
Landscape contractor NP NP C P NP
Lumberyards NP NP C C NP
Mini-storage complex NP NP C C NP
Plumbing, metalworking, glassworking or
woodworking

NP NP C C NP
Research & development NP NP C NP NP
Sign sales and fabrication (Electric and neon
sign, sign painting)

NP NP C P NP
Warehousing and wholesale NP NP C NP NP

5. Lodging
Hotel and motel NP NP C C C

6. Professional Offices, Financial Institutions and Related Uses Automatic teller machines (freestanding)6 NP P P P P
Financial institutions (banks, savings and
loans, etc.)

P P P P P
General offices (administrative and business
services, real estate, travel agencies, etc.)

P P P P P

7. Public, Quasi-Public and Assembly Uses
Auction hall NP NP C C C
Child care
1774
Item # 18.
10 Ordinance No. XX.XXX
Child care center C C C C C
Day care school C C C C C
Large family child care home NP NP NP NP C
Small family child care home NP NP NP NP C
Places of assembly C C C C C
Cultural center NP NP C C C
Educational institutions
Schools, private (elementary, middle, high) NP NP C NP C Trade and vocational school C NP P P C
Farmer's market (not including flea market) NP C C C C
Instruction
Group8 MCS MCS MCS MCS MCS
Private P P P P P
Motion picture theater
Indoor NP C C C C
Outdoor NP NP NP C NP
Parking facility, storage garage NP P P C C
Public utilities C C C C C
Transportation facility (taxi, limousine, etc.) NP NP C C C

8. Restaurants or Food Service
Banquet hall NP NP C C C
Bar or nightclub NP NP C 17 C C 17
Catering establishment C NP P P P
Restaurants C
7 P P P P
With music (indoor/outdoor) NP P 17 P 17 C P 17
With other live entertainment/dancing 18 NP NP C C C
With drive-in or drive-through NP C C C C
With ancillary on-premise beer & wine with
no separate bar

NP MC PMC MC MC
Mobile Food Vending (individual vehicle) 16 P P P P P
Mobile Food Park 16 MC MC MC MC MC
Commissary MC P P P MC

9. Residential Uses
Caretaker (in conjunction with contractor's
yard or mini-storage complex)

NP NP C C NP
Emergency shelters9 NP NP NP P/C NP
Single-room occupancy residences10 NP NP NP C NP

10. Vehicle Related Uses
Auto repair (tire, oil change, smog check, etc.) NP NP C C NP Auto sales and rental, outdoor (new and used
cars, RV and truck)

NP NP C C NP
Auto broker (wholesale, no vehicles on site) MCS MCS MCS MCS MCS Car wash NP NP C C NP
Service stations (with or without repair or
retail)11

C C C C C
Drive through uses (restaurants, pharmacies,
etc.)

NP C C C C

11. Unclassified Uses
1775
Item # 18.
11 Ordinance No. XX.XXX
Accessory structures12 P P P P P
Model home complex13 NP NP NP NP P
Mortuary or crematory NP NP NP C NP
Radio or television station NP NP C P NP
Temporary seasonal sales14 NP P P P P
1 Refer to the definition for "Commercial Services" in Section 2, Definitions, of this Chapter. 2 Provided that all incidental equipment and supplies, including fertilizer and empty cans, are kept within a building. 3 Refer to XI-10-5.04, Commercial Zone Special Development Standards, of this Chapter. 4 In accordance with the Title III, Chapter 4, Adult Business Ordinance, and Subsection 13.04, Adult Businesses, of this Chapter. 5 For conditionally permitted uses, refer to Subsection 57.04(C) (9), Certain Industrial Uses within Commercial Districts, of this Chapter. 6 Refer to Subsection 57.03, Site Development Permits and Minor Site Development Permits, of this Chapter. 7 When intended to serve the occupants and patrons of the permitted use (office, etc.) and conducted and entered from within the building and provided there is no exterior display of advertising.
8 Refer to Subsection 5.02-1, Commercial Zone Special Uses, of this Section. 9 Refer to XI-10-13.14, Special Uses, Emergency Shelters, of this Chapter. 10 Refer to XI-10-13.13, Special Uses, Single Room Occupancy Residences, of this Chapter. 11 Refer to Subsection XI-10-6.02-2, Special Uses, of this Chapter, for standards. Service stations shall follow the "General development policy:

Gasoline service stations, and automotive service centers" adopted by the City Council on December 19, 1995. 12 Not including warehouses on the same site as the permitted use. 13 No tract sign shall be permitted within 600 feet of a Santa Clara County Expressway. 14 Refer to Section 13.11, Temporary Uses and Structures, of this Chapter. 15 Massage establishments are subject to Title III, Chapter 6 of the Milpitas Municipal Code and Subsection XI-10-13.16 of this title. Refer to Subsection XI-10-13.16, of this Title, for special provisions for massage establishments. 16 Refer to Subsection XI-10-13.18, Mobile Food Vending, of this Chapter. 17 Indoor or outdoor music is permitted as an accessory use on the same parcel in conjunction with a restaurant or bar that is a principal permitted use or approved conditional use in the C1, C2, and TC zones. See also Subsection XI-10-5.04(E) for additional regulations. 18 Examples of “other live entertainment” include, but are not limited to, stand-up comedy, theatrical shows, magic shows, and karaoke.

Title XI, Chapter 10, Section 5 ( Commercial Zones and Standards ), Subsection XI-10-5.04 ( Commercial Zone Special Development Standards ) of the Milpitas Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

XI-10-5.04 Commercial Zone Special Development Standards A. All Zones.

1. Areas for Collecting and Loading Recyclable Materials. There shall be provided areas for collecting materials in accordance with Subsection 54.12, Areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials, of this Chapter.

2. All outdoor storage areas of such things as trash and materials shall be within a completely enclosed building or behind a visually obscure solid wall or tight board fence a minimum six (6) feet in height and shall not be located within any front or street side yard setback area.

3. Such uses, operations or products shall not be objectionable due to odor, dust, smoke, noise, vibration or other similar causes.

B. TC Zone.

1. Setbacks for Residential Projects. Except for the Calaveras Boulevard setback, all other setbacks shall be determined through a Site Development Permit.
1776
Item # 18.
12 Ordinance No. XX.XXX
C. Neighborhood Commercial (C1) Zone. Thrift stores shall comply with each of the following standards:

1. Signage prohibiting dumping of merchandise during non-business hours shall be installed in conspicuous locations to the satisfaction of the Planning Director indicating penalties and fines for such activity. Signage shall include daytime collection hours for donated goods.

2. A designated area inside the building shall be established for the receipt, sorting and processing of goods. Donated goods shall be accepted only inside the building and during regular business hours; no donated goods shall be left outside. Loading and unloading must take place in a designated area that shall be cleared, cleaned and maintained before closing of business each day.

3. The storefront windows shall be permanently maintained as displays of merchandise in a professional and attractive manner (i.e., unsightly clothing racks and displays shall not be placed adjacent to the windows).

4. Any goods or materials left outside of the store overnight shall be removed immediately upon the thrift store opening the next business day.

5. Outdoor storage or display of donated goods or merchandise shall not be permitted.

6. The subject property shall be maintained free of trash, debris, any all other goods at all times.

7. Thrift stores shall not be located closer than one thousand (1000) feet from another thrift store.

D. General Commercial (C2) and Town Center (TC) Zones.

1. In deciding whether to grant a request for additional building height through the Conditional Use Permit process pursuant to Section XI-10-57.04(C)(1), the Planning Commission shall consider site conditions, design elements, and other factors including but not limited to (a) width of rightof-way of principal street; (b) proximity of the site to low- or medium-density residential districts (R1, R2, and R3); (c) building setbacks in relation to proposed building height in excess of 35 feet; and (d) upper story stepbacks. [This section to be adopted at the same Council meeting on the same date. Language included here to maintain the correct section numbering].

E. Outdoor Music

1. Outdoor music as an accessory use in conjunction with a restaurant or bar in the C1, C2, or TC zone shall be permitted for the entertainment and enjoyment of customers at the restaurant or bar during regular operating hours. Outdoor music as an accessory use shall be limited to the hours of 9:00 am to 11:00 pm.

2. Recorded background music may be permitted outdoors on public sidewalks and in other public areas subject to the standards of this Chapter and Title V – Public Health, Safety and Welfare, Chapter 213 – Noise Abatement.

3. Noise levels for outdoor music, when permitted as an accessory use to a restaurant or bar, shall not exceed a maximum range of 70 to 90 decibels (dB). See also Title V – Public Health, Safety and Welfare, Subsections V-213-2 and V-213-3, for additional regulations.

4. Larger outdoor music events, both live and recorded music, which are intended for the entertainment and enjoyment of the general public shall require a Special Event Permit pursuant to Section 15, Special Events and Activities, of this Chapter.

SECTION 7. AMENDMENT OF MILPITAS MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE XI, CHAPTER 10, SECTION 6
1777
Item # 18.
13 Ordinance No. XX.XXX
Title XI, Chapter 10, Section 6 ( Mixed Use Zones and Standards ), Subsection XI-10-6.02 ( Mixed Use Regulations ) of the Milpitas Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

XI-10-6.02 Mixed Use Regulations
A. Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses.

1. Primary uses. The uses identified in Table 6.02-1, Mixed Use Zone Uses, shall be the primary uses allowed to occur on a property. All uses except for those noted shall be conducted within enclosed structures. The primary uses identified in Table 6.02-1 shall be permitted or conditionally permitted, as indicated:

P Where the symbol "P" appears, the use shall be permitted.

MCS Where the symbol "MCS" appears, the use shall be permitted subject to the issuance of a Minor Conditional Use Permit by staff, in accordance with Section 57.04, Conditional Use Permits and Minor Conditional Use Permits, of this chapter.

P/C Where the symbol "P/C" appears the use may be permitted if certain criteria is met or otherwise a Conditional Use Permit shall be required, in accordance with Section XI10-57.04, Conditional Use Permits, of this Chapter.

C Where the symbol "C" appears, the use shall be permitted subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, in accordance with Section 57.04, Conditional Use Permits and Minor Conditional Use Permits, of this chapter.

MC Where the symbol "MC" appears, the use shall be permitted subject to the issuance of a Minor Conditional Use Permit, in accordance with Section 57.04, Conditional Use Permits and Minor Conditional Use Permits, of this chapter.

O Where the symbol "O" appears, the use is subject to an alternative review process described in a subsequent footnote.

2. Accessory Uses.
a. Massage Services. Massage services may be allowed as an accessory use to any permitted or conditionally permitted medical office, medical clinic, chiropractor practice, acupuncture practice, physical therapist, fitness and athletic facility, health care facility (such as hospitals, nursing homes and sanitariums), and accredited school, college, and university. Massage services, limited to massage of the head, neck, shoulders, hands and feet may be allowed as an accessory use to any permitted or conditionally permitted beauty salon, barbershop, and healing art practices. This section shall not exempt any person or business from complying with all the provisions of Title III, Chapter 6.

B. Prohibited Uses. The following uses are prohibited:

1. Uses where the symbol "NP" appears within Table 6.02-1.

2. The following uses are not permitted in any mixed use zone:
a. Adult Businesses as defined in Subsection 13.04, Adult Businesses, of this Chapter. b. Disinfecting and extermination business.
c. Ground level residential in the Ground Level Commercial Area as shown on the Midtown Specific Plan Land Use Map, Figure 3.1 and Zoning Map.
d. Outdoor storage of vehicles.
e. Private self-storage facilities
f. Single family detached dwellings
1778
Item # 18.
14 Ordinance No. XX.XXX
g. Two family dwelling units
h. Drive through uses (restaurants, pharmacies, etc.)
C. Other Uses. Any other uses may be considered by the Planning Commission that are similar in accordance with the procedure, prescribed in Subsection 10-54.02, Other Uses Permitted by Commission, of this Chapter.

Table XI-10-6.02-1
Mixed Use Zone Uses
Use MXD MXD2 MXD3
Ground Level
(Facing Retail street)
Upper
Floor

1. Commercial Uses
Alcohol beverage sales C C C C
Commercial services1 MCS MCS MCS MCS
Grocery stores (supermarkets) C C C C
Pawnshops2 C C C C
Pet shops C NP NP NP
Retail stores, general merchandise3 MCS MCS MCS MCS
Tanning salons P P P P
Thrift shops (used merchandise)
Retail P P P P
With collections C C C C

2. Entertainment and Recreation
Commercial athletic facilities P P P P
Motion picture theater (see 6 below)
Recreation or entertainment facility C C C C

3. Health and Veterinarian Uses
Animal grooming (no boarding) P P NP P
Hospitals or sanitariums4 C C C C
Massage establishment 1718 MC MC MC MC
Massage establishment, accessory 1718 MCS MCS MCS MCS
Medical or dental offices and clinics P NP P P
Medical support laboratories P P P P
Optician and optometrist shop P P P P
Pharmacy or drug store P P P P
Veterinarian clinic P P P P

4. Lodging
Bed and breakfast P P NP NP
Boarding houses (3 or more persons) C C C C
Group dwellings C C C C
Hotels C P P P
Motels C C C C

5. Professional Offices, Financial Institutions and Related Uses4 Financial institutions (banks, savings and
loans, etc.)

MCS NP MCS P
Offices3 MCS NP MCS P

6. Public/Quasi Public and Assembly Uses
1779
Item # 18.
15 Ordinance No. XX.XXX
Child care
Child care center C P C P
Day care school C C C
Large family child care home P P C P
Small family child care home P P P P
Instruction
Group 1314 P NP NP NP
Private P P P P
Park, playground or community center5 O O O O
Places of assembly4 C C C C
Public utilities C C C C
Schools, private (elementary, middle and
high)4

C C C C
Theaters (Indoor) C C C C
Trade and vocational schools4 C C C C
Transportation facilities2 C C C C

7. Residential Uses
Multi-family housing7 P NP P P
Transitional and supportive housing7 P NP P P
Accessory Dwelling Unit 1920 P NP P P

8. Restaurants or Food Service
Bar or nightclub C
10 C10 C C10
Brewery/Eateries10 MCS MCS NP MCS
Catering establishments C C C C
Restaurants2 P/C P/C NP P/C P/C
With music (indoor/outdoor) P
10 P10 P10 P10
With other live entertainment/dancing 11and
entertainment

C C C C
With ancillary on-premise beer & wine with
no separate bar

P P P P
Mobile Food Vending (individual vehicle) 2021 P P NP P
Mobile Food Park 2021 MC NP NP MC
Commissary MC NP NP MC

9. Unclassified Uses
Artisan Studios & Live-work units,
woodworking or glassworking, plumbing or
metalworking and sign shops2

MCS MCS MCS MCS
Lobbies and entries for upper floor uses P P NP P
Model home complex 1112 P P P P
Mixed use developments 1213 P P P P
Planned Unit Development 1314 P P P P
Temporary seasonal sales 1415 P P P P
Short-Term Rentals 1819 P NP P P

10. Vehicle-Related Repair, Sales and Services
Auto sales and rental 1516 C C C C
Auto broker (wholesale, no vehicles on site)2 MCS MCS MCS MCS Vehicle service uses 1617 C NP NP C
1780
Item # 18.
16 Ordinance No. XX.XXX
1 Refer to Subsection XI-10-6.02-1(B), Performance standards for certain uses, of this Chapter, for standards. 2 Refer to Subsection XI-10-6.02-1, Special Uses, of this Chapter, for standards. 3 Refer to Subsection XI-10-6.02-1(B) Performance standards for certain uses, of this Chapter. 4 Refer to Subsection XI-10-6.02-2, Quasi-Public Uses, of this Chapter, for standards. 5 For parks, playgrounds or community center owned and operated by a government agency or a nonprofit community organization. 6 Refer to XI-10-13.14, Special Uses, Emergency Shelters, of this Chapter. 7 Ground level residential is prohibited in the Ground Level Commercial Area as shown on the Midtown Specific Plan Land Use Map, Figure 3.1. 8 Refer to XI-10-13.13, Special Uses, Single Room Occupancy Residences, of this Chapter. 9 Uses serving upper-floor residential uses, such as common gathering space, lobby, and resident services, may be allowed as ground floor uses where residential uses would otherwise not be permitted. 10 Reserved. Indoor or outdoor music is permitted as an accessory use on the same parcel in conjunction with a restaurant or bar that is a principal permitted use or approved conditional use in the MXD, MXD2, and MXD3 zones. See also Subsection XI-10-6.06(B) for additional regulations. 11 Examples of “other live entertainment” include, but are not limited to, stand-up comedy, theatrical shows, magic shows, and karaoke. 11 12 Refer to Subsection XI-10-13.11I, Model Home Complexes and Sales Offices, of this Chapter for temporary tract offices. 12 13 Which include only permitted uses.
13 14 Refer to Section XI-10-54.07, Planned Unit Developments, of this Chapter, for standards. 14 15 Refer to Section XI-10-13.11(D), Temporary Seasonal Sales, of this Chapter. 15 16 New and used auto, recreational vehicle and boat sales, excluding commercial vehicles, trucks, buses, vans, and farm equipment, with accessory repairs and services, only allowed if fully enclosed within a building. Bicycle and auto rental agency, excluding commercial vehicles, trucks, buses, vans, boats and RV rentals, only if fully enclosed within a building. 16 17 Refer to Subsection XI-10-6.02-2, Special Uses, of this Chapter, for standards. Service stations shall follow the “General development policy:

Gasoline service stations, and automotive service centers” adopted by the City Council on December 19, 1995. 17 18 Massage establishments are subject to Title III, Chapter 6 of the Milpitas Municipal Code and Subsection XI-10-13.16 of this title. Refer to Subsection XI-10-13.16, of this Title, for special provisions for massage establishments. 18 19 Only allowed within a dwelling unit, subject to the requirements of Subsection XI-10-13.17, Short-Term Rentals, of this Chapter. 19 20 Only allowed within multi-family dwellings, subject to the requirements of Subsection XI-10-13.08, Accessory Dwelling Units, of this Chapter.
20 21 Refer to Subsection XI-10-13.18, Mobile Food Vending, of this Chapter.

