Milpitas City Council
December 2, 2025

necessary for Site Development Permit SD24-0006, Environmental Assessment EA24-0002, and Tree Removal Permit TR25 -0021. The proposed development (the “Project ”) is a similar but modified version of the previous project, thus consists of and requires:

a. Site Development Permit ( P-SD24-0002): Develop a new, one -story, 487,564 - square foot tilt-up concrete industrial building with office space and associated site improvements, including  new internal roadways, landscaping, offsite public improvements, and a new surface parking lot with 781 vehicle parking spaces, 50 oversized parking stalls for tractor-trailers, and 27 loading dock doors; and

b. Environmental Assessment (P -EA24-0002): Consider an Addendum to the 1000 Gibraltar Drive Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2020069024); and

c. Tree Removal Permit (P-TR25-0021): To remove 25-ordinance sized trees pursuant to Section X-2-4.02 of the Milpitas Municipal Code.

WHEREAS, Milpitas City Staff conducted a full analysis of the Project to ensure compliance with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Engineering Design Requirements , Transportation Analysis Guidelines, and all other applicable laws, regulations and standards, as all further explained in detail in City staff’s report to the Planning Commission; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Division completed an environmental impact assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( “CEQA”) and prepared an Addendum to the 1000 Gibraltar Drive FEIR in accordance with CEQA, and State and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and

WHEREAS, the Addendum to the 1000 Gibraltar Drive FEIR concluded that impacts of the proposed Project are consistent with or less than the previous project and the environmental analysis conducted for the same;

WHEREAS, in connection with the approval of a project involving the preparation of an environmental impact report that identifies one or more significant effects, CEQA requires the decision-making body of the lead agency to incorporate feasible mitigation measures that would reduce those significant environment effects to less than significant level; and

WHEREAS, whenever a lead agency approves a project requiring the implementation of measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment, CEQA also requires a lead agency to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance w ith the mitigation measures during the project implementation; and

WHEREAS, the City of Milpitas is the lead agency, and the Milpitas Planning Commission is the decision-making body for the proposed Project; and

WHEREAS, the Milpitas Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Addendum to the 1000 Gibraltar Drive FEIR (“Addendum”), attached hereto and incorporated herein as

Exhibit 2, together with the Addendum’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporti ng Program for the Project, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 3 , and adopted the Addendum’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program , as modified by this Resolution, to ensure the Project is in compliance with CEQA and State and local guidelines implementing CEQA at its meeting on September 10, 2025; and

WHEREAS, per 14 C.C.R. §§ 15162 and 15164, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Addendum, together with its findings and conclusions that no supplemental or subsequent environmental review is required because: (a) no substantial changes are proposed in the Project which will require major revisions of the 1000 Gibraltar Drive FEIR ; (b) no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the 1000 Gibraltar Drive FEIR; and (c) no new information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the 1000 Gibraltar Drive FEIR was certified has become available; and

WHEREAS, as separate and independent bases, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the Project is exempt from further CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan or Zoning); and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes and accepts as its own the findings set forth in the resolution; and

WHEREAS, on September 10, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, at which all those in attendance were given the opportunity to speak on the Project; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the written and oral testimony presented at the public hearing in making its decision; and

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

SECTION 1. Recitals

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

SECTION 2: Record

The location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based is within the Planning Department, City of Milpitas, 455 East Calaveras Boulevard, Milpitas, California 95035.

SECTION 3. CEQA Finding

An Addendum to the 1000 Gibraltar Drive Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH No. 2020069024) was published on September 5 , 2025. The Addendum finds that the impacts of the proposed Project remain consistent or less than with the impacts previously analyzed in the certified 1000 Gibraltar Drive FEIR. The Addendum further concludes that proposed Project does not require any substantial revisions to the 1000 Gibraltar Drive FEIR, that no new significant information or changes in circumstances surrounding the proposed Project have occurred since the certification of the 1000 Gibraltar Drive FEIR, and that t he previous analysis completed for the 1000 Gibraltar Drive FEIR remains adequate under CEQA. As further discussed in the Addendum, the Addendum’s Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) has been updated to identify the relevant mitigation measures appli cable to the Project from the 1000 Gibraltar Drive FEIR’s MMRP. The Planning Commission therefore finds that its actions are consistent with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 , and that no additional environmental review is required. Therefore, the Planning Commission thereby approves and adopts this Addendum and its Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3, respectively.

