Milpitas City Council
October 17, 2023

159
Item # C13.

3. Exhibit A 1s hereby deleted and replaced 1n 1ts entirety with Exh1b 1t A-1, attached hereto and mcorporated herem by this reference.

4. Exh1bit B 1s hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with Exh bt B-1, attached hereto and mcorporated herem by this reference

5. All other provisions of the Agreement shall remamn 1n full force and eff ect. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

160
Item # C13.

SIGNATURE PAGE FOR AMENDMENT NO. 1

BETWEEN THE CITY OF MILPITAS

AND WEST YOST ASSOCIATES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date fust written above
APPROVED BY.

City of Milpitas
Ste~
Interim City Manager
West Yost Associates
ut r1zed Repre
e l
/ e es [ f
Title of Authorized Representative
Approved as to Form.

Christopher J Diaz, City Attorney
Approved as to Content:
__ _ f . - ·- - - -------
l rt / 2 -- . ---- f!f r n
Du ector of Fmancial Services
Approved as to Scope:

TOa <-:=---1/~ pretor or Pa»ff w ors

161
Item # C13.

EXHIBIT A -1
Scope of Services
Task 1. Project Management and Quality Control
Subtask 1 OJ Prorect Management
Consultant will provide overall program management, coordmatlon of activities and commumcation with City staff, and coordmnat on and management of any subconsultants on the Project.

Subtask 1 02 Quality Control
Consultant will provide detailed quality control review of all levels of design drawmgs, specificahons, and construction cost estimate for the Project This task will be completed by the Consultant's semor level engmeenng personnel not mvolved m the design of the Project The review will check for correctness of the documents as well as prov de a constructabl rty rev1ew of the document s.

Task 2. Workshops and Meetings
Consultant staff will attend three (3) meetmgs throughout the durahon of the Project as follows· • Project Kickoff meeting to discuss the project goals, design approach, and schedule • 50% Desgn Review meetmg to revew drawings, answer des1gn quest ons, and discuss City comm ent s • Pre-bid meetmg.

Deliverables.

Meetmg notes surnmanzmg meetmg d1scuss10n and act10n items Task 3. Preliminary Design Confirmation
Consultant will review of the City's prelimmary designs for emiss10ns control and H2S mentonng data that was collected m summer 2018 Consultant will evaluate the data to confirm that the eqmpment selected dunng the prehmmary design is smtable for H2S concentrations observed dunng the summer 2018 sample period. Consultant will contact eqmpment manufacturer to confirm that the eqmpment 1s appropnately sized based on the data collected and provide the City with an updated quote for the system.

Deliverable·
1 Updated quote for emiss10ns control system
Task 4. Detailed Design
This Task will mvolve prepanng 50%, 90%, and Fmal design drawings for the improvements for the Milpitas Mam Pump Stat1on
Subtask 4 OJ Topographic Survey
Consultant will complete a topographic survey of the project area to venfy elevations of exishng rmprovements shown on construchon drawmgs and to obtam more detailed topographic mformation m cntical areas.

Dehverables
Topographic survey of Project Area
Subtask 4 02 Prepare Construction Cost Estimate

162
Item # C13.

Consultant will prepare an engmeer' s estimate of probable constru ct1on cost to be used for the b1ddmg Deliverables.

Engmeer' s estimate of probable construct10n cost
Subtask 4 03 50% Design
Consultant will prepare and present 50% complete design documents for the City's review Drawmgs will be developed m AutoCAD Vers1on 2016 format and mcorporate Consultant and City's draftmg standards The 50% complete design subrmttal will also mclude an outlme oftechmcal specifications To support this design, Consultant will complete a geotechrucal rnvestigat10n to evaluate subsurface conditions at the site of the new odor em1ss1ons control fac1hty, and proVIde geotechmcal engineenng design parameters and construction recommendat10ns for the faculty foundati on to the City
Deliverable-
1 Techmcal memorandum outlming geotechmcal engmeenng design parameters 2 50% des1gn plans, specifications, and cost est1mate
3 Outlme of techmcal specifications
Subtask 4 035 Potholing. Control of Tar Like Matenal, and Addztzonal Design Work for Two Exhaust Fans The purpose ofth1s subtask 1s to summanze the design contract discussed dunng the Apnl Mam Pump Stat10n Odor Control 50 percent subrmttal reVIew meetmg and emailed to City on Apnl 19, 2019 Included below are descnpt10ns of the additional work subtasks:
• Potholmg m the area of the proposed atr duct to determme the depths of the electncal duct banks and other utilities mn the v cm1ty
• Additional Design Work for Two Exhaust Fans as the current fan cannot be rehed upon the City has requested a second fan to provide redundancy for the stat1on
• Control ofTar-hke Matenal found m the wet-well exhaust fan duct and assoc1ated mv est gat1on and design work
Consultant will prepare and submit 75% complete design documents for the City's review The subllllttal will reflect comments received from the City on the 50% design subrmttal mcludmg the additional subtasks identified above.

Deliverable.
1 Techmcal memorandum outlming how 50% design subrmttal comments have been addressed 2 75% design plans, specifications, and cost estimate
Subtask 4 04 90% Design
Consultant will prepare and submut 90% complete design documents for the City's reVIew The submittal will reflect comments received from the City on the 70% design subrmttal and will mclude • 90% comp lete des1gn drawings.
• Draft Techmcal Specifications (Div1S1on 1 through 16) m CSI format Consultant wll present the 90% des1gn submi ttal to the City, along with an explanation as to how 50% des1gn sub!lllttal comments have been addressed.

Consultant will complete a quality control rev ew of the 90% des1gn drawmgs, specificati ons, and construction cost estimate
Deliverables
I. Techmcal memorandum outlining how 75% design subIDittal comments have been addressed. 2 90% des1gn plans, spec1ficat ons, and cost est1mate

163
Item # C13.
3 Draft Techmcal Specifications (D1V1s10n 1 through 16) m CSI format Subtask 4 05 100% Design
Consultant will prepare I 00% design documents by mcorporatlng reVIew comments from City staff and from the Consultant's mdependent quality control check. The 100% design subrruttal will also mclude an engmeer's estimate of probable construction cost to be used for the biddmg phase The completed des1gn w ll allow for public biddin g and constru ct1on of the proposed project Des1gn drawn gs w ll be prepared, stamped, and signed by California Registered Professional Engmeers of the applicable disciplme Deliverables
1 100% design plans, specifications, and cost estimate
Task 5. Bid Support Services
Thus Task wl l Involve ass1stmng the Caty, as required, dur ng the bid phase of the Project Consultan t wll ass1st the City dunng the bid phase as follows:
• Prepare presentations, attend, and provide other assistance at a City-led pre-bid meeting • ProVIde techmcal assistance to support City staff s response to bidder's mqumes dunng the biddmg process. • Develop addenda, if necessary, that may be needed to document responses to bidders' mqumes Addenda w ll be prepared by the Consultant and delivered to the City for distnbut10n • Assist the City m reviewmg the bids for conformance and possible megulanties with regard to the contract documents

164
Item # C13.

EXHIBIT B-1
Schedule of Charges/Payments
Consultant will invoice City on a monthly cycle Consultant wall include with each 1nvo1ce a detained progress report that 1nd cates the amount of budget spent on each task Consultant wall rnform City regardrng any out-of-scope work berng performed by Consultant. This is a t1me-and­ maten als contract.

TASK OR SUBTASK NO. FEE
Task 1. Project Management and Quality Control
1 01 Project Management $ 3,038 00
1 02 Quality Control $ 3,176 00
Subtotal, Task 1 $ 6,2 14 00
Task 2. Workshops and Meetings
2 01 Project Kickoff $ 8,049 00
2 02 50% Design Rev ew $ 4,864 00
2 03 Pre-bid Meetin g $ 1,718 00
Subtotal, Task 2 $ 14,631 00
Task 3. Preliminary Design Confirmation

3.01 ReVJew H2S data $ 994.00

3.02 Sol1cat Revised Equipme nt Cost $ 461.00
Subtotal, Task 3 $ 1,455 00
Task 4. Detail ed Design

4.01 Topographic Survey $ 5,102.00
4 02 Prepare Construction Cost Estimate $ 3,3 62.00
4 03 50% Des1gn Drawin gs $ 21,444 00

4.035 Potholing, Contr ol of Tar Like Maten1al, and Add1t onal Des1gn Work for $ 36,340 00 Two Exhaust Fans

4.04 90% Des1gn Drawings $ 21,844.00

4.05 Final Design Drawmgs $ 15,136.00
Subtotal, Task 4 $ 103,2 28 00
Task 5. Bid Support Services

5.01 Review Potential Bidder's Quest1ons $ 4,053.00

5. 02 Prepare up to Two Addenda $ 3,944.00
Subtotal, Task 5 $ 7,997 00
TOTAL $ 133,5 25.00

165
Item # C13.

W E S T YO S T

AS S O C I A T E S
2019 Billing Rate Schedule (Effectve January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019)° • I LABOR CHARGES
(DOLLARS PER HR)
Principal/Vice President
Engineenng/Scent st/ Geologist Mana ger I / II
Principal Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I / II
Senior Engineer/Sciehtist/Geologist I / II
Associate Engineer/Scientist/Geologist l / II
Engineer/Scientist/Geologist l / II
Engineering Aide
Administrative I/ II/ III / IV
$298
$274 I $287
$249 /$264
$223/ $234
$194 / $208
$157 / $182
$90
$79 I $100 / $120 I $133
Engineering Tech Manager I/ II
Principal Tech Specialist I / II
Senior Tech Specialist I/ II
Senor GIS Analyst
GISAnalyst
Technical Specialist I / II / Ill / IV
CAD Manager
CAD Designer I / II
$283/ $294
$260 I $271
$238/ $249
$217
$205
$151/ $173 / $195 / $216
$173
$134 / $150
CONSTRUCTION MANA GEM ENT # ­ if - s -- 2 - ­
Senior Construction Manager
Construction Manager 1 / 11 / Ill / IV
Resident Inspe ctor (Prevailing Wage Groups 4/3/2/1)
Apprentice Inspector
CM Administrabve I / II
Field SerI ces
$283
$170/ $182 / $195 /$246
$149/ $166 / $185 / $192
$135
$73 I $97
$192
11 Hourly rates include Technology and Communication charges such as general and CAD computer, software, teleph one , routine in-h ouse copes/prints, postage, miscellaneous supp lies, and other incidental project expenses
Outside Services such as vend or reproductions, pnnts, shipping, and major West Yost reproduction efforts, as well as Engineenng Supplies, etc will be billed at actual cost plus 15% u Mileage wll be billed at the current Federal Rate and Travel will be billed at cost a Subconsultants will be billed at actual cost plus 10% 11 Expert witness, research, technical review, analysis, preparation and meetings billed at 150% of standard hourly rates Expert witness testimony and depositions billed at 200% of standard hourl y rates
11 A Finance Charge of 1 5% per month (an Annual Rate of 18%) on the unpaid balance will be added to inv oice amounts if not paid wthin 45 days from the date of the inv oce • Thi s schedule is updated annually
Rates-1
166
Item # C13.

W E S T YO S T

AS S O C I A T E S
2019 Billing Rate Schedule (continued)
(Effective January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019) • Equipment Charges

EQUIPMENT BILLING RATES
Gas Detector $80/day
Hydrant Pressure Gauge $10/day
Hydrant Pressure Recorder, Standard $40/day
Hydrant Pressure Recorder, Impulse (Transient) $55/day
Trimble GPS - Geo 7x $220/day
Vehicle $10/hour
Water Flow Probe Meter $20/day
Water Quality Multimeter $185/day
Well Sounder $30/day
• Thi s schedule is updated annually
Rates-2
167
Item # C13.

CITY OF MILPITAS

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
</ This Agreement 1s made and entered into as of I c f 20~ by and between the City of Milpitas a municipal corporation organized and operating under the laws of the State of California with its pnnc1pal place of business at 455 E Calaveras Boulevard Milpitas California 95035 ("City") and West Yost Associates a California CORPORATION with its pnnc1pal place of business at 2020 Research Park Dnve Swte 100 Davis CA 95618 (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant") City and Consultant are sometimes 1nd1v1dually referred to as 'Party' and collectively as "Parties' rn this Agreement

RECITALS
A City 1s a public agency of the State of California and 1s in need of professional services for the following pro ject
Design Servi ces - Milpi tas Main Lift Pump Station Odorous Emissions Control Facility (herei nafter referr ed to as "th e Project")
B Cons ultant is duly licensed and has the necessary qual1f1cat1ons to provide such services
C The Parties desire by this Agreement to establish the terms for City to retain Consultant to provide the services described herein

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

Servi ces
Consultant shall provide the City with the services describ ed mn the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exh1b1t 'A '

2. Compensation
a Subject to paragraph 2(b) below, the City shall pay tor such services in accordance with the Schedule of Charges set forth rn Exh1b1t "B ' b In no event shall the total amount paid for services rendered by Consultant under this Agreement exceed the sum of $98 000 (ninety-eight thousand and 0/100 dollars ) This amount is to cover all printing and related costs and the City will not pay any additi onal fees for printing expenses Periodic payments shall be made w1thrn 30 days of receipt of an 1nvo1ce which includes a detailed description of the work perf orm ed Payment s to Consultant for work performed will be made on a monthly b1ll1ng basis
3 Additional Work
If changes in the work seem merited by Consultant or the City and informal consultations with the other party 1nd1cate that a change 1s warranted 1t shall be pro cessed mn the following manner a letter outlining the changes shall be forwarded to the City by Consultant with a statement of estimated changes mn fee or time schedule An amendment to this Agreement shall 1 38077 00/80\29167975 4
168
Item # C13.
be prepared by the City and executed by both Parties before performance of such services or the City will not be required to pay tor the changes mn the scope of work Such amendment shall not render 1neffect1ve or invalidate unaffected portions of this Agreement 4 Maintenance of Records
Books documents, papers accounting records and other evidence pertaining to costs incurred shall be maintained by Consultant and made available at all reasonable times dunng the contract period and for tour ( 4) years from the date of final payment under the contract for Inspecti on by Cit y
5 Time of Performance
Consultant shall perform its services in a prompt and timely manner and shall commence performance upon receipt of written notice from the City to pro ceed ("Notice to Proceed") Consultant shall complete the services required hereunder within 365 calendar days. The Notice to Proceed shall set forth the date of commencement of work 6 Dela ys mn Perform ance
a Neither City nor Consultant shall be considered in default of this Agreement for delays in performance caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the non­ performing party For purposes of this Agreement such circumstances include but are not limited to abnorm al weather conditions floods earth quakes fire epi demics war rots and other civil disturbances, strikes lockouts work slowdowns and other labor disturbances sabotage or u dc al restraint
b Should such circumstances occur the non-performing party shall, w1th1n a reasonabl e time of being pre vent ed from perf orming , gv e writt en notice to the other part y describing the circumstances preventing continued performance and the efforts being made to resume performance of this Agreement
7 Compliance with Law
a Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal state and local government including Cal/OSHA requirements b If reqwred, Consultant shall assist the City, as requested 1n obtaining and maintaining all permits required of Consultant by federal, state and local regulatory agencies c If applicable Consultant 1s responsible for all costs of clean up and/ or removal of hazardous and toxic substances spilled as a result of his or her services or operations performed under this Agreement
8 Standard of Care
Consultant's services will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and principles and in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exerci sed by member s of the prof ession curr entl y pra cti cing und er simi lar condition s 2 3807 0 0180\29167975 4
169
Item # C13.
9 Assignment and Subconsultant
Consultant shall not assign, sublet or transfer this Agreement or any right s und er or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the City, which may be withheld for any reason Any attempt to so assign or so transfer without such consent shall be void and without legal effect and shall constitute grounds for term1nat1on Subcontracts, 1f any, shall contain a pro vision maki ng them subj ect to all pro visions stipul ated mn thus Agreement Nothing cont ained herein shall prevent Consultant from employing independent associates and subconsultants as Consultant may deem appropriate to assist in the performance of services hereunder 10 Independent Consultant
Consultant 1s retained as an independent contractor and 1s not an employee of City No employee or agent of Consultant shall become an employee of City The work to be performed shall be in accordance with the work described in this Agreement subject to such directions and amendments from City as herein provided
11 Ins urance Consultant shall not commence work for the City until 1t has provided evidence satisfactory to the City 1t has secured all insurance required under Exh1b1t "D' (Insurance Requirements) attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference In add1t1on Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until 1t has secured all Insuran ce required therein
12 Ind emnification
a To the fullest extent permitted by law Consultant shall defend (with counsel of City s choosing) indemnify and hold the City its officials officers employees volunteers and agents free and harmless from any and all claims demands causes of action costs expenses hab11tty loss damage or 1nJury of any kind in law or equity, to property or persons 1nclud1ng wrongful death mn any manner arsi ng out of pertaining to, or 1nc1dent to any acts errors or omissions or willful misconduct of Consult ant its off1cals offi cers emp l oyees subc ontr a ctors consultants or agents in connection with the performance of the Consultants services the ProJect or thus Agre ement Including without lim itation the payment of all damages expert witness fees and attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, 1f any received by Consultant the City tts offi cials officers employees agents or volunteers
b If Consultants obligation to defend, indemnify and/or hold harmless arises out of Consultant's performance of "design professional' services (as that term 1s defined under Cl Code section 2782 8), then and only to the extent require d by Civil Code secti on 2782 8, which is fully Incorp ora ted heremn Consultant s indemnifi cati on obl igation shall be limit ed to claims that ari se out of, pertain to or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant and, upon Consultant obtaining a final adJud1cat1on by a court of competent junsd1ct1on Consultants hab1ltty for such claim including the cost to defend shall not exceed the Consultants proportionate percentage of fault
13 California Labor Code Requirements
a Consultant 1s aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq and 1770 et seq. which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain 'public works' and 'maintenance" projects 3 38077 00180\2 9167975 4
170
Item # C13.
("P revailing Wage Laws") If the services are being performed as part of an applicable 'public works' or "maintenance' project, as defin ed by the Prevailing Wage Laws and if the total compe nsati on Is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws Consultant shall defend indemnify and hold the City its off1c1als officers employees and agents fre e and harml ess from any clamms, labi ltti es costs penalti es or int ere st ari sing out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws It shall be mandatory upon the Consultant and all subconsultants to comply with all California Labor Code provIsIons which include but are not limited to prevailing wages (Labor Code Secti ons 1771 1774 and 1775) employment of apprentices (Labor Code Section 1777 5) certifi ed payroll records (Labor Code Sections 1771 4 and 1776) hours of labor (Labor Code Sections 1813 and 1815) and debarment of contractors and subcontractors (Labor Code Section 1777 1) The requirement to submit certified payro ll records directly to the Labor Comm1ss1oner under Labor Code section 1771 4 shall not apply to work perform ed on a public works project that Is exempt pursuant to the small pro ject exempti on sp ecifi ed In Labor Code Section 1771 4 b If the services are being performed as part of an applicable 'public works' or 'maintenance' project, then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 17711 the Consultant and all subconsultants performing such services must be registered with the Department of Industri al Relations Consult ant shall mamntamn registra tion for the durati on of the Project and require the same of any subconsultants as applicable Notw1thstand1ng the foregoing the contractor regIstratIon requirements mandated by Labor Code Sections 1725 5 and 17711 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that Is exempt pursuant to the small pro ject exemp t ion spe cified mn Labor Code Sections 1725 5 and 1771 1 c This Agreement may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations It shall be Consultants sole responsibility to comply with all appilcable regIstratIon and labor compliance requirements Any stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor that affect Consultants performance of services 1nclud1ng any delay shall be Consultants sole respons1b11ity Any delay arising out of or resulting from such stop orders shall be considered Consultant caused delay and shall not be compensable by the City Consultant shall defend indemnify and hold the City its off1c1als, officers employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liab11ity arising out of stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor
14 Verific ation of Emp l oyment Eligibi lity
By executing this Agreement Consultant venf1es that ,t fully complies with all requirements and restnctIons of state and federal law respecting the employment of undocumented aliens, including but not l1m1ted to, the Immi gra tion Reform and Control Act of 1986, as may be amended from time to time and shall require all subconsultants and sub-subconsultants to comply with the same
15 City Materi al Requirem ent s
Not Used
16 Laws and Venue
4 38077 00180\2 9167975 4
171
Item # C13.