6.02-1 Mixed Use Zone Special Uses
A. Special Uses within all MXD zones. Certain uses noted in Table 6.02-1, Mixed Use Zone Uses may be allowed through the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Minor Conditional Use Permits, in accordance with Subsection 57.04, Conditional Use Permits, of this Chapter, if they are not located within one thousand (1,000) feet of another same use listed below. This distance shall be measured from the property line of the parcel where such use is located.

1. Auto service uses, including but not limited to: gasoline service stations, car washes, tire shops, towing without vehicle storage and auto repair shops of all kinds, radiators, paint, body, glass, brakes, upholstery, and other similar types.

2. Local transportation service facilities (e.g. taxi, parcel service, ambulance, armored car, and van storage) without outdoor storage of vehicles.

3. Pawnshops.

B. Performance Standards for Certain Uses. For uses requiring approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit by staff, in accordance with Section XI-10-57.04, Conditional Use Permits and Minor Conditional Use Permits, of this Chapter, the following performance standards below shall be met.

1. Auto Brokers. Auto Brokers may be permitted by right if the following standards are met:
1781
Item # 18.
17 Ordinance No. XX.XXX
a. Local Sales and Use Tax. In order to assist the City of Milpitas in its efforts to receive direct distribution of the local tax on materials associated with the project, the California Sales and Use Tax (the “Local Tax”) shall be allocated to the project site, to the extent reasonably possible. Evidence of tax allocation or cause as to why such allocation cannot be made shall be submitted at the time of business license submittal.

2. Auto Service Uses. Auto Service uses shall comply with the following standards:
a. All operations shall be conducted completely within an enclosed building. b. Entrances to the service bays shall not be open to the street but shall be designed to face the rear or interior side property line.

3. Artisans, Plumbing, Metalworking, Sign Shops and Woodworking or glass working shops. These uses shall comply with the following standards:
a. All operations shall be conducted completely within an enclosed building. b. There shall be no dust, fume, or odor either emitted from the premise. c. The operations shall not create excessive vibrations. d. The operations shall be consistent with the City’s noise standards. e. Plumbing, metalworking, sign shops, woodworking or glass working shops shall not be closer than 1,000 feet of another same use measured from the property line.

4. Commercial Services uses shall comply with the following:
a. When located within the MXD zone:
i. Located in the area designated for ground floor retail and are less than or equal to ten thousand (10,000) square feet in gross floor area;
ii. Located in the areas not designated for ground floor retail and are less than or equal to fifty thousand (50,000) square feet in gross floor area. b. When located within the MXD2 and MXD3 zones they are less than or equal to fifty thousand (50,000) square feet in gross floor area;
c. They are not open past 10:00 p.m.;
d. They are not specifically noted in Table 6.02-1, Mixed Use Zone Uses, of this chapter, requiring Conditional Use Permit approval or listed as a prohibited use; e. They are not listed as a prohibited use in Section 10-6.02 (B), Prohibited Uses, of this Chapter.

If items a through c above are not met, then approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required in accordance with Subsection 57.04, Conditional Use Permits and Minor Conditional Use Permits, of this Chapter.

5. Group Instruction uses shall comply with the following standards:
a. No loitering shall be permitted before or after any classes or sessions.

6. Restaurants may be permitted provided:
a. They provide no dancing or live entertainment;
ba. They have only ancillary on-premise consumption of beer and wine associated with food sales; cb. They have no separate bar area;
dc. When located within the MXD2 and MXD3 zones they are located on the ground floor facing a public street designated as a retail mixed use street; and 1782
Item # 18.
18 Ordinance No. XX.XXX
ed. They conform to the performance standards listed in this subsection (f) below.

If items (a) through (dc) above are not met, then approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required in accordance with Section 57, of this Chapter.

Fe. Restaurant Performance Standards. Restaurants shall comply with the following performance standards:
i. Seating shall not exceed that which the amount of parking allocated for the restaurant space would allow. A sign measuring at least one (1) foot by one (1) foot, with a lettering height of at least three (3) inches, shall be placed in a conspicuous location near the restaurant front entrance stating the maximum total seating allowed. Outdoor seating is allowed if it has been approved as part of the facility’s Minor Site Development Permit or Site Development Permit and is operated in conformance with any conditions of that approval.
ii. The restaurant shall comply with the City Council’s Guidelines for Recycling Enclosures (Resolution No. 6296).
iii. The restaurant shall incorporate measures to reduce odors to acceptable levels, including, but not limited to, installation of a scrubber, carbon filter or similar equipment, on the roof vent to control odors.
iv. All the facility’s floor drains, trash compactors and indoor mat and equipment washing areas shall be drained to the sanitary sewer.
v. Where applicable, the restaurant shall maintain an active account with a tallow hauling company.
vi. The restaurant shall prepare and implement a program assigning restaurant staff responsibility for complying with the following guidelines which shall be adhered to while the restaurant is in operation:
1) Wash all containers and equipment in the kitchen areas so that wash water may drain into the sanitary sewer.
2) Keep garbage dumpsters clean inside and out; replace very dirty dumpsters with new, clean ones.
3) Double bag waste to prevent leaking.
4) Place, do not drop or throw, waste-filled bags, to prevent leaking. 5) Keep the ground under and around the garbage dumpsters swept. 6) Sprinkle the ground lightly after sweeping with a mixture of water and a little bleach. 7) Hold training sessions to instruct employees on the proper procedures in the handling and disposal of food items; the general maintenance and use of the compactor and any other procedures that would assist the business in complying with all State and local health and sanitation standards. A record of such training must be kept to prove compliance with this requirement.
8) Post signs (in English and multi-lingual) inside the premises for all employees identifying procedures for food delivery and garbage disposal. 9) All garbage bins shall be stored in the garbage enclosure except for the twelve (12) hours immediately before and after garbage collection.

7. Retail and Offices shall comply with the following:
a. When located within the MXD zone:
i. Located in the area designated for ground floor retail and are less than or equal to ten thousand (10,000) square feet in gross floor area;
1783
Item # 18.
19 Ordinance No. XX.XXX
ii. Located in the areas not designated for ground floor retail and are less than or equal to fifty thousand (50,000) square feet in gross floor area. b. When located within the MXD2 and MXD3 zones they are less than or equal to fifty thousand (50,000) square feet in gross floor area;
c. They are not open past 10:00 p.m.;
d. They are not specifically noted in Table 6.02-1, Mixed Use Zone Uses, of this Chapter, requiring Conditional Use Permit approval or listed as a prohibited use; and e. They are not listed as a prohibited use in Section 10-6.02 (B), Prohibited Uses, of this Chapter.

If items a through c above are not met, then approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required in accordance with Section 57, Conditional Use Permits and Minor Conditional Use Permits, of this Chapter.

Title XI, Chapter 10, Section 6 ( Mixed Use Zones and Standards ), Subsection XI-10-6.06 ( Special Development Standards ) of the Milpitas Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

XI-10-6.06 Special Development Standards
A. Utilities.

1. Utilities shall be placed in underground or subsurface conduits.

2. All mechanical equipment, ground transformers and meters shall be located and screened to minimize visual impacts.

3. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from street level views through roof designs that area architecturally integrated with the building, such as equipment wells and parapets.

4. Public utility distribution meters, vaults and similar installations shall be consolidated in a single area whenever possible and located away from highly visible areas such as street corners and public open spaces.

5. Backflow preventors shall be located within landscaped setback areas and painted black or dark green to minimize visual impact. Where no landscaped setback areas exist the backflow preventors shall be incorporated into the front of the building to minimize visual obtrusiveness.

6. Refuse and recycling containers shall not be visible from a public or private street. Such containers shall be stored either within the parking facility of the building or within a vehicular accessway with screening designed to meet the requirements of this section.

7. Trash enclosure walls shall incorporate building materials and colors that match the architecture of the building, and be well landscaped.

8. All telecommunications antennas shall be building I or roof mounted and screened appropriately.

9. On Main Street only telecommunication facilities that are disguised to appear as a part of the building architecture (i.e. “stealth” antennas) may be used.

B. Outdoor music

1. Outdoor music as an accessory use in conjunction with a restaurant or bar in the MXD, MXD2, or MXD3 zones shall be permitted for the entertainment and enjoyment of customers at the restaurant or bar during regular operating hours. Outdoor music as an accessory use shall be limited to the hours of 9:00 am to 11:00 pm.
1784
Item # 18.
20 Ordinance No. XX.XXX

2. Recorded background music may be permitted outdoors on public sidewalks and other public areas subject to the standards of this Chapter and Title V – Public Health, Safety and Welfare, Chapter 213 – Noise Abatement.

3. Noise levels for outdoor music, when permitted as an accessory use to a restaurant or bar, shall not exceed a maximum range of 70 to 90 decibels (dB). See also Title V – Public Health, Safety and Welfare, Subsections V-213-2 and V-213-3, for additional regulations.

4. Larger outdoor music events, both live and recorded music, which are intended for the entertainment and enjoyment of the general public shall not be considered accessory uses and shall require a Special Event Permit pursuant to Section 15, Special Events and Activities, of this Chapter.

SECTION 8. AMENDMENT OF MILPITAS MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE XI, CHAPTER 10, SECTION 15
Title XI, Chapter 10, Section 15 ( Special Events and Activities ), Subsection XI-10-15.03 ( Review Requirement ) of the Milpitas Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

XI-10-15.03 Review Requirement
Special Events shall require review and approval in accordance with Table XI-10-15.03-1, below.

Table XI-10-15.03-1
Review Requirements for Special Events
Threshold for review Planning Director
or Designee
Zoning
Administrator
Minor Events
 Fewer than 250 participants or attendees
 Takes place on a single day
 No street closures or amplified sound
X
Minor Regular Events
 Between 250 and 1,000 participants or attendees
 Between one and four consecutive days (including set up and tear down).
• Any Special Event wWith or without amplified sound that does not exceed four consecutive days (including set up and tear down).
• Block parties on a residential street.1
X
Major Events
 More than 1,000 participants or attendees anticipated  Between four and seven consecutive days (including set up and tear down). 2
 Any Special Event that exceeds four consecutive days
(including set up and tear down); up to seven days
wWith or without amplified sound
 and/orRequires street closures (other than block parties on a residential street) or any event that anticipates
crowds exceeding 1,000 people.2
X
Multiple ReviewsRecurring Events X X
1785
Item # 18.
21 Ordinance No. XX.XXX
 Recurring Special Events (up to four events per calendar year): Applicant may request a one-time review and
issuance of a Special Event Permit for events which
occur up to four times per calendar year for a permissible duration of four consecutive days for each recurring
event.3
 Multi-YearAnnual Events: Applicant may request a
Special Event Permit good for up to three years for
Special Events that will be held annually, for up to three consecutive years in the same location. Applicant must
demonstrate that the same event location, layout, date
and times are adhered to for each event.3
Appeals or Revocations
 Hearing on a notice of decision to deny an application for Special Event Permit or to revoke or appeal a Special
Event Permit.4
X
1 See MMC V-100-13.05
2 Permits for events exceeding seven days may be granted at the Planning Director's discretion. 3 Planning Director may recommend to Zoning Administrator for review and approval. 4 Appeals to the Zoning Administrator may only occur after denial or revocation by the Planning Director or designee.

Title XI, Chapter 10, Section 15 ( Special Events and Activities ), Subsection XI-10-15.04 ( Definitions ) of the Milpitas Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

XI-10-15.04 Definitions
The definitions set forth in this part shall govern the application and interpretation of this Section.

1. "Amplified Sound" means the use of any loudspeaker, public address system, amplifier, or any other device which electronically or mechanically increases the volume of the human voice, music, or any other sound.any sound created by the use of sound amplification equipment and/or performance with electric or acoustic instruments associated with a special event.

2. "Athletic Events" means a physical or endurance activity that includes but is not limited to races, runs, walkathons, bicycle tours and the like.

3. "Block Party" means a party for all the residents of a block or neighborhood, typically held on a temporarily closed City street.

4. "Business day" means any day except Saturday, Sunday and holidays observed by the City of Milpitas.

5. "Business License" means a permit issued by the City of Milpitas that allows individuals, companies, or other entities to transact and conduct business within the City limits.

6. "City Official" means an authorized officer of the City of Milpitas as appointed by the City Manager or City Council.

7. "Director" means the Director or head of the department(s) designated to issue Special Event Permits, or such other person or persons designated by the Director to fulfill the responsibilities identified as the Director's responsibilities herein.
1786
Item # 18.
22 Ordinance No. XX.XXX

8. "Downtown" means the main business or commercial areas within the Midtown and Transit Area Specific Plan districts and the Town Center Zoning District.

9. "First Amendment Event" means conduct, the sole or principal object of which is the expression, dissemination or communication by verbal, visual, literary, or auditory means of opinion, views or ideas. Expressive activity includes, but is not limited to, public oratory and distribution of literature.

10. "Indigent Natural Person" includes, but is not limited to, a person enrolled or participating in a federal or state government assistance program for low-income or indigent persons such as general assistance, CalWORKS, Medi-Cal, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Women, Infants and Children (WIC), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 8 rental housing subsidy, and other subsidized or public housing.

11. "Indoor/Outdoor Facility Rental Agreement" means a rental agreement issued by the Recreation Services Department to conduct a special event in a park.

12. “Mobile Food Vending Event” means an event where two or more mobile food vehicles gather in one location for a period of seven consecutive days or less.

13. "Outside Agency" means any local, state or federal regulatory agency responsible for administering permits to allow certain activities within their purview. Outside agencies includes but not limited to other City jurisdictions, Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Santa Clara Country Department of Environmental Health and Santa Clara County Roads and Airports.

14. "Parade" means an organized group marching in procession on a street. Parades do not include races, runs or other athletic events.

15. "Park", for purposes of this Section, means all outdoor areas managed by the Recreation Services Department, which are identified as a City park by the City, made available for use by the public as a park for recreation or open space purposes, and over which the City has the right of use for such purposes. The term "park" does not include outdoor areas adjacent to community centers not otherwise located within a City park, or property owned by school districts even if the property is used by the City for recreational purposes.

16. "Paseo" means a mall designed and used for pedestrian passage between two or more parallel streets and which is owned or controlled by the City. The definition of "paseo" includes any adjacent sidewalks.

17. "Permittee" means a person, company, corporation or entity that is given a permit or permission to hold a Special Event.

18. "Permit Applicant" means a person, company, corporation or entity that applies for a permit.

19. "Plaza" means a public square or similar open area in the downtown which is owned or controlled by the City. The definition of "plaza" includes any adjacent sidewalks.

20. "Public Right-of-Way" means any street, alley, or similar parcel of land, which is deeded, dedicated, or otherwise permanently appropriated to the public for public use.

21. "Regulations" means the policies, rules and regulations mandated by the City which govern the Special Event Permit and use of City sidewalks, streets, plazas, paseos, and parks.

22. "Simple Assembly" means a gathering of persons at a park, plaza or paseo that does not include any of the following:
a) The placement or erection of equipment or temporary structures other than one portable table and two chairs; or
1787
Item # 18.
23 Ordinance No. XX.XXX
b) Activities referenced in Section XI-10-15.04(23)(c) of this Code. c) For purposes of illustration, a simple assembly can be a large gathering of 150 persons; no equipment or structures (other than a table and two chairs) are placed or erected; and the other activities (i.e., cooking, sale or public distribution of food and commercial merchandise) are not involved. Nothing herein prevents the use of handheld equipment, including a loudspeaker, and handheld signs at a simple assembly.

23. "Special Event" (Minor, Regular, or Major) means any indoor or outdoor event that consists of any combination of the following:
a) A parade or assembly consisting of persons, animals, vehicles, or any combination thereof, which is to intended to assemble or travel in unison on any street and which does not comply with applicable traffic regulations, laws, or controls; b) An organized assemblage of 150 or more persons at a plaza, or park, or 75 or more persons on a paseo, or any assemblage that exceeds the maximum capacity of the plaza, park or paseo facility gathered for a common purpose under the direction or control of a person or organization; or
c) An activity or event on a public right-of-way, plaza, paseo, park or private property which involves:
i. The placement or erection of equipment or temporary structures other than one portable table and two chairs, including but not limited to a booth, tent, canopy, stage, barricade, fencing, generator, heating equipment, sound amplifier, vehicle or float;
ii. The use of live animals, fireworks, pyrotechnics, electrical power and/or cabling, or equipment or materials that can create a risk of damage to public or private property or injury to persons; iii. Cooking or the sale, preparation for sale or commercial distribution of food or beverages; iv. The sale of commercial merchandise.
d) An activity which involves blocking off a street or other use of a street which obstructs the normal traffic thereon.
e) Examples of Special Events include, but are not limited to, concerts, parades, carnivals, fairs, festivals, block parties, public dances, street fairs, community events, sporting or athletic events, parties, meals, mobile food vending events, celebrations and receptions. f) For definitions of "Major," "Regular," or "Minor" Special Events, see Table XI-10-15.03-1:

Review Requirements for Special Events.

24. "Special Event Permit" means a permit issued pursuant to this Section, which authorizes the holder to conduct a Special Event at a Special Event Venue in accordance with its terms and conditions. A Special Event Permit includes a Temporary Street Closure Permit, Temporary Assembly Permit, Business License, and any outside agency regulatory permits that may be required for the operations and activities for the aforementioned Special Event.

25. "Special Event Venue" means the outdoor area (i.e., private property, street, park, paseo, or plaza) for which a Special Event Permit has been issued.

26. "Street" means a public or private right-of-way used for vehicular traffic that is owned, controlled or maintained by the City. The definition of "street" includes the entire street right-of-way inclusive of any and all adjacent sidewalks.

27. "Temporary Street Closure Permit" means a permit issued by the Chief of Police of the Milpitas Police Department or designee to conduct a special event on a public street.

28. "Temporary Assembly Permit" means a permit that is issued by the City of Milpitas Fire Marshal for the temporary assembly of 50 or more people associated with a Special Event. 1788
Item # 18.
24 Ordinance No. XX.XXX

29. "Temporary Collection Service Agreement" means an agreement between the Permittee and City's public service provider for the trash and recycling collection.

30. "Written Request" means written, typed or email correspondence submitted by the applicant to the Director or Designee. Text messages are not included.

SECTION 9. SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this Ordinance are separable, and the invalidity of any phrase, clause, provision, or part has no effect on the validity of the remainder.