SECTION 4. Site Development Permit (MMC Section XI-10-57.03(F))

The Planning Commission makes the following findings based on the evidence in the public record in approving Site Development Permit No. SD24-0006:

1. The layout of the site and design of the proposed buildings, structures and landscaping are compatible and aesthetically harmonious with adjacent and surrounding development.

The proposed Project’s architecture is reflective of a modern and ‘Contemporary’ architectural style that incorporates various wall planes and massing elements that adds interest to the proposed elevations and was modeled to be similar from the previously approved building. The high -quality architecture sets a new standard for future development in the heavy industrial zoned area. Although the proposed warehouse will be one-story tall, the proposed architectural design with alternating colors, delineations, and materials provides the illusion that the building could be more than one-story. The exterior façade of the Project includes three, two-story glass corners including the main office entry and surrounding site vantage points while the bulk of the structure is offset by various façade elements including concrete panel accents and multi -colored paint patterns with three different shades of gray and a blue accent trim and two types of blue-glazed glass.

The proposed landscaping plan is compatible as it adds a variety of drought tolerant groundcovers and approximately 234 new trees, in addition to retaining approximately 58 existing trees along the perimeter of the site and will include modern stormwater bioretention areas. The proposed new surface parking lots will also be a substantial improvement from the existing unmaintained site with new striped parking stalls, EV ready and EV charging stalls, landscaping, and delineated areas for trucks, employee/vis itor parking, and flex delivery drivers.

Generally, buildings surrounding the Project site vary in height. At a maximum height of

46.5-feet up to 49.5 -feet to the top of parapet, the proposed building complements neighboring one- to two-story buildings that are also industrially zoned uses. The varying rooflines add to the building’s aesthetic and the Applicant has provided line of sight studies in the proposed plan set to ensure that rooftop equipment is adequately screened by parapets from any ground or street level vantage point, as well as realistic renderings which demonstrate that the proposed Project will be compatible to the neighborhood in scale, bulk, and height and will be aesthetically harmonious with adjacent and surrounding development.

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

The Project site is zoned M2 (Heavy Industrial). It is anticipated that the facility would operate as a warehousing and distribution center and is a permitted use per MMC Table XI-10-7.02-1 “Industrial Zone Uses”. As demonstrated in Table 1, the Project complies with the required setbacks, number of parking spaces, landscaped area, and maximum floor area ratio. The proposed signage will be reviewed under a future separate permit.

Although the M2 Zoning District does not identify any maximum height limits, the construction of any new building greater than 35 -feet in height requires the Planning Commission to make a finding that any such excess height will not be detrimental to the light, air or privacy of any other structure or use currently existing or anticipated, pursuant to MMC XI -10-7.03. Given that heights of surrounding structures vary and there are sufficient setbacks between the proposed building and structures on adjacent p arcels and the Project would be largely centered around the surface parking lot in a large 28.96 -acre lot, the proposed height of the Project would not be detrimental to the light, air, or privacy of any other structure as further demonstrated by the renderings on Sheet A601 of the proposed plans.

Additionally, during the development review process, Planning staff asked the Applicant if it was feasible to reduce the maximum height of the building to 35 -feet or below; however, the Applicant indicated that the proposed height is the minimum required height necessary for the feasibility of the development to occur and support the operations of the Project, provides more storage and shelfing capacity, and is the industry standard to include interior ceiling heights at a minimum of 36 -40 feet. Considering all of the above and if the Planning Commission grants the finding of excess height beyond 35 -feet at approximately 46-feet and 6-inches (up to 49-feet and 9-inches to top of parapet) with an internal 36-foot clear ceiling height, the Project will be consistent with the Milpitas Zoning Code. The Planning Commission finding is included as Section 5 of this Resolution

Table 1: Heavy Industrial (M2) Zoning District
Development Standards Conformance

Standards M2
Requirements Proposed Complies

Front Setback
(Min.) 35 feet from face of curb 65 feet, 9 inches Yes Street Side
Setback (Min.) 35 feet from face of curb 73 feet Yes Rear Setback
(Min.) None 217 feet Yes
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) 1.0 0.387 Yes
Landscaping Required front yard area and
required side yard area
New landscaped
areas within
required front
yard and side yard
areas
Yes
Parking
Office: 1 per 350 sq. ft.