This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California If any action Is brought to interpret or enforce any term of this Agreement, the action shall be brought in a state or federal court situated in the County of Santa Clara State of California 17 Term1nat1on or Abandonment
a City has the right to terminate or abandon any portion or all of the work under this Agreement by gIvIng ten (10) calendar days written notice to Consultant In such event Cit y shall be mmmedately gv en title and possession to all ori ginal field notes dra wings and spec1f1cat1ons written reports and other documents produced or developed for that portion of the work completed and/or bemng abandoned City shall pay Consultant the reasonable value of services rendered for any portion of the work completed pnor to termInat1on If said termination occurs prior to completion of any task for the Pro ject for which a payment request has not been received the charge for services performed dunng such task shall be the reasonable value of such services based on an amount mutually agreed to by City and Consultant of the portion of such task completed but not paid prior to said termination City shall not be liable for any costs other than the charges or portions thereof which are spec1f1ed herein Consultant shall not be entitled to payment for unperformed services and shall not be entitled to damages or compensation for termination of work
b Consultant may terminate its obl1gat1on to provide further services under ·his AgreemerJt upon thrt y (30) calend ar days written notice to City only in the event of substantial ia1lure by City to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement through no fault of Consultant
18 Document s Except as otherwise provided In "T ermInatIon or Abandonment ' above all original field notes written report s Drawing s and Specifications and other document s produced or developed for the Proj ect shall upon payment in full for the services described in this Agreement be furnished to and become the property of the City 19 Org anization
Consultant shall assign Dave Anderson as Pro1ect Manager The Proj ect Manager shall not be removed from the Project or reassigned without the pnor wntten consent of the City 20 Limitation of Agreement
above
This Agreement Is limited to and includes only the work included In the ProJect described 21 Notice
Any notice or instrument required to be given or delivered by this Agreement may be given or delivered by depos1t1ng the same in any United States Post Office, certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to
5 3807 0 0180\29167975 4
172
Item # C13.

CITY
Cit y of Milp itas
455 E Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas California 95035
Attn Tony Ndah Public Works Director

CONSULTANT
West Yost Associates
200 Research Park Drive, Suite 100
Davis CA 95618
Attn Dave Anderson
and shall be effective upon receipt thereof
22 THurd Part y Right s
Nothing rn this Agreement shall be construed to give any rights or benefits to anyone other than the City and the Consultant
23 Equal Opportunity Employment
Consultant represents that 1t 1s an equal opportunity employer and that it shall not d1scnm1nate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race religion color national org mn ancestry sex, age or other interests protected by the State or Federal Cons tit utions Such non- discrimination shall incl ude but not be lim ited to all activities related to mnttial empl oyment upgrading demoti on transfer recruitm ent or recruitm ent adverti sing layoff or termi nati on
24 Entire Agreement
Thus Agreement , with its exhibits represent s the entire und erst anding of Cit y and Consultant as to those matters contained herein and supersedes and cancels any pnor or contemporaneous oral or written understanding promises or representations with respect to those matters covered hereunder Each party acknowledges that no representations inducements promises or agreements have been made by any person which are not incorporated herein and that any other agreements shall be void This Agreement may not be mod1f1ed or altered except 1n wnt1ng signed by both Parties hereto This 1s an integrated Agreement 25 Severab1lity
The unenforceab11ity, invalidity or illegality of any pro vision(s ) of this Agreement shall not render the prov1s1ons unenforceable invalid or illegal
26 Successors and Assigns
This Agreement shall be bindi ng upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors 1n interest executors administrators and assigns of each party to this Agreement However Consultant shall not assign or transfer by operation of law or otherwise any or all of its rights burdens, duties or obligations without the pnor written consent of City Any attempted assignment without such consent shall be invalid and void
27 Non-Waiver
None of the pro visions of this Agreement shall be considered waived by either party unl ess such waver is spe cifically specifi ed in writing. 6 38077 00180\29167975 4
173
Item # C13.
28 Time of Essence
Time Is of the essenc e for each and every provision of this Agreement 29 City s Right to Employ Other Consultants
City reserves its right to employ other consultant s mncludmng engineers mn conne ction with this Proj ect or oth er projects
30 Proh1b1ted Interests
Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant to solicit or secure this Agreement Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has 1t agreed to pay any company or person other than a bona fide employee working solely tor Consultant any fee comm ission percent age brok era ge fee gift or other considerati on cont i ngent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement For breach or v1olat1on of this warranty City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without ilab11tty For the term of this Agreement, no director official officer or emp l oyee of City during the term of his or her servi ce with Cit y shall have any direct interest in this Agreement or obtain any present or ant1c1pated material benefit ansmg therefrom
31 Wage Theft Prevention
a Consultant and any subconsultant 1t employs to complete work under this Agreement, shall comply with all applicable federal state and local wage and hour laws Applicable laws may include, but are not limited to the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act the Califorma Labor Code and the Milpi t as Munmmum Wage Ordin ance b BY SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT, CONSULTANT AFFIRMS THAT IT

HAS DISCLOSED ANY FINAL JUDGMENTS DECISIONS OR ORDERS FROM A COURT OR INVESTIGATORY GOVERNMENT AGENCY FINDING IN THE FIVE (5) YEARS PRIOR TO

EXECUTING THIS AGREEMENT THAT CONSUL TANT OR ITS SUBCONSUL TANTS HAS

VIOLATED ANY APPLICABLE WAGE AND HOUR LAWS CONSULTANT FURTHER AFFIRMS

THAT IT OR ITS SUBCONSULTANT(S) HAS EITHER FULLY SATISFIED EACH JUDGMENT,

DECISION OR ORDER, OR, IF ANY JUDGMENT DECISION OR ORDER HAS NOT BEEN

FULLY SATISFIED, CONSULTANT AFFIRMS THAT IT OR ITS SUBC ONSULTANT(S) IS

CURRENTLY SATISFYING SAID JUDGMENT DECISION OR ORDER THROUGH A

PAYMENT OR ALTERNATIVE PLAN APPROVED BY THE APPLICABLE

COURT/GOVERNMENT AGENCY AND THAT CONSULTANT OR ITS SUBCONSULTANT(S)

ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH SAID PLAN AS OF THE DATE OF EXECUTING THIS

AGREEMENT
c If at any time dunng the term of thts Agreement a court or investigatory government agency issues a final Judgment dec1s1on or order finding that Consultant or a subc onsultant tt emp l oys to perform work under this Agreement has violated any applicable wage and hour law, or Consultant learns of such a Judgment, dec1s1on or order that was not previously disclosed in ,ts bid/proposal, Consultant shall inform the City no more than fifteen (15) calend ar days after the Judgment, dec1s1on or order becomes final or from the date of learning of the final Judgment dec1s1on or order Consultant or its subconsultant(s) shall, w1th1n thirty (30) calendar days after notif ying the City erth er () fully satisfy any such judgmen t decision, or ord er and provide the Cit y with document ary evidence of satisfying said judgment decision or ord er, or (ii) 7 38077 00180\2 9167975 4
174
Item # C13.
provide the City documentary evidence of a payment or other alternative plan approved by the court/government agency to satisfy the Judgment dec1s1on or order If the Consultant or its subconsultant 1s subiect to a payment or other alternative plan the Consultant or tts subcons ult ant shall continue to submit documentary evidence every thirty (30) calendar days dunng the term of the Agreement demonstrating continued compliance with the plan until the Judgment, dec1s1on or order has been fully sati sfied
d For purposes of this Section, a "final Judgment dec1s1on or order" refers to one for which all appeals have been exhausted or the time penod to appeal has expired Relevant Investig atory governmen t agencies include the United States Department of Labor the California DI son of Labor Standard s Enforc ement the Cit y, or any oth er govern mental enti ty or division tasked with the 1nvest1gat1on and enforcement of wage and hour laws e Failure to comply with any part of this Section constitutes a material breach of this Agreement Such breach may serve as a basis for 1mmed1ate termination of this Agreement and/or any other remedies available under this Agreement and/or law f Notice provided to the City shall be addressed to Attention Finance Dire ctor 455 E Calaveras Blvd Milpi t as CA 95035 The Noti ce pro visions of thus Secti on are separate from any other notice prov1s1ons m this Agreement and accordingly, only notice provided to the above addre ss sati sfies the notice require ment s mn thus Section [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
8 3807 00180\29167975 4
175
Item # C13.

SIGNATURE PAGE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF MILPITAS
AND WE ST YOST ASSOCLA.TES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above

CITY OF MILPITAS
Approved By J
et» sf Julie Edmonds-tllfares
City Manager
/la.i s
West Yost Associates ", ~ /'\ . \
I \i ~ I
Ii ~ · 0( / ) ..i--, f
./ r e< Signature
' ,,---- , i . I r . r \"''-J t r"&\ \c 1 ! M hL.1 W1 LcL Date 7 I
Christopher J Diaz
City Attorney
Title
vola/ 6 Date
Appr~ at.
her s t Will Fuent es / \
Director of Fina~ I Services
Approved As To Content
.2 T6ny Ndak
/iSublic V\/orks Director
9 380-- 001 80\29167975 4
176
Item # C13.

EXHIBIT A
Scope of Services
Task 1. Project Management and Quality Control
Subtask 1 O 1 Pro1ect Management
Consultant will provide overall program management coord1nat1on of actIvIt1es and communication with City staff, and coordi nation and management of any subconsultants on the Project
Subtask 1 02 Qua/Jtv Control
Consultant will provide detailed quality control review of all levels of design drawings specificati ons and construction cost estimate tor the Pro1ect This task will be completed by the Consultants senior level engineering personnel not involved in the design of the Pro ject The review will check for correctness of the documents as well as provide a constructab1hty review of the documents
Task 2. Work shops and Meetings
Consultant staff will attend three (3) meetings throughout the duration of the ProJect as follows • Project Kicko ff meeting to discuss the proj ect goals design appr o ach and schedule • 50% Design Rev ew meeting to review dra wings answer design questions and dIscuss City comments
• Pre -bi d meeting
Deliverables
Meeting notes summ ari zing meeti ng dis cussion and acti on ttems Task 3. Preliminary Design Confirmation
Consultant will review of the City s preliminary designs for emIssIons control and H2S mentoring data that was collected mn summer 2018 Consultant will evaluate the data to confirm that the equipment selected during the preliminary design Is sU1table for H2S concentrations observed during the summer 2018 samp l e period Consultant will contact equipment manufacturer to confirm that the equipm ent is appropr i ately sized based on the data collected and provide the City with an updated quote for the system
Deliverable
1 Upd ated quote for emIssIons control system
Task 4. Detailed Design
This Task will involve preparing 50%, 90%, and Final design drawings for the improvements for the Mlpr t as Mamn Pump Stati on
10 38077 00180\2 9167975 4
177
Item # C13.

Subtask 4 01 Topoaraph,c Survev
Consultant will complete a topographic survey of the project area to verify elevations of existing improvements shown on construction drawings and to obtain more detailed topographic Inf orm ation mn cri tical are as
Dellverables
Topographic survey of Project Area
Subtask 4 02 Prepare Construction Cost Estimate
Consultant will prepare an engineers estimate of probable construction cost to be used for the bid ding
Deliverables
1 Eng ineer s estimate of probable construction cost
Subta sk 4 03 50% Design
Consultant will prepare and present 50% complete design documents for the City s review Drawings will be develop ed mn AutoCAD Versi on 2016 form at and incorporate Consultant and City s drafting standards The 50% complete design submittal will also include an outllne of technical spec1f1cat1ons To support this design Consultant will complete a geote chn c al Inv estigation to evaluate subsurface cond1t1ons at the site of the new odor em1ss1ons control facirty, and provide geotechnical engineering design parameters and construction recommendations for the tac1hty foundation to the City
Deliverable
1 T echn1cal memorandum outlining geotechnical engineering design parameters 2 50% design plans spec1f1cat1ons and cost estimate
3 Outline of techn ical specifi cati ons
Subtask 4 04 90% Design
Consultant will prepare and submit 90% complete design documents for the City s review The submittal will reflect comments received from the City on the 50% design submittal and will include
• 90% complete design drawings
• Draft Technical Spe cificati ons (Di vision 1 thro ugh 16) mn CSI form at Consultant will present the 90% design submittal to the City, along with an explanation as to how 50% design submittal comments have been addressed
Consultant will complete a quallty control review of the 90% design drawings spec1f1cat1ons, and construction cost estimate
Deliverables
T echn1cal memorandum outlining how 50% design submittal comments have been addressed
2 90% design plans, specifications, and cost estim ate
3 Dra ft Technic al Speci fi cations (Dr I sion 1 thro ugh 16) mn CSI form at 11 380'"'"7 00, 80\29] 67975 4
178
Item # C13.

Subtask 4 05 100% Design
Consultant will prep are 100% design documents by 1ncorporat1ng review comments from City staff and from the Consultants independent quality control check The 100% design submittal will also include an engineers estimate of probable construction cost to be used for the b1dd1ng phase
The completed design will allow for public b1dd1ng and construction of the proposed project Design drawings will be prepared stamped and signed by California Registered Professional Engineers of the applicable discipline
Deliverables
1 100% design plans spec1f1cat1ons and cost estimate
Task 5. Bid Support Services
Thus Task w ll Involve assisting the Cit y as require d duri ng the bid phase of the Project Consultant will assist the City during the bid phase as follows • Prepare presentations attend and provide other assistance at a City-led pre-bid meeting
• Provide technical assistance to support City staffs response to bidder's inquines during the bidding process
• Develop addenda, if necessary that may be needed to document responses to bidders 1nqu1nes Addenda will be prepared by the Consultant and delivered to the City for distri bution
• Assist the City in rev1ew1ng the bids for conformance and possible 1rregularit1es with regard to the contract documents
12 38077 00180\2 9167975 4
179
Item # C13.

EXHIBIT B
Schedule of Charg es/P ayment s
Cons ult ant will Inv oice City on a monthl y cycle Consult ant wll inc lude with each inv oic e a detained progress report that indicates the amount of budget spent on each task Consultant will inf orm City regarding any out-of-scope work bemng performed by Cons ult ant This is a time-and ­ materals contr a ct
i TASK OR SUBTASK NO. j FEE
Task 1. Proj ect Management and Quality Control
1 01 ProJect Management $ 3 038 00
1 02 Quality Control $ 3176 00
Subtotal Task 1
I
I
Task 2. Workshops and Meetings
2 01 Proj ect Kicko ff I $ 8,049 00
2 02 50% Design Review $ 4 864 00
, 2 03 Pre -bi d Meeting $ 1,718.00
Subtotal Task 2 $ 14 631 00
I
I
Task 3. Preliminary Design Confirmation
3 01 Review H2S data $ 994 00
]3 02 Solt Revised Equipm ent Cost $ 461 00 I I
I Subtotal. Task 3 $ 1,455 00 I
I
I I I
Task 4. Detailed Design
$ 6 214 00
1 4 01 Topo graph c Survey I

4.02 Prepare Construction Cost Estimate I $ 3 362 00
4 03 50% Design Dra wings I $ 214 44 00
4 04 90% Design Dra wings $ 21,844 00
4 05 Final Design Dra wing s $ 15,136 00
Subtotal. Task 4 $ 66 888 00
Task 5. Bid Support Services
5 01 Review Potenti al Bidder's Questi ons $ 4,053 00
5 02 Prepare up to Two Addenda $ 3,944 00
Subtotal. Task 5 $ 7.997 00
I I
TOTAL $ 97,185.0 0
I $ 5102 00
13 380 7 00180\2 9167975 4
180
Item # C13.

CONSULT ANT'S 2018 BILLING RATE SCHEDULE
(January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018)
LABORCHARGES .
. (Di4RS PER HR)
Principal!Vice Pre sident
Engmeenng/Screnfist/Geolog1st Manager l / 11
Principal Engineer/ Scientist/Geologist I / I
Senor Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I II
Assoaate Eng1neer/Sc1entist/Geolog1st I / II
Engmeer/SC1enbst/Geolog1st I / II
Engmeenng Aide
Admm1strabve I / II / Ill / N
$285
$263 /$274
$240 I $254
$214/$225
$190 I $203
$154 1$178
$87
$781 $99 I $119 1$131
Engmeenng Tech Manager I / II
Principal Tech Specialist I I
Semor Tech Specialist I/ II
Semor GIS Analyst
GISAnalysl
Technical Spec1ahst l /II/ 111 / IV
CAD Manager
CAD Designer I / II
$271 1$281
$250 I $260
$229 / $239
$209
$197
$145 / $166 / $187 / $208
$166
$129 / $144
Senior Construcbon Manager
Construction Manager I / II / Ill / IV
Resident Inspector (Preva1hng Wage Groups 413 / 2 / 1)
Apprentice Inspector
CM A dmi ni strative I /II
$273
$166 / $178 / $190 / $237
$144 / $160 / $1781 $185
$131
$71 I $95
• Hourly rates include Technology and Comm unication charges such as general and CAD computer software teleph one, roufine n-ho use copr es/prints postage miscellaneous supplies, and other incidental pro Jed expenses
Outside Seri ces such as vendor repr oductions , print s, shi ppi ng and major West Yost repr oduction efforts as well as Enginee·1ng Supplies, etc w11! be billed at actual cost plus 15% Meage Will be billed at the cur ent Federal Rate and Travel 'MIi be billed at cost s Subconsultants w:11 be b1Hed at actual cost plus 10%
• Expert witness research technical review analysis preparation and meebngs billed at 150% oi standard hour!y rates Expert witness tesfimony and depositions billed at 200% of standard hourly rates
• A Finance Charge of 1 5% per month (ar 4nnua! Rate of 18%) on the unpaid ba:ance w1I be added to Invorce amounts f not pad wthn 45 days fom the date o tne invoce 14 38077 00180\2 9167975 4
181
Item # C13.