SECTION 10. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING
In accordance with Section 36937 of the Government Code of the State of California, this Ordinance takes effect 30 days from the date of its passage. The City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to cause this Ordinance or a summary thereof to be published in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California.
1789
Item # 18.

RESOLUTION NO. 22-007

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MILPITAS

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ZONING TEXT
AMENDMENT ZA22-0003 AMENDING SECTIONS OF TITLE XI, CHAPTER 10 - ZONING AND TITLE V, CHAPTER 213 – NOISE ABATEMENT OF THE MILPITAS

MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO OUTDOOR MUSIC AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO

RESTAURANTS AND BARS AND CATEGORIES AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL EVENTS; AND DETERMINING THE ORDINANCE TO BE EXEMPT

FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061(B)(3)
WHEREAS, the City of Milpitas, California (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65800 et seq. authorizes the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations by cities as a means of implementing the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to encourage and allow outdoor live and recorded music at restaurants and bars as a way to encourage a vibrant city, provide accessible arts and entertainment for Milpitas residents and visitors, and support local business and musicians; and WHEREAS, clear and specific land use and noise regulations, including operational standards such as noise level limits, permitted hours, and protections against disturbing noise for residential neighborhoods are important elements in a municipal government’s process of allowing and encouraging outdoor music; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to simplify and facilitate the process of approving small special events of limited scale that do not create negative impacts on surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to reduce the cost of obtaining a Special Event Permit for applicants proposing to hold small and simple special events of limited scale; and WHEREAS, the City’s Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 10 of Title XI of the Milpitas Municipal Code, currently includes land use regulations for the location and approval procedures for special events generally as well as for live entertainment associated with restaurants and bars in commercial and mixed-use zoning districts; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Noise Abatement Ordinance, Chapter 213 of Title V of the Milpitas Municipal currently includes requirements and standards for noise levels in residential zones that serve to protect these areas from disturbing noise and maintain peaceful, favorable living environments; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Zoning Amendment (“Amendment”) to the City’s Municipal Code, including Section 2.03 (“Definitions”), Section 5.02 (“Commercial Use DocuSign Envelope ID: E6DC414B-6306-41F9-B7B7-9CC8ECAE8082 1790
Item # 18.

Resolution No. 22-007 Page 2
Regulations”), Section 5.04 (“Commercial Zone Special Development Standards”), Section 6.02 (“Mixed Use Regulations”), Section 6.06 (“Mixed Use Special Development Standards”), and Section 15 (“Special Events and Activities”) of Title XI, Chapter 10–Zoning; and including Section 213-2 (“Definitions”) and Section 213-3 (“Unlawful to Create or Permit Disturbing Noise”) of Title V, Chapter 213–Noise Abatement; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes and accepts as its own the findings set forth in this resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the project is exempt from further CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption); and
WHEREAS, on June 22, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, at which all those in attendance were given the opportunity to speak on the Zoning Text Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all the written and oral testimony presented at the public hearing in making its decision; and NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas hereby finds, determines, and resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals
The Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission.

Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. CEQA Finding
The Planning Commission finds, under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3), that this Ordinance is exempt from further environmental review because it is the adoption of an ordinance amending zoning regulations but would not permit any particular project. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance in question may have a significant effect on the environment; accordingly, the Ordinance is not subject to review under CEQA.

SECTION 3. Findings for Zoning Amendment (Milpitas Municipal Code, Subsection XI-10-57.02(G)(3))
DocuSign Envelope ID: E6DC414B-6306-41F9-B7B7-9CC8ECAE8082 1791
Item # 18.

Resolution No. 22-007 Page 3
The Planning Commission makes the following findings based on the evidence in the public record in support of Zoning Text Amendment No. ZA22-0003:

1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

The proposed amendments are consistent with the Milpitas General Plan. Specifically, they would serve to implement several goals and policies in the Economic Development, Noise, Utilities and Community Services, and Parks, Recreation & Open Space Elements by supporting and encouraging small live music events at food and beverage businesses throughout the city while also establishing rules and standards that would limit hours and noise levels to protect residential areas from disturbing noise. In this way, the amendment would strike a positive balance between supporting arts, entertainment and economic development and preserving the quiet enjoyment of residential areas in Milpitas.

2. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare.

The proposed zoning and noise ordinance amendments for live music will promote the public interest and protect public health and welfare by limiting noise from outdoor music at restaurants and bars to reasonable noise levels (70-90 dB) and reasonable hours (no later than 11 pm). The amendments for special events will also promote the public interest by providing reasonable and easy-to-follow guidelines and procedures for small community events, making it easier for the City to approve small events that are compatible with community well-being and will not create negative community impacts.

SECTION 4: Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas hereby adopts Resolution No. 22-007 recommending that the City Council adopt Zoning Text Amendment ZA22-0003 based on the above Findings.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas on June 22, 2022.

Bill Chuan, Chair
DocuSign Envelope ID: E6DC414B-6306-41F9-B7B7-9CC8ECAE8082 Jun-24-2022
1792
Item # 18.

Resolution No. 22-007 Page 4
TO WIT:

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the following resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas on June 22, 2022, and carried by the following roll call vote:

COMMISSIONER AYES NOES ABSENT ABSTAIN
Mercedes Albana
Dipak Awasthi
Bill Chuan
Larry Ciardella
Alexander Galang
Sonia Medina-Ashby
Zeya Mohsin
DocuSign Envelope ID: E6DC414B-6306-41F9-B7B7-9CC8ECAE8082 1793
Item # 18.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)
Item Title: Receive Progress Report on The Work Completed and Existing Conditions Analysis from Raimi and Associates and Staff on the Housing Opportunity Zones, Discuss Project Objectives and Priorities, and Provide Direction on Key Planning Concepts and Land Use Strategies (Staff Contact: Ned Thomas, Planning Director, 408-586-3273 and Jay Lee, Principal Planner, 408-586-3077) Category: Community Development
Meeting Date: 8/9/2022
Recommendation: Receive progress report on the work completed and existing conditions analysis from Raimi and Associates and staff on the Housing Opportunity Zones, discuss Project objectives and priorities, and provide direction on key planning concepts and land use strategies.

Background:

Since 1969, California law has required all cities and counties to plan to meet housing goals for residents at all income levels. Every eight years, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) distribute the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) to each City and County in the Bay Area. The City is then required to perform a comprehensive update to the Housing Element, which is a chapter in the General Plan. The Housing Element identifies specific programs and policies that the City commits to implement to help realize the City’s RHNA goals and respond to related needs.

In the 2019-20 Budget Act, Governor Newsom signed into law a $250 million allocation for California regional and local jurisdictions to prioritize planning activities to accelerate state-wide housing production as part of a broader mandate to address the State’s affordable housing shortage and to end homelessness. This allocation includes $119 million for the Local Early Action Planning Grant (LEAP) for cities and counties. LEAP provides one-time grant funding for cities and counties to update planning documents and implement process and policy improvements to accelerate housing production. LEAP is a non-competitive grant program and a State strategy to help local governments meet their legal obligation to plan for housing for all residents, including low-income residents, as per the City’s RHNA obligations.

On June 29, 2020, the City applied to HCD for grant funding through the LEAP Program to create Housing Opportunity Zones (HOZs) in areas of the City prioritized for housing by the City’s General Plan. The HOZs will establish various incentives through an overlay zoning district to facilitate and streamline affordable housing production in the City’s two Specific Plan areas, four Neighborhood Commercial Mixed Use (NCMU) areas, and the Town Center Zoning District. Incentives include a supplemental density bonus beyond the State Density Bonus, relaxed development standards, streamlined by-right permitting and environmental review, and financial incentives. On September 2, 2020, HCD informed staff that the City of Milpitas has been awarded $300,000 in grant funds through the LEAP Program to establish HOZs.

On December 12, 2021, the City Council approved and authorized the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Raimi and Associates to prepare the HOZs in close coordination with related efforts underway including the Metro and Gateway Specific Plans, the Housing Element Update, and a separate Assessment of Fair Housing. Per the grant agreement, the HOZs must be completed by June 30, 2024. 1794
Item # 19.

Analysis:

As identified in the City’s LEAP grant application and scope of work with Raimi and Associates, the key goals of the HOZs are to:

1. Streamline the permitting of housing development to meet the housing goals of the City;

2. Allow by-right approval of housing projects if they meet certain objective criteria;

3. Incentivize development of on-site affordable housing; and

4. Encourage different types of special needs housing, including senior living, housing for persons with disabilities, and workforce housing.

The work completed to date includes:
 Best Practices Memo: The memo provides an overview of example HOZs from other cities, especially as they relate to the creation of affordable housing units and housing for special needs populations.

Three of the examples focus on affordable housing and one on senior housing. Each precedent study identifies strengths and weaknesses that can inform the consideration and development of new HOZs in Milpitas.
 Planning Documents and Process Assessment: The assessment memo reviews and summarizes existing planning documents and ordinances that impact the development of housing across the City and identifies strengths that can be enhanced and weaknesses that can be overcome through HOZs.  Existing Conditions Analysis: The analysis of existing conditions examines each potential HOZ area and estimates the feasible development capacity based on Milpitas’ current land use and zoning policies and regulations. Topics covered include the existing land use pattern, parcel size, pipeline projects, access to multimodal transportation options, site constraints, and opportunity sites. Staff will present the analysis in greater detail at a future study session with the City Council.  Stakeholder Meetings: Raimi and Associates and City staff presented an overview of HOZs at the May 2022 Community Development Roundtable and subsequently conducted stakeholder interviews with non-profit and for-profit housing developers to better understand the constraints to building both mixed-income and 100 percent affordable housing projects.

Key findings from the background research and analysis and preliminary community outreach include:
 Development Standards: Development standards such as low maximum densities, high parking ratios, and high commercial requirements for mixed-use projects are constraints on development of affordable housing for both for-profit and non-profit housing developers. Adjusting these development standards would allow developers to prioritize affordable housing and spread the subsidized cost of the affordable units over a larger number of market rate units.  Permitting Process and Impact Fees: Development fees are higher in Milpitas compared to other jurisdictions in Santa Clara County owing to high entitlement fees for single-family development and high impact fees for multi-family developments. A streamlined permitting process and reduced impact fees for housing projects in HOZs that meet objective standards would help reduce initial development costs and facilitate both mixed-income and 100 percent affordable housing projects.  Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Compliance: HOZs can help a local jurisdiction address the potential issue of having a large concentration of affordable units in certain geographic areas (e.g., specific plan areas), which run counter to AFFH requirements in the Fair Housing Act. The Fair Housing Act requires cities to take meaningful actions to overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities. HOZs will help the City comply with this federal law by promoting a more equitable distribution of affordable housing throughout Milpitas.  General Plan Land Use Designations: The 2040 General Plan aims to create vibrant commercial neighborhood centers through mixed-use development within the Town Center Zoning District and by establishing the Neighborhood Commercial Mixed-Use (NCMU) land use designation to incentivize the redevelopment of older commercial retail centers. Establishing HOZs for these areas will remove 1795
Item # 19.
current constraints on mixed-use development in these areas by modifying current policies and development requirements.

General Plan Implementation
The HOZs will be a critical implementation tool of the 2040 General Plan, which identifies several opportunity areas throughout the City for future housing development. These areas include the two Specific Plan areas (Metro Specific Plan and Gateway-Main St. Specific Plan), four NCMU areas, and the Town Center. The City is currently updating its two Specific Plans, and the HOZs will apply to these areas where much of the future housing development is expected to occur. However, the current policies and requirements of the NCMU and TWC land use designations need to be refined to facilitate and incentivize mixed-use redevelopment.

The NCMU land use designation establishes a ratio of one residential dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail and commercial services for new mixed-use developments. While the purpose of this requirement is to incentivize the redevelopment of older strip retail centers into new mixed-use projects, redevelopment is unlikely to occur under the current policy framework. Based on the analysis completed for this HOZ project, the consultant team and staff now favor a clear allowable density range rather than a ratio between residential and nonresidential floor area.

For example, the TWC land use designation allows 40 residential dwelling units per acre for mixed-use developments but requires a high floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.35 for nonresidential uses. While the purpose of the nonresidential FAR requirement is to ensure that the Town Center retains its commercial activity over time, it presents a constraint to redevelopment. The current FAR of the Town Center north of Calaveras Boulevard is well below 0.35 and any redevelopment would require an additional 323,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area, which is highly unlikely in the current economic climate. The HOZs will build upon new General Plan policies for the NCMU and TWC areas by providing a more implementable strategy to achieve the overall goal of creating vibrant mixed-use neighborhoods in key areas throughout the City. The HOZs will adopt a placebased approach to facilitate mixed-use redevelopment of specific sites within these areas while allowing viable commercial centers to remain.

Housing Element Implementation
The HOZs will also be a critical implementation tool of the ongoing Housing Element Update, which must be updated every eight years identify adequate sites for new affordable housing to fulfill the City’s RHNA. In the upcoming RHNA cycle (2023-2031), the City of Milpitas has been allocated 6,713 units, which is more than double the allocation from the previous cycle. Furthermore, 3,786 of the units must be affordable (i.e., below market rate) with 2,655 of those units at the low- or very-low-income affordability level, which the City has historically struggled to provide.

To address this challenge, the HOZs will focus on providing practical and effective incentives for developers to build affordable housing, especially at deeper affordability levels. The Housing Element Update will rely on the HOZs as a key program to implement its policies and help the City fulfill its housing goals and needs.

Next Steps
Following the City Council study session, the project team will continue to engage the public through additional stakeholder meetings with property owners, community workshops, and online surveys. The project team will also prepare a series of design studies to test the potential effects of the HOZs and develop several alternatives based on the feedback and direction received from the City Council.

Once the alternatives are established, the project team will return to the City Council for another study session to determine the preferred alternative. The project team will continue to meet with the City Council and Planning Commission as the Draft HOZs are developed to ensure that the project meets the needs of the City and community.

Fiscal Impact:

This is an informational item. As such, there is no fiscal impact. 1796
Item # 19.

California Environmental Quality Act:

The additional development allowed through the HOZs will be consistent with the Housing Element sites inventory. Therefore, the required environmental review for the HOZs will be completed as part of the environmental review for the Housing Element Update.

Recommendation:

Receive progress report on the work completed and existing conditions analysis from Raimi and Associates and staff on the Housing Opportunity Zones, discuss Project objectives and priorities, and provide direction on key planning concepts and land use strategies.

Attachments:

1. Best Practices Memo

2. Planning Documents and Process Assessment
1797
Item # 19.

Milpitas Housing
Overlay Zone:

Precedent Studies
& Incentives Memo
March 24, 2022
1798
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 1 Milpitas Housing Overlay Zone: Precedent Studies & Incentives

1. Introduction
This Precedent Studies & Provisions Memo is intended to provide an overview of example housing overlay zones from other cities, especially as they relate to the creation of affordable housing units and housing for special needs populations.

The memo provides a summary and analysis of four overlay zone frameworks (precedent studies), three focused on affordable housing and one on senior housing. Each precedent study identifies strengths and weaknesses that can inform the consideration and development of a new housing overlay in Milpitas. In addition to the development incentives and bonuses described in each precedent study, the Incentives Structures section of the memo describes the various development incentives and bonuses that could be included in a finalized housing overlay zone and how they interact with existing State housing development incentives. Some incentives can be tied to affordability or age requirements, depending on the population the overlay prioritizes.

2. Precedent Studies
As the City of Milpitas considers a potential new overlay zone designation to align with city-wide housing goals, several precedents have been established both locally in the Bay Area, and at the national scale. Since preserving and promoting affordable housing opportunities has been a priority shared by cities through California and beyond, jurisdictions have taken a number of different approaches to utilizing overlay zones as a regulatory mechanism for nesting standards related to the creation of new affordable units, income levels, construction and design standards, and several other topics. Overlay zones are not limited strictly to frameworks oriented around affordable housing but have also been adapted to address other planning challenges, such as provision of housing for senior residents or special needs populations.

This memo provides a summary and analysis of four overlay zone frameworks:
• Cambridge, MA. Affordable Housing Overlay (zoning)
• Berkeley, CA. Affordable Housing Overlay (Housing Element) • Menlo Park, CA. Affordable Housing Overlay (zoning)
• Perris, CA. Senior Housing Overlay Zone (zoning)
Links to each precedent and their original language can be found in 6. Appendix. 1799
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 2 Milpitas Housing Overlay Zone: Precedent Studies & Incentives Comparative Matrix
The following table summarizes the regulatory language and framework of the four precedents. The information has been condensed in this memo.

Precedent
Study Applicability Interactions with
Underlying Zoning Affordability Requirements
Deedrestriction or
affordability
agreement?
Incentives
100%
Affordable
Housing
Overlay
Cambridge,
MA
- All zoning districts,
except Open Space
- Standards apply only to
100% affordable housing
projects
Underlying zoning
impacts density and
height bonuses
- At least 80% of units for
households with incomes
80% AMI or below
- 50% of for-sale units should
to households with incomes
80% AMI or below at initial
occupancy
Continued
affordability
agreement
- No maximum FAR
- Height bonus
- No off-street parking
minimums
- Minimum of 30%
open space to lot area
ratio
- Lower yard setbacks
100%
Affordable
Housing
Overlay Zone
Berkeley, CA
(Proposed)
- R3, R4, MU-R, all Cprefixed districts
- Potentially R-1, R-1A, R2, R-2A
- High fire risk area and
historical landmarks are
exempt
- Projects must have
100% affordable units
Reserved for Extremely Low-,
Very Low-, Low-, and
Moderate-income
households
Deed-restricted
- No maximum FAR
- Density bonus
- Height bonus
1800
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 3 Milpitas Housing Overlay Zone: Precedent Studies & Incentives Affordable
Housing
Overlay (AHO)
Menlo Park,
CA
- Menlo Park El Camino
Real and Downtown
specific plan area; lots
zoned R-4-S
- Projects must have a
mix of affordable and
market rate units
Some Specific Plan
development
standards cannot be
superseded by AHO
standards
At least 25% of affordable
units must be very low and/or
extremely low-income, or at
least 15% must be extremely
low income
Continued
affordability
agreement (no
less than 55
years)
- Density bonus
- Height bonus
- Parking space
requirements per type
of affordable unit
- Common and/or
private open space can
be reduced by 50%
- Setback reduced to 5’
except when more is
needed to
accommodate
increased density and
when parcel is next to
single-family residential
- Possibility of waived
processing fees
Senior
Housing
Overlay (SHO)
Zone Perris,
CA
- Can be combined with
any residential or
commercial zone district,
and lots must be greater
than 2 acres but not more
than 75 acres
- Surrounding land
uses must be
compatible with the
environment required
by seniors
- Level of affordability
and percentage of
affordable units are
dependent on
redevelopment area
classification
- Minimum 1 household
member must be age 55+
- Redevelopment area: at
least 30% of units for lowand moderate-income
households, at least 50% of
the 30% for very low-income
- Not redevelopment area: at
least 3% of units for low- and
moderate-income
households, at least 40% of
the 3% for very low-income
households
Affordability in
place for 30
years or how
long the
redevelopment
area
agreement
specifies
(whichever is
longer)
- Density bonus (up to
50 units/acre
- Development fees
waiver
1801
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 4 Milpitas Housing Overlay Zone: Precedent Studies & Incentives A. Affordable Housing Overlay. Cambridge, MA
The City of Cambridge adopted the 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay in October 2020. This overlay aims to help affordable housing developers build new, permanently affordable housing throughout the city, especially in areas where there are not enough affordable units, and areas where the current zoning makes it difficult to construct affordable housing projects. The standards and incentives of the overlay can only apply to projects where 100% of the units are affordable and available to households earning up to 100% of the Area Median income (AMI).