Warehouse:1 per 1,500 sq. ft.
349 stalls required
781 stalls Yes
Building Height
(Max.)
None. However, prior to
construction of any structure
that exceeds three (3) stories
or thirty-five (35) feet in
height, the Planning
Commission must make a
finding as stated in the
Complies column
46 feet, 6 inches;
up to 49 feet, 6
inches to top of
parapet
Yes, if the Planning
Commission makes the
following finding:

That any such excess height
will not be detrimental to the
light, air or privacy of any
other structure or use
currently existing or
anticipated.

The Planning Commission
finding is included as
Section 5 of this Resolution

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

The proposed Project is consistent with the Milpitas General Plan, as demonstrated and outlined in Table 2, and particularly Policy ED 1-5, which wants to make Milpitas a more predictable place for companies to do business by reducing impediments to growth and actively planning to provide adequate space for companies to provide long -term growth needs, and Policy LU 7-3, which encourages the development of new industrial areas and the redevelopment of existing older or marginal areas with new similar uses, e specially those in locations which facilitate efficient multi -modal commute patterns. The proposed Project will be developed on an existing corporate industrial/office campus lot spawning

28.96-acres that has been underutilized and vacant since 2018 and is over 45 years old. The Project is also considered an infill development on previously developed land and will be

served by existing utilities and will ensure the land continues to be used as an industrial use, providing a desired manufacturing land use as a warehousing and distribution center that is specifically listed in the General Plan’s description for Manufacturing (MFG) . The City’s Office of Economic Development has also provided a letter of support. Furthermore, reinvestment into the Project site will help promote additional economic activity into the area and employment opportunities , as well as provide offsite public improvements that was coordinated closely with the Applicant and City’s Engineering Division.

Table 2: General Plan Consistency

Policy Consistency Finding
ED 1 -3: Strengthen the City’s position as a
premier regional location for high -tech industrial
and advanced manufacturing uses in Silicon
Valley.

Consistent: The City embarked on a
multi-year process to update the City’s
General Plan in 2016, which included
several consultant -prepared studies
including economic development
projections, which at the time saw
increasing potential growth of attracting
new high -tech industrial and advanced
manufacturing uses in the City. The
previously approved project was
submitted before the unprecedented
global COVID -19 pandemic and was
approved in the midst of the pandemic in
March 2021, at a time of uncertain
economic condition s and high
construction costs. As such, construction
of the previous project became financially
infeasible, resulting in expired
entitlements. As economic conditions
began to improve over time, renewed
interest in redeveloping this subject lot
with a modified Project proposal ensued.

Approval of the proposed Project would
attract an established web -based retail
tenant or similar prospective tenants to
invest in the site and City as a viable “last
mile” warehousing and distribution
facility and ensure the lot remains as an
industrial us e and strengthens the City’s
position as a premier regional location in
Silicon Valley. The Project site is also
strategically located near major freeways
and the Applicant has strategically
modified the Project’s surface parking lot

Policy Consistency Finding
design from the previously approved
entitlements for efficiency, including
separating locations for access and
circulation for trucks, employee/visitor
vehicles, and flex delivery parking in
designated areas of the surface parking lot
with gates separating internal access into
the truck yard area.

ED 1-5: Make Milpitas a more predictable place
for companies to do business by reducing
impediments to growth and actively planning to
provide adequate space for companies to meet
long-term growth needs.

Consistent: The proposed Project’s new
concrete tilt up industrial warehouse
building and site planning was carefully
modified from the expired entitlements to
plan for the future growth of a web -based
retail tenant to meet long -term growth
needs and add an employment center with
local job opportunities. The Addendum
prepared to the 1000 Gibraltar Drive Final
Environmental Impact Report estimates
the Project to generate an average of 363
employees, which also accounts for
seasonal fluctuations.