Equipment Charges
Gas Detector
Hydrant Pressure Gage
Hydrant Pressure Recorder, Standard
Hydrant Pressure Recorder, Impulse (Transient)
Tnmble GPS- Geo 7x
Vehi cle
Water Flow Probe Meter
Water Quality Multlmeter
Well Sounder
$80/day
$10/day
$40lday
$55/day
$220/day
$10/hour
$20Jday
$185/day
$30/day
15 38077 001 80\29167975 4
182
Item # C13.

CONSULT ANT'S KEY STAFF AND SUB CONSULT ANTS
Cons ultant s key staff assig ned to the Pro ject are as follows Team Member Title I Project Role I
Dave Anderson I Project Manager I I
I
Whi tn ey Sand elin I Assistant Proj ect Manager
Gr e g Chung !
Princ ipal mn Charg e I
I
I I
I
If necessary and appropriate Consultant will employ subconsultants 1t deems appropriate to the complexity and nature of the required Services All subconsultants must 1f their specialty 1s licensable be licensed by the State of California to perform their spec1f1c Services Consultant must obtain City s approval of all subconsultants Upon City's request, Consultant must provide copies of all subconsultant contract Agreements Any delegation or subcontracting of any services by Consultant will not operate to relieve Consultant of its respons1b11It1es under this Agreement
The following subconsultants are authorized to work on the ProJect I Firm i Project Role
I Mark Thomas ' Topo araph uc Survey
! Geocon Consultants I Geotechrncal lnvest1gat1on
i T JC and Associates I Structural Design
' A TEEM Electri cal Enqmneeri ng ' Electri cal Design
16 38077 0018029167975 4
183
Item # C13.

EXHIBIT C
Actvtty Schedule
(Weeks Following
I
Authorization to
Proceed)
I
ProJect Management I 21 weeks I
Pre limi n ary Design Confi rmation I 2 weeks I
Topographic Survey I 8 weeks I
Submit 50% Complete Design Submittal (plans 8 weeks
specification s cost estimate and technical memoranda)
I
! Submi t 90% Comp l ete Design Submi tt al (pl ans 15 weeks spec1f1cat1ons cost estimate, and technical memoranda) I Submu t 100% Comp l ete Design Submittal (plans 21 weeks specifications, cost estima te and technic al memor an da) Task/ Major Milestone Completion
17 38077 00180\29167975 4
184
Item # C13.

EXHIBIT D
Insurance Requirements
Please refer to the msurance reqmrements listed belov, Those that have an ' X'" md1cated mn the space before the reqmrement appl) to Contractor's or Consultant's Agreement Contractor or Consultant shall procure and mamnt amn for the duration of the Agreement msurance agamst claims for mnyunes to persons or damages to pro perty wh ch ma) anse from or m connect10n with the performance of the work. hereunder and the results of that work by the Contractor or Consultant. its agents. representatives. employees or subcontractors Contractor or Consultant shall provide its msurance broker(s)/agent(s) with a cop) of these reqmrements and request that the) pron de Certificates of Insurance complete v, 1th copies of all reqmred endorsements
Contractor or Consultant shall furmsh Cit) v, 1th copies of ongmnal endorsements affectmg coverage requir ed by thus Exh bnt C The endorsements are to be sign ed by a person auth or1zed by that msurer to bmd coverage on its behalf All endorsements and certificates are to be received and appro ved by Crty before work commences Caty has the nght to reqmre Contractor·s or Consultant's msurer to pro ude comp lete. certified copies of all reqmred msurance policies. mncludmng endorsements affectmg the coverage reqmred b) these specifications Commercial General Liabili ty (CGL):

Coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Offi ce ("I SO") Form CG 00 01 covenng CGL on an' occurrence" basis. mcludmg products and completed operato ns. propert y damage. bodil y my ury and personal and advert smng 1nyury with l mits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence If a general aggregate limit applies. either the general aggregate lm ut shall apply separately to thus project/l ocato n or the general aggregate lmut shall be tw1ce the reqmred occmTence hrrut
_X_ Coverage at least as broad as ISO Form CG 00 01 covenn g CGL on an "o ccurrence" bas1s, mcludmg products and completed operato ns. propert y damage. bodily mny ury and personal and advertismg mJury with hmits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence If a general aggregate lmut applies, either the general aggr egate l mut shall apply separately to this pro.1ect/locat1on or the general aggregate hm1t shall be twice the reqmred occurrence lumut Coverage at least as broad as ISO Form CG 00 01 co\enng CGL on an "occurrence" basis, mncludmng products and completed operations. property damage. bodily mJury and personal and advert smng inj ury with lmmuts no less than $5,000,000 per occurr ence If a general aggregate lmut applies, either the general aggregate hmit shall apply separately to this proJect/1ocat1on or the general aggregate hmit shall be twice the reqmred occurrence hmit Automobile Liability:
18 38077 00180\29167075 4
185
Item # C13.
_X Covera ge at least as broad as ISO Form Number CA 0001 covenng. Code 1 (an) auto). of 1f Contr actor or Consultant has no owned autos. Code 8 (h1red) and 9 (non-owned), w1th l1m1ts no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily mnyury and propert) damage Coverage at least as broad as ISO Form Number CA 0001 covenng. Code 1 (any auto ). wIth limi ts no less than $5,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and propert y damage Garage keepers' extra hab1ht) endorsement to extend coverage to all vehicles m the care. custody and control of the Contractor or Consultant, regardless of where the vehicles are kept or drrven
Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions):

The Employer's Liab1hty pohc) shall be endorsed to waive an) nght of subrogat10n as respects the Cit). its elected and appomted officials. officers, attorneys. agents. and employees _X Insurance appropnates to the Contractor or Consultant's profess10n. with hmit no less than $2,000,0 00 per occurrence or claim. $2,000,000 aggregate (If Design/Bmld). with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim. and $2,000,000 policy aggre gate
Insurance appropnates to the Contractor or Consultant s profess10n. w1th l1m t no less than p er occurrence or clamm, aggre gate
Workers' Compensation Insurance:
...JL_ Insurance as reqmred b) the State of Cahfomia. with Statutor) L1mits. and Employer· s L abl ty Insurance with lmu t of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily 1j ury or disease (Not requured f Contractor or Consultant pro d es wruten verfi canon t has no emp loyees)
The Contractor or Consultant makes the follov. mg certificat10n, reqmred by section 1861 of the California Labor Code
I am aware of the provis10ns of Sect10n 3700 of the Labor Code which reqmre every employer to be msured agamst habihty for workers' comp ensatuon or to undertake self-msurance 1n accordance wth the prov1s1ons of that code, and I wll comp ly with such provusions before cornrnencmg the performance of the work of this contract Contractor/Consultant Signature
Builder's Risk (Course of Construction):

Insurance utl zmn g an "All Risk'' (Special Penls) coverage form. w1th lmu ts equal to the completed value of the project and no comsurance penalt) prO\ 1sions 19 380""7 00180\2 9167975 4
186
Item # C13.

Surety Bonds:

Contractor shall pro d e the follov- 1ng Surety Bonds
1 Bid Bond
2 Perform ance Bond
3 Payment Bond
The Payment Bond and Performance Bond shall be 1n a sum equal to the contract pnce Bonds shall be dul) execute d by a responsible corporate suret). authonzed to issue such bonds m the State of Cahforma and secured through an authonzed agent with an office m Cahforma Contractor's or Consultant's Pollution Legal Liability:

Contractor's or Consultant" s pollution legal hab1ht) and/or Asbestos Legal L ablrty and/or Errors and Om ss1ons (af pro ject involves environm ent al hazards) with lmmts no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim and $2.000,0 00 pohc y aggr egate If the Contractor or Consultant mamtams higher hm1ts than the mmimums shown above. the Cit> reqmres and shall be entitled to coverage for the h gh er l m ts ma ntamned by the Contractor or Consultant Any available insurance proceeds m excess of the specified mn1 mum hilllts of msurance and coverage shall be a, ailable to Cit) Other Insurance Provisions:

The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contam the followmg prov1s1ons Additional Insured Status:

The insurance policies are to contain. or be endorsed to contamn the followmg provs 1on The Cit). its elected and appomted officials, officers, attorneys. agents, and employees are to be co, ered as addit10nal msureds on the CGL pohcy with respect to liability ansmg out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor or Consultant or any subcontractors mcludmg matenals. parts, or egmpment furnished m connection with such work or operat ons, mncludmng completed operations General hab1hty co, erage can be pro d ed mn the form of an endorsement to the Contractor's or Consultant's msurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 or if not available. through the addition of both CG 20 10 and CG 20 37 1f a later edition 1s used)
The Addrtuonal Insured coverage under the Contractor's pohc) shall be "pnmary and non-contnbutor) •· and v-111 not seek contr buto n from the City's insurance or self-msurance and shall be at least as broad as CG 20 01 04 13
The hilllts of msurance reqmred m this Agreement ma) be satisfied b) a combmat10n of pnmar) and umbrella or excess msurance An) umbrella or excess msurance shall contam or be 20 3807 0 0180\29167975 4
187
Item # C13.
endors ed to contamn a provs1on that such cover age shall also apply on a primary and non­ contnbutor) basis for the benefit of City (if agreed to in a wntten contr act or agreement) before the Cit) 'sown msurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect 1t as a named msured Primary Coverage:

The msurance policies are to contam. or be endorsed to con tam the followmg prO\ 1s10n For any claims related to this contract. the Contractor's or Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, Its elected and appointed officials. officers attorneys, agents. and employees Any msurance or self msurance maintamed b) the City, its elected and appomted officials. officers. attorneys, agents. and employees shall be 1n excess of the Contractor s or Consultant's msurance and shall not contnbute with It
Builder's Risk (Course of Construct on Insurance) (applicable to Construction Contracts only)
Contractor or Consultant may submit e\idence of Bmlder·s Risk msurance m the form of Course of Constructo n cover age Such coverage shall name the City as a loss payee as ther mnterest may appear
If the project does not Involve new or major reconstru cti on. at the opto n of the Caty , an Installation Floater may be acceptable For such projects. a Property Installatuon Floater shall be obtamned that prov1des for the improvement . remodel. mod ficato n. alteration conversion or ad.1ustment to existmg bmldmgs. structures. processes. machmer) and eqmprnent The Propert) lnstallat10n Floater shall prO\ 1de property damage coverage for any buuldmng , str ucture. machmer) or eqmpment damaged. impaired. broken, or destroyed dunng the performance of the Work. mcludmg dunng transit. mstallat1on. and testmg at the Cit) s slte Notice of Cancellation, Suspension or Otherwise Voiding Policies:

Each msurance policy reqmred above shall contain, or be endorsed to contam that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled or reduced in coverage or in limits except with thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested to the City Waiver of Subrogation:

Contractor or Consultant hereby grants to Cit) a waiver of an) right to subrogation which any insurer of said Contractor or Consultant may acquire agamst the City by u rtue of the payment of any loss under such msurance Contractor or Consultant agrees to obtam any endorsement that may be necessary to affect thu s warver of subrogaton, but thus prov1s1on applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a v.a1ver of subrogat10n endorsement from the msurer The Workers' Compensation Policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City for all work performed by Contractor or Consultant, its employees, agents and subcontractors
21 38077 0018029167975 4
188
Item # C13.

Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions ("S IR") :

An) deductibles or self-msured retentions must be declared to and approved b) City The Cit) may requur e the Contractor or Consultant to purchase coverage with a lower deductible or retention or prov1de proof of abl ity to pay losses and related 1 vest gat ons. clamm admm s trat on, and defense expenses vv1thm the retention At the option of the Cit). either (1) the msurer shall reduce or elnnmate such deductibles or self-msured retentions as respects the City. its elected and appomted officials. officers, attorneys. agents, and employees. or (2) the Contractor or Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteemg payment of losses and related mvestigations. claim adrmmstrat10n and defense expenses
All SIRs must be disclosed to Risk Management for approval and shall not reduce the l1mrts of lab1l ty
Pohcres contamnmng any SIR provus1on shall provide or be endorsed to provd e that the SIR may be sati sfied by either the named 1 sured or the City Cit) resen es the nght to obtam a full-certified cop) of an) msurance pohC) and endors ements Faulure to exerci se thus r ght shall not constutute a waiver of ngh t to exercise later Completed Operations
For Constrnct10n Agreements. Contractor shall mamtam msurance a<; reqmred b) this Agreement to the fullest amount allowed by law and shall mamtam msurance for a mmnmmum of five (5) years followmg the complet10n of this project In the event Contractor fails to obtam or mamntamn comp lete d operations coverage as reqmred b) this Agreement. the City at its sole discretion ma) purchase the coverage reqmred and the cost will be pand by Contractor Acceptability of Insurers:

Insurance is to be placed \\Jth msurers v.1th a current AM Best's ratmg of no less than A VIL unless otherwise acceptable to City
Claims Made Policies: (note - should be applicable only to professional liability, see below) 1 The Retroactl\ e Date must be shown, and must be before the date of the contract or the begmnmg of contract work
2 Insurance must be mamntamned and evidence of msurance must be pro\ ided for at least five (5) years after completion of contract of work. 3 If coverage 1s canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims­ made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date. the Contractor or Consultant must purchase "extended reportmg'· coverage for a mm1mum of five (5) years after complet10n of work
22 3807 0 01 80\29167975 4
189
Item # C13.
4 A cop) of the claims reportmg reqmrements must be sublllitted to the City for re 1ew
5 If the services mvolve lead-based pamt or asbestos 1dentuficatuon/remed1ato n, the Contracto r' s Pollut on L ab1lrty Policy shall not contamn lead-based pamnt or asbestos exclusions If the services Involve mold 1dentuficato n/remed1ato n. the Contractors Pollution Liability Policy shall not contam a mold exclusion, and the defimt10n of Pollution shall mclude microbial matter. mncludmng mold Subcontractors:

Contractor or Consultant shall reqmre and venf) that all subcontractors mamnta1n msurance meetmg all the reqmrements state d heremn. and Contractor shall ensure that City 1s an add1t1onal msured on msurance reqmred from subcontractors Subcontractor agrees to be bound to Contractor and Cit) m the same manner and to the same extent as Contr actor 1s bound to Cit) under this Agreement and an) other contract documents Subcontractor further agrees to mclude the same reqmrements and prov1s1ons of this Agreement. mcludmg the md emnuty and msurance reqmrements. with an) sub-subcontractor to the extent they apply to the scope of the sub-subcontractor's work A copy of the Crty mndemn1ty and msurance prO\ 1s10ns will be furmshed to the subcontractor upon request Verification of Coverage:

Contractor or Consultant shall furrnsh the Cit) with ongmal certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the apphcable pohq language effectmg coverage reqmred b) this clause All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences However. failure to obtamn the reqmred documents pno r to the work begmmng shall not waive the Contractor or Consultant's obbgat1on to prO\ide them The Cit) reserves the nght to reqmre complete. certified copies of all reqmred msurance policies. mcludmg endorsements reqmred b) these spec1ficat10ns. at any time Special Risks or Circumstances
City reserves the nght to modify these reqmrements, mcludmg hm1ts, based on the nature of the nsk. pr1or expenence. msurer. coverage or other special circumstances Failure to Comply:

Each msurance policy reqmred above shall contamn or be endorsed to contamn that an) fa lure to comply with reportung prov1s ons of the pol e1es shall not aff ect coverage pro d ed to the Cit). its elected and appomted officials, officers, attorneys. agents, and employees.

Applicability of Coverage:
23 3807 00180\29167975 4
190
Item # C13.

Each insurance pohc) reqmred above shall contain or be endorsed to contam that the Contractor· s or Consultant s insurance shall apply separately to each msured against whom claim 1s made or smt 1s brought. except with respect to the hmm of the msurer's hab1l1t) 24 3807 00,80\29167975 4
191
Item # C13.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Authorize and Approve Travel to Santa Cruz, CA, for City Manager Ned Thomas to Attend the Annual 2023 Silicon Valley Economic Development Alliance (SVEDA) Conference on November 2, 2023 (Staff Contact: Ned Thomas, City Manager, 408- 586-3059)
Category: Consent Calendar-Leadership and Support Services Meeting Date: 10/17/2023
Recommendation: Authorize and approve travel to Santa Cruz, CA, for City Manager Ned Thomas to attend the Annual 2023 Silicon Valley Economic Development Alliance (SVEDA) Conference on November 2, 2023, for a total amount of $150.00 budgeted under Conferences/Trainings allocation for the City Manager’s Office.

BACKGROUND:

The Silicon Valley Economic Development Alliance (SVEDA) holds its Annual Conference in Santa Cruz, California. This popular conference is scheduled for November 2 – 3, 2023, and is designed for city officials and economic development professionals to network and receive essential information and updates on key economic development trends and issues in the region. The conference is committed to addressing business needs, whether through local government policy and streamlined permitting processes, or linking businesses to local and regional resources that add value to company innovation and growth. The preliminary program is included in this report.

ANALYSIS:

The City of Milpitas Travel and Expense Policy requires approval of travel for elected officials and the City Manager by the City Council. Council approval of this request will allow City Manager Thomas to travel to Santa Cruz, CA, to represent the City. Attendance at the conference will also offer the City Manager the opportunity to exchange ideas with colleagues and business leaders from other cities and to bring back information to share with his Executive Leadership Team and Council. Participation and attendance in these conferences ensures that the City is fully represented at the local, regional, and state levels.

POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S):

Not applicable

FISCAL IMPACT:

The estimated expenses for the SVEDA conference in Santa Cruz, including the registration fee, are $700.00.

However, City Manager Thomas will attend only the first day of the conference without an overnight hotel stay, so the total amount will be $150.00. Sufficient funds to cover the City Manager’s travel expenses are included in the annual budget for the City Manager’s Office under Conferences/Meetings/Memberships.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):

By the definition provided in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378, this action does not qualify as a “project” for the purpose of CEQA.

RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize and Approve travel to Santa Cruz, CA, for City Manager Ned Thomas to Attend the Annual 2023 Silicon Valley Economic Development Alliance (SVEDA) Conference on November 2, 2023, for a total amount of $150.00 budgeted under Conferences/Trainings allocation for the City Manager’s Office.