1. Development context
The Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) developed from discussions between the City Council, Housing Committee, and Community Development Department (CDD) regarding how to address the housing crisis and was further mentioned during the “Envision Cambridge” citywide plan process from 2016-2019. CDD developed the overlay and gathered feedback from public hearings, community meetings, and open houses. The AHO was presented as a zoning amendment to the Planning Board and Ordinance Committee, and after several meetings and revisions, they recommended that the City Council adopt the AHO ordinance. The City Council adopted the ordinance on October 5, 2020. To date, approximately 350 new affordable units have been completed under the regulations, with the City currently reviewing projects that could result in additional 300 units.

2. Regulatory Framework
Cambridge’s AHO is an amended, new section in the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The ordinance contains income and affordability criteria, development and design regulations, and regulatory mechanisms for ensuring the continued affordability of an AHO project’s units.

3. Applicability/Area of Influence
The overlay zone applies to all zoning districts of Cambridge, except parcels zoned as Open Space. Regardless of the underlying zoning standards or density requirements, AHO projects can contain single-family, two-family, townhouse, or multi-family dwellings. Projects may also include active, nonresidential uses on the ground floor, but only where the underlying zone or an additional overlay district already allow non-residential uses. An AHO project can feature the construction of a new building, or the retrofit of an existing building. The project is permitted “as-of-right" if the project meets all the standards within the overlay and the Design Guidelines established by the CDD.

4. Interaction with underlying zoning
The applicable development and design regulations of an AHO project are determined by the “District Dimensional Standards” of the underlying zoning district. The dimensional standards of the AHO apply in place of the District Dimensional Standards unless the AHO specifies otherwise. As previously stated, the AHO supersedes non-residential underlying zoning districts and allows for the development of housing in districts such as commercial or industrial. In addition, ground floor non-residential uses are allowed in new housing projects where the underlying zoning already allows such uses.
1802
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 5 Milpitas Housing Overlay Zone: Precedent Studies & Incentives

5. Development and Design Regulations
FAR. The floor area ratio (FAR) of an AHO project has no stated maximum or minimum. • Exception: If the standards of the underlying zoning district specify a maximum FAR of less than 1.0, the AHO project cannot exceed an FAR of

2.0. Lot Area. There is no minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement for AHO projects.

Height. The height bonus for an AHO project is contingent on the underlying zoning district’s allowable building heights.

Underlying zoning district
allowable building height Height Bonus Exceptions
40 feet or less
Up to 45 feet (no more than 4 stories) if
entirely residential; or
Up to 50 feet (4 stories above grade) if
first floor has active, non-residential use
Up to 50 feet
Up to 65 feet (no more than 6 stories) if
entirely residential; or
• When AHO project is adjacent to a non-residential
use, parts of the project within 35 feet of a zoning
district that allows a maximum building height of 40’
will be limited to the overlay provisions of that type of building (i.e., max build to 45’ if residential, 50’ if first floor is active non-residential)
• When the AHO project parcel extends into that
district, then the height limitation only extends 35'
from the property line.

Up to 70 feet (6 stories above grade) if
first floor has active, non-residential use
Greater than 50 feet Up to 80 feet (no more than 7 stories) • When AHO project is adjacent to a non-residential
use, parts of the project within 35 feet of a district
with zoning that allows a maximum building height of
40’ will be limited to a maximum height of 60’ (a
minimum of 5 stories).
1803
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 6 Milpitas Housing Overlay Zone: Precedent Studies & Incentives • When the AHO project parcel extends into that
district, then the height limitation only extends 35’
from the property line.

Parking. AHO projects do not have an off-street parking minimum requirement. However, if a project does not provide off-street parking at a ratio of

0.4 spaces per dwelling unit, the developer must create a Transportation Demand Management program where they:

1. Offer a free annual membership to a bike share program, or a 50% discounted transit combined subway and bus pass for 6 months, to 2 individuals in each household upon their initial occupancy of a unit; and

2. Provide transit information to each household upon their initial occupancy of a unit or provide real-time transit service screen and information in the building lobby.

Open Space. The minimum percentage of open space to lot area of an AHO project is 30%, unless the standards of the underlying zoning district have a less restrictive requirement. This percentage can be lowered to a minimum of 15% if the AHO project includes the protection and preservation of an existing building that is in the State Register of Historic Places. The AHO contains additional guidelines for the placement and characteristics of an AHO project’s open space.
1804
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 7 Milpitas Housing Overlay Zone: Precedent Studies & Incentives Yard Setbacks.

Setback Requirement Exceptions
Front Minimum setback of 15 feet
• The underlying zoning standards have a less restrictive requirement, • The project is on a corner lot (may be reduced to minimum of 10’), or • The developer chooses to reduce the setback to the average of the front yard setbacks of the four nearest pre-existing principal buildings that contain at least 2 stories above grade and directly front the same side of the street as the AHO project.
• If there are different underlying zoning standards for residential and non-residential uses, the non-residential front yard setback requirement applies to an AHO project with an active non-residential ground floor.

Side Minimum setback of 7.5 feet Unless underlying zoning district’s residential requirement is less restrictive.

Rear Minimum rear setback of 20 feet Unless the underlying zoning district’s residential requirement is less restrictive.

Standards for Existing Buildings. Existing buildings used in an AHO project that do not match the development and design regulations can be altered, reconstructed, relocated, and/or enlarged to conform with the AHO regulations. Below are modification standards that are allowed “as-ofright." • The addition of gross floor area within the interior of the existing building envelope that could violate FAR limitations set by the AHO • An increase in the number of dwelling units within the existing building if the number of stories above grade is not greater than the existing number of stories above grade, or the existing height divided by 10 feet • The relocation, enlargement, or addition of openings to the exterior of the building 1805
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 8 Milpitas Housing Overlay Zone: Precedent Studies & Incentives • The addition of insulation to improve energy efficiency if the new exterior wall conforms to yard setback requirements, does not intrude more than 8 inches into the existing yard setback, or does not decrease the existing open space by more than 5% • The addition of exterior features to meet accessibility requirements • Alterations, additions, repair, reconstruction, or replacement of the existing building and pre-existing nonconforming features that do not violate the dimensional requirements set by the AHO
Building and Site Design Standards for New Development. The AHO contains design standards that apply to new construction and the additions to existing structures. Existing buildings that are a part of an AHO project do not have to follow these design standards if the alterations do not “create a condition that is in greater nonconformance with such standards than the existing condition.” The complete standards are available in 6. Appendix.

5. Income and Affordability
An AHO Eligible Household has a gross household income upon initial occupancy of no more than 100% of AMI. Rental and for-sale AHO units are available for AHO Eligible Households, with a preference for Cambridge residents and former Cambridge residents who experienced a no-fault eviction in the last 12 months within Cambridge. This local preference can make projects ineligible from certain federal grants that can help finance the development of affordable housing.

Rental AHO dwelling units:
• The gross household income of the AHO Eligible Household at initial occupancy cannot be more than 100% AMI, but a household exceeding this limit after initial occupancy can continue to rent the unit (cannot exceed 120% AMI for more than one year). • At least 80% of the units in an AHO project must be reserved for households with incomes no more than 80% AMI. • Rent, utilities, and fees must be approved by the CDD and cannot be more than 30% of the gross household income of the unit occupants. • The gross household income of an AHO Eligible Household will be verified annually, or at the times required by a CDD-approved housing subsidy program, to determine the household’s continued eligibility and rent.

Owner-occupied AHO dwelling units:
• The gross household income of the AHO Eligible Household at initial occupancy cannot be more than 100% AMI. • At least 50% of the for-sale units in an AHO project must be reserved for households with incomes no more than 80% AMI. • The initial sale price of a unit must be approved by the CDD, and the monthly housing payment cannot exceed 30% of the household’s monthly income.
1806
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 9 Milpitas Housing Overlay Zone: Precedent Studies & Incentives

6. Regulatory Mechanisms
Deed Restrictions. AHO units are “created and conveyed subject to recorded covenants approved by CDD” to guarantee the permanent availability of the dwelling units to AHO Eligible Households.

Application process and approval. Each AHO project must follow a review and community engagement process. • The developer must schedule two design consultations with the Planning Board, who will determine if the project meets the regulations of the overlay.
• The developer must host at least two community meetings for the residents of the neighborhood surrounding the proposed project site. At the first meeting, the developer shares initial analysis and gathers feedback from the community before design begins. At the second meeting, the developer shares preliminary project designs and receives design feedback.

7. Strengths
• AHO projects must contain 100% affordable units. By requiring that all units of a project be reserved for household earning up to 80% and 100% of the AMI, the City commits to prioritizing low-income housing construction and ensuring that any additions to the housing stock utilizing the overlay’s incentives are affordable units.
• Application and review process. The review process includes mandatory community engagement procedures that allow community members to voice their opinions over changes occurring in their neighborhood. Additionally, the advisory design review process is straightforward and thoroughly explained in the AHO ordinance text.
• Applicability of the overlay zone. The AHO allows for the creation of affordable housing in zoning districts that have previously not allowed residential uses. In Milpitas, a housing overlay zone with similar regulations would allow areas of the city that are currently zoned and operate as commercial to accommodate new housing construction, without having to undergo a re-zoning process to amend the allowable uses in a commercial district. As an example, if all institutional-zoned parcels in Milpitas could accommodate housing, the City may be able to approve affordable housing projects for teachers and school staff much quicker, and without having to undergo the re-zoning process.

8. Weaknesses
• 100% AMI Standard. Cambridge’s AMI is different from the AMI in Milpitas. Milpitas is located in Santa Clara, a county with high cost of living that can make 80% AMI unattainable for some Milpitas residents. In 2021, 80% AMI for a family of four was $117,750 and 30% AMI (usually considered extremely low-income) was $49,700. An overlay in Milpitas may need to use different affordability requirements that are more appropriate to the city’s context. Additionally, Cambridge requires the monitoring of income levels for rental and for-sale units. It may be difficult to enforce or monitor income requirements of certain units once they are sold. 1807
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 10 Milpitas Housing Overlay Zone: Precedent Studies & Incentives • Applicability of the overlay zone. The AHO allows for the creation of affordable housing in all zoning districts, except Open Space. The overlay creates near-universal standards for parcels throughout the city, but each has different geographic contexts, transportation accessibility, and proximity to community services and amenities. Not all parcels in a city will be the best locations to place low-income housing and some may even contribute to the historic marginalization of low-income communities. • Affordable housing construction in Industrial Zoning Districts. If AHO projects are constructed in areas with primarily industrial uses, these projects could contribute to the historical, unjust practice of placing low-income housing next to pollution-generating uses. Communities that have higher exposure rates to pollutants can lead to increased negative health impacts. Additionally, industrial zones may have underlying restrictive covenants related to the presence of hazardous waste and materials, which could prohibit the construction of housing. In Milpitas, there may be industrial districts that are more suitable for housing construction than others. A comprehensive study of industrial parcels would be needed to understand the socio-environmental effects of allowing low-income housing in these areas. • Modernization of older public housing. For projects retrofitting existing buildings that already feature affordable housing, Cambridge’s AHO standards lack anti-displacement measures to ensure future spaces for existing tenants. Consequently, the responsibility of ensuring housing security is left up to individual developers to voluntarily offer as a form of community benefits. For example, Jefferson Park Federal is a project that is replacing former federal public housing buildings with new fully, affordable housing units. The Cambridge Housing Authority has promised to ensure no permanent displacement of the buildings’ original tenants and assisted in relocating the original tenants into other units while construction occurs. This assurance is not a product of a regulatory standard in the AHO, but a key value of the Authority when the project was initially being developed.

B. Affordable Housing Overlay. Berkeley, CA

1. Development context
In November 2021, the City Council of the City of Berkeley recommended the City Manager to consider a 100% Affordable Housing Overlay designation, and to integrate it into the ongoing Housing Element Update process. The implementation of the overlay would require the development of objective design standards, or form-based standards, and the development of an advisory Design Review process that will guide the design of qualifying affordable housing projects. Additionally, General Plan amendments would need to be created that allow 100% affordable housing projects, in order to remain consistent with existing densities described in the General Plan. As of March 2022 however, draft regulatory text has not yet been made publicly available, and the ongoing Housing Element work has not yet engaged fully with the topic of an overlay designation. The proposal that was presented to the City Council and City Manager has been released and contains goals, preliminary standards, and requirements that will be included in the final regulatory text.

2. Regulatory Framework
The overlay proposal includes preliminary requirements and standards for affordable housing projects that would utilize the overlay incentives. 1808
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 11 Milpitas Housing Overlay Zone: Precedent Studies & Incentives

3. Applicability/Area of Influence
The overlay would apply to parcels in the following zoning districts:
• Multiple-family Residential (R3)
• Multi-family Residential (R4)
• Mixed Use-Residential (MU-R)
• Commercial Districts (all C-prefixed districts)
The overlay could also apply to parcels in the following zoning districts, but would require further study to determine project feasibility:
• Single-family Residential (R-1)
• Limited Two-family Residential (R-1A)
• Restricted Two-family Residential (R-2)
• Restricted Multiple-family Residential (R-2A)
Parcels located in CalFire Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, City of Berkeley Fire Zones 2 and 3, or are designated City, State, and Federal Historical Landmarks, would be exempt from the overlay.

4. Development and Design Regulations
In R3, R4, MU-R, C-prefixed districts, the following standards and bonuses would apply:
• A local density bonus that reflects the provision of AB 1763 (in addition to any State density bonuses) • No limits on FAR
• Up to 80% lot coverage
In R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A zones, the following standards and bonuses would apply:
• A local bonus inclusive of existing density bonuses
• No limits on FAR
• Up to 80% lot coverage

5. Regulatory Mechanisms
Deed Restrictions and Income Requirements. Units within qualifying 100% affordable housing projects would be deed-restricted for Low, Very Low, Extremely Low-, and Moderate-Income households.
1809
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 12 Milpitas Housing Overlay Zone: Precedent Studies & Incentives Application process and approval. Projects that comply with the overlay’s design standards and income requirements would have ministerial approval. The advisory Design Review process would review if the project met the overlay’s guidelines. If the guidelines were not met, the Design board would provide suggested changes to the developer that would allow the project to meet the standards.

6. Strengths
• Excluding parcels in fire hazard zones. By not allowing affordable housing development in fire-risk areas, the City is decreasing the potential of low-income family displacement in the event of a wildfire. • Overlay as a part of the Housing Element. The AHO proposal states that it will be a part of the state-mandated Housing Element, which describes the city’s plans to accommodate future housing growth. As a part of the Housing Element, it would better ensure that the overlay is implemented.

7. Weaknesses
• Overlay language not yet finalized. Berkeley’s AHO is still a proposal that will be incorporated into a different regulatory document, and it cannot be thoroughly compared to other overlay zones that have been adopted into zoning codes and ordinances. • 100% Affordable Units. Restricting the benefits of an Overlay to 100% affordable housing can be seen as a constraint. By limiting the pool of which types of projects can leverage the incentives can limit the overall production of affordable housing. In addition, constrained availability of public funds and the need for local municipalities to provide matching funds can be a limiting factor.

C. Affordable Housing Overlay. Menlo Park, CA

1. Development context
Menlo Park’s Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) is meant to implement the goals of the Housing Element and encourage the development of affordable housing for low, very low, and extremely low-income households. The AHO was adopted by the City Council in June 2013 as a part of a settlement agreement (Peninsula Interfaith Action, et al. v City of Menlo Park) that also required the City to update its 1992 Housing Element. As of March 2022, the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Update is ongoing and has proposed updating the AHO to include a maximum density bonus of 100 dwelling units/acre for 100% affordable housing projects, extending the AHO coverage area, and modifying the fee waivers and development standards. These updates are not yet final, and the discussion presented below is based on the current, adopted overlay language.

2. Regulatory Framework
Menlo Park’s AHO contains income and affordability criteria, development and design regulations, and regulatory mechanisms for ensuring the continued affordability of an AHO project’s units.
1810
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 13 Milpitas Housing Overlay Zone: Precedent Studies & Incentives

3. Applicability/Area of Influence
The overlay applies to parcels within the Menlo Park El Camino Real and Downtown Specific Plan area and those zoned as R-4-S (AHO) (high density residential, special – affordable housing overlay). Qualifying projects must have at least 5 units and accommodate a full range of income levels.