The large 28.96 -acre site has been vacant
and underutilized since 2018, and the
City’s General Plan 2040 prioritizes the
maintenance of its industrial lands with
active uses and tenants that are consistent
the intent of the Manufacturing land use
designation. Additionally, the City’s
Office of Economic Development
provided a letter of support for the Project.

LU 7 -3: Encourage the development of new
industrial, manufacturing, and business park areas
and the redevelopment of existing older or
marginal areas with new similar uses, especially
those in locations which facilitate efficient multi -
modal commute patterns. Use available public
financing to provide necessary infrastructure
improvements to encourage economic
development and revitalization.

Consistent: The redevelopment of the
existing, outdated, and underutilized site
will lead to a new state -of-the-art modern
industrial warehousing building with
careful site planning, such as locating all
oversized trucks and trailers in the parking
lot to be separated by different entry
points with two protective gates, while
ensuring adequate parking, access and
circulation remains for other passenger
vehicle types with new improved
pedestrian walkways.

Policy Consistency Finding
Through these ongoing coordination
efforts with City staff, the Applicant has
agreed to several off -street public
improvements including but not limited to
pavement restoration along portions of
Gibraltar Drive and S . Milpitas B lvd.,
sidewalk replacements along perimeter of
the lot to meet ADA requirements , and
operational upgrades to traffic signals at
the S. Milpitas Blvd./Ames Avenue and
Gibraltar Drive inter sections. The
improvements will be coordinated by the
City’s Engineering Division with the
Applicant and are included as Conditions
of Approval (Exhibit 1 to Resolution 25 -
012).

CD 1-2: Encourage infill development projects to
accommodate contemporary uses and design and
planning approaches and requirements in manner
that minimizes conflicts with the surrounding
existing development.

Consistent: This infill Project will
accommodate a new
warehouse/distribution building to serve
the needs of a contemporary business that
would be constructed with a modern
design to replace a dilapidated corporate
industrial office campus site that was
constructed over 45 years ago around
1980.

The Project site is surrounded by a mix of
other commercial, office, manufacturing,
and industrial uses and the Project will
retain its industrial land use. Therefore, the
proposed Project will not create a conflict
with the surrounding development and will
add to the diversity of contemporary
building types in the area.

SECTION 5: Building Height Finding (MMC Section XI-10.7.03)

Consistent with MMC Section XI-10.7.03, Industrial Zone General Development Standards, the Planning Commission finds and determines, based upon the totality of circumstances in the record, that although there is no maximum building height in the M2 Heavy Industrial Zoning District and that construction of the new, one-story warehouse would result in a maximum building height of 46.5 -feet up to 49.5 -feet to the top of its parapet with a maximum internal ceiling height of 36-feet, that the proposed excess height above 35-feet in height will not

be detrimental to the light, air or privacy of any other structure or use currently existing or anticipated.

SECTION 6: Planning Commission Approval

The Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas hereby adopts the Addendum to the 1000 Gibraltar Drive Final Environmental Impact Report per Environmental Assessment No. EA 24- 0002, attached hereto as Exhibit 2, and approves Site Development Permit No. SD24-0006 and Tree Removal Permit No. TR25-0021 based on the above Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval , attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and the Addendum’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto as Exhibit 3 incorporated herein.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas on September 10, 2025.

Chair

TO WIT:

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the following resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas on September 10, 2025, and carried by the following roll call vote:

COMMISSIONER AYES NOES ABSENT ABSTAIN
Chia Ling Kong
Michael Caulkins
Mercedes Albana
Dipak Awasthi
Alexander Galang
Parveen Gupta
Sonia Medina-Ashby

EXHIBIT 1

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
(ALSO KNOWN AS 1001 S. MILPITAS BLVD)
(APN 086-42-033)

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. SD24-0006
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. EA24-0002
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. TR25-0021