Attachment(s):

Attachment 1: Draft conference agenda for the 2023 SVEDA Conference 192
Item # C14.
10/13/23, 10:03 AM 2023 SVEDA Conference – Silicon Valley Online https://www.siliconvalleyonline.org/2023-sveda-conference/?utm_source=SVEDA+News&utm_campaign=55646c2152-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_09… 1/3 2023 SVEDA Conference
Dream Inn, Santa Cruz
November 2 & 3
Draft Agenda
Thursday, November 2
12:00 PM Registration and Lunch
1:00 PM The Ins and Outs of District Formation
Alex Stettinski, CEO, San Jose Downtown Association – ModeratorJohn Lambeth, President & CEO, Civitas 193
Item # C14.
10/13/23, 10:03 AM 2023 SVEDA Conference – Silicon Valley Online https://www.siliconvalleyonline.org/2023-sveda-conference/?utm_source=SVEDA+News&utm_campaign=55646c2152-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_09… 2/3 Tim Seufert, Managing Director, NBSNathan Ulsh, Partner, Community Strong Strategies 1:00 PM
Featured Speaker
Alicia Scholer, Vice President, Responsible Hospitality Institute 2:30 PM Break
3:00 PM
Creative Solutions: Marketing, Space Activation, and Events Rebecca Unitt, Economic Development Manager, City of Santa Cruz & SVEDA Chair – ModeratorRyan Sebastian, Principal, Moveable Inc.Matthew Swinnerton, Founder, Event Santa Cruz 4:00 PM
Rebooting in Napa Valley: the St. Helena Technical Assistance Panel Edith Ramirez, Assistant City Manager for Community Development, City of Morgan HillNell Selander, Director, Economic and Community Development, City of South San Francisco Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director, City of St. Helena 5:30 PM
Optional Reception and Dinner on the Wharf
Vino by the Sea & Firefish Grill
Friday, November 3

7:30 AM Registration and Breakfast
8:30 AM
Featured Speaker
Nick Santhanam, CEO, Fernweh Group
9:00 AM Have some CHIPS!
194
Item # C14.
10/13/23, 10:03 AM 2023 SVEDA Conference – Silicon Valley Online https://www.siliconvalleyonline.org/2023-sveda-conference/?utm_source=SVEDA+News&utm_campaign=55646c2152-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_09… 3/3 Donovan Lazaro, Economic Development Director, City of Fremont – ModeratorArlen Chou, President & CEO, Golden AltosShari Liss, Executive Director, SEMI FoundationAdditional participants to be announced 10:00 AM Break
10:30 AM
High Road Training Partnerships in Action
Kara Gross, Executive Director, SVEDA – ModeratorJay Banfield, Chief Economic Mobility Officer, All HomeDerek Kirk, Assistant Deputy Secretary of Climate, California Labor & Workforce Development AgencyTahra Goraya, President and CEO, Monterey Bay Economic Partnership 11:30 AM
Featured Speaker
To be announced
12:00 PM
Optional Lunch & Afternoon Tour
Venus Spirits Cocktails & Kitchen
Program & Tour
Details to be announced to attendees
Registration
Both Days $275
November 2 only $150
November 3 only $150
HomeAbout UsAbout Silicon ValleyBusiness ToolsEventsMember LoginPrivacy Policy Neve | Powered by WordPress
195
Item # C14.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider a Zoning Variance to Allow Development of a Structure with a Height that Extends Above the Hillside Crestline Zone of Protection Sight Line, as Related to an Application for a Site Development Permit and Planned Unit Development Amendment for a Proposed 5,900-Square Foot Single-Family Residence, on a Vacant +1.4-Acre Lot in the R1-H Single- Family Residential - Hillside Zoning District Located at 1339 Terra Vista Court (APN: 029-07-010) (Staff Contact: Jay Lee, Planning Director, 408-586-3273; and Avery Stark, Acting Senior Planner,408-586-3288)
Category: Public Hearings-Community Development
Meeting Date: 10/17/2023
Recommendation: Hold a public hearing and, by a motion of the Council, uphold a Variance recommendation made by the Milpitas Planning Commission to deny the request for a structure with a height that extends above the Hillside Crestline Zone of Protection Sight Line, as established by the City's Hillside development standards, on a vacant +1.4-acre lot in the R1-H Single-Family Residential-Hillside Zoning District located at 1339 Terra Vista Court (Countryside Estates, Lot 1).

BACKGROUND:

In September of 1992, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 38.672, generally known as the "Hillside Ordinance." The primary regulations of the Hillside Ordinance are set forth in Section 45 of Chapter 10 of Title XI of the Milpitas Municipal Code, which section is entitled "H" Hillside Combining District. The stated purpose of the Hillside Ordinance is to promote and encourage the orderly development of the hillside area of the City by the application of regulations and requirements established to meet the particular problems associated with development of hillside areas, including but not limited to geologic problems, slope, safe access, and visibility.

In 1998, Milpitas voters approved Measure Z, establishing a 20-year urban growth boundary (UGB) to limit hillside development by prohibiting the City from extending public services to new development in the hillside area. On November 2, 2004, Milpitas voters approved Ordinance No. 264 to mandate that amendments or modifications to the Hillside Ordinance or land subject to the Hillside Ordinance would require voter approval through December 31, 2018. In November 2016, Milpitas voters approved Measures I and J, renewing the Urban Growth Boundary and extending the requirement for voter approval of amendments or modifications to the Hillside Ordinance or the land subject to the Hillside Ordinance through December 31, 2038.

On November 17, 1992, the City Council approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) No. 68 (Countryside Estates) to allow six hillside development sites for single-family homes on a 24.5-acre parcel located along the north side of County Club Drive approximately 400 feet west of the entrance to the Bay View Golf Club. PUD No. 68 consists of one lower cul-de-sac (Countryside Court) with two buildable lots situated below the crestline and an upper cul-de-sac (Terra Vista Court) with four buildable lots situated on the east side of the crestline.

The PUD also includes 15.9-acres of dedicated private common open space.

Each home site within PUD No. 68 requires separate review by the Planning Commission and City Council for conformance with the provisions of the “S” Site and Architectural Overlay District and subject to a precise building envelope and architectural design guidelines established in the PUD. To date, one lot located on the lower cul-de-sac has been developed with a one-story single-family home, one additional home is proposed on the lower cul-de-sac, and four homes are proposed on the upper cul-de-sac.

196
Item # 15.

The current application for development of a single-family home on Countryside Estates Lot 1 has the following timeline:

 On October 8, 2020, the applicant filed a Pre -Application for initial review and feedback from staff on a proposed 5,900-square foot single-family hillside home and associated site improvements.  On June 6, 2021, Architect Fumio Suda submitted a n application for approval of a Site Development Permit and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment Permit to develop a new 5,900-square-foot, single-family residence , two detached accessory structures, an in -ground pool, and assoc iated site improvements on a vacant +1.4-acre lot located at 1339 Terra Vista Court (PUD No. 68 – Countryside Estates, Lot 1).
 The subject site (Lot 1) is zoned R1-H Single-Family Residential with an “H” Hillside Combining District and an “S” Site and Architectural Overlay. Per Milpitas Municipal Code (MMC) Section XI-10-45.09-2, no building permit shall be issued for the construction or expansion of a single-family structure or accessory structure in any “H” Hillside Combining District until such structure has received a site and architectural review approval by the Planning Commission and City Council.  On June 29, 2022, as advised by the Planning Department, the applicant submitted an application for a Zoning Variance to deviate from the Hillside development standards established in MMC Section XI-10-

45.06 (Crestline Zone of Protection), which restricts structure heights so that “no structure extends above the crestline sight line .” MMC Section XI -10-45.06-5 further establishes that “no structure may visually intrude into the ‘crestline zone of protection’ area,” and provides that “exception may be granted where [proposed] development would not be visible from the three (3) closest viewpoints” as shown on the Zoning Map and designated at “VP.” Thus, t he proposed 5,900-square foot single-family residence on Lot 1 requires a Zoning Variance because the structure intrudes into the ‘crestline zone of protection’ area. The proposed project is also non -compliant with the site and architectural guidelines in MMC Section XI-10-45.09-7 in that the height, elevations, and placement on the site do not avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, and the design of the primary structure does not minimize the perception of excessive bulk. As stated by the project architect, on the record, the proposed structure is designed to maximize views and to be visually prominent on its hilltop location.  On September 28, 2022, the Milpitas Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend that the City Council deny Site Development Permit No. SD21- 0009, PUD Amendment Permit No. PA21-0002 and Zoning Variance No. VA22-0001, based on the proposed structure’s non-conformance with the City’s hillside development standards and the site and architectural design guidelines.
 The Planning Commission indicated, on the record, that it would reconsider its recommendation for denial if the proposed structure were modified to significantly reduce non-conformance with the City’s hillside development standards and site and architectural design guidelines.

 On Tuesday, January 10th, 2023, City Planning Staff met with the property owners, development representative, and designer to discuss possible ways the design of the proposed home could be modified to more closely conform with the purpose, intent, and development standards of the Hillside Zoning ordinance and the recommendations provided by the Planning Commission.

197
Item # 15.

PROJECT SITE
The project site is an undeveloped 1.4-acre parcel located at 1339 Terra Vista Court within the Countryside Estates subdivision (PUD No. 68, Lot 1). The property and neighboring properties are zoned R1-H Single Family Residential with a Hillside Combining District. The project site is approximately 100 feet east of the hillside crest line as established in the Hillside development regulations (MMC Section XI-10-45). A vicinity map of the subject site location is shown below in Figure 1, and a zoning map is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 1: Project Location

Figure 2: Zoning Map

Location and Context
Project Site
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
Project Site
198
Item # 15.

The project site is located in the northeastern portion of the City of Milpitas in the Hillside area near the Bay View Golf Club. Table 1 below identifies current zoning and land uses surrounding the site:

Table 1: Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses
General Plan Zoning Existing Use
Subject Site Hillside
Low Density (HLD)
Single-Family Residential-
Hillside (R1-H) Vacant (Lot of Record)
North Hillside
Low Density (HLD)
Single-Family Residential-
Hillside (R1-H) Open Space
South Hillside
Low Density (HLD)
Single-Family Residential-
Hillside (R1-H)
Vacant
(Three proposed homes)
East Hillside
Low Density (HLD)
Single-Family Residential-
Hillside (R1-H)
Single-family home;
Bay View Golf Club
West Hillside
Low Density (HLD)
Single-Family Residential-
Hillside (R1-H)
Open space and single-
family homes on large lots

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting a Variance, in relation to a Site Development Permit and a Planned Unit Development Amendment to construct a 5,900-square-foot, single-family residence, two detached accessory structures, and an in-ground pool on a +1.4-acre vacant lot. The following is a summary of the applicant's requests:

1. Zoning Variance: To deviate from the Hillside development standards (Crestline Zone of Protection), which restricts the height of structures located within 300 feet easterly of the crestline such that no structure extends above the crestline sight line or visually intrudes into the “crestline protection” area.

2. Site Development Permit: To allow development of a 5,900-square-foot single-family residence, up to 27 feet in height, two detached accessory structures, an in-ground pool, and related site improvements.

3. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment: To modify the previously approved development standards for single-family homes within PUD No. 68 to allow the following:
 Decrease the required three-car garage to a two-car garage.  Increase the total square footage of the proposed residence from 4,000 square feet to 5,900 square feet (an increase of 47.5 percent).
 Modify the traditional exterior materials and finishes required by PUD No. 68 to allow a modern contemporary design with a flat roof, large expanses of windows, high clearances between floors and ceilings, and a tuck-under garage.

ANALYSIS
General Plan Conformance
The General Plan designation for the project site is Hillside Low Density (HLD). In accordance with General Plan goals, objectives, and policies, the City's Hillside Area is characterized by gentle to steep slopes, grassy terrain with some scrub and trees, wildlife, geologically unstable areas, the Ed R. Levin County Regional Park, and a feeling of remoteness from the more urban areas of the City. The Hillside Low Density designation allows a maximum of one (1) housing unit per gross acre. Table 2 outlines the proposed Project in relation to applicable General Plan policies.
199
Item # 15.

Table 2: General Plan Consistency
General Plan Policy Conformance
CD 7-1 Maintain the visual character of
hillsides, recognizing both the importance of
the exposure of hillside development from
off-site public views and the importance of
providing panoramic public views from and
of hillsides.

Not Consistent. The proposed 5,900-square foot
single-family residence intrudes into the Crestline Zone of Protection area and, as according to the architect, has been designed to be highly visible from both near and
far. The project will significantly alter the visual character of the hillside as little to no attempt has been made to minimize exposure of the project to off-site public views or to address potential impacts to panoramic views from and of the hillsides. Additional landscaping proposed by the applicant will have minimal effect on mitigating the visual intrusion of a large, boxy house. Based on the
diagram and cross-sections submitted by the applicant,
the home will be visible from the three nearest
viewpoints indicated on the zoning map, which does not
conform to the Hillside development standards.

CD 7-2 Minimize the alteration of existing
landforms and maintain the natural
topographic characteristics of the hillside
areas, allowing only minimal disruption.

Consistent. The layout of PUD No. 68 – Countryside
Estates includes 15.9-acres of dedicated common open
space. This open space area maintains the natural
topography of the hillside and protects both the crestline and steep slopes on the overall property.

The proposed Project will be situated at the flattest
portion of the lot to limit the disruption to the existing natural topography. The proposed driveway will require
604 cubic yards of cut and fill, and the footprint of the proposed primary home will require 486 net cubic yards
of cut and fill. Cut and fill for the home's front driveway has been engineered to minimize alteration of the
hillside. Elimination of the basement from the proposed project would further reduce the need for excavation.

CD 7-3 Protect the natural character of
hillside areas by means of contour grading
to blend graded slopes and terraces with
the natural topography.

Consistent. Minimal contour grading will be required for development of the proposed residence due to its
positioning on the flattest portion of the lot. Contours for the home and access driveway will be designed to blend
with the natural site topography, as shown in the civil drawings in the plan set. To the extent feasible, grading of the driveway follows the natural contours of the
hillside and does not require large, steep cuts.

CD 7-4 Avoid mass graded pads within
hillside areas. Smaller steps or grade
changes should be used over single, large,
slope banks to the greatest extent feasible.

Consistent. The proposed residence will be situated on
a flat portion of the parcel, and site improvements will be designed to minimize grading and allow equal cut and
fill. To the extent feasible, grading will follow the natural contours of the hillside and preserve the natural terrain. 200
Item # 15.

CD 7-5 Ensure that any change in hillside
land use is accompanied by appropriate
safety measures and that the environmental
constraints are adequately addressed,
especially with respect to runoff and
erosion.

Consistent. Construction of the proposed residence
must comply with current building code requirements,
including the seismic code. The Engineering Dept. will
review all construction documents for compliance with
applicable stormwater and erosion management
requirements. In accordance with MMC Section XI-10-

45.17-3, the amount of impervious surface on the site
shall be less than 8,000 sq. ft.

Zoning Ordinance Conformance
The site is located in the R1-H Single-Family Residential Zoning District with an “H” Hillside Combining District.

The purpose of the “H” Hillside Combining District is to promote and encourage the orderly development of the hillside area of the City by the application of regulations and requirements established to meet the particular problems associated with development of hillside areas, including but not limited to geologic problems, slope, safe access and visibility.

Per MMC Section XI-10-45.17-3, the subject parcel is less than 3.0-acres, so the maximum size of the proposed residence does not exceed 6,000 square feet, and the amount of impervious surface coverage on the site will be less than 8,000 square feet. Table 3 identifies the areas where the Project is consistent with the applicable development standards of the R1-H zone and PUD No. 68. However, Table 3 also notes that the Project does not comply with the "H" Hillside Combining District in that the proposed structure visually intrudes into the "crestline zone of protection" area. The Council may consider a Zoning Variance to address this issue, but findings must be made that the project substantially conforms with all other requirements of the Hillside Ordinance, including the site and architectural design guidelines, to the extent feasible.

Table 3: Summary of Development Standards
Standards Zoning & PUD No. 68 Requirements Proposed Complies? Front Setback 25 ft. minimum when avg. slope is
<16%. Otherwise, 40 ft. minimum 160 ft. from property line Yes Side Yard
Setback 40 ft. minimum 42 ft. (east side)
78 ft. – 1 in. (west side) Yes
Rear 40 ft. minimum 109 ft. – 5 inches Yes
Size of Main
Residence
6,000 sq. ft. maximum
(lots < 3 acres) 5,900 sq. ft. Yes*
Impervious
Surfaces
8,000 sq. ft. maximum
(lots < 3 acres) 4,856 sq. ft. Yes
Building Height
(Maximum)
27 ft. and two stories
East of crestline
Two stories or
22 ft. – 4 in. Yes
Parking Four spaces required Eight spaces (two inside
garage & four outside) Yes*
*The requested PUD amendments are discussed later in this report 201
Item # 15.

Standards Zoning & PUD No. 68 Requirements Proposed Complies? Crestline Zone
of Protection
Within three hundred (300) feet
easterly of the crestline, structure
heights restricted so that no structure
extends above the crestline sight line.

Exceptions may be granted where
proposed structures would not be
visible from the three closest
viewpoints.

Proposed structure is
located within 300 ft east
of the crestline and
would be visible from the
three closest viewpoints.

The height and bulk of
the proposed structure
would intrude into the
crestline sight line.

No.

Zoning
Variance
required on
Lot 1
Underfloor
Clearance
Design all new single-family main
structures and accessory buildings to
follow the slope of the site to reduce
the clearance between ground-floor
levels and finish grade to not more
than five (5) feet. This underfloor
clearance shall not be enclosed.

Exceptions may be granted for projects
that: 1) avoid unreasonable
interference with views and privacy;
2) preserve natural landscape;
3) minimize perception of excessive
bulk; 4) minimize impairment of light
and air; and 5) minimize site grading.

The lower level of the
proposed structure is
fully enclosed, and this
space includes the
garage and a utility room.

No.

The enclosed
basement
with 8-foot
clearance,
garage, and
storage area
does not
comply with
standard.

Site & Architectural Guidelines
In addition to the development standards outlined above, the proposed Project must also comply with the Site and Architectural Guidelines for new hillside development outlined in MMC Section XI-10-45.09-7. This section states that the Planning Commission and City Council shall consider Site and Architectural Guidelines as part of the review process for proposed projects in the "H" Hillside Combining District.

As demonstrated in Table 4 below, the proposed Project is not consistent with the Site and Architectural Guidelines outlined in MMC Section XI-10-45.09-7.

Table 4: Hillside Site and Architectural Guidelines
Site and Architectural Guidelines Consistency
(a) Avoid unreasonable interference with
Views and Privacy. The height, elevations
and placement on the site of the proposed
primary or accessory structure, when
considered with reference to the nature
and location of residential structures on
adjacent lots, will avoid unreasonable
interference with views and privacy.

Not Consistent. The proposed residence is located
on an approximately 1.4-acre lot with front and rear
setbacks of more than 100 feet and side setbacks of
more than 40 feet. Future residences on adjacent
lots will be separated by approx. 200 feet. However,
the proposed residence would be highly visible
because of its height and bulk as well as its
prominence at the top of the steep lot. In addition,
the rooftop deck surrounded by a glass enclosure
would create interference with views and privacy for
residences on adjacent lots. The proposed
residence would greatly interfere with views of the
hillsides from the valley floor.
202
Item # 15.