4. Interaction with underlying zoning
The overlay has been applied to specific parcels as a zoning classification (R-4-S AHO) and applies to the parcels identified in the El Camino Real and Downtown Specific Plan. The Specific Plan establishes development standards that can be paired with the standards of the AHO, and the AHO identifies the Specific Plan guidelines that cannot be substituted. • Exceptions:
o For parcels within the Specific Plan boundaries, the maximum FAR will be limited to the public benefit levels for the area the parcel is in. Each Specific Plan area has a different maximum FAR depending on the parcel’s land use and location within the area.  El Camino Real North: 1.10, 1.50 FAR
 El Camino Real South: 1.50, 1.75 FAR
 Station: 1.75, 2.25 FAR
 Downtown: 1.0, 2.25 FAR
o Front and side setback facing a public right-of-way.
o Building facade height.
o Massing and modulation standards including major portions of a building facing a street should be parallel to the street, building breaks, building facade modulation, and building profile, and upper story facade length. 1811
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 14 Milpitas Housing Overlay Zone: Precedent Studies & Incentives

5. Development and Design Regulations
Density bonus.
• An AHO project that provides 21% low-income units is entitled to a 36.5% density bonus. With each additional percentage of low-income units above 21% (or the percentage used for low-income units when there is a mix of low and very low-income units), project is entitled to an additional 1.5% density bonus up to a cumulative maximum bonus of 60%. • An AHO project that provides 12% very low-income units is entitled to a 37.5% density bonus. With each additional percentage of very lowincome units above 12% (or the percentage used for very low-income units when there is a mix of low and very low-income units), project is entitled to an additional 2.5% density bonus up to a cumulative maximum of 60%.

FAR. There is no stated maximum or minimum FAR. An AHO project can increase its floor area ratio “by an amount that corresponds to the increase in allowable density” determined by the density bonus guidelines. • Projects can add an additional 5% or other increase that is “reasonably sufficient to make development of low and very low income multiplebedroom units and family housing feasible.” Coverage.
• “Any applicable maximum building coverage and/or allowable paving requirement shall be increased by 5% and the minimum open space requirement reduced by 10% from the underlying zoning designation.” Height.
• An AHO project that can have up to a 45% AHO density bonus can have a maximum height of 4 stories (no more than 48’). • An AHO project that can have an AHO density bonus greater than 45% and has at least 50% of its affordable units reserved for very low and extremely low-income households (or 25% of the affordable units reserved for extremely low-income households), can have a maximum of 5 stories (no more than 60’).
1812
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 15 Milpitas Housing Overlay Zone: Precedent Studies & Incentives Parking. The parking requirements of the underlying zoning designation apply to AHO projects.

The following guidelines only apply to the affordable units within a project:

Unit Type Required Parking Space(s)
Studio 0.8
1-bedroom 1
2-bedroom or larger 1.5
Senior housing units 0.8 or less
For projects within the Caltrain station area identified in the Specific Plan, each affordable unit can have a reduction of 0.2 parking spaces from the minimum listed here. • AHO projects within the Specific Plan area can conform to the parking requirements listed in the AHO or adhere to the parking requirements of the specific plan, whichever is less.
• Parking spaces for affordable units do not need to be covered or located in a garage or carport. • Provided long-term bicycle parking should not be more than 0.5 spaces per unit. • Any requirement for electric vehicle parking or recharging stations can be reduced by 50% or project can provide an equivalent number of car sharing spaces.

Open Space. Common and private open space can be reduced by up to 50% from the underlying zoning requirements, in addition to reductions needed to “physically accommodate the increased density provided for” by the ordinance.

Setbacks. In addition to reductions needed to “physically accommodate the increased density provided for” by the ordinance, required setbacks can be reduced by 5 feet.
• Exception: When an AHO project parcel is next to a parcel zoned for single-family residential, the underlying zoning requirement still applies. 1813
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 16 Milpitas Housing Overlay Zone: Precedent Studies & Incentives Design.
• AHO projects will be reviewed for compliance with adopted objective design standards, and projects within the Specific Plan area must follow the architectural control process described in the plan. No other review is required unless the developer requests a variance from the AHO requirements.
• Low and very low-income units must be built at the same time, and to the same quality standard, as market rate units. They must also be integrated into the project.
• The number of bedrooms in low and very low-income units must be consistent with the mix in market rate units.

6. Income and Affordability
To be eligible for bonuses and incentives, AHO projects with more than 5 but less than 100 units must have at a minimum: 21% of all units reserved for low-income households, or 12% of units reserved for very low-income households. • If the project proposes to have both low and very low-income units, the minimum percentage of units shall be more than necessary to reach a 35% state density bonus.
• The below market rate units a project is required to include due to the City’s Below Market Rate Housing Program cannot be counted to reach these AHO requirements.

To be eligible for the density bonuses and incentives, AHO projects with more than 100 units must have at a minimum: 21% of all units reserved for low-income households, or 12% of all units reserved for very low-income households. • If the project proposes to have both low and very low-income units, the minimum percentage of units shall be more than necessary to reach more than a 35% state density bonus.
• The below market rate units a project is required to include due to the City’s Below Market Rate Housing Program cannot be counted to reach these AHO requirements.

In addition to the aforementioned income criteria concerning low-income and very-low income households, the AHO also includes a secondary requirement, where:
• 25% of the affordable units must be reserved for very low and/or extremely low-income households, or • 15% of the affordable units must be reserved for extremely low-income households In practice, a 100-unit project would need to adhere to one of the following methods in order to qualify for the AHO bonuses:
• Method 1a: A minimum of 21 units reserved for low-income households (21% of all 100 units), where 6 of these units (25% of the 21 affordable units, rounded up) are reserved for very-low and/or extremely-low income households 1814
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 17 Milpitas Housing Overlay Zone: Precedent Studies & Incentives • Method 1b: A minimum of 21 units reserved for low-income households, where 4 of these units (15% of 21 affordable units, rounded up) are reserved for extremely-low income households
• Method 2a: A minimum of 12 units (12% of all 100 units) reserved for very-low income households • Method 2b: A minimum of 12 units reserved for very-low income households, where 2 of these units (15% of 12 affordable units, rounded up) are reserved for extremely-low income households
A key provision of the AHO is that the low or very low income percentage required to qualify for the AHO shall not include the below market rate units required to be provided by for-sale residential development project and commercial development projects pursuant to the city’s below market rate housing program or Inclusionary Housing requirement.

7. Regulatory Mechanisms
Continued affordability.
• Project developers must create an agreement with the city to ensure the continued affordability of the affordable dwelling units for no less than 55 years.

Waivers.
• AHO projects with at least 50% of all project units reserved for low-income households (or 20% for very low-income households) are entitled to a fee waiver for all processing fees related to development applications. • All AHO projects are entitled to a reduction in all other fees in an amount that corresponds to the increase in allowable density, though the waiving of certain fees is subject to discretionary review by the city council.

8. Strengths
• Affordability requirements. The AHO provides incentives to projects with 50% or less affordable units, an affordability percentage that can allow use of more private financing for these projects compared with 100% affordable housing projects. • Affordability agreement. The overlay includes a 55-year continued affordability agreement, which allows the rental price of the unit to stay affordable and can lead to housing security for low-income families. • Fee waivers. Fee waivers incentivize increases in the number of low (or very low) income units. • Design quality. The AHO includes a condition that requires developer to construct affordable units to the same quality standard as market-rate units and for the affordable units to be integrated with the entire project building. This is an important aspect to include in the overlay that ensures that the lower and higher income units are fully integrated. 1815
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 18 Milpitas Housing Overlay Zone: Precedent Studies & Incentives

9. Weaknesses
• Incentives. Many of the development standard exceptions can be obtained by using the recently revised State Density Bonus Law provisions. • Parking requirements. The reductions for parking could be higher, making the provision of additional affordable units more financially viable.

D. Senior Housing Overlay Zone. Perris, CA
The Senior Housing Overlay (SHO) Zone from the City of Perris is meant to encourage the development of senior housing in compatible neighborhoods and create more housing opportunities for very low- and moderate-income seniors.

1. Development context
The Senior Housing Overlay Zone was adopted by the City Council of Perris in 2013. Since then, Perris Station is an example project that made use of the SHO. The 84-unit senior housing project opened in 2015.

2. Regulatory Framework
Perris’ SHO contains affordability requirements, density and parking incentives, and detailed building and site design guidelines.

3. Applicability/Area of Influence
The SHO Zone can be applied to a lot that is at least 2 acres, but not larger than 75 acres, in any residential or commercial district. The current and proposed surrounding land uses must be free from health and safety issues and be compatible with the environment required by seniors. SHO projects are allowed to have multifamily residential, attached single-family residential, and detached single-family residential units that can be rentals, condominiums, cooperative, or other fee-simple ownership units.

4. Interaction with underlying zoning
SHO projects can be on parcels in residential or commercial district. Projects must follow the standards of the underlying zone, except when the development and design regulations of the SHO say otherwise. Parts of the City are in a redevelopment area, and SHO projects within that area are subject to different SHO development and design regulations than those outside of the redevelopment area.

5. Development and Design Regulations
Density. The maximum allowable density of an SHO project is 50 dwelling units/acre. This incentive can override the underlying zone density requirements.
1816
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 19 Milpitas Housing Overlay Zone: Precedent Studies & Incentives Parking. SHO projects must provide 1.15 parking spaces per dwelling unit.

Setback. The setback of the building along all street frontages must be half the length of the building wall but cannot be less than 20 feet.

Building and Site Design Standards. The SHO specifies development criteria that dictates the design of the building, site, accessibility features, circulation, landscaping, open space, and recreational facilities. It also lists security and maintenance considerations. For the full list of standards, refer to the original SHO language (link provided in 6. Appendix)

6. Income and Affordability
Age requirement:
• At least one household member must be 55 years or older.

Projects within redevelopment area:
• At least 30% of the dwelling units will be reserved and affordable for low- and moderate-income households. • At least 50% of the 30% mentioned above will be reserved and affordable for very low-income households. • These dwelling units can be rental and/or for-sale units. • The City may require more stringent income requirements if it has provided financial assistance to the development project.

Projects outside redevelopment area:
• At least 3% of the dwelling units will be reserved and affordable for low- and moderate-income households. • At least 40% of the 3% mentioned above will be reserved and affordable for very low-income households. • These dwelling units can be rental and/or for-sale units.

7. Regulatory Mechanisms
Deed Restrictions. The affordability restrictions must remain in place for 30 years or the time period specified by the land use controls of the redevelopment area, whichever is longer.

Waivers. The City can waive park development fees for qualified SHO projects. 1817
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 20 Milpitas Housing Overlay Zone: Precedent Studies & Incentives Application process and approval.
• The Planning Commission will host a public hearing to consider the proposed project and determine whether to recommend approval or disapproval to the city council. They will recommend approval if the project meets the requirements of the SHO. • The City Council will conduct a public hearing to determine whether the SHO should apply to the project. It must meet the following guidelines:
o “The proposed project at its specific location is necessary and desirable to provide a facility that will contribute to the general wellbeing of seniors as well as the local neighborhood, community, and region. o The location of the project and the mix of uses is not detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of its residents, employees, or those working or residing in the area.
o The proposed project will provide a superior community that will support the unique needs and lifestyles of seniors. o That the granting of this permit will not adversely affect the public welfare and will be consistent with the city's general plan and any other relevant plans of any government agency.”
• By granting an SHO project permit, the City Council reserves the right to modify the project plans or create conditions the project must meet to ensure public health, safety, and welfare and meet the objectives of the SHO Zone.

8. Strengths
• Building and site design standards. The Senior Housing Overlay includes detailed and specific design parameters developers must follow. With these guidelines, the City has clear expectations about the living environment senior housing developments should create and maintain. • Affordability agreement. The overlay incudes a 30-year continued affordability agreement, which allows the rental price of the unit to remain affordable.

9. Weaknesses
• Affordability requirements. The affordability requirements for projects outside of redevelopment areas of the city are very low and would not produce a substantial amount of affordable senior units or justify the benefits conferred to the project by the SHO. The affordability requirements for projects in redevelopment areas are even not very high given the objectives of this type of special zoning. Developers can see this low requirement as an incentive to prioritize housing construction in non-redevelopment areas, leaving other areas of the city without as much new senior housing. If the City’s intention was to spur more senior housing in these other areas, this is unclear. • The project approval process is discretionary. The project approval process is not as streamlined as other cities and it is discretionary to the City Council’s interpretations of public health needs. In one way, the City has more oversight over what is built, but it could be seen as a disincentive by developers who would want to develop and construct projects on a faster timeline. Specific public health considerations could have been included in the building and site design standards section. 1818
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 21 Milpitas Housing Overlay Zone: Precedent Studies & Incentives • Limited applicability. The minimum parcel size of 2 acres excludes the potential of projects on smaller sites. There are many examples of successful affordable or mixed-income senior housing projects with 50 units on one acre. The high minimum project size may be adequate in some areas but likely has the unintended consequence of excluding potential projects as infill in many older, more developed neighborhoods.

3. Incentives
It is important to note that Milpitas must also address a significant number of recently adopted state-level legislation and regulatory mechanisms pertaining specifically to affordable housing. Many of these laws establish a variety of incentives whose purpose is to encourage the construction of new housing, and in some instances have already resulted in significant revisions to local planning practices and regulatory language. Examples of relevant state law have been included throughout this section.

A. Streamlined Permitting Process
A streamlined, predictable permitting process can incentivize more developers to construct affordable housing. Many cities require a multistep discretionary review process to ensure a proposed project complies with the City’s Zoning Code, and this approval process can extend the project timeline while adding more costs onto the developer. A clear permitting process can lower these initial development costs and expedite affordable housing projects. There are a variety of strategies municipalities can take to streamline their permitting process for affordable housing projects.

By-right/as-of-right approval
By-right (also known as “as-of-right,” administrative review, ministerial review) development approval is granted to a project that has conformed to the zoning and building code requirements and qualifies for construction without having to go through a discretionary approval process. The project still needs to apply for permits but by qualifying for by-right development, the developer can cut down the time and money spent on having their proposed project approved. Some cities pair by-right approval with a design review.

For example, Cambridge’s Affordable Housing Overlay “as-of-right" approval applies to projects that follow all the regulations and objective design standards of the overlay, go through a two-meeting advisory design review, and host two community engagement meetings. The expectations and requirements of the developer for these meetings are clearly listed in the Overlay ordinance.

In Menlo Park, Affordable Housing Overlay projects outside of the Downtown specific plan area only need a compliance review to determine the project’s compliance with adopted objective design standards. Projects within the specific plan area must go through the architectural control process 1819
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 22 Milpitas Housing Overlay Zone: Precedent Studies & Incentives described in the specific plan. If the developer requests a variance from adopted regulations and design standards, discretionary action will be required.

Milpitas could consider a streamlined permitting process specific to an overlay zone that is complementary and consistent with other existing regulations and state housing laws. Similar to the way that recent state legislation has already introduced mandated streamlined permitting processes related to specific types of development projects (among these, rooftop solar with AB 2188 in 2015 and streamlined residential review with SB 330 and changes to the Housing Accountability Act in 2019), the introduction of a new affordable housing overlay zone could provide a broader definition of projects eligible for a streamlined review.

B. Bonus Development
Density bonuses allow developers that prioritize affordable housing to construct more units to spread the subsidized cost of the affordable units over a larger number of market rate units. Accompanying height bonuses allow for the larger floor area to be accommodated on the site.

Additional Density/FAR Bonuses
Many cities build on the existing state density bonuses to further incentivize affordable housing development. A density bonus allows a project to have an increase in dwelling units per acre. A FAR bonus allows buildings to have an increase in the total floor area. To accommodate additional units allowed by density bonuses, some overlays have removed the maximum FAR limit for applicable projects. For example, Cambridge’s overlay does not have a max FAR (unless the underlying zoning specifies a max 1.0 FAR, then applicable projects can have up to 2.0 FAR). Menlo Park also does not specify a max FAR, and notes that the FAR of projects can increase by the amount needed to accommodate increased density.

Beyond their inclusion in overlay zones however, Milpitas should first contend with prevailing state laws regarding density bonuses attributed to affordable housing. AB 1763 (2019) and AB 2345 (2020) constitute the most applicable and comprehensive examples, as they collectively establish several regulations that link ranges of density bonuses with affordability levels. AB 1763 more than doubles the density bonus for eligible projects where all units are affordable to low and very-low income level residents. AB 2345 accommodates density bonuses on a slide scale between 35% and 50%. The bonus is linked to several other conditions and criteria including income criteria, parking, and concessions for provision of senior housing.

For a new overlay zone to be meaningful, any provisions should be written to exceed the stated minimums, especially with regards to the required metrics for very low income- and low income-households; the bonuses in AB 2345 are currently triggered at 15% and 24% respectively. 1820
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 23 Milpitas Housing Overlay Zone: Precedent Studies & Incentives Additional Height Allocation
Allowing additional building heights or stories in an overlay can incentivize developers to pursue a project because developers can meet “the economy of scale” needed to construct affordable housing. Increased height allowances can enable buildings to have additional uses on the ground floor, whether it be building amenities or community commercial uses. For example, Cambridge’s AHO increases allowable building heights from the underlying zoning’s requirements and allows an additional 5’ when the first floor has an active non-residential use.

Other overlays choose to link the new allowable building heights to the density bonus a project qualifies for and the number of affordable units it includes. In Menlo Park, a project with a 45% density bonus can have up to 4 stories (or 48’), while a project with a 45% density bonus and with 25% of the units reserved for extremely low-income households can have up to 5 stories (or 60’). Milpitas already has two precedents to consider when approaching additional height allocations. The High-Rise (-HR) Overlay District is an existing designation that can be combined with any zoning district along with infill projects located along freeways and expressways. While a new overlay zone oriented around affordable housing may be introduced, the City could first consider expanding the existing -HR designations onto new applicable parcels through a zoning map amendment, rather than nest such language into a new overlay regulation.

With the recent completion of the Milpitas BART station, AB 1763 (2019) also offers a unique perspective on regulating building height increases within an incentive structure. AB 1763 allows eligible 100% affordable housing developments built within a half-mile of a major transit stop an increase in building height by 3 additional stories or 33 feet. The bill allows this additional density to operate atop any other density bonuses. The result can be a substantial increase in total development potential, as seen in a recently approved housing development in nearby San Mateo where the application of AB 1763 allowed an initially proposed 164-unit, 5-story project to expand into a 225-unit, 7-story project. Although this stipulation may not apply citywide, Milpitas could first consider the potential development capacity of parcels within a half-mile radius of the BART station, or other qualifying transit hubs, as an alternative to a new overlay zone.

Building & Site Design
Setback and off-street parking reductions can allow housing projects to increase their size and density, in turn creating more units. Setbacks create distance between a building and the property boundaries, and smaller setback minimum requirements mean that developers can use a greater area of the lot for the building.