The City of Milpitas Planning Commission approves Site Development Permit No. SD24 -0006, Environmental Assessment No. EA24 -0002, and Tree Removal Permit No. TR25 -0021, in accordance with Chapter 21 and Sections XI -10-57.03, XI -2-4.02, and XI -10-7.03-1, of the Milpitas Municipal Code, subject to and conditioned upon all applicable State and local laws and regulations and the Conditions of Approval outlined below. This Site Development Permit, Environmental Assessment, and Tree Removal Permit entitlement includes the demolition of four industrial/office buildings, surface parking lots, and associated improvements, and allow the development of a new, one -story, 487,564-square foot tilt -up concrete industrial building with office space and associated site improvemen ts on an approximately 28.96 -acre site in the M2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning District located at 1000 Gibraltar Drive (also known as 1001 S Milpitas Blvd.). The height of the new building will be approximately 46 -feet and 6 -inches above grade level (up t o a maximum height of 49 -feet and 6 -inches to top of parapet). Proposed site improvements include new internal roadways, landscaping, offsite public improvements, and a new surface parking lot with 781 vehicle parking spaces, 50 oversized parking stalls f or tractor- trailers, and 27 loading dock doors . These approvals are subject to all other necessary reviews, approvals, studies, and inspections necessary for such development including for the issuance building permits or occupancy.

APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

General Conditions

1. General Compliance . The Permittee/Applicant and owner, including all successors in interest (collectively “Permittee”) shall comply with each and every condition set forth in this Permit. No certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy shall be issued for the development project described in Site Development Permit No. SD24 -0006, Environmental Assessment No. EA24-0002, and Tree Removal Permit No. TR25-0021 (collectively “Permit”), and the Permit shall have no force or effect and no building permit shall be issued unless and until all things required by the below -enumerated precedent conditions have been performed or caused to be performed. (P)

2. The Permittee shall develop the approved project in conformance with the approved plans (dated August 8, 2025), and sample color and materials approved by the Planning Commission on September 10, 2025, in accordance with these Conditions of Approval. (P)

3. Modifications to Project. Any deviation from the approved site plan, floor plans, or other approved submittal shall require that, prior to the issuance of building permits, the Permittee shall submit modified plans and any other applicable materials as required by the City for review and obtain the approval of the Planning Director or Designee. If the Planning Director or designee determines that the deviation is significant, the Permittee shall be required to apply for review and obtain approval of the Planning Commission, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. (P)

4. Effective Date. Unless there is a timely appeal filed in accordance with the Milpitas Zoning Code, the date of approval of this Permit is the date on which the decision -making body approved this Permit. (P)

5. Conditions of Approval . As part of the issuance of building permits, the Permittee shall include within the first four pages of the working drawings for a plan check, a list of all conditions of approval imposed by the final approval of the project. Each and every condition set forth in this Exhibit shall apply to the Project and continue to apply to the Project so long as the Permittee is operating the Project under the permits and approvals in this Resolution (P)

6. Written Response to Conditions . The Permittee shall provide a written response to the Conditions of Approval indicating how each condition has been addressed with the building permit application submittal. (ALL)

7. Permit Expiration. Pursuant to Section XI-10-64.06 of the Milpitas Municipal Code, this Permit shall be deemed to have expired and become null and void if the activity permitted by this Permit is not commenced within two (2) years from the date of approval, or for a project submitted with a tentative map, within the time limits of the approved tentative map.

Pursuant to Section XI-10-64.06(B) of the Milpitas Municipal Code, an activity permitted by this Permit shall be deemed to have commenced when the project:
a. Completes a foundation associated with the project; or b. Dedicates any land or easement as required from the zoning action; or c. Complies with all legal requirements necessary to commence the use, or obtains an occupancy permit, whichever is sooner.

8. Time Extension. Pursuant to Section XI-10-64.07 of the Milpitas Municipal Code, unless otherwise provided by State law, Permittee shall have the right to request a one-time extension of the Permit if the request is made in writing to the Planning Division prior to the expiration date of the approval. (P)

9. Project Job Account. If Permittee’s project job account is at any time delinquent or below the required deposit amount, City will not continue to review or process the application until Permittee’s private job account is paid in full and the required deposit has been made.