Site and Architectural Guidelines Consistency
(b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The natural
landscape will be preserved insofar as
practicable by designing structures to
follow the natural contours of the site and
minimizing tree and soil removal.

Consistent. The project site is currently vacant and
undeveloped, with a few shrubs on the higher sloped
southern portions of the lot and no trees. The
proposed residence is positioned on the site to
minimize grading, and the proposed driveway
follows the existing contours of the hill to limit cut
and fill to an equal 607 cubic yards each. New
landscaping will be installed, including 23 mid-size
trees, various flowering plants, ground cover, and
shrubs.
(c) Minimize Perception of Excessive Bulk.

The design of the proposed main and /or
accessory structure(s) in relation to the
immediate neighborhood should minimize
the perception of excessive bulk.

Not Consistent. The boxy design of the proposed
main structure features a flat roof with a glass-
enclosed deck, large vertical windows, high
clearances between floors and ceilings, and a tuck-
under garage. The design is excessively bulky at
this location because roofline does not step down
with the slope of the hill, and the rooftop deck adds
to the perceived height of the building. The structure
also includes a full, enclosed basement with 11 feet
of clearance. The Hillside Ordinance restricts the
underfloor clearance to no more than five feet and
prohibits the enclosure of this space. As suggested
by the Planning Commission, the perceived bulk of
the structure would be minimized by reducing the
height of the underfloor clearance, stepping down
the roof, and removing the roof deck.
(d) Impairment of Light and Air. The
proposed main or accessory structure(s)
shall not unreasonably impair the light and
air of adjacent properties nor
unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent
properties to utilize solar energy.

Consistent. The proposed residence is located on
an approximately 1.4-acre lot with front and rear
setbacks of more than 100 feet and side setbacks of
more than 40 feet. The nearest existing residences
are located more than 400 feet in any direction, and
proposed homes on adjacent lots in the same
subdivision will be separated by approximately 200
feet. As such, the proposed main residence on Lot 1
will not unreasonably impair access to light and air
or impair the ability to utilize solar energy on any
adjacent property.
(e) Grading. All grading shall be kept to an
absolute minimum and shall comply with
the grading ordinance criteria.

Consistent. The amount of grading is limited to 607
cubic yards, which is the minimum amount of
grading needed to facilitate a curved driveway the
upper portion of the lot. The proposed structure will
be built on the upper portion of the lot, which is less steep. The driveway shall be designed to safely
accommodate fire truck access. All grading shall
comply with the grading requirements in Section XI-
10-45.18 of the Hillside Ordinance.

Site Design and Grading
Due to the steep slope, the Project site will require grading to provide a suitable building pad and the access driveway. To minimize grading and the removal of soil from the site, the proposed site plan locates the proposed residence on the flattest area of the site, which is near the top of the hill. The Project will require approximately 607cubic yards of cut and fill to accommodate both the residence and the required grade at the 203 Item # 15.

driveway for firetruck access. As shown in Figure 3 below, the proposed grading seeks to blend with the natural landforms and minimize grading cuts. In addition, the overall shape, height, and grade of cut-and-fill slopes follow the natural contours and scale of the natural terrain to the extent feasible. The location and design of the proposed driveway are sensitive to visual impacts from the valley floor.

Figure 3: Proposed Grading Plan

Architectural Design
The proposed residence and two detached accessory structures are designed in a modern contemporary style with clean lines and exterior materials, such as a sand-toned travertine, patterned vertical slate elements, a brick travertine veneer on the first floor, and a smooth cream-colored stucco application on the second floor.

This mix of natural colors, materials and finishes blends well with the hillside surroundings.

As discussed in Table 4 above, the proposed residence is not consistent with Architectural Guidelines outlined in MMC Section XI-10-45.09-7. Specifically, the boxy design of the proposed main structure, which features a flat roof, large expanses of windows, high clearances between floors and ceilings, and a glass-enclosed roof deck, increases the perception of excessive bulk and height. The lack of a step-down roof that follows the downward slope of the site and the fully enclosed basement with 11 feet of clearance both contribute significantly to a perception of excessive bulk. Moreover, the height, elevations, and rooftop deck may unreasonably interfere with views and privacy of nearby residences.

The applicant has requested an exception to the Hillside standards to allow the fully enclosed basement with an 11-foot underfloor clearance. This area would be used primarily for storage and include a two-car garage and a utility room. Rather than granting an exception, the Planning Commission recommended limiting the understory clearance to no more than five feet (i.e., eliminating the basement) and keeping the understory clearance open (i.e., unenclosed space), as required in the Hillside standards. The Planning Commission also 204
Item # 15.

suggested eliminating the rooftop deck and incorporating a step-down roof on the southern (downslope) side of the project to reduce the perceived bulk and height of the proposed structure.

Figure 4: Front Elevation of Proposed Residence

Landscaping
As shown in Figure 5 below and Attachment B to this staff report, the landscape plan for the proposed project includes planting a variety of flowers, shrubs, and trees on the hillside lot. These plans are consistent with the grading/landscaping requirements of the "H" Hillside Combining District, and the required extra landscaping may help mitigate the visual impact of the proposed structure.

Figure 5: Landscape Plan

205
Item # 15.

Planned Unit Development Amendment
As previously noted in the report, the Project is located within Planned Unit Development (PUD) No. 68 (Countryside Estates, Lot 1). As originally approved by the City Council in November 1992, the PUD establishes specific development standards for single-family residences and requires separate design review by the Planning Commission and City Council for future development on each lot. The original development standards specify a three-car garage, 4,000-5,000 square feet of total allowable square footage for the residential structure, and Tudor-style exterior finishes such as a concrete tile roof, gray stones accents, brick, textured concrete or stucco, and half-timber gables.

Figure 6:

Rendering of Tudor-Style Ranch House Style Approved for Homes in PUD No. 68

The applicant has requested an amendment to the previously approved design standards for single-family homes in PUD No. 68 to allow a smaller two-car garage, an increase in allowable square footage of the primary residence from 4,000 square feet to 5,900 square feet (47%), and the use of a contemporary modern design with updated exterior materials and finishes. Staff would support a PUD amendment to allow a smaller garage, a change in exterior materials and finishes, and a stepped-down roof design to the building that more closely adheres to the objective standards of the Hillside Ordinance. Staff further recommends eliminating the enclosed basement to reduce the perceived height and bulk of the structure and removing the rooftop deck to protect the light, air, or privacy of existing or future structures or uses in the area. The expansive use of glass windows should also be considered to reduce glare during the day and highly visible nighttime glow.

Crestline Zone of Protection
The development standards of the "H" Hillside Combining District establish a "Crestline Zone of Protection" to preserve the natural quality of the crestline and the slopes immediately below, when viewed from the valley floor. MMC Section XI-10-45.06-2 defines the crestline zone of protection as "the area westerly of the perceived crestline and between the perceived crestline and an elevation one hundred (100) feet below. In the area within three hundred (300) feet easterly of the crestline, structure heights shall be restricted so that no structure extends above the crestline sight line." The perceived crestline is defined in MMC Section XI-10-

45.06-3 as "the crestline identified when viewed from the three (3) closest viewpoints of those nine (9) [viewpoints] shown on the zoning map and designated as "VP." All proposed new hillside development must demonstrate compliance with the crestline zone of protection, as outlined in MMC Section XI-10-45.06-5.

Planning staff provided the applicant with detailed instructions and an exhibit identifying the location of the crestline zone of protection in proximity to PUD No. 68 and the viewpoints identified on the City's Zoning Map.

To demonstrate compliance with MMC Section XI-10-45.06-5, the applicant submitted cross-sections from each of the four closest viewpoints (1-4) to their site as indicated on Sheet C7-11 in the attached plan set. The applicant demonstrated that the sight lines from the valley floor would project through the primary house, resulting in the Project's inconsistency with the standard. 206
Item # 15.

Staff recommended that the applicant erect story poles to demonstrate and measure the amount of deviation from the Hillside standards (i.e., the amount of visibility from the three nearest Viewpoints), as established in the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant did not erect story poles since a structure of possibly any height on Lot 1 will be visible from the three nearest viewpoints on the valley floor. However, the story poles would allow staff and the project design team to visually confirm the extent of intrusion into the crestline sight line and provide a basis for redesigning the project to minimize the visual intrusion, as required by the Hillside Ordinance.

Variance
A Variance is a type of permit approved by the City Council that allows deviations from the adopted Zoning Ordinance regulations related to physical standards of development, such as lot size, building setback, and height limits. As stated in MMC Section XI-10-57.06.A, the purpose and intent of the variance process is to provide an exception to the substantive development standards in the City’s Zoning Ordinance (e.g., lot size, building setbacks, or height limits) when the strict application of these provisions deprives the property for which the Variance is sought of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under the same zoning classification. A Variance may be considered when special physical circumstances applicable to the property (e.g., size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings) would otherwise prohibit development.

Based on the steep slope of the subject site (Countryside Estates, Lot 1), the proposed project qualifies for consideration of a Variance to provide relief from the requirements of the City’s Hillside Ordinance, which restricts building heights for structures located within three hundred feet easterly of the crestline. Specifically, the standards state that: 1) structure heights shall be restricted so that no structure extends above the crestline sight line; and 2) no structure may visually intrude into the "crestline zone of protection" area, which is detailed in the previous section of this report. This restriction applies to the proposed development on Lot 1 as it is located within 100 feet east of the crestline, and the cross-section diagrams submitted by the applicant confirm that the proposed residence would extend above the crestline sight line and intrude visually into the “crestline zone of protection” area. The use of story poles would allow staff to visually confirm the extent of the intrusion.

Staff recommends a Zoning Variance for development at the subject site because the property's steep slope makes it physically impractical to develop a habitable structure that complies with the height and non-visibility standards associated with the crestline zone of protection. However, the proposed residence should incorporate reasonable design measures to minimize visual intrusion into the crestline sight line to the greatest extent feasible. As noted elsewhere in this report, staff agrees with the Planning Commission's recommendations to eliminate the enclosed basement to reduce the height and bulk of the structure, removing the rooftop deck to protect the privacy of other structures or uses in the area, and incorporating a stepdown roof that follows the downward slope of the lot. The project should also minimize the use of large glass windows to reduce glare during the day and highly visible nighttime glow. As required by PUD No. 68, the applicant will install additional trees and landscaping to screen the primary structure and all accessory buildings to mitigate visual impacts to views from the valley floor.

FINDINGS
A finding is a statement of fact relating to the information that the Planning Commission and City Council shall consider in making a decision. Findings shall identify the rationale behind the decision to take a certain action.

Outlined below are separate findings for denial of a Site Development Permit for the development of the proposed Project at 1339 Terra Vista Court (Countryside Estates, Lot 1); an amendment to PUD No. 68 to allow modified development standards for single-family homes; and a Variance to allow an exception from the height and non-visibility standards established in the Hillside Ordinance for structures within the crestline zone of protection.

Planned Unit Development Standard Requirements (MMC Section XI-10-54.07.B.6.a-c)

1. The proposed development will result in an intensity of land utilization no higher than and standards of open spaces at least as high as permitted or specified otherwise for such development in the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision ordinance.
207
Item # 15.

The proposed Project includes a single-family residence, two detached accessory structures, in-ground swimming pool, and associated site improvements that are consistent with the intensity of land utilization approved for PUD No. 68. The development standards previously approved for PUD No. 68 are consistent with the requirements of the "H" Hillside Combining District. They will result in an appropriate intensity of land utilization on the subject site as well as standards of open space that exceed the minimum standards in the Milpitas General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance.

2. The development will not create traffic congestion pursuant to the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). However, if traffic congestion is created by the proposed development, the traffic impacts will be mitigated by traffic improvements proposed by the developer or by funding capital projects and by on-site provisions for traffic circulation and parking or, if it cannot be mitigated, the Planning Commission and City Council shall issue any necessary findings pursuant to CEQA.

The proposed amendment to PUD No. 68 will modify the previously approved design standards for exterior materials and finishes for single-family residences. This change will not generate additional traffic. Moreover, traffic congestion is no longer used as a measure for environmental impacts under CEQA. The proposed Project will not significantly or negatively affect existing traffic operations and is exempt from analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), which is the current CEQA standard.

3. For residential development in the Valley Floor Planning Area, as defined in the Milpitas General Plan Land Use Element, the maximum dwelling unit density per gross acre shall be the upper limit of the corresponding General Plan density range within each zoning designation.

The proposed amendment to PUD No. 68 will not have any effect on residential density in the Valley Floor Planning Area.

Planned Unit Development Required Findings (MMC Section XI-10-54.07.B.6.d):

1. Development of the site under the provisions of the Planned Unit Development will result in public benefit not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general zoning districts.

The original approval of PUD No. 68 (Countryside Estates) resulted in the public benefit of protecting the hillside area by limiting future development to six buildable lots, clustering the six lots on two cul-de- sacs, and preserving 15.9-acres of dedicated private common open space. The proposed amendment would not alter the number, location, or layout of residential lots within PUD No. 68. The amendment would allow a smaller garage and changes to the exterior material and finishes.

2. The proposed Planned Unit Development is consistent with the Milpitas General Plan.

As originally approved, PUD No. 68 is generally consistent with the Milpitas General Plan. The design and layout of streets within the subdivision minimize the alteration of existing landforms and maintain the natural topographic characteristics of the hillside areas. In addition, the clustering of buildable lots along two cul-de-sacs avoided mass graded pads within hillside areas.

However, the proposed PUD amendment is not entirely consistent with the Milpitas General Plan in that the proposed 5,900-square foot single-family residence intrudes into the Crestline Zone of Protection area and, as stated by the architect on the record, has been designed to be highly visible from both near and far. The project will significantly alter the visual character of the hillside with little effort made to minimize exposure of the project to off-site public views or to address potential impacts to panoramic views from and of the hillsides. Design modifications to reduce the perceived height and bulk of the proposed structure and to minimize visual impacts would be needed to make this finding.

3. The proposed development will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will have no adverse effects upon the adjacent or surrounding development, such as shadows, view obstruction, or loss of privacy that are not mitigated to acceptable levels.

208
Item # 15.

As originally approved, PUD No. 68 is generally consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed residence would be located on the far side of a 1.4-acre parcel with a minimum of 25-foot set back from all property lines and a minimum of 80-foot distance from the nearest neighboring home. In addition, the proposed site layout and grading would minimize changes to the natural topography of the parcel, and the use of natural earth-tone colors and materials on the exterior of the proposed residence would complement its hillside location.

However, the large, boxy design of the proposed residence would significantly alter the character of the surrounding hillside area and have an adverse impact on panoramic views to and from the hillside. In addition, the expansive glass windows would create daytime glare and highly visible nightglow, and the glass-enclosed rooftop deck would add to the perceived height and bulk of the structure and could result in a loss of privacy. Design modifications to reduce the perceived height and bulk of the proposed structure and to minimize visual impacts would be needed to make this finding.

Site Development Permit Findings (Section XI-10-57.03.F)

1. The layout of the site and design of the proposed buildings, structures and landscaping are not compatible and aesthetically harmonious with adjacent and surrounding development.

The proposed residence would be located on the far side of a 1.4-acre parcel with a minimum of 25-foot set back from all property lines and a minimum of 80-foot distance from the nearest neighboring home.

The layout of the site and the proposed access driveway are designed to minimize grading and changes to the natural topography of the parcel. In addition, the use of natural earth-tone colors and materials on the exterior of the proposed residence would be compatible with adjacent and surrounding development.

However, the large, boxy design of the proposed residence would significantly alter the character of the surrounding hillside area and have an adverse impact on panoramic views to and from the hillside. In addition, the expansive glass windows would create daytime glare and highly visible nightglow, and the glass-enclosed rooftop deck would add to the perceived height and bulk of the structure and could result in a loss of privacy. Design modifications to reduce the perceived height and bulk of the proposed structure and to minimize visual impacts would be needed to make this finding.

2. The Project is consistent with the Milpitas Zoning Ordinance.

As outlined in Table 3 above, the Project does not comply with the development standards of the "H" Hillside Combining District in that the proposed structure would visually intrude into the "crestline zone of protection" area. MMC Section XI-10-45.06-2 defines the crestline zone of protection as "the area westerly of the perceived crestline and between the perceived crestline and an elevation one hundred (100) feet below. In the area within three hundred (300) feet easterly of the crestline, structure heights shall be restricted so that no structure extends above the crestline sight line." The perceived crestline is defined in MMC Section XI-10-45.06-3 as "the crestline identified when viewed from the three (3) closest viewpoints of those nine (9) [viewpoints] shown on the zoning map and designated as "VP."

The proposed structure is located within 300 ft east of the crestline and would be visible from the three closest viewpoints. The height and bulk of the proposed structure intrudes into the crestline sight line To remedy this situation, the Council may consider granting a Zoning Variance, but separate findings must be made that the project substantially conforms, to the extent feasible, with all other requirements of the Hillside Ordinance, including the site and architectural design guidelines.

3. The Project is consistent with the Milpitas General Plan.

See Planned Unit Development Finding No. 3.

Variance Findings (MMC Section XI-10-57.06.F.1):

209
Item # 15.

1. Due to special circumstances applicable to the subject property including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zone classifications.

The subject property is one of 34 properties that intersect with the crestline identified on the City of Milpitas Zoning Map. The project site is located within 300 feet easterly of the crestline and at an elevation higher than all adjacent lots to the north and south. Therefore, the strict provision of not allowing structures to intrude into the sight line or be visible from the valley floor would deprive the subject property of the right to develop any structure. The steep slope of the site makes it virtually impossible to build a structure that doesn’t intrude into the sight line, and without a Variance, would exclude the subject property from the privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under an identical zone classification.

2. The granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone and otherwise denied the subject property.

The subject property is one of 34 residential lots that intersect with the hillside crestline, and the steep slope of the site makes it virtually impossible to build a structure that doesn’t intrude into the ‘crestline zone of protection’ sight line. Nevertheless, the subject site is a legal lot approved by the City in 1992 as part of PUD No. 68, and the granting of the Variance is necessary to preserve the right to develop the property (Countryside Estates, Lot 1). PUD No. 68 includes a total of six buildable lots, all planned for the development of large single-family residences. In addition to PUD No. 68, there are several other properties in the same vicinity and zoning district that have been similarly developed with large single-family homes.

3. The required conditions of approval assure that the adjustment authorized will not constitute a grant of special privileges which are inconsistent with the limitations placed upon other properties in the vicinity subject to the same zoning regulations.