Off-street parking requirements are usually met by constructing parking spaces underneath the building, on the ground floor, or in an adjoining parking lot. Reducing the required minimum parking spaces can allow for more development potential ((i.e., community amenities, green spaces, additional units) on a site as well as reduce development costs. With reduced or no minimum parking requirements, a developer can still choose to 1821
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 24 Milpitas Housing Overlay Zone: Precedent Studies & Incentives provide more parking if needed. Additionally, removing parking minimums can incentivize building occupants to use alternative modes of transportation.

C. Fee Waivers
Development fees, permitting fees, and/or processing fees are typically required from developers when submitting a project proposal. Affordable housing overlays can be structured to waive certain fees for projects that reach specific affordability requirements. For example, Menlo Park waives processing fees for projects that have at least 50% of the units reserved for low-income households or 20% of the units reserved for very low-income households. The City of Perris’ Senior Housing Overlay Zone waives the development fees for all projects that qualify under this overlay.

While Milpitas could waive some or all of the fees to incentivize housing projects, the City would need to evaluate how to fund the services that the fees are used to provide. Considerations may include waiving or reducing Planning Entitlement, Transit/Traffic Impact, or Parks fees, or revising the types of projects that are subject to these fees. In particular, the city should carefully assess whether qualifying multifamily projects within a newly proposed overlay zone would be subject to all typical fees – the prospect of a reduced set of mandatory fees could serve as an attractive incentive for developers.

D. Other Incentives
• 100% AHO vs not-100% AHO consideration. Adopting a 100% Affordable Housing Overlay can incentivize non-profit and affordable housing developers to construct projects in Milpitas as it signals that the City is prioritizing the development of housing for its low-income residents, a demographic that struggles to find housing options that match their incomes. But having a mixed Affordable Housing Overlay allows other types of projects with different income mixes (and a broader variety of financing) to be constructed. Other types of possible incentives will be studied further after consultation with developers in Milpitas area to identify what would make it attractive to build more affordable housing.
• Socio-economic benefits. The creation of an affordable housing overlay zone can bring about socio-economic benefits for the city, and for the tenants and owners of affordable units. The Berkeley overlay proposal calls out how the intent of affordable housing overlays is not just to produce more housing, but to promote the more equitable distribution of affordable housing throughout a city. This is especially important in areas that have been shaped by class and racial segregation and where it persists to this day. When affordable housing is allowed to develop in high-opportunity neighborhoods, there are more opportunities than before for lower-income households to live and participate in those neighborhoods. More residents of a city can have the option to live in neighborhoods that typically have greater access to transit, education, and community amenities. Depending on the overlay’s provisions, it can also incentivize a greater mix of incomes within individual buildings. 1822
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 25 Milpitas Housing Overlay Zone: Precedent Studies & Incentives

5. Conclusion
A housing overlay that is developed in Milpitas will have to consider the city’s housing needs and environmental context to create an overlay that best suits the City’s conditions and housing goals. There are a variety of incentives and strategies that an overlay can include to encourage the development of a particular type of housing, but it must be done in conjunction with existing state housing bonuses and incentives.

A few considerations for the city to consider in developing a AHO in Milpitas:
• The extent to which an AHO can build upon the SDBL and other recent State provisions for incentivizing housing production. • The amount of financial incentives including fee waivers that the City can offer to prioritize the development of affordable housing. • How to address the potential issue that the concentration of affordable units in certain geographic areas may run counter to AFFH requirements, especially if Housing Element sites are located with the overlay zone.

The precedent examples shall be helpful in informing the development of a Milpitas-specific overlay zone. Next steps include stakeholder interview and further analysis of target areas and applicable regulations.

6. Appendix
Overlay Zone Text and Resources
Cambridge, MA
• Regulatory text: https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Housing/Overlay/adoptedahoordinance.pdf • Supporting Documentation:
o https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Housing/Overlay/zngamend_aho_designguidelines_20200728v2.pdf o http://rwinters.com/insideout/2018sept18/OverlayProposal2018Sept13.pdf o https://courbanize.com/projects/jeffersonparkfederal/information o https://www.wickedlocal.com/story/cambridge-chronicle-tab/2021/08/16/op-ed-cambridges-affordable-housing-overlay-alreadyproducing-350-new-affordable-homes/8129618002/ Berkeley, CA
• Regulatory text (DRAFT): https://www.berkeleyside.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2021-11-09-Item-09-Affordable-Housing-Overlay.pdf 1823
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 26 Milpitas Housing Overlay Zone: Precedent Studies & Incentives • Supporting Documentation:
o https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/11/10/affordable-housing-berkeley o https://beyondchron.org/berkeleys-next-big-step-a-100-affordable-housing-overlay/ o https://www.dailycal.org/2021/11/11/berkeley-city-council-approves-affordable-housing-overlay-social-housing-measures/ Menlo Park, CA
• Regulatory text: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/MenloPark/#!/MenloPark16/MenloPark1698.html • Supporting Documentation:
o El Camino Real and Downtown Specific Plan: https://www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/290/Specific-Plan---Complete?bidId= o https://beta.menlopark.org/files/sharedassets/public/community-development/documents/projects/housing-elementupdate/20220212-housing-element-update-community-meeting-presentation.pdf o https://covid19.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb766/files/Documents/santa-clara-county-2021-area-median-income-ami-chart.pdf Perris, CA
• Regulatory text: https://library.municode.com/ca/perris/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COOR_TIT19ZO_CH19.86SEHOOVZOSH • Supporting Documentation:
o https://ktgy.com/work/perris-station-senior-apartments/ Other sources
• https://www.planetizen.com/definition/rightdevelopment#:~:text=A%20by%2Dright%20approval%20(also,construction%20without%20requiring%20discretionary%20approval 1824
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 1 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment 1825
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 2 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment Contents

1. Introduction
i. Overview
ii. Key Takeaways

2. Documents and Policies Reviewed

3. Planning Review
i. Milpitas General Plan
ii. Specific Plans
iii. Zoning/Municipal Code
iv. Density Bonus Ordinance (Title XI-10-54.15 of the Zoning Code and Sections 65915 – 65918 of Ca Government Code)
v. Affordable Housing Ordinance (Title XII-Chapter 1 of the Municipal Code – Housing Section)
vi. SB 35

4. Development Process Review
i. Project Review & Permitting
ii. Fees

5. References
1826
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 3 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment

1. Introduction
i. Overview
Several factors have made the goal of creating and preserving housing, especially affordable and special needs housing, a challenge in the City of Milpitas. Along with increasing land and construction costs, current plans and regulations can also severely limit where and how much new affordable housing can be built. Zoning laws may impose standards such as density limits and parking requirements or delays in the permitting process can become burdensome for some housing projects.

This memo reviews and summarizes some of the existing planning documents and ordinances that impact the development of housing and identifies strengths that can be enhanced and weaknesses that can be overcome through the Housing Overlay Zone project. The HOZ aims to address these challenges through relaxing requirements, providing incentives, and streamlining the permitting process to help the City’s developers and housing partners access new opportunities and allow for balanced and equitable growth in the city. This memo will help develop recommendations guiding land use, developmental standards, and processes in the next phase of the Housing Overlay Zone project. ii. Key Takeaways
• The General Plan goals and actions aim to create vibrant commercial neighborhood centers through placemaking strategies and mixed-use development that encourage social gatherings. • While the current General Plan designations NCMU and TWC allow mixed use, low FAR limits and the bundling of residential development with the amount of commercial space developed considerably limits the scope of constructing mixed use projects.
• The revised density limits in the draft Metro Specific Plan have the potential to be further intensified based on the proposed height limits taking advantage of the State Density Bonus Law. The Zoning Ordinance would need to be amended after the adoption of the Metro Specific Plan. • Density Bonus and other State laws provide for additional floor area, additional density, and a reduction in parking requirements. The HOZ may need to go significantly beyond state legislation to be effective on properties where state density bonus laws apply.
• The City’s current Affordable Housing Ordinance requires a minimum of 15% of units to be affordable, pay an in-lieu fee, or dedicate land. The HOZ could further incentivize inclusionary units, or it will need to relate to projects exceeding the 15% required by the AHO. • Development Process timelines for Milpitas are in line with surrounding communities and not seen as a significant burden to development.
• Development Fees are higher in Milpitas compared to other jurisdictions in Santa Clara County owing to high entitlement fees for single-family development and high impact fees for multi-family developments.

The high impact fees are due to the Transit Area Development Impact fee (TADIF) for sites within the TASP area and high park in lieu fees for sites outside the TASP area. 1827
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 4 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment

2. Documents and Policies
Reviewed
This memo summarizes relevant planning legislation and processes that regulate the development of housing and will inform the development of the Housing Overlay Zone. Specifically, the following regulatory planning and policy documents have been included in this memo.

Table 2-1 Overview of Plans and Policies Reviewed
Name of Plan/Policy Adoption
Date/Status
Relevance
Milpitas General Plan Adopted 2021 Outlines city-wide land use goals and actions and provides land use designations including
the mix of residential and commercial use.

Milpitas Metro Specific
Plan
Public Draft
2021
Proposes redevelopment of industrial uses
near the Great Mall area with increased
intensities and mix of uses.

Midtown Specific Plan Adopted March
2002
Updated 2010
Provides a new vision for approximately 1,000
acres with a focus on housing and
employment. An update to the plan was
initiated in 2021 and is not covered under this
memo.

Zoning Code Establishes zoning districts and defines the type of development, use, densities, height,
and parking requirement for each district.

City Density Bonus
Ordinance & State of
California’s Density
Bonus Law
City’s DBO last
amended in
2008
Provides density bonuses on a sliding scale
for different affordability criteria.

Affordable Housing
Ordinance
July 2018
Amended 2022
Requires all developments with 10+ units to
provide 15% affordable units.
1828
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 5 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment

3. Planning Review
i. Milpitas General Plan
The Milpitas General Plan, adopted in 2021, includes multiple high-density residential designations, two specific plan areas, and two mixed-use zones. For the HOZ project, this report will review the Town Center (TWC) and Neighborhood Commercial Mixed-Use (NCMU) designations in detail and highlight other potentially relevant designations.

General Plan Goals, Policies, and Actions.

The General Plan Goals, Policies, and Actions set out three main goals for the commercial centers included in the TWC and NCMU plan areas -the first is to support and maintain commercial centers that serve residential neighborhoods, the second is to focus on placemaking in any redevelopment of these commercial centers to create public gather places and opportunities for outdoor uses such as outdoor cafes and other amenities, and the third is to encourage mixed-use development including residential multi-family development to “encourage social interactions.” While these goals reflect the positive outcomes of potential redevelopment and reinvestment in underperforming and aging commercial centers, there are other goals and policies that may be contradictory or limit potential redevelopment.

Specifically, the NCMU and TWC designations have requirements that significantly limit the feasibility of mixed-use projects. Generally, the Goals and Policies outline that in the NCMU zone, redevelopment results in “no net loss of viable commercial space.” This language is ambiguous and as the retail market continues to evolve, the viability and type of commercial spaces come into question. In other jurisdictions, a net loss in commercial space is often witnessed when single use shopping centers are redeveloped as mixed-use projects, with commercial FAR ranging between 10% to 25%.

The Actions in the General Plan give direct guidance on the creation of new zoning standards to support the NCMU designation and update the TC zone to reflect the guidance of the TWC designation. The actions also outline research and flexibility in standards to develop a citywide Retail Strategy and update the Zoning Ordinance to help ensure that commercial centers remain competitive and successful, as well as undertake strategic initiatives and flexible development standards for the adaptive re-use of aging centers. These actions allow more flexibility in the ability to meet the goals and policies for redevelopment of the mixed-use centers.

EXCERPT FROM GENERAL PLAN
Goal LU-6 Support commercial centers that serve residential neighborhoods and provide for a variety of convenient, successful and attractive commercial uses throughout the city.

LU 6-1 Ensure new development in Neighborhood Commercial Mixed Use (NCMU) areas includes adequate commercial components to retain commercial uses as the dominant use type, and that the redevelopment of aging centers results in no net loss of viable commercial space. The City Council may consider opportunities to waive commercial requirements in mixed use areas for 100% affordable projects that increase the affordable housing stock within Milpitas for “very low income” and “low income” categories. 1829
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 6 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment LU 6-2 As commercial centers are proposed for redevelopment, create a vibrant public realm though placemaking techniques like public gathering places, features and focal elements including outdoor cafes and other outdoor uses and amenities.

LU 6-3 Minimize the visual impact of large parking lots by locating them away from public streets and reclaim unneeded and underutilized paved areas that could be converted to neighborhood-enhancing features such as, gathering areas, pocket parks, or other community focused amenities.

LU 6-4 Maintain viable neighborhood-serving commercial uses throughout the City in order to serve surrounding neighborhoods and minimize vehicle miles traveled. Encourage a diverse mix of commercial uses including retail, service, office, entertainment, and assembly uses.

LU 6-5 Promote reinvestment in strip commercial and shopping centers and maintain, revitalize, and redevelop aging and underperforming centers.

LU 6-6 Encourage redevelopment and intensification of mixed-use areas by allowing stand-alone vertical mixed-use, or integrated horizontal mixed-use projects in mixed use areas, consistent with the Land Use Map and policies and actions included in this element.

CD 9-3 Encourage the incorporation of publicly accessible spaces, such as plazas and pocket parks, into new and existing commercial, multi-family, and mixed-use developments to encourage social interaction. The spaces should be appropriately scaled and programmed and compliment the characteristics of the district and/or neighborhood and the surrounding development.

EXCERPT FROM GENERAL PLAN
Action LU-1a Update the City’s Zoning Map as appropriate to ensure consistency with the land use designations shown on Figure LU-1.

Action LU-1b Review the Zoning Ordinance and update as appropriate to reflect Land Use goals, policies, and implementation actions included in this Plan. Specific updates include but are not limited to: 1) Creation of specific new zoning standards to support the Neighborhood Commercial Mixed-Use (NCMU) and Neighborhood Commercial (NC) land use designations to ensure that NCMU and NC areas remain primarily neighborhood serving.

Action LU-6a Continue to review development applications to ensure land use compatibility as new development applications are brought forward. Where potential impacts are identified seek opportunities to reduce impacts through site planning and design techniques including but not limited to buffering of uses, clustering, or other planning tools as necessary to reduce potential impacts to sensitive receptors.

Action LU-6b Monitor emerging trends in retail and other commercial uses, regularly engage representatives of the business community and citizen leaders, and update the Zoning Ordinance to help ensure that commercial centers remain competitive and successful.
1830
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 7 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment Action ED-1I Develop, implement and update at least every 5 years, a citywide Retail Strategy, to reduce retail vacancies and strengthen the City’s retail tax base.

Action ED-1j To encourage redevelopment of underperforming commercial corridors and retail centers (i.e. Serra Center, Main St.), maintain flexible zoning standards allowing both vertical and horizontal mixed uses.

Action ED-3a Encourage the renovation and/or redevelopment of existing outdated facilities that have strong linkages to transit and nearby retail and recreational amenities.

Action ED-3b Undertake strategic initiatives to attract private investment in well-located properties that are currently vacant and/or underutilized.

Action ED-3d Maintain flexible development standards to accommodate a wide range of commercial space needs and facilitate the adaptive reuse of older properties.

General Plan Designations
Residential Designations (LDR, MDR, HDR, VHDR). The residential GP designations are almost exclusively built at the upper end of the density for each designation. They are only relevant to the HOZ if other areas in Milpitas are rezoned to these designations through a Specific Plan or specific project. This seems to be a typical pattern in the City in multiple locations.

QUESTION: What is the history of non-residential properties being rezoned for housing? Should the HOZ look for these types of opportunities? Example: Cerano Apartments, Murphy Ranch Road (Previously zoned Light Industrial or Industrial Park, now zoned Urban Residential) 1831
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 8 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment Neighborhood Commercial Mixed (NCMU). The NCMU designation is a new land use designation in the 2021 General Plan Update. The NCMU designation is located in four areas across the City and includes three different commercial and industrial zoning districts. The new designation allows for the development of housing on properties in the NCMU designation but includes strict limits on the amount of residential that is allowed in relation to the amount of commercial space provided. It is unlikely that a mixed-use project would be feasible if a new zoning district was created that instituted the residential to non-residential ratio requirements of the General Plan designation. The General Plan does not include a density for residential in the NCMU designation. Assuming 1,000 gross square feet per unit on average, the density of the NCMU designation would be 21 dwelling units per acre but would require 0.75 commercial to get to 21 dwelling units per acre. The General Plan does allow for discretionary approval for residential-only projects if the project is 100% affordable to the “low” and “very low” income categories.
“FLOOR AREA RATIO. Floor area ratio, referred to as FAR, is used to express the building intensity for nonresidential uses, such as commercial, industrial, community facilities, and the non-residential component of mixed-use projects. FAR refers to the ratio of the total floor area of a building or buildings on a site, excluding parking structures and outdoor storage areas, to the lot area of the site.”

EXCERPT FROM GENERAL PLAN
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE (NCMU) (FAR UP TO 0.75, AND UP TO 1 UNIT PER 1,500 SQUARE FEET OF NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT). The Neighborhood Commercial Mixed-Use (NCMU) designation is intended to accommodate a mix of commercial and residential uses with an emphasis on commercial activity as the primary use, and residential uses, hotel, and office development allowed on a limited basis. The NCMU designation encourages active neighborhood serving uses at the ground level, including grocery stores, specialty retail, restaurants, plazas, or walk-in personal services such as banks and salons at FARs up to 0.75. This designation also provides opportunities for vertical or horizontal mixed-use residential development to provide for area vibrancy and to encourage the redevelopment of aging commercial centers by allowing Multifamily dwelling units at a rate of 1 unit per 1,500 square feet of new or rehabilitated neighborhood-serving retail and commercial services. The City Council may consider the approval of residential-only projects in the NCMU land use designation, provided the project is 100% affordable to the “low” and “very low” income categories, in order to increase the stock of affordable housing in Milpitas. Projects with a residential component are subject to additional policy direction (Policy LU 6-1) to ensure that NCMU areas continue to primarily serve surrounding neighborhoods with commercial services.