Additionally, prior to the issuance of any building permit or occupancy permit, as applicable, Permittee shall pay in full the project account balance and establish a remaining balance of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the required initial deposit. (P/E)

10. Cost and Approval. Permittee shall fully complete and satisfy each and every condition set forth in this Resolution and any other condition applicable to the project to the sole satisfaction of the City. Additionally, Permittee shall be solely responsible and liable for the cost to satisfy each and every condition. Permittee shall pay all required fees and charges to the City at the rate in effect at time of building permit issuance, or, the rate in effect when the fees and charges are due and paid in fu ll to the City. There is no vesting of any fees or charges with the adoption of this Resolution. (ALL)

11. Conditions. Each and every condition set forth in this Exhibit shall apply to the project and continue to apply to the project so long as the Permittee is operating the project under the permits and approvals in this Resolution. (ALL)

12. Compliance with Laws. The construction, use, and all related activity authorized under this Permit shall comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules, regulations, guidelines, requirements, and policies. (CA/P)

13. Acceptance of Permit. Should Permittee fail to file a timely appeal within twelve (12) calendar days of the date of approval of this Permit, inaction by Permittee shall be deemed to constitute each of the following:
a. Acceptance of this Permit by Permittee; and
b. Agreement by the Permittee to be bound by, comply with, and to do all things required of or by Permittee pursuant to all of the terms, obligations, and conditions of this Permit. (P)

14. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Permittee shall indemnify, defend with counsel of the City’s choosing, and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents (the “Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all third party claim, action, or proceeding against City and/or the Indemnified Parties to attack, review, set aside, void or annul the City’s approval of SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. SD24 -0006, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. EA24 -0002, AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. TR25-0021; including any environmental determination made therefore. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, reasonable attorneys' fees, and other reasonable expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding. The Permittee shall pay to the City upon demand or, as applicable, on a monthly basis to counsel of City’s reasonable choosing, amounts owed pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition, provided each such demand or monthly payment request includes reasonably det ailed back-up documentation, including invoices and/or r eceipts, as applicable, for all amounts to be paid. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City shall have the right to redact invoices and/or receipts as necessary to preserve attorney-client privilege. City shall promptly notify the Permittee of any claim, action, or

proceeding and shall engage in reasonable efforts to cooperate in the defense. If City fails to so promptly notify the Permittee, or if City fails to engage in reasonable efforts to cooperate in the defense, then the Permittee’s indemnification obligations as set forth in this condition of approval shall thereafter terminate. The Permittee shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the Permittee. The above indemnification is intended to be as broad as permitted by applicable law. To the extent the above indemnification is limited by Government Code Section 66474.9, any limitations shall only apply to SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. SD24-0006, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. EA24-0002, AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. TR25-0021, and the balance of the Permit shall be unaffected by said Government Code section. (CA)

15. Revocation, Suspension, Modification. This Permit may be suspended, revoked, or modified in accordance with Section XI-10-63.06 of the Milpitas Municipal Code. (P)

16. Severability. If any term, provision, or condition of this Permit is held to be illegal or unenforceable by the Court, such term, provision, or condition shall be severed and shall be inoperative, and the remainder of this Permit shall remain operative, binding, and ful ly enforceable. (ALL)

17. Certificate of Insurance: Permittee shall provide certificate of insurance and name City as an additional insured in its insurance policies for the Project.

18. Previous Approvals. Permittee shall abide by and continue to comply with all previous City approvals, permits, or requirements relating to the subject property, unless explicitly superseded or revised by this Permit. (P)

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

19. Significant Deviation of Use: Given that the tenant could be subject to change at any time, should a future tenant propose a use that significantly deviate from the approved project, the Planning Director or designee may require additional analysis to demonstrate the extent of environmental impact of the proposed use. If the Planning Director o r designee determines that the deviation is significant, the Permittee shall be required to apply for review and obtain approval of the Planning Commission, in accor dance with the Zoning Ordinance. (P)

20. Tree Removal Permit: Removal of any protected trees shall require a tree removal permit that is issued from the Planning Department. Removal of any protected trees shall be replaced at