The Variance would allow an exception to the Hillside Ordinance requirement that within 300 feet easterly of the crestline, structure heights shall be restricted so that no structure extends above the crestline sight line. The perceived crestline is defined as "the crestline identified when viewed from the three closest viewpoints of those nine shown on the zoning map and designated as "VP." The proposed project is located within 300 ft east of the crestline and cross-sectional diagrams by the applicant show that the proposed structure would intrude into the crestline sight line and be highly visible.

The Variance would not allow an exception to the Hillside Ordinance requirement that all new structures must follow the slope of the site to reduce the clearance between ground-floor levels and finish grade to not more than five feet. The Hillside Ordinance also stipulates that any underfloor clearance shall not be enclosed. Granting a Variance to allow an enclosed basement with a clearance of 11 feet would constitute a grant of special privileges that are inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity subject to the same Hillside zoning limitations.

4. The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, provided that the proposed project is re-designed to minimize visual intrusion into the crestline sight line to the greatest extent feasible. Design measures to minimize nonconformance with the Hillside standards include limiting the size of the residence to no more than 4,000 square feet, eliminating the enclosed basement to reduce the height and bulk of the structure, removing the rooftop deck to protect the privacy of other structures or uses in the area, and incorporating a stepdown roof that follows the downward slope of the lot. The project should also reduce the expansive use of glass windows to reduce glare during the day and highly visible nighttime glow. As required by PUD No. 68, the applicant must install additional trees and landscaping to screen all new structures on the property. This will help mitigate visual impacts to views from the valley floor. 210
Item # 15.

5. The granting of a variance is consistent with the General Plan and the intent of this title.

PUD No. 68 is generally consistent with the General Plan, which establishes that land uses allowed in the Hillside Area shall be limited to Very Low Density Residential, parks, and open space. The design and layout of streets within PUD No. 68 and the clustering of lots on two cul-de-sacs, helps minimize the alteration of existing landforms and maintain the natural topography of the hillside areas. However, the proposed 5,900-square foot single-family residence intrudes into the Crestline Zone of Protection area and, as stated by the architect, is designed to be highly visible. Thus, the project will significantly alter the visual character of the hillside with little effort made to minimize exposure of the project to off- site public views. Design modifications to reduce the perceived height and bulk of the proposed structure and to minimize visual impacts would be needed to make this finding.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed Project is statutorily exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved). If the project were approved, a finding could be made that the project entails of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. The number of structures in the project do not exceed the maximum allowable on effected parcels. The project would be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15303.

PUBLIC COMMENT/OUTREACH
Staff provided public notice for the application in accordance with City and State public noticing requirements.

A notice was published in the Milpitas Post on October 6, 2023. In addition, 17 notices were sent to owners and occupants within 500 feet of the project site. A public notice was also provided on the project site, on the City's Website, www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov, and posted at City Hall. At the time of writing this report, there have been four email inquiries from the public. At the September 28, 2022, Planning Commission meeting, four residents spoke in opposition to the proposed project.

POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S):

Alternative 1: Invite the applicant to revise the project for greater conformance to the Hillside Development standards and re-submit for reconsideration by the Planning Commission.

Pros: Redesign of the proposed project would minimize non-conformance from the Hillside development standards and strengthen the findings for approval of a variance. This would streamline the approval process.

Cons: The approval of a non-conforming residence within the City of Milpitas would establish a precedent for approving variances of substantially non-conforming projects.

Reason for Not Recommending: The proposed project does not meet the required findings for approval and is not consistent with the City’s goals of supporting the development of non-conforming structures in hillside locations. Both staff and the Planning Commission are recommending the denial of the proposed project.

Alternative 2: Direct staff to draft a resolution to approve the proposed project.

Pros: Increase the City’s housing stock and generate revenue in permit fees associated with new construction and increased property valuation.

Cons: The approval of a non-conforming residence within the City of Milpitas would establish a precedent for approving variances of substantially non-conforming projects.

Reason for Not Recommending: The proposed project does not meet the required findings for approval and is not consistent with the City’s goals of supporting the development of non-conforming houses in hillside locations. Both staff and the Planning Commission are recommending the denial of the proposed project. 211
Item # 15.

FISCAL IMPACT:

If the Council denies the proposed project, as recommended by the Planning Commission and staff, there will be no fiscal impact. If the Council opts for either of the policy alternatives outlined above, the applicant may apply for building permits and pay applicable fees. The new single-family home would increase the property value and tax revenues but will also increase the demand for City services, including public safety and utilities.

The project is located within an existing residential subdivision with existing services available.

RECOMMENDATION:

Hold a public hearing and, by a motion of the Council, uphold a Variance recommendation made by the Milpitas Planning Commission to deny the request for a structure with a height that extends above the Hillside Crestline Zone of Protection Sight Line, as established by the City's Hillside development standards, on a vacant +1.4-acre lot in the R1-H Single-Family Residential-Hillside Zoning District located at 1339 Terra Vista Court (Countryside Estates, Lot 1).

Attachments:

A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-023 with Recommendation for Denial B. Project Plans
C. Public Comments Received to Date
212
Item # 15.

RESOLUTION NO. 22-023 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MILPITAS RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. SD21-0005, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT PA21-0001 AND ZONING VARIANCE VA22-0001 TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A 5,900-SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, UP TO TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT, WITH AN ENCLOSED BASEMENT, TWO DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, AND AN IN-GROUND POOL, ON A VACANT 1.394-ACRE SITE LOCATED IN THE R-1-H SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-HILLSIDE ZONING DISTRICT AT 1339 TERRA VISTA COURT (PUD No. 68 COUNTRYSIDE ESTATES, LOT 1) (APN: 029-07-009) WHEREAS, the 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 municiencouraging and approving high-quality development projects that are compatible with surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2021, Fumio Suda of Fumio Suda Architect submitted an application to allow development of a 5,900-square foot single-family residence, up to two stories in height, and associated site improvements, including an enclosed basement, two detached accessory structures and an in-ground pool, on a vacant 1.394 acre site within Planned Unit Development No. 68 at 1339 Terra Vista Ct (APN: 029-07-009). The Project site is zoned Single Family Residential - Hillside; and WHEREAS, the proposed Project requires approval of a Site Development Permit (Permit No. SD21-0005) to allow development of a 5,900-square foot single-family residence, up to two stories in height, with an enclosed basement, two detached accessory structures, and an in-ground pool, on a vacant 1.394-acre site located in the R-1-H Single-Family Hillside Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the proposed Project requires approval of an amendment (Permit No. PA21-0001) to the original Conditions of Approval for Planned Unit Development No. 68 to allow a two-car garage instead of a three-car garage, an increase in the total square footage of the proposed residence from 5,000 square feet to 5,900 square feet, and changes to the exterior materials and finishes; and WHEREAS, the proposed Project requires approval of a Variance (Permit No. VA22-0001), in accordance with Section XI-10-57.06 of the Milpitas Municipal Code (MMC), to allow a deviation from the hillside development standards of MMC Section XI-10-45.06 (Crestline 213
Item # 15.

Resolution No. 22-023 Page 2 Zone of Protection) to allow the height of the proposed structure to extend above the crestline sight line; and WHEREAS, the Project is statutorily exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270 (Projects which are Disapproved); and as a separate and independent basis, categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction and Conversion of Small Structures). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on September 28, 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 Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all the written and oral testimony presented at the public hearing in making its decision. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: SECTION 1: Recitals. The Planning Commission 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 incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2: CEQA Finding The Project is exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303(a) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), which includes development of one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit, in a residential zone. The proposed Project is a single-family residence and two detached accessory structures are within a residentially zoned area on a legal parcel and none of the exceptions, as specified Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines that would preclude applicability of this exemption are present. SECTION 3: Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas hereby recommends the City Council deny a Site Development Permit No. SD21-0005, Planned Unit Development Amendment PA21-0001, and Zoning Variance VA22-0001 and adopt Resolution No. 22-023, based on the proposed p-conformance with the Ciguidelines. 214
Item # 15.

Resolution No. 22-023 Page 3PASSED AND ADOPTEDat a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the Cityof Milpitas on September 28, 2022Bill Chuan, Planning Commission ChairTO WIT:I HEREBY CERTIFYthat the following resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas on September 28, 2022, and carried by thefollowing roll call vote:COMMISSIONER AYES NOES ABSENT ABSTAINMercedes AlbanaDipak AwasthiBill ChuanLarry CiardellaAlexander GalangSonia Medina-AshbyZeya Mohsin 215
Item # 15.
216
Item # 15.
217
Item # 15.

ELECTRONIC RECORD AND SIGNATURE DISCLOSURE From time to time, Carahsoft OBO City of Milpitas (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through the DocuSign system. Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly, and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to this Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure (ERSD), please confirm your agreement by selecting the check-system. Getting paper copies At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available electronically to you by us. You will have the ability to download and print documents we send to you through the DocuSign system during and immediately after the signing session and, if you elect to create a DocuSign account, you may access the documents for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies of any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You may request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below. Withdrawing your consent If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically is described below. Consequences of changing your mind If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format, and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such paper notices or disclosures. Further, you will no longer be able to use the DocuSign system to receive required notices and consents electronically from us or to sign electronically documents from us. All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically 218
Item # 15.

Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide electronically to you through the DocuSign system all required notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures electronically from us. How to contact Carahsoft OBO City of Milpitas: You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically, to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows: To contact us by email send messages to: [email protected] To advise Carahsoft OBO City of Milpitas of your new email address To let us know of a change in your email address where we should send notices and disclosures electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at [email protected] and in the body of such request you must state: your previous email address, your new email address. We do not require any other information from you to change your email address. If you created a DocuSign account, you may update it with your new email address through your account preferences. To request paper copies from Carahsoft OBO City of Milpitas To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided by us to you electronically, you must send us an email to [email protected] and in the body of such request you must state your email address, full name, mailing address, and telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at that time, if any. To withdraw your consent with Carahsoft OBO City of Milpitas To inform us that you no longer wish to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic format you may:
219
Item # 15.
i. decline to sign a document from within your signing session, and on the subsequent page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may; ii. send us an email to [email protected] and in the body of such request you must state your email, full name, mailing address, and telephone number. We do not need any other information from you to withdraw consent.. The consequences of your withdrawing consent for online documents will be that transactions may take a longer time to process.. Required hardware and software The minimum system requirements for using the DocuSign system may change over time. The current system requirements are found here: https://support.docusign.com/guides/signer-guide-signing-system-requirements. Acknowledging your access and consent to receive and sign documents electronically To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please confirm that you have read this ERSD, and (i) that you are able to print on paper or electronically save this ERSD for your future reference and access; or (ii) that you are able to email this ERSD to an email address where you will be able to print on paper or save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and disclosures exclusively in electronic format as described herein, then select the check- By selecting the check-box next to that: You can access and read this Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure; and You can print on paper this Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure, or save or send this Electronic Record and Disclosure to a location where you can print it, for future reference and access; and Until or unless you notify Carahsoft OBO City of Milpitas as described above, you consent to receive exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you by Carahsoft OBO City of Milpitas during the course of your relationship with Carahsoft OBO City of Milpitas. 220
Item # 15.

A-0
1 23

SITE PLAN
NTS

APPLICABLE CODES AND REGULATIONS
CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE 2019FC
CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 2019CBC
CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE 2019CMC
CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE 2019CPC
CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE 2019CEC
CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE 2019CEC

CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARD
2019
CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE 2019

PROJECT DIRECTORY

THE OWNER

SANJAY MUPPANENI
THE ARCHITECT;

FUMIO SUDA ARCHITECT
1522 WALNUT STREET, BERKELEY, CA94709
510-220-5436 CELL
THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY;

CITY OF MILPITAS

BUILDING DATA

PUD FOR
USE OF

STRUCTURE

OCCUPAN
CY

CONSTRUCTION
TYPE
SFD R-3 V-B

GARAGE U V-B

DECK U V-B
P-PP20-0001 – 1339 Terra Vista Dr
26'-0"25'-10" 20'-7"
72'-6"
1234
A
B
C
D
16'-2" 18'-3" 16'-0"
50'-6"
3'-0"
3'-0"

GUEST HOUSE
(39'X29')

GUEST HO
US
E
39'X29
'
26'-0"25'-10" 20'-7"
72'-6"
1234
A
B
C
D
16'-2" 18'-3" 16'-0"
50'-6"
3'-0"
3'-0"
9'X18' PARKING
9'X18' PARKING
9'X18' PARKING
9'X18' PARKING
9'X18' PARKING
9'X18' PARKING
PRO
PO
SED
SIN
GLE

RESIDEN
CE
POOLC
ABANA
(39'X2
9')
V1
V2
V3
V4

PROPERTY L
INE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
21'-4"
41'-5"
84'-5"
78'-1"
109'-9"

FRONT SET BACK

SIDE SETBACK

SIDE SETBACK

SIDE SETBACK

SIDE SETBACK

REAR SETBACK

REAR SETBACK

REAR SETBACK

DRIVE WAY
SEE SHEET X-1 FOR BALANCE

OF INFO
160'-0"
5'-0"
MIN
42'-0"
ADU
1 DRAWING INDEX

DRAWING INDEX
A-0 TITLE SHEET
C-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN
C-2 DRIVEWAY PLAN
C-3 GRADING PLAN
C-4 DRIVEWAY PROFILE AND CROSS SECTIONS
C-5 SITE CROSS SECTIONS
C-6 EROSION CONTROL PLAN
C-7 SIGHTLINE FROM VP1
C-8 SIGHTLINE FROM VP2
C-9 SIGHTLINE FROM VP3
C-10 SIGHTLINE FROM VP4
C-11 CRESTLINE ZONE OF PROTECTION
L-1.0 LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN
L-2.0 LANDSCAPE HYDROZONE PLAN
L-3.0 EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN
L-3.1 LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
L-4.0 LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
L-4.1 LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
L-5.1 LANDSCAPE SPECIFICATIONS
L-6.0 TREE SCREENING PERSPECTIVES
A-1.1 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
A-1.2 1ST FLOOR PLAN
A-1.3 2ND FLOOR PLAN
A-3 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A-3.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A-3.2 COLOR AND MATERIAL MAIN HOUSE
A-5 BUILDING SECTION
A-6 BUILDING SECTION
A-10 POOL CABANA
A-10.1 ADU
A-10.2 COLOR AND MATERIAL POOL CABANA AND ADU
SCOPE OF WORK;
SINGLE RESIDENCE WITH 2 CAR GARAGE

POOL CABANA

POOL, PRIVATE DRIVE WAY WITH LIGHTING

LANDSCAPE AND FENCE/ GATE

ADU IS NOT IN SCOPE OF THIS ENTITLEMENT
APPLICATION.

PLAN CHECK
10-30-21
1 3
1 T

PROJEST SITE

PARCEL MAP

SANJAY MUPPANENI RESIDENCE
fumioarchitect.com
Project number
Date
Drawn by
Checked by

FUMIO SUDA ARCHITECT
1522 WALNUT ST,BERKELEY,
CA94709
[email protected]
FS
FS
1339 TERRA VISTA CT,
MILPITAS, CA95035

MUPPANENI RESIDENCE


 


2 PLAN CHECK
02-27-21
2 2
1 A5
1 A5
1 A6
1 A6
3 PLAN CHECK
06-06-21
FUTURE

AN APPROVED AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM
(NFPA 13D MIN) SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL

STRUCTURES(LVING SPACE, GARAGE, OUTDOOR SPACES

ATTACHED TO THE HOME, POOL CABANA, ADU, ETC)

WHER ADDITIONS ARE MADE THAT INCREASE THE
BUILDING AREA TO MORE THAN 3600 SQUARE FEET OR

WHEN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THAT

THE HOME NEEDS TO COMPL Y WITH THE CURRENT CA

BUILDING CODES DUE TO EXTENSIVE
REMODEL/RENOVATION. CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
SECTION 903.2 AMENDED BY MILPITAS MUNICIPAL CODE
V-300-2-2.82

FIRE DEPARTMENT PERMIT -REQUIRED THE MILPITAS FIRE

DEPARTMENT SHALL APPROVE NEW INSTALLATION OF

ALRM AND/OR MONITORING SYSTEM(S) A SEPARATE

SUBMITTAL IS REQUIRED TO MILPITAS FIRE DEPARTMENT

FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE
COMMENCEMENT OR ANY WORK. FUC SECTION 901.2

WATER SUPPL Y SERVICE TO THE HOME UP GRADE THE (E)
WATER SUPPL Y SYSTEM. A NEW WATER SERVICE SHALL

BE DONE AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF MILPITAS
ENGINEERING DIVISION.

PLAN CHECK
06-29-224
3 3
221
Item # 15.
222
Item # 15.
223
Item # 15.
224
Item # 15.
225
Item # 15.
226
Item # 15.
227
Item # 15.
228
Item # 15.
229
Item # 15.
230
Item # 15.
231
Item # 15.
232
Item # 15.

SEE SHEET L-4.0 FOR PERSPECTIVE
233
Item # 15.
234
Item # 15.
>
>
>
••••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
•• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
•• •• •• •• ••
•• ••
•• ••
••
••
••
••
•• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••••
••
••
••
••
••
••
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••••••••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••••••••••••••••••••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••••••••••••••••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>>
>
>
>
>
>
•• •• ••
••
••
•• •• ••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••••
••
••
••

XXXXXXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
XXXXX
X

XXXXXXXXXX
XX
XXX
XX
XX
X
X
XXXX
X
X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
"BASIS OF BEARING"
308.79
• • • • • • • • • • ••••••••••••
160.00
•••• ••• ••• ••••••••••••
375.00•••• ••• ••• ••••••••••••
130.64
•••• ••• ••• ••••••••••••

TERRA VISTA CT
(PRIVATE)
(R/W 30.50')
0 10 20 40
Scale 1" = 20 ft
sheet size = 36"x24"
1339 TERRA VISTA COUR
MILPITAS, CA 95035
APN 029-07-009
R
Call before you dig.
below.Know what's
BEFORE EXCAVATING CALL: 811
48-HOURS BEFORE ALL

PLANNED WORK OPERATIONS
L3.0
Exterior Lighting Plan
235
Item # 15.