If FAR limit does not apply to residential floor area:

Assuming 1,000 gross sf per unit. 1,000 sf residential for every 1,500 sf of commercial. 40% residential:60% commercial. 0.5 FAR residential: 0.75 FAR commercial = 21 dwelling units per acre Town Center (TWC). The TWC designation updates the previous Town Center designation to allow for residential use to occur within a horizontal or vertical mixed-use project. Residential only projects are not permitted. The purpose for allowing residential is to “increase economic support to the commercial uses.” This designation allows for up to 40 units per acre and requires a minimum of 0.35 FAR for non-residential uses. In our experience, we rarely see a 0.35 FAR in a vertical mixed-use project, the amount of parking needed typically makes this amount of commercial infeasible. A range of 0.10 to 0.20 FAR for commercial.

Is more common vertical mixed-use or a mix of vertical and horizontal mixed-use projects. In addition to 1832
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 9 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment the restrictive nature of the minimum commercial FAR requirement, the maximum density of 40 dwelling units per acre is not a typical density for vertical mixed-use projects. In a podium mid-rise building type, 40 dwelling units per acre can generally fit in typically 2 floors of residential, whereas a more typical mixed-use project includes 4 or 5 story residential floors. The above analysis is typical for single projects, the redevelopment of the large format shopping centers will require more analysis and site testing to understand the how the minimum commercial FAR and maximum density would play out in a more horizontally focused mixed-use project with structured or rooftop parking. If the zoning is set per the General Plan guidance, the HOZ may provide the opportunity to increase densities to a more typical building type while providing additional affordable housing above the AHO’s 15% requirement. As part of this analysis, a more detailed economic analysis may be beneficial in the Existing Conditions phase of the project.

EXCERPT FROM GENERAL PLAN
TOWN CENTER (TWC) (UP TO 40 UNITS PER ACRE AND FAR UP TO 0.85). This designation provides for a variety of commercial, professional, civic, restaurants, hotels, residential, and entertainment uses. Projects may consist of a wholly non-residential development, or a mixed-use residential project that integrates residential and nonresidential uses vertically or horizontally. Residential-only projects are not permitted. Residential developments up to 40 units per acres may be permitted within the Town Center as part of a mixed-use development project to increase economic support to the commercial uses. Developers wanting to maximize the residential component of the parcel are required to provide a minimum FAR of 0.35 for the non-residential component. Sites developed with a mix of uses, or non-residential uses, must adhere to a FAR maximum of up to 0.85.
ii. Specific Plans
There are two specific plan areas in Milpitas. Both specific plan areas are currently undergoing an update.

The Metro Specific Plan, formerly the Transit Area Specific Plan, has a Public Draft available for review. This document does not review content for the Midtown Specific Plan/Main Street Gateway Specific Plan since that update process has just started and new content is not yet available.

Milpitas Metro Specific Plan/Transit Area Specific Plan (2021 Admin Draft) The Milpitas Metro Specific Plan (Metro plan) creates eight land use classifications and zoning districts that are specific to the Metro plan area. The Metro plan estimates an addition of 5,000 to 7,000 new residential units within its boundaries. The Metro plan does not have a specific affordable housing strategy that is different from city-wide inclusionary housing ordinance. “The currently calculated draft capacity for additional residential units in Milpitas Metro is 5,000-7,000 total, with 2,000-4,000 units on the Great Mall site, and 3,000 units on other sites. When the Housing Element is developed, the City will determine which sites to include in the Housing Element.”.

Zoning Districts. Of the eight new zoning designations in the Metro Specific Plan, five districts allow residential development. The plan also identifies “Areas of Change” that include potential development 1833
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 10 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment sites within the plan area since much of the land has been developed in the last 15 years under the TASP plan. Table 3-1 below is excerpted from the draft plan and shows preliminary densities and heights and associated zoning districts. The FAR’s and densities are net, excluding required streets and open spaces.

The plan also states that the HOZ may allow for increased housing densities in the plan area. “The City is developing Housing Opportunity Zones (HOZ), which will designate opportunity areas for increased housing densities. Proposed development projects in the HOZ will be eligible for additional densities provided that they comply with City requirements including design standards and affordable housing requirements.” Many sites within the “Areas of Change” are located in the Great Mall site and designated Residential Retail High Density Mixed Use (RRMU) which allows for up to 85 units per acre on a residential only project or up to 2.5 FAR in mixed-use project with upper floor residential up to 85 feet in height. These numbers are in-line with the allowed FAR but a typical mid-rise residential only or mixed-use building with 5 residential floors could produce up to 120 to 140 dwelling units per acre. The difference between allowed density and estimated density per prototypical building type provides an opportunity for the HOZ to create an incentivized structure for additional density that is above what is allowed according to State Density Bonus law. Similarly, the housing densities in the MFH and VHD classifications are artificially low compared to the height limits. The URR classification’s density of up to 120 units per acre is more in-line with a prototypical building type at 6 stories with associated affordable housing density bonuses.

Table 3-1 Metro Plan Residential Land Use Designations
Land Use
Designation
Density
(units per
acre)
Maximum
Height
Active Use
Requirements
Zoning
Residential Retail
High Density
Mixed Use
(RRMU)
Mixed Use1:
1-2.5 FAR
Residential
Only: 40-85
units/ac
85 feet
Within 60 feet of
adjacent existing
residential zoned
parcels, building
height shall be
stepped down to
be the same max
height plus 10 feet
of the adjacent
parcel.

Ground floor retail and
active uses are
required on 80 percent
of the ground floor
facade along any
Shopping Street.

Metro High
Density
Mixed Use
(MXD2-
Metro)
Boulevard Very
High Density
Mixed Use
(BVMU)
Mixed Use1:

2.5-5.0 FAR
275 feet
50 percent of base
footprint above 85
feet and 25
Ground floor retail and
active uses are
required on 80 percent
of the ground floor
Metro Very
High Density
Mixed Use
1834
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 11 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment Residential
Only: 85-250
units/ac
percent of base
footprint to a
maximum height
of 275 feet tall
facade along any
Shopping Street.
(MXD3-
Metro)
Multi-Family
High Density
Residential
(MFH)
Residential:
30-40
units/ac
75 feet N/A Metro MultiFamily High
Density
Residential
(R3-Metro)
Multi-Family
Very High
Density
Residential
(VHD)
Residential:
40-85
units/ac
35-85 feet N/A Metro MultiFamily Very
High Density
Residential
(R4-Metro)
Urban Residential
(URR)
Residential:
70-120
units/ac
6 stories and 75
feet
N/A Metro Urban
Residential
(R5-Metro)
1 On Housing Element opportunity sites, upper story non-residential uses are prohibited.

Parking. The Metro plan includes a significant reduction in parking requirements from the city-wide zoning code. The Metro plan introduces a maximum allowed parking ratio and a minimum number of spaces per unit without specifying number of bedrooms. In addition to the requirements in the table below, further reductions are possible conditionally.

Table 3-2 Metro Specific Plan Parking Requirement
Land Use Minimum Requirement Maximum Requirement
Residential/Lodging 0.5 spaces per unit 1.5 spaces per unit Non-Residential 1 space per 1,000 sf 2 spaces per 1,000 sf 1835
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 12 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment 1836
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 13 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment iii. Zoning/Municipal Code
Neighborhood Commercial Mixed-Use (NCMU)
The areas identified in the General Plan NCMU designation include three zoning districts (see table below). These zoning districts do not allow residential uses and have floor area and height limits that would be restrictive to developing residential and mixed-use residential projects. The zoning district will need to be updated within the HOZ process.

Town Center (TWC)
The TWC General Plan designation includes only one zoning district, TC (see table below). The maximum FAR in the zoning district is in line with the TWC designation at 0.85 FAR. The TC Zone does not allow residential uses, but three residential projects have been approved and built within the district. The zoning district will need to be updated during the HOZ process to allow for residential uses per the General Plan designation. As noted in the General Plan review, the maximum density of 40 dwelling units per acre may limit economic feasibility. The existing maximum building height of 35 feet would force projects into a horizontal mixed-use format. To achieve a vertical mixed-use product in the 40 dwelling units per acre density, a minimum of 4 stories and 50 feet of height would be needed. If through the HOZ or through the writing of new zoning greater densities were allowed, vertical mixed-use projects would be more feasible at 6 to 8 stories and up to 85 feet in height.

EXCERPT FROM ZONING CODE Town Center (TC) Zone. The purpose and intent of this zone is to provide for an area that supports a wide range of administrative, business, entertainment, dining, and cultural activities in the geographic center of the City to suit the varying lifestyles of residents and visitors alike. The area is easily accessible via the City's transportation network.

Table 3-3 FAR and Height Requirement by Zoning District Zone Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Building Height
Zoning Districts within NCMU
Neighborhood Commercial
(C1)

0.35 FAR 35 ft/ 2.5 stories
General Commercial (C2) 0.50 FAR no building height maximum Industrial Park (MP) 0.5 FAR 35 ft/3 stories
Zoning Districts within TWC
Town Center (TC) 0.85 FAR 35 ft/3 stories or higher with conditional use permit
1837
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 14 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment Parking
The following tables show minimum requirements for the different land uses in the zoning designations relevant to the HOZ. The zoning code does allow for shared parking through a conditional use permit.

Table 3-4 Parking Requirements for Mixed and Multi-family Zoning Districts Mixed-Use + Multi-Family Minimum Parking Spaces Required (parenthesis inclusive of guest parking)
Studio 1 space per unit (1.15)
1 Bedroom 1.5 spaces per unit (1.75)
2-3 Bedroom 2 spaces per unit (2.15)
4 or more 3 spaces + 1 per additional bedroom (3.15)
Senior Housing 1 space per unit + 2 per manager’s unit
Guest Parking
15% of the total required (structured)
20% of the total required (private garages)
Bicycle Parking 5% of the total required (Residential + Commercial Uses) Ground Floor Retail 1 per 250 sq. ft.

Office If building is 1,000 sq. ft. or smaller: 1 per 250 sq. ft.; If building is larger than 1,000 sq. ft.: 3.3 per 1,000 sq. ft.

Other Uses Refer to specific uses in table
1838
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 15 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment Table 3-5 Parking Requirements for Commercial Zoning Districts Commercial Use (single-use) Minimum Parking Spaces Required Commercial Services 1 (floral shops, barber
shops, dry cleaners, Laundromats, photocopy
shops)
1 per 200 sq. ft.

General Retail and Convenience Stores 1 per 200 sq. ft.

Financial institutions (banks, savings and loans,
etc.) 1 per 180 sq. ft.

Offices, administrative and business services 1 per 240 sq. ft.

Bars, Drinking Establishments 1 per 30 sq. ft.

Restaurants (Sit Down) 1 per 39 square feet of dining area.

Restaurants (Take Out) 1 per 2.5 seats (indoor/outdoor) plus 1 per 60 sq. ft. GFA for the ordering or take out area.

Shared parking may be applied in the following situations:

1. In mixed-use developments, which include one or more businesses that are complementary, ancillary, or support other activities. A typical mix of uses includes, but is not limited to: residential, office, restaurants, retail, colleges, churches, cinemas, and special event situations if they can demonstrate that demand patterns vary among uses.

2. In shopping centers, when more than twenty percent (20%) of gross leasable area is occupied by dining and entertainment uses, (not including pad restaurants, unless they are located within 300 feet of the main shopping center building) shared parking may be applied.

Required Review. Shared parking proposals may be allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, in accordance with Subsection 57.04, Conditional Use Permits, of this Chapter. 1839
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 16 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment iv. Density Bonus Ordinance
(Title XI-10-54.15 of the Zoning Code and Sections 65915 – 65918 of Ca Government Code)
The City of Milpitas’ Density Bonus Ordinance (DBO) was last amended in 2008. The State of California’s Density Bonus Law (SDBL) explicitly supersedes any local ordinances and takes precedence when there is any conflict between the two, however, a city may provide additional density bonus over the minimum state requirement. The SDBL has been extensively amended over the last five years with multiple State laws. This report will primarily describe the SDBL and only the features of the DBO that are unique and not superseded by state law. The focus of this report is also primarily on aspects relevant to the goals of the HOZ.

Description of relevant City and State Density Bonus Regulations:

The State Density Bonus Law allows developers of projects with five or more dwelling units to obtain more favorable local development requirements in exchange for building or donating land for affordable or senior units. The SDBL (found in California Government Code Sections 65915 – 65918) provides incentives similar to what could be included in a Housing Overlay Zone to encourage the development of housing, including increase in project densities and reduction of parking or development standards depending on the amount of affordable housing or other specified community benefits (Nave, 2021).

Local jurisdictions are required to grant a density bonus and other incentives or concessions to housing projects which contain one of the following:
• At least 5% of the housing units restricted to very low-income residents. • At least 10% of the housing units restricted to lower income residents. • At least 10% of the housing units in a for-sale common interest development restricted to moderate income residents.
• 100% of the housing units (other than manager’s units) restricted to very low, lower and moderateincome residents (with a maximum of 20% moderate). • At least 10% of the housing units targeted for transitional foster youth, disabled veterans or homeless persons, with rents restricted at the very low-income level. • The project donates at least one acre of land to the city for very low-income units, and the land has the appropriate general plan designation, zoning, permits and approvals, and access to public facilities needed for such housing.
• The project is a senior citizen housing development (no affordable units required).

The amount of the density bonus is set on a sliding scale, based upon the percentage of affordable units at each income level. Base density allowed is calculated based on either the zoning district or General Plan land use designation, whichever allows higher density. Affordable projects with as little as 5% Very Low income or 10% Low Income units are eligible for up to 50% increase in density. Projects which have all affordable units are eligible for an 80% increase in density. 1840
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 17 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment In Milpitas, If the housing development meets criteria- at least 5% of the housing units restricted to very low-income residents or at least 10% of the housing units restricted to lower-income residents, the density bonus shall be an increase of 20% over the maximum allowable residential density under the general plan and zoning ordinance. If the housing development meets criterion- Ten percent (10%) of the total dwelling units in a condominium project restricted to moderate income, the density bonus shall be an increase of five (5%) percent over the maximum allowable residential density under the general plan and zoning ordinance.

Parking
Upon the developer’s request, the city or county may not require more than the following parking ratios for a density bonus project (inclusive of parking for persons with disabilities):
• Studio or 1 Bedroom – 1 space
• 2 or 3 Bedroom – 1.5 spaces
• 4 Bedroom 2.5 spaces
Even lower parking ratios apply to affordable housing projects that are within specific proximity of transit services and facilities (although local jurisdictions can require higher parking ratios if supported by a parking study).

Concession and Waivers
In addition to the density bonus, the city or county is also required to provide one or more “incentives” or “concessions” to each project which qualifies for a density bonus. A concession or incentive is defined as reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code or architectural design requirements, such as a reduction in setback or minimum square footage requirements, or other regulatory incentives or concessions which actually result in identifiable and actual cost reductions. The number of required incentives or concessions is based on the percentage of affordable units in the project, with the larger the percentage of affordable units and the higher.

If any other city development standard would physically prevent the project from being built at the permitted density and with the granted concessions/incentives, the developer may propose to have those standards waived or reduced. The city is not permitted to apply any development standard which physically precludes the construction of the project at its permitted density and with the granted concessions/incentives other than those that would cause a problem for public health, safety, the environment, historical property, or would be contrary to law.

Bonus related to proximity to transit
Height or FAR limits in the local zoning are development standards for which waivers can be requested for a density bonus project. Eligible 100% affordable housing developments built within a half-mile of a major transit stop may increase building height by 3 additional stories or 33 feet over any prescribed zoning standard and have no other limit on density.
1841
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 18 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment The SDBL also requires that cities and counties provide a “development bonus” to commercial developers who partner with affordable housing developers for the construction of affordable housing on the commercial project site, or offsite within the jurisdiction located near schools, employment and a major transit stop. Unlike the primary Density Bonus Law, there is no fixed amount of increased density available.

Instead, the development bonus can be any mutually agreeable incentive, including up to a 20% increase in development intensity, floor area ratio, or height limits, up to a 20% reduction in parking requirements, or other exceptions (Meyers Nave, 2021).

Under new amendments effective in 2019, a local jurisdiction is also permitted under the SDBL to grant a floor area ratio bonus rather than a traditional density bonus to certain high density affordable housing projects adjacent to public transit. This option would need to be specifically adopted by the Milpitas City Council as an amendment to the City’s DBO since it is not automatically available. Eligible projects are also entitled to special parking ratios of one-tenth of a parking space per affordable unit and one-half space per market rate unit. To be eligible for the floor area ratio bonus, the project must restrict at least 20 percent of the units to very low-income tenants, must be located within a transit priority area or near a major transit stop, and must be in compliance with local height limits. (Meyers Nave, 2021).

Analysis of how these standards relate to HOZ goals
Milpitas has not had much affordable housing development of any type, so a variety of categories of incentives in the HOZ would be appropriate. The HOZ Existing Conditions Report, and the Housing Element are examining the inventory and pipeline of housing concurrently and the need for different types of housing. It is important to grant additional waivers from zoning standards to facilitate development that provides more affordability: One set of waivers in addition to the SDBL could apply to projects with 50% affordable housing, and a larger waiver could apply to 100% affordable projects. These waivers can exceed SDBL because the amount of affordable housing will exceed what is required in the State law.

In addition to amending the base commercial/mixed use zoning to have FAR density consistent with the NCMU and TWC, there is an opportunity for the HOZ to also consider an additional FAR bonus for residential projects with 50% or 100% Affordable units. This could include an amendment to Section XI10-54.14 of the Zoning along with the creation of the HOZ section of the code. 1842
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 19 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment v. Affordable Housing Ordinance
(Title XII-Chapter 1 of the Municipal Code – Housing Section) The City of Milpitas’ Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) came into effect in July 2018 and was recently amended in February 2022. The AHO sets out the minimum percentage of affordable dwelling units, compared to the SDBL and the HOZ provisions which are optional for developments providing much higher percentages of affordable housing onsite. The AHO requires all new residential projects with ten or more units to develop 15% of the total number of units as affordable units. This Report summarizes the most relevant provisions and identify issues that impact the HOZ goals and objectives.

Description of relevant AHO Regulations:

The required income levels for inclusionary units are very broad: rental developments may provide either very-low or low-income units, and ownership development may provide very-low-, low-, or moderateincome units.

The Ordinance provides incentives to developers to provide affordable housing units on site, however, a developer may satisfy the affordable housing requirement in other ways. All exceptions to the AHO requirement require City Council approval prior to the approval for development of the project. • Pay fees in lieu of creation of affordable units. Ownership housing projects must request and secure approval from the City Council for paying fees in lieu of construction, whereas rental projects do not need special approval for this option. The affordable housing fees are adopted by City Council Resolution and adjusted annually for inflation. This section was updated after initial adoption to make it more likely for ownership projects to provide affordable units on site. • Construct affordable units off-site. With the approval of the City Council, the developer may conditionally construct affordable units at another location within the city. • Dedicate land. The City Council may conditionally permit an applicant to dedicate land to the City or a City-designated local non-profit housing developer in lieu of construction of some or all the required affordable units.
• Transfer credit. Affordable unit credits are issued for each additional affordable unit constructed over the required number. The applicant may then use the credits to satisfy the requirements for another project in the City.
• Transfer equivalent square foot. The applicant may choose to provide more units in an overall development; however, the gross square footage of the proposed affordable units cannot be less than the square footage of the required affordable units. 1843
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 20 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment Table 3-6 Residential Projects Affordable Housing Fee
Building Permit
Application Date
Ownership Ownership Ownership Rental
Single Family
(Fee/Sq Ft)
Townhome
(Fee/Sq Ft)
Condominium
(Fee/Sq Ft)
Apartment
(Fee/Sq Ft)
July 1, 2019 – June 30, 2020 $33.00 $33.00 $33.00 $33.00 July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021 $35.13 $35.13 $35.13 $35.13 July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022 $37.11 $37.11 $37.11 $37.11 Each Subsequent Fiscal Year Adjusted by Rate Index per Affordable Housing Ordinance Non-Residential Affordable Housing Impact Fee
Any non-residential development in the City is subject to payment of a non-residential affordable housing impact fee. Some non-residential uses such as day care, nursery, school facilities, hospitals are exempt from this impact fee. Other uses not listed in the ordinance may be exempt if the City Council determines that the development will have a minimal impact upon the demand for affordable housing. The impact fee is be calculated on a per square foot basis for net new gross floor area. Thus far, the pipeline nonresidential projects have not reached the building permit approval stage, so no impact fee has been collected by the City. The non-residential requirement in the NCMU and TWC zone will lead to higher affordable housing impact fee for new projects in these zones.

Table 3-7 Non-Residential Projects Affordable Housing Impact Fee Building Permit Application
Date
Commercial (Office, Retail
and Hotel) (Fee/Sq Ft)
Industrial (R&D,
Manufacturing and
Warehouse) (Fee/Sq Ft)
July 1, 2019 – June 30, 2020 $4.00 $1.00
July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021 $6.00 $3.00
1844
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 21 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022 $8.00 $4.00
Each Subsequent Fiscal Year Adjusted by Rate Index per Affordable Housing Ordinance Incentives to Encourage On-Site Construction of Affordable Units If an applicant provides affordable units in excess of 20 percent of the total number of units in the project the City provides the following incentives:

1. Planning waivers: Director of Planning shall grant up to two of the waivers listed below that help increase the feasibility of the construction of affordable units. The applicant will receive an additional two waivers from the list below for every additional 5 percent of affordable units provided above the 20 percent.
• Priority processing.
• Reduced setback requirements not to exceed 50 percent of the minimum required setback. • Greater floor area ratio (FAR) not to exceed 50 percent of the maximum FAR for commercial space in mixed use zoning.
• Reduced landscaping requirements.
• Reduced interior or exterior amenities.
• A maximum 20 percent reduction in parking requirements. • Height restriction waivers not to exceed 20 percent of the maximum zoning height limitations and in no event to exceed the general plan height limitations.

2. Fee deferral:
• Development Processing Fees. The City Manager may approve deferred payment of City processing fees applicable to the review and processing of the project. The terms and payment schedule of the deferred fees shall be subject to the approval of the City Manager. • Development Impact Fees. The City Manager may authorize the deferred payment of development impact fees applicable to affordable units. Approval of this incentive requires demonstration by the Applicant that the deferral increases the project's feasibility. The applicant must provide appropriate security to ensure future payment of such fees.

Analysis of how these standards relate to HOZ goals
The AHO is a minimum requirement for projects with ten or more dwelling units, regardless of whether it is residential only or a mixed-use project. This ordinance is also applicable regardless of zoning district. If the income levels and number of affordable housing units meet the requirements for Density Bonus Law, the project would be eligible for the benefits under SDBL or any local density bonus. 1845
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 22 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment vi. SB 35
California Senate Bill 35 (SB 35) is a state law (California Government Code Section 65400 and 65582.1) that streamlines the development review process for affordable housing projects in local jurisdictions that have not made adequate progress toward meeting their Very-Low- and Low-income Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA). Projects in Milpitas with 50% affordable housing (as defined in the California Government Code) are eligible for SB 35 streamlining.

SB 35 requires jurisdictions to review applications within 60 days for developments with 150 or fewer units and within 90 days for developments with over 150 units to determine if the project qualifies for streamlined review. If the application is deemed eligible for streamlined review, the city must then review and approve the project within 90 days after application submittal.

Exemption from CEQA is one of the major benefits for projects using SB 35. However, If HOZ eligible projects are allowed to be approved by-right with no discretionary actions, this may eliminate the CEQA requirement for these regardless of SB 35 eligibility.

The City of Milpitas has not adopted any specific guidance regarding SB 35 projects. Thus far, the City has only one project (112 below-market-rate, 100% affordable) in the pipeline that qualifies for SB 35 streamlined approval. Other project details are discussed in the sections below.

Example SB 35 Project
Density Bonus
The City has only one project (112 below-market-rate, 100% affordable) in the pipeline that qualifies for SB 35 streamlined approval. The project site, located within the Transit Area Specific Plan (Milpitas Metro Plan) planning area and within one-half mile of high-quality public transit (Great Mall VTA light rail station), takes advantage of the State Density Bonus Law where there is no maximum density limit if the project is in close proximity to transit. The project is proposed at a density of 117 units per acre where the base density under the General Plan allows 41-60 units per acre. The project site is located in the R4-TOD Multi-family Very High-Density Residential Zoning District with a Transit-Oriented Development Overlay which allows 41-60 dwelling units per acre.

Parking
The proposed project includes no vehicular parking. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.4(e)(1)(A), the City is prohibited from imposing automobile parking standards on a project deemed eligible for streamlined review under SB 35 when it is located within ½-mile of public transit.

Concessions and Waivers
Per Density Bonus Law, the applicant requested the maximum four concessions allowed (modifications to Front Yard Setback, Side Yard Setback, Rear Yard Setback, and Residential Open Space) -- resulting in ‘actual and identifiable cost reductions.’ The applicant also requested two waivers (Private Open Space and On-Street Bicycle Parking) to enable the project to be built at the proposed density. 1846
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 23 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment Development Fees
The project is required to pay the Transit Area Specific Plan Development Impact Fee (TADIF) set at $44,009 per residential unit. Projects with more than 20 units are required to devote at least one half of one percent of the Building Development Cost towards the purchase and installation of public art at the project site. The project was not exempt from TADIF or the public art requirement. 1847
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 24 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment

4. Development Process
Review
i. Project Review & Permitting
Standardized and transparent project review and streamlined permit processing are critical steps to assist the development of housing projects in the city. This section reviews the various steps in the project review process and analyzes estimated timelines for approvals to identify barriers or constraints to realize the housing goals stated in the General Plan and the Specific plans including the Housing Element. This review is based on information provided by City staff and the city website and will need to be corroborated and refined with discussions with housing developers. A summary of relevant issues and recommendations will be part of the HOZ Existing Conditions Analysis as well as the Constraints section of the Housing Element after stakeholder meetings with developers, both for-profit and not-for-profit.

Process
Project review in Milpitas is conducted in two phases: the first is the planning/zoning entitlement approval and second is the building permit approval. In the first phase, Planning staff and relevant City departments determine whether the project is consistent with the General Plan, Specific plans, the Zoning ordinance and other relevant regulatory requirements. Uses that are permitted by-right in a zoning district may only require administrative review by Planning staff. More complex development projects or uses that require a Conditional Use Permit are reviewed by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council.

Following the approval of the appropriate planning entitlements, the building permit applications are reviewed by different City departments to check for consistency in the design and requirements for safety and improvements. The developers are expected to pay all the associated planning fees, impact fees and other fees in advance of building permit approval.

The different stages outlined for a developer in the City’s Development Review handbook are as follows1. Pre-application Meeting and Review. The City offers a pre-application meeting and review session to facilitate the processing of development proposals. The pre-application process provides an opportunity for applicants to receive early feedback from City staff before project plans are finalized.

2. Planning Review and Processing. After the application is formally submitted, Planning staff and other City Department staff review the submitted materials within 30 days to make sure all necessary information is included. For large projects, meetings with the community and with decision-makers may be recommended to receive feedback for public hearings.

3. Noticing and Decision Making. Prior to issuing the approval, Planning staff prepares the required staff report, conditions of approval, and findings of approval. A public hearing is scheduled where the Planning staff present the project to the hearing body with a staff recommendation and answer any questions related to the project. 1848
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 25 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment

4. Permitting. The Building Safety and Housing Department issues building permits by reviewing construction plans to make sure the project complies with applicable State and local laws. During this stage, other City Departments and Outside Agencies may need to review the project as necessary. The applicant is required to pay all the associated fees during the building permit application submission.

5. Construction. After procuring all the necessary planning and building permit, the project moves into the construction and inspection phase with the Milpitas Building Safety and Housing Department to ensure that the construction is as per approval and that the building is safe for occupancy. The Certificate of Occupancy is awarded at the end of this phase.

Timelines
Delays due to permitting can lead to increased project costs which can serve as a constraint to housing production and affordability. Table 4-1 below shows the average processing times for different residential development applications and building permits from 2019. In Milpitas, provided the project is consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance, General Plan, or any applicable Specific Plan, simple projects’ planning application permit reviews are estimated to take about 1 month. For complex projects, without CEQA requirements, the planning permit review process can take up to 6 months and with CEQA can take more than 11 months. The Planning Commission and City Council have two regularly scheduled public meetings every month.

Table 4-1 Processing Times for Applications and Building Permits Type of Development Months (Planning
Application)*
Months (Building
Permit)*
ADU Ministerial (by-right) 0 to1 month 1 to 6 months
Ministerial (by-right)
Includes projects that comply with applicable
building, zoning and development regulations.
0 to 1 month 1 to 6 months
Discretionary (Staff)
Includes coastal development permits,
neighborhood development permits,
neighborhood use permits
0 to1 month 2 to 12 months
Discretionary (Hearing Officer)
Includes variances, certain site development
permits, and certain conditional use permits
2 to 4 months 6 to 18 months
Discretionary (Planning Commission) 3 to 12 months 12 to 24 months 1849
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 26 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment Includes certain conditional use permits,
certain site development permits, and planned
development permits
Discretionary (Planning Commission and
City Council)
Includes tentative maps, condominium
conversion maps, easement vacations, public
right-of-way vacations, rezoning, and land use
plan amendments
3 to 12 months 12 to 24 months
*Based on City of Milpitas submission to Santa Clara County Collaborative Milpitas’s review and approval timelines are longer than average times taken by other jurisdictions in Santa Clara County. Streamlining the permitting and approval processes further can assist developers and property owners interested in developing housing in Milpitas. Issues and opportunities to improve timelines will be further explored in discussions with developers in the next phase of the project.

California’s Housing Accountability Act (HAA) requires local governments to process and review, approve, or disapprove housing developments within very tight timeframes if an applicant requests this (Government Code section 65589.5)
In these cases, a city must review and notify an applicant within 30 days as to whether the application is complete. After completeness, the City must determine if a project is consistent with objective standards (specifically defined) that must be identified and set at the time of Pre-application or Completeness review. The City must provide written notice of inconsistency (if applicable) to the applicant within 30 days of application for projects with 150 or fewer units (60 days for more than that). Any discretionary hearings or internal review must be completed within these timeframes. Projects qualifying for HOZ incentives will almost always qualify under the HAA provisions for “Housing for Very Low, Low- or Moderate-Income Households” which is subject to further streamlining provisions. Based on preliminary data from other cities in Santa Clara County, these processing times do not provide any extraordinary constraint to development but can be further streamlined.

A project meeting the Very Low/Moderate standard may not be disapproved, rejected, or otherwise made infeasible unless extensive findings are made including that the project would “have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety and there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid the impact…” unless the local government has met or exceeded its RHNA, or project denial or conditions are required to comply with specific state or federal law. Compared to these HAA standards, the City of Milpitas’ development review times most recently documented would likely need to be accelerated for projects that meet the criteria. The averages shown in the table above are not outside of the range of time frames reported by other cities in Santa Clara County and are not high enough to constitute a significant constraint to the typical development.
1850
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 27 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment ii. Fees
Local governments collect fees from new developments to over administrative costs and to provide improved infrastructure to serve the residents of that development. These payments are required upfront during the plan review period, however, a deferral may be provided to a developer if they provide on-site affordable units as stated in the AHO.

Table 4-2 Different Fees associated with Residential Developments Fee Type Single Family Multifamily Small
(per unit)
Multifamily Large
(per unit)
Entitlement Fees $17,359 $3,671 $367
Building Permit
Fees
$23,110 $13,111 $6,616
Engineering Fees $25,000 $5,000 $1,000
Fire Fees $1,120 $568 $353
Impact Fees (non
TASP)
$0 $29,064 $29,064
Other $10,600 $3,468 $3,264
TOTAL $77,797 $54,882 $40,664
Santa Clara County
Average*
$74,831 $34,752 $27,563
*Based on Draft Presentation from Santa Clara County Collaborative Meeting March 10, 2022 Compared to other cities in Santa Clara County, Milpitas has higher fees per unit for single and multifamily developments. Milpitas has the highest Entitlement Fees in the County for single family developments and high impact fees for multi-family developments. Impact Fees and other Developmental Fees are explored in detail in the following sections.

Impact Fees
The Calaveras Widening Traffic Impact Fee is collected to widen Calaveras Boulevard to mitigate the traffic impacts caused by new development in the area outside the TASP. Additionally, the Transit Area 1851
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 28 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment Development Impact fee (TADIF) is collected to fund the planning and development of the transit area outlined in the TASP near the Great Mall to support the community with appropriate utilities, parks, services, and roadways. This fee compensates the City for costs of roads and a significant amount of infrastructure that normally would have been paid by developers for off-site improvements required in this area. The different impact fees applicable for residential projects are explained below.

Table 4-3 Different Impact Fees for Residential Developments Impact Fees
Amount (as of June 2021)
In TASP Not in TASP
Transit Area Development Impact fee
(TADIF)
$44,090 per unit $0
Calaveras Widening Traffic Impact Fee
(5 or more units)
$0 $314 per unit
Public Art Fee 0.5% of construction cost 0.5% of construction cost Park-in Lieu Fee $4,500 $28,750
Total ~$48,590 ~$29,064
Based on City of Milpitas submission to Santa Clara County Collaborative The average impact fee per unit for a multi-family project in Milpitas in the TASP area is $48,500 which includes the TADIF which applies to a limited area for very specific required infrastructure. The typical impact fee per unit in other parts of the city would be $29,064 for traffic impacts and parks. The Park-in Lieu Fee makes up 99% of impact fees outside of the TASP. A comparison of impact across different jurisdictions is shown in the table below.

Table 4-4 Comparison of Impact Fees for Multi-family and Single-family Developments Unit Type Milpitas Santa Clara* Mountain
View*
Fremont**
Multi-family $29,064 $10,750 $34,000 $22,331
Single family $0 $54 $71,347 $35,334
* Based on Draft Presentation from Santa Clara County Collaborative Meeting March 10, 2022 **(Terner Center for Housing Innovation, Residential Impact Fees in California, 2019) https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policyresearch/plans-reports/docs/impact-fee-study.pdf 1852
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 29 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment Optional: Other and Development Taxes
Table 4-5 Additional Fees and Taxes for Residential Developments Type of Dwelling Amount (as of June 2021)
Single Family Multi-Family
Storm Drain Fee $1,100 to $6,469 based
on lot size
$16,771 per acre
Water Connection Fee $1,910 $1,164
Sewer Connection Fee $1,908 $1,406
Wastewater Treatment Plant $880 $690
School Fee $4.08 per sf
Based on City of Milpitas submission to Santa Clara County Collaborative 1853
Item # 19.

Raimi + Associates 30 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment

5.References
City of Milpitas General Plan 2040 https://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/MilpitasGeneral-Plan-Final_Online-Version.pdf Milpitas Metro Specific Plan Public Draft October 2021
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e75399ccb15c56a8859a18c/t/6165e2757e009e72675d5bdc/16340 67068041/Milpitas+Metro+Specific+Plan+Public+Draft+10122021+%28Reduced+File+Size%29.pdf City of Milpitas Zoning Ordinance
https://library.municode.com/ca/milpitas/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITXIZOPLAN_CH10ZO_S3Z ODI
City of Milpitas Affordable Housing Ordinance
https://library.municode.com/ca/milpitas/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITXIIHO_CH1AFHOOR City of Milpitas City Council Meeting Minutes Feb 1, 2022 https://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/council/2022/020122/Attachments.pdf City of Milpitas Development Review Handbook https://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2022/01/DevReviewHandbook_FINAL_web_1-12.pdf City of Milpitas Annual Report of Fees and Expenditures for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2021 https://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/annual-development-fees-expendituresfy2021.pdf Santa Clara County Collaborative Draft Presentation March 10, 2022 https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/santaclaracountycacities/uploads/2022/03/CollaborativeMeeting-3.10.22-.pdf Residential Impact Fees in California 2019, Terner Center https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wpcontent/uploads/pdfs/Residential_Impact_Fees_in_California_August_2019.pdf Meyers Nave, Guide to the California Density Bonus Law, 2021 https://www.meyersnave.com/wpcontent/uploads/California-Density-Bonus-Law_2021.pdf 1854
Item # 19.