XFD Dripline Maximum Lateral Lengths (Feet)
Inlet Pressure psi
12" Spacing 18" Spacing 24" Spacing
Nominal Flow (gph) Nominal Flow (gph) Nominal Flow (gph)

0.6 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.9
15 273 155 314 250 424 322
20 318 169 353 294 508 368
30 360 230 413 350 586 414
40 395 255 465 402 652 474
50 417 285 528 420 720 488
60 460 290 596 455 780 514

XFD ON-SURFACE DRIPLINE
XFD Dripline Maximum Lateral Lengths (Feet)
Inlet Pressure psi
12" Spacing 18" Spacing 24" Spacing
Nominal Flow (gph) Nominal Flow (gph) Nominal Flow (gph)

0.6 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.9
15 273 155 314 250 424 322
20 318 169 353 294 508 368
30 360 230 413 350 586 414
40 395 255 465 402 652 474
50 417 285 528 420 720 488
60 460 290 596 455 780 514

XFD ON-SURFACE DRIPLINE
(BOTH
2" MAX.
12" DIA. CONC.
6" DRAIN ROCK

FOOTING
6"
12"
2' KICK-BOARD
2"X6"
2"X4"
SIDES)
2 SIDES OF

POST (TYP)
1"X4" TRIM
O.C. (TYP)
POST 8"-0"
6"X6" P.T.
5'-0"12"
2"X2"
1"X8" FENCING
W/ 1" X 2"

LATTICE

BATTENS
1"X4" TRIM
2"X6" CAP
2"X8" CUT AS SHOWN
6' 2' 6"
2"
2X6 CAP
2X4
4X4 POSTS
2X4 RAIL
4X4 POSTS
2X6 CAP
2X4 RAIL

WELDED WIRE
MESH 2"X4"

CONCRETE

FOOTING
GRAVEL 1/2" O
NOTE:

1. ALL LUMBER TO BE CONST. HEART REDWOOD

2. ALL METAL FASTENERS TO BE HOT-DIPPED
GALVANIZED.

XFD Dripline Maximum Lateral Lengths (Feet)
Inlet Pressure psi
12" Spacing 18" Spacing 24" Spacing
Nominal Flow (gph) Nominal Flow (gph) Nominal Flow (gph)

0.6 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.9
15 273 155 314 250 424 322
20 318 169 353 294 508 368
30 360 230 413 350 586 414
40 395 255 465 402 652 474
50 417 285 528 420 720 488
60 460 290 596 455 780 514

XFD ON-SURFACE DRIPLINE
XFD Dripline Maximum Lateral Lengths (Feet)
Inlet Pressure psi
12" Spacing 18" Spacing 24" Spacing
Nominal Flow (gph) Nominal Flow (gph) Nominal Flow (gph) 0 . 60 . 90 . 60 . 90 . 60 . 9
15 273 155 314 250 424 322
20 318 169 353 294 508 368
30 360 230 413 350 586 414
40 395 255 465 402 652 474
50 417 285 528 420 720 488
60 460 290 596 455 780 514

XFD ON-SURFACE DRIPLINE
L3.1
Landscape
Construction
Details

PAUL JAY REED
No. 2002
1339 TERRA VISTA COUR
MILPITAS, CA 95035
APN 029-07-009

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
408.481.9020 Office / 408.569.1519 Cell
1345 Pauline Dr., Sunnyvale, CA 94087

REED ASSOCIATES
web: www.rala.net / email: [email protected]
236
Item # 15.

BENDA BOARD IS INTENDED FOR NON-STRUCTURAL USE ONLY
BENDA BOARD PLASTIC HEADER BOARD DETAIL #110
SCALE: NTS

SEE CHART FOR

MINIMUM
RADIUS
1 1/2" ID x 13"

FINISHED
GRADE
TURF
AREA
2"
2X4 3 3/8" x 1 3/8" x 20'

MINIMUM
RADIUS

POSSIBLE
36"

MAXIMUM
CROWN

POSSIBLE
16" / 20'

SLIP JOINT

HAIRPIN

DIMENSIONS
1/2" - 3/4"
MANUFACTURED BY: EPIC PLASTICS, 104 EAST TURNER RD., LODI CA 95240

SIZE DIMENSIONS
ACTUALHDR.

BENDA BOARD

PLASTIC HEADER

BOARD, SEE CHART

FOR SIZES
7 GA. GALVANIZED

STEEL HAIRPIN,

SEE CHART FOR WIDTH
URL ADDRESS: www.epicplastics.com

PLASTIC STAKE
@ 3' O.C. MAX. USE

PLATED DECK SCREWS

FOR ATTACHMENT

FACTORY

CUT THERMAL

EXPANSION

SLIP JOINT

1. DO NOT SCREW THROUGH SLIP JOINT

2. USE COARSE WOOD WORKING TOOLS

FOR CUTTING & DRILLING

3. USE PLATED SCREWS OR RING SHANK

NAILS TO JOIN BOARD TO STAKE

4. ALLOW FOR THERMAL EXPANSION & CONTRACTION

BY LEAVING GAPS IN THE SLIP JOINTS OR AT THE END

OF THE RUN (SEE CHART)

WARM WEATHER INSTALL MIN GAP

COLD WEATHER INSTALL MAX GAP

5. STAKE APPROX 3' 0" OC (MORE FOR STRAIGHT RUNS

LESS FOR CURVES)

THERMAL

EXPANSION

GAP AT SLIP JOINT

SEE CHART

FOR THERMAL

EXPANSION GAP

FIINISH GRADE

GROUND COVER

PLANTING AREAS

SECTION PLAN VIEW

COLOR MENDOCINO REDWOOD

BENDA BOARD
2"
7 GA.

GALVANIZED

STEEL HAIRPIN,

SEE CHART

FOR WIDTH

SEE CHART

FOR THERMAL

EXPANSION GAP

SLIP JOINT DETAIL
L4.0
Landscape
Construction
Details

PAUL JAY REED
No. 2002
1339 TERRA VISTA COU
MILPITAS, CA 95035
APN 029-07-009

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
408.481.9020 Office / 408.569.1519 Cell
1345 Pauline Dr., Sunnyvale, CA 94087

REED ASSOCIATES
web: www.rala.net / email: [email protected]
237
Item # 15.

XFD Dripline Maximum Lateral Lengths (Feet)
Inlet Pressure psi
12" Spacing 18" Spacing 24" Spacing
Nominal Flow (gph) Nominal Flow (gph) Nominal Flow (gph)

0.6 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.9
15 273 155 314 250 424 322
20 318 169 353 294 508 368
30 360 230 413 350 586 414
40 395 255 465 402 652 474
50 417 285 528 420 720 488
60 460 290 596 455 780 514

XFD ON-SURFACE DRIPLINE
XFD Dripline Maximum Lateral Lengths (Feet)
Inlet Pressure psi
12" Spacing 18" Spacing 24" Spacing
Nominal Flow (gph) Nominal Flow (gph) Nominal Flow (gph)

0.6 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.9
15 273 155 314 250 424 322
20 318 169 353 294 508 368
30 360 230 413 350 586 414
40 395 255 465 402 652 474
50 417 285 528 420 720 488
60 460 290 596 455 780 514

XFD ON-SURFACE DRIPLINE
(BOTH
2" MAX.
12" DIA. CONC.
6" DRAIN ROCK

FOOTING
6"
12"
2' KICK-BOARD
2"X6"
2"X4"
SIDES)
2 SIDES OF

POST (TYP)
1"X4" TRIM
O.C. (TYP)
POST 8"-0"
6"X6" P.T.
5'-0"12"
2"X2"
1"X8" FENCING
W/ 1" X 2"

LATTICE

BATTENS
1"X4" TRIM
2"X6" CAP
2"X8" CUT AS SHOWN
6' 2' 6"
2"
2X6 CAP
2X4
4X4 POSTS
2X4 RAIL
4X4 POSTS
2X6 CAP
2X4 RAIL

WELDED WIRE
MESH 2"X4"

CONCRETE

FOOTING
GRAVEL 1/2" O
NOTE:

1. ALL LUMBER TO BE CONST. HEART REDWOOD

2. ALL METAL FASTENERS TO BE HOT-DIPPED
GALVANIZED.

XFD Dripline Maximum Lateral Lengths (Feet)
Inlet Pressure psi
12" Spacing 18" Spacing 24" Spacing
Nominal Flow (gph) Nominal Flow (gph) Nominal Flow (gph)

0.6 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.9
15 273 155 314 250 424 322
20 318 169 353 294 508 368
30 360 230 413 350 586 414
40 395 255 465 402 652 474
50 417 285 528 420 720 488
60 460 290 596 455 780 514

XFD ON-SURFACE DRIPLINE
XFD Dripline Maximum Lateral Lengths (Feet)
Inlet Pressure psi
12" Spacing 18" Spacing 24" Spacing
Nominal Flow (gph) Nominal Flow (gph) Nominal Flow (gph) 0 . 60 . 90 . 60 . 90 . 60 . 9
15 273 155 314 250 424 322
20 318 169 353 294 508 368
30 360 230 413 350 586 414
40 395 255 465 402 652 474
50 417 285 528 420 720 488
60 460 290 596 455 780 514

XFD ON-SURFACE DRIPLINE
L4.1
Landscape
Construction
Details

PAUL JAY REED
No. 2002
1339 TERRA VISTA COUR
MILPITAS, CA 95035
APN 029-07-009

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
408.481.9020 Office / 408.569.1519 Cell
1345 Pauline Dr., Sunnyvale, CA 94087

REED ASSOCIATES
web: www.rala.net / email: [email protected]
238
Item # 15.
239
Item # 15.

1.17.20 Reviewed
Issue Date
Approved
Drawn
Project No.

Scale
Sheet of

DAISSUE
--.----
Reed Associates Landscape Architecture, common law copyright Project is not to be construed as publication in derogation of Reed Associates Landscape Architecture are and shall remain its property. They are to be used only with respect to this All Drawings, Specifications and copies thereof furnished by Project and are not to be used on any other project.

Submission or distribution to meet official regulatory re- quirements or for purposes in connection with the
or other reserved rights.

OWNERSHIP AND USE OF DOCUMENTS
1339 TERRA VISTA COU
MILPITAS, CA 95035
APN 029-07-009
FS
--
V4

VIEW POINT

GOOGLE EARTH VIEW
Scale: NTS1
V3
V2
V1
https://youtu.be/hsk82pBeC74
L-6.0
240
Item # 15.
23 fumioarchitect.com
Project number
Date
Drawn by
Checked by

FUMIO SUDA ARCHITECT
1522 WALNUT ST,BERKELEY,
CA94709
[email protected]
FS
FS
1339 TERRA VISTA CT,
MILPITAS, CA95035

MUPPANENI RESIDENCE


 


A-1.1
1 2
3 BASEMENT PLAN
1/4"=1'-0"
6 1
5 1
241
Item # 15.
23 fumioarchitect.com
Project number
Date
Drawn by
Checked by

FUMIO SUDA ARCHITECT
1522 WALNUT ST,BERKELEY,
CA94709
[email protected]
FS
FS
1339 TERRA VISTA CT,
MILPITAS, CA95035

MUPPANENI RESIDENCE


 


A-1.2
1 2
3 1ST FLOOR PLAN
1/4"=1'-0"
REF
EN
REF
6 1
5 1

PLAN CHECK
02-27-21
1 242
Item # 15.
23 fumioarchitect.com
Project number
Date
Drawn by
Checked by

FUMIO SUDA ARCHITECT
1522 WALNUT ST,BERKELEY,
CA94709
[email protected]
FS
FS
1339 TERRA VISTA CT,
MILPITAS, CA95035

MUPPANENI RESIDENCE


 


A-1.3
1 2
2ND FLOOR PLAN
1/4"=1'-0"
6 1
5 1
243
Item # 15.
23 fumioarchitect.com
Project number
Date
Drawn by
Checked by

FUMIO SUDA ARCHITECT
1522 WALNUT ST,BERKELEY,
CA94709
[email protected]
FS
FS
1339 TERRA VISTA CT,
MILPITAS, CA95035

MUPPANENI RESIDENCE


 


A-3
1 2
EAST
WEST 1/4"=1'-0"
1ST FLOOR
0"
2ND FLOOR
11'-0"
2ND FLOOR CEILING
21'-0"

TOP OF ROOF
22'-4" NTS

BASEMENT'
-11'-0"
42" HIGH TEMP GLASS GUARD
RAIL
1ST FLOOR
0"
2ND FLOOR
11'-0"
2ND FLOOR CEILING
21'-0"

TOP OF ROOF
22'-4"

STUCCO PAINT-TYP

FACE BRICK

SLATE WALL TILE-TYP

FINISH GRADE SEE CIVIL

DRAWINGS-TYP
SEE SHEET A-5 AND A-6 FOR BUILDING

HEIGHT DIAGRAM-TYP

DARK BROWN WD

TRIM-TYP
244
Item # 15.
23 fumioarchitect.com
Project number
Date
Drawn by
Checked by

FUMIO SUDA ARCHITECT
1522 WALNUT ST,BERKELEY,
CA94709
[email protected]
FS
FS
1339 TERRA VISTA CT,
MILPITAS, CA95035

MUPPANENI RESIDENCE


 


A-3.1
1 2
3 SOUTH
GLASS GUARD RAIL 3'-6"

HIGH-TYP
NORTH
1ST FLOOR
0"
2ND FLOOR
11'-0"
2ND FLOOR CEILING
21'-0"

TOP OF ROOF
25'-0"
1ST FLOOR
0"
2ND FLOOR
11'-0"
2ND FLOOR CEILING
21'-0"
1/4"=1'-0"
1/4"=1'-0"

BASEMENT
-11'-0"

TOP OF ROOF
25'-0"
1/4"=1'-0"
SEE SHEET A-5 AND A-6 FOR BUILDING

HEIGHT DIAGRAM-TYP

DARK BROWN WD

TRIM-TYP
245
Item # 15.
23 A-3.2
1 2
3 STUCCO PAINT-TYP

BRICK VENEER
SLATE

TEMPERED GLASS

GUARD RAIL-TYP

DARK BROWN WD

TRIM-TYP

DARK BROWN WD

TRIM-TYP
fumioarchitect.com
Project number
Date
Drawn by
Checked by

FUMIO SUDA ARCHITECT
1522 WALNUT ST,BERKELEY,
CA94709
[email protected]
FS
FS
1339 TERRA VISTA CT,
MILPITAS, CA95035

MUPPANENI RESIDENCE


 



COLOR AND MATERIAL

STRUCTURAL GLASS GUARD RAIL DETAIL
NTS

PLAN CHECK
06-06-21
1 ROOF PLAN
Scale: 1/8"=1'-0"2

BENCH FOR OBSERVING GOLF

COURSE BELOW-TYP
1 PLAN CHECK
06-29-22
246
Item # 15.
23 A-5
fumioarchitect.com
Project number
Date
Drawn by
Checked by

FUMIO SUDA ARCHITECT
1522 WALNUT ST,BERKELEY,
CA94709
[email protected]
FS
FS
1339 TERRA VISTA CT,
MILPITAS, CA95035

MUPPANENI RESIDENCE


 


1 2
27'-0"
1ST FLOOR
0"
2ND FLOOR
11'-0"
2ND FLOOR CEILING
21'-0"

TOP OF ROOF
22'-4"

SITE SECTION
Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"1

PROPSED DRIVE WAY
(E)GRADE
(E)GRADE
247
Item # 15.
23 A-6
1 2
fumioarchitect.com
Project number
Date
Drawn by
Checked by

FUMIO SUDA ARCHITECT
1522 WALNUT ST,BERKELEY,
CA94709
[email protected]
FS
FS
1339 TERRA VISTA CT,
MILPITAS, CA95035

MUPPANENI RESIDENCE


 


3 27'-0"
1ST FLOOR
0"
2ND FLOOR
11'-0"
2ND FLOOR CEILING
21'-0"

TOP OF ROOF
22'-4"
(E)GRADE

PROPOSED GRADE

PROPSED DRIVE WAY
POOL
(E)GRADE

PROPOSED GRADE

PROPSED DRIVE WAY
POOL

SITE SECTION
Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"1
248
Item # 15.
23 fumioarchitect.com
Project number
Date
Drawn by
Checked by

FUMIO SUDA ARCHITECT
1522 WALNUT ST,BERKELEY,
CA94709
[email protected]
FS
FS
1339 TERRA VISTA CT,
MILPITAS, CA95035

MUPPANENI RESIDENCE


 


A-10
1 PLAN CHECK
04-13-20
EAST
POOL CABANA PLAN 1/4"=1'-0"
1ST FLOOR
0"

TOP OF ROOF
11'-0"
WEST
NORTH
SOUTH
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 3/16"=1'-0"
249
Item # 15.

LIVING ROOM
23 fumioarchitect.com
Project number
Date
Drawn by
Checked by

FUMIO SUDA ARCHITECT
1522 WALNUT ST,BERKELEY,
CA94709
[email protected]
FS
FS
1339 TERRA VISTA CT,
MILPITAS, CA95035

MUPPANENI RESIDENCE


 


A-10.1
1 PLAN CHECK
04-13-20
EAST
ADU PLAN 1/4"=1'-0"
WEST
NORTH
SOUTH
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 3/16"=1'-0"
1ST FLOOR
0"

TOP OF ROOF
11'-6"
2 PLAN CHECK
02-27-22
2 250
Item # 15.
23 fumioarchitect.com
Project number
Date
Drawn by
Checked by

FUMIO SUDA ARCHITECT
1522 WALNUT ST,BERKELEY,
CA94709
[email protected]
FS
FS
1339 TERRA VISTA CT,
MILPITAS, CA95035

MUPPANENI RESIDENCE


 


A-10.2
1 PLAN CHECK
04-13-20
STUCCO

BRICK VENEER
STUCCO

BRICK VENEER

WE PAINT
STUCCO

BRICK VENEER

COLOR AND MATERIAL
251
Item # 15.

Public Comment 09.28.22.pdf
Public Comment 09.28.22 1.pdf
Public Comment 09.28.22 2.pdf
Public Comment 09.28.22 3.pdf
252
Item # 15.
1 Liz Medina
From:

Bill Chuan <
>
Sent:

Thursday, September 29, 2022 7:15 AM
To:

Ned Thomas; Liz Medina; Avery Stark
Subject:

Fwd: Proposed Countryside Estates hillside development
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links.

Regards,

Bill

Begin forwarded message:

From:

John Doll <
>

Date:

September 28, 2022 at 6:12:34 PM PDT

To:

Subject:

Proposed Countryside Estates hillside development

Dear Commissioner Chuan:

Good evening.

As members of Milpitas Involved Citizens (MIC), my wife Barbara and I are writing to urge

you in tonight’s Planning Commission meeting to:



Approve the proposed single
-
family residence on Countryside Estates, Lot 2, with
the changes that the applicant and the Planning Department have negotiated for compliance with the standards of the

Milpitas Hillside Ordinance.



Deny approval of the proposed single
-
family residence on Countryside Estates, Lot
1, unless the applicant accepts the changes that have been proposed by the Planning Department to minimize deviations from the standa
rds of the Milpitas Hillside
Ordinance. This Ordinance was approved by voters to protect the hillsides from unnecessary, unwise, and unattractive development.

Regards,

John and Barbara Doll

Milpitas residents for 32 years

253
Item # 15.
1 Liz Medina
From:

Bill Chuan <
>
Sent:

Thursday, September 29, 2022 7:15 AM
To:

Ned Thomas; Avery Stark; Liz Medina
Subject:

Fwd: My vote
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links.

Regards,

Bill

Begin forwarded message:

From:

rekha <
>

Date:

September 28, 2022 at 8:33:19 PM PDT

To:

bill_chuan
, Zmohsin13
, soniayourrealtor1
,
Dee.Awasthi
, drglive
, mercedesalbana
, ciardellal@

Subject:

My vote

Deny approval of the proposed single
-
family residence on Countryside Estates, Lot 1,
unless the applicant accepts the changes that have been proposed by the Planning Department to minimize deviations from the standards of the Milpitas Hillside Ordinance. This Ordinance was approved by voters

to protect the hillsides from
unnecessary, unwise, and unattractive development.

Thank you

Regards,

Rekha Pardeshi

Milpitas, CA95035

254
Item # 15.
1 Liz Medina
From:

Bill Chuan <
>
Sent:

Thursday, September 29, 2022 7:15 AM
To:

Ned Thomas; Avery Stark; Liz Medina
Subject:

Fwd: Planning Commission Meeting, disapprove hill side development 1339 Terra Vista Court (LOT 1)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links.

Hi All,

Sorry for late send in this. I received just before our meeting and seeing this now. Most were already provided verbally via public comment. I’m sending anyways for record keeping. There’s some more as well.

Regards,

Bill Chuan

Chair, Planning Commissio
n

City of Milpitas

Begin forwarded message:

From:

Frank Bush <
>

Date:

September 28, 2022 at 6:12:20 PM PDT

To:

bill_chuan
, ciardellal
, mercedesalbana
, drglive
,
Dee.Awasthi
, soniay
ourrealtor1
, Zmohsin13

Subject:

Planning Commission Meeting, disapprove hill side development 1339 Terra Vista Court (LOT 1)

Hello All
,

There are already too many monster houses on the hillside now, any new project must comply wi
th the current hillside standards. And variances should not be allowed, if they are unwilling to comply then you should not approve the project
.

If they make changes to their plan to comply with the regulations, I’m fine with the approval of the project.

But that area is at risk, it was not that long ago we had the fire in the Milpitas hills above
Summitpointe Golf course, not to mention it’s proximity to the Hayward Fault .

Thank you,

Fran
k

255
Item # 15.
1 Liz Medina
From:

Barbara Jo Navarro <
t>
Sent:

Wednesday, September 28, 2022 6:17 PM
To:

Bill Chuan; Larry Ciardella; Mercedes Albana; Alexander Galang; Dipak Awasthi; Sonia Medina-Ashby; Zeya Mohsin
Cc:

Liz Medina
Subject:

Planning Commissioners-Agenda Item IX-2, Public Comment CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links.

Good Evening

In reviewing the agenda and topics for tonight’s meeting, the Milpitas Involved Citizens (MIC) group want to express our concern about Public Hearing Item IX
-

2. Please consider denying the request for variance in Lot 1. Modifications to the house design are imperative to comply
with the intent of the Hillside Ordinance Standards. These standards are important and have been put in place to protect our hillsides.

If you do approve the variance, we urge that you require the staff’s recommendations be imp lemented for the sake of
this project and to prevent setting a precedent for future excessive variances.

MIC has no concerns relative to Public Hearing Item IX
-
I.

Respectfully

Barbara Jo Navarro

Member, MIC

256
Item # 15.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Receive Progress Report from Raimi and Associates and Staff on the Housing Opportunity Districts and Provide Direction on the Preferred Alternative (Staff Contact: Jay Lee, Interim Planning Director, 408-586-3077; and Avery Stark, Acting Senior Planner, 408-586-3288)
Category: Community Development
Meeting Date: 10/17/2023
Recommendation: (1) Receive progress report on the work completed and summary of community feedback from Raimi and Associates and staff on the Housing Opportunity Districts.
(2) Provide direction on the preferred alternative for the Housing Opportunity Districts.

Background:

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), which provides one-time grant funding for cities and counties to update planning documents and implement process and policy improvements to accelerate housing production and meet their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations. The City of Milpitas was awarded $300,000 in grant funds through the LEAP Program to establish Housing Opportunity Districts (HODs) in areas of the City prioritized for housing by the City’s General Plan. Per the grant agreement, the HODs must be completed by June 30, 2024.

The key goals of the HODs 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 HODs from other cities, especially as they relate to the creation of affordable housing units and housing for special needs populations.  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.  Existing Conditions Analysis: The analysis of existing conditions examines each potential HOD area and estimates the feasible development capacity based on Milpitas’ current land use and zoning policies and regulations.
 Stakeholder Meetings: Raimi and Associates and City staff presented an overview of HODs 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.  Community Outreach: Raimi and Associates and City staff developed a project webpage, created educational videos, administered an online survey, and tabled at key locations throughout the City to solicit community feedback on the HODs.

257
Item # 16.

General Plan Implementation
The HODs will be a critical implementation tool of the 2040 General Plan, which identifies several opportunity areas throughout the City for future housing development. The HODs will apply to three of the Neighborhood Commercial Mixed-Use (NCMU) areas and the Town Center. However, the current policies and requirements of the NCMU and TWC land use designations need to be refined to facilitate mixed-use redevelopment.

The HODs 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 place-based approach to facilitate mixed-use redevelopment of specific sites within these areas while allowing viable commercial centers to remain.

Housing Element Implementation
The HODs will also be a critical implementation tool of the recently adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element, which identifies adequate sites for new affordable housing to fulfill the City’s RHNA. In the current 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 struggled to provide.

To address this challenge, the HODs will focus on providing practical and effective incentives for developers to build affordable housing, especially at deeper affordability levels. The 2023-2031 Housing Element identifies the HODs as a key program to help the City fulfill its housing goals and needs.

Analysis:

A brief overview of the preferred alternative, fiscal impact analysis, and next steps is provided below.

Preferred Alternative
Staff recommends utilizing a place-based and flexible approach by establishing multiple zoning districts in the NCMU areas and Town Center. The preferred alternative is further described below.

Neighborhood Commercial Mixed Use (NCMU)
The NCMU land use 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 attempts to accomplish this vision by establishing a ratio of one residential dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail and commercial services for new mixed-use developments. The NCMU designation also allows residential only projects if they are 100 percent affordable. While the purpose of this requirement is to increase vibrancy and incentivize the redevelopment of aging strip retail centers into new mixed-use projects, redevelopment is unlikely to occur under the current policy framework. Furthermore, new mixed-use projects would struggle to meet the minimum density requirement of 30 dwelling units per acre to qualify as a Housing Element site.

Based on the analysis completed for this HOD project, City staff recommends utilizing a place-based and flexible approach by establishing three distinct NCMU zoning districts (NCMU 1, NCMU 2, and NCMU 3), each with a clear allowable density range rather than a ratio between residential and nonresidential floor area.

These zoning districts would apply to the Sunny Hills, Calaveras and North Park Neighborhood, and Landess Neighborhood commercial areas, which are currently designated NCMU in the 2040 General Plan.

While all NCMU zoning districts would allow for a maximum density of 65 dwelling units per acre and maximum building height of 75 feet or 6 stories, each NCMU zoning district would provide a different minimum commercial floor area ratio (FAR) requirement. A brief description of each NCMU zoning district is below.

 NCMU 1. The NCMU 1 zoning district would primarily apply to successful commercial centers with a big box retail anchor and require a minimum commercial FAR of 0.25 to establish a high threshold for redevelopment. These areas are unlikely to redevelop in the near future and would be required to maintain most of the existing commercial floor area if mixed-use redevelopment were to occur. 258
Item # 16.

 NCMU 2. The NCMU 2 zoning district would apply to small parcels along major streets and require a minimum commercial FAR of 0.10 to facilitate mixed-use redevelopment while maintaining retail businesses along existing commercial corridors.
 NCMU 3. The NCMU 3 zoning district would apply to parcels further away from key intersections and adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods and allow for residential only development in certain areas.

Town Center
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.

Similar to the NCMU areas, staff recommends utilizing a place-based and flexible approach by establishing three distinct Town Center zoning districts (TC 1, TC 2, and TC 3). While all Town Center zoning districts would allow for a maximum density of 55 dwelling units per acre and maximum building height of 75 feet or 6 stories, each Town Center zoning district would provide a different minimum commercial FAR requirement.

A brief description of each Town Center zoning district is below.

 TC 1. The TC 1 zoning district would apply to the majority of the Town Center north of Calaveras and the area south of Calaveras fronting Los Coches Street and require a minimum commercial FAR of

0.35. These areas are unlikely to redevelop and would be required to maintain or increase the existing commercial floor area if mixed-use redevelopment were to occur.  TC 2. The TC 2 zoning district would primarily apply to the parcels south of Calaveras Boulevard fronting North Milpitas Boulevard and South Hillview Drive and require a minimum commercial FAR of

0.15 to facilitate mixed-use redevelopment while maintaining retail businesses along these commercial corridors.
 TC 3. The TC 3 zoning district would primarily apply to the eastern edge of the Town Center and parcels fronting the south side of Calaveras Boulevard and allow for residential only development in limited areas.

This context-sensitive and practical land use approach to the NCMU areas and Town Center would allow for financially feasibly mixed-use redevelopment and more market-rate and affordable housing, which in turn would increase the demand for retail businesses. Overall, the HODs would result in a net increase in the City’s total revenue, which is further discussed below.

Affordable Housing
In addition to facilitating mixed-income housing development by improving the financial feasibility of mixed-use developments in the HODs, staff recommends providing incentives to facilitate 100 percent affordable housing projects. Incentives could include the following:

1. Eliminate minimum commercial requirement;

2. Reduce Parks Fee requirement from 5 acres to 3.5 acres per 1,000, which would be consistent with the Metro Specific Plan; and

3. Reduce required usable open space from 20 to 15 percent of the site area.

Fiscal Impact Analysis
To understand the potential impact of the HODs on the City’s revenue, the City hired Seifel Consulting Inc. to perform a fiscal impact analysis regarding proposed land use changes that would allow additional residential development to occur in the NCMU areas and Town Center. The analysis is performed for a representative development opportunity that might occur in these areas in the near term as a result of the HODs and evaluates the potential impact of future development on the City’s fiscal revenues and expenditures. 259
Item # 16.

Fiscal revenues include property taxes, sales and use taxes, licenses/permits/fees, franchise tax, other taxes, and other revenues. Fiscal expenditures were calculated by multiplying the City’s average General Fund service cost per person serviced by the service population associated with each development scenario. The fiscal analysis utilizes the City’s adopted General Fund budget for Fiscal Year 2022-23 as the basis for the City’s fiscal revenues and costs and relies on the fiscal data and findings presented in the Milpitas Fiscal Benefits of Employment Lands Study.

The key findings of the analysis are below:

1. If no zoning changes are made, no redevelopment is likely as the current General Plan commercial to residential ratios are infeasible.

2. With implementation of a place-based strategy, which maintains a robust minimum commercial floor area requirement for much of the HODs, only small portions of the HODs are likely to redevelop in the near future.

3. The NCMU areas and Town Center only represent 9 percent of the total City sales tax revenue, which comprises approximately 30 percent of the general fund revenues.

4. New infill mixed-use and residential development is likely to have nearly a net neutral fiscal impact on the City overall. The projected increase in General Fund revenues is anticipated to be similar to the fiscal costs of providing services to future residents and employees for each of the development scenarios.

In summary, while residential development typically increases the cost of providing services relative to nonresidential development, it also results in greater property taxes and demand for retail. The full fiscal impact analysis is attached to this report.

Next Steps
Following the Council study session on the HODs, the consultant will prepare an internal Administrative Draft HODs document for staff review and initiate the environmental review process per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Based on staff input, the consultant will refine the Administrative Draft HODs documents and prepare a Public Draft for public review and circulation. Finally, based on input received from the public, City staff, and Council, the consultant will prepare the Final HODs document and return to the Planning Commission and Council for adoption of the HODs and associated environmental document.

Policy Alternatives:

This is an informational item for Council feedback and direction and is one of several sessions for providing Council with the progress of the Housing Opportunity Districts.

Fiscal Impact:

This is an informational item. As such, there is no fiscal impact.

California Environmental Quality Act:

The additional development allowed through the HODs will be consistent with what was envisioned in the 2040 General Plan and analyzed in the associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Therefore, the required environmental review for the HODs is likely to be accomplished through an EIR Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Recommendation:

1. Receive progress report on the work completed and summary of community feedback from Raimi and Associates and staff on the Housing Opportunity Districts.

2. Provide direction on the preferred alternative for the Housing Opportunity Districts.

Attachment:

1. August 8, 2022 City Council Agenda Report and Attachments

2. HODs Fiscal Impact Analysis
260
Item # 16.

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.
261
Item # 16.

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.
262
Item # 16.

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 place- based 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.
263
Item # 16.

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.
264
Item # 16.

Milpitas Housing
Overlay Zone:

Precedent Studies
& Incentives Memo
March 24, 2022
1798
Item # 19.
265
Item # 16.

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 n ew 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 fina lized 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.
266
Item # 16.

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
Deed-
restriction 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 C-
prefixed districts
- Potentially R-1, R-1A, R-
2, 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.
267
Item # 16.

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 low-
and 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.
268
Item # 16.

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 affordabl e 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 ove rlay 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 De velopment Department (CDD) regarding how to address the housing crisis and was further mentioned during the “Envision Cambridge” ci tywide 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 meet ings 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 underly ing zoning standards or density requirements, AHO projects can contain single-family, two-family, townhouse, or multi-family dwellings. Projects may also include active, non- residential 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 spe cifies 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.
269
Item # 16.

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.
270
Item # 16.

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.
271
Item # 16.

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-of- right."
• 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.
272
Item # 16.

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, d oes 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 o ccupants. • 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.
273
Item # 16.

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 reg ulations 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 sec ond 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 straig htforward 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% AM I (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.
274
Item # 16.

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.
275
Item # 16.

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, S tate, 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.
276
Item # 16.

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 develo pment 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.
277
Item # 16.

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.
278
Item # 16.

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 low - income 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 multiple- bedroom 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 s pace 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.
279
Item # 16.

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 se tbacks 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.
280
Item # 16.

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 co unted 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 co unted 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.
281
Item # 16.

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 r ate 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 un its 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.
282
Item # 16.

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 comp atible 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 th at 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.
283
Item # 16.

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 assistan ce 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.
284
Item # 16.

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 mus t 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 g eneral well- being 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 tho se 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 cou ld 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.
285
Item # 16.

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 affo rdable 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 afford able 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 com pliance review to determine the project’s compliance with adopted objective design standards. Projects within the specific plan area must go through the arch itectural control process 1819
Item # 19.
286
Item # 16.

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 a ccommodated 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 d oes 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.
287
Item # 16.

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 develope rs 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 heig hts 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 2 5% 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 city- wide, 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 us e 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.
288
Item # 16.

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 pr oposal. 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 especia lly 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.
289
Item # 16.

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 c reate 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-already- producing-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.
290
Item # 16.

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-element- update/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/right-
development#:~:text=A%20by%2Dright%20approval%20(also,construction%20without%20requiring%20discretionary%20approval

1824
Item # 19.
291
Item # 16.

Raimi + Associates 1 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment

1825
Item # 19.
292
Item # 16.

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.
293
Item # 16.

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 cha llenges 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 ta king 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 t o 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.
294
Item # 16.

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.
295
Item # 16.

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.
296
Item # 16.

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.
297
Item # 16.

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.
298
Item # 16.

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.
299
Item # 16.

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.
300
Item # 16.

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.
301
Item # 16.

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 Multi-
Family High
Density
Residential
(R3-Metro)
Multi-Family
Very High
Density
Residential
(VHD)
Residential:
40-85
units/ac
35-85 feet N/A Metro Multi-
Family 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.
302
Item # 16.

Raimi + Associates 12 Milpitas Planning Documents and Process Assessment

1836
Item # 19.
303
Item # 16.

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.
304
Item # 16.

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.
305
Item # 16.

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 Conditiona l Use Permit, in accordance with Subsection 57.04, Conditional Use Permits, of this Chapter.

1839
Item # 19.
306
Item # 16.

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 moderate- income 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 t o 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.
307
Item # 16.

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.
308
Item # 16.

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 XI- 10-54.14 of the Zoning along with the creation of the HOZ section of the code.

1842
Item # 19.
309
Item # 16.

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 summarize s 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 moderate- income 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.
310
Item # 16.

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 hous ing. The impact fee is be calculated on a per square foot basis for net new gross floor area. Thus far, the pipeline non- residential projects have not reached the building permit approval stage, so no impact fee ha s 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.
311
Item # 16.

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.
312
Item # 16.

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.
313
Item # 16.

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 o f 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.
314
Item # 16.

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 E lement. 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 a re as follows-

1. 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.
315
Item # 16.

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 pro ject 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.
316
Item # 16.

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 j urisdictions 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.
317
Item # 16.

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 multi - family 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.
318
Item # 16.

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/policy- research/plans-reports/docs/impact-fee-study.pdf

1852
Item # 19.
319
Item # 16.

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.
320
Item # 16.

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/Milpitas- General-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/wp- content/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-expenditures- fy2021.pdf
Santa Clara County Collaborative Draft Presentation March 10, 2022 https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/santaclaracountycacities/uploads/2022/03/Collaborative - Meeting-3.10.22-.pdf
Residential Impact Fees in California 2019, Terner Center https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp- content/uploads/pdfs/Residential_Impact_Fees_in_California_August_2019.pdf Meyers Nave, Guide to the California Density Bonus Law, 2021 https://www.meyersnave.com/wp- content/uploads/California-Density-Bonus-Law_2021.pdf

1854
Item # 19.
321
Item # 16.
49 Stevenson Street, Suite 500 San Francisco CA 94104 | 415-618-0700 | www.seifel.com Memorandum Date October 1, 2023 To: City of Milpitas From: Seifel Consulting, Inc. Subject: Fiscal Analysis of Proposed Housing Opportunity Districts Seifel Consulting was retained by the City of Milpitas to perform a fiscal analysis regarding proposed land use changes that would allow additional residential development to occur within the Town Center (TC) and Neighborhood Commercial Mixed-use (NCMU) zones. These zones, referred to as Housing Opportunity Districts (HOD), will remain centers of local retail businesses while also incorporating more housing and amenities to foster the development of mixed-use neighborhoods. The fiscal analysis is performed for a representative development opportunity that might occur in the Housing Opportunity Districts in the near term and evaluates what could occur if a typical property were to be redeveloped to include housing. As indicated in Figure 1 below, the fiscal analysis indicates that new infill mixed use and residential development is likely to have a positive fiscal impact on the City of Milpitas as total fiscal revenues are projected to exceed fiscal costs from future development at buildout. Figure 1 Summary of Potential Fiscal Impact from Typical HOD Development Opportunity In FY 2022/23 Constant Dollars $0$50,000$100,000$150,000$200,000$250,000$300,000$350,000$400,000$450,000$500,000 ExistingDevelopmentNCMU 1NCMU 2NCMU 3Fiscal RevenueFiscal Cost 322
Item # 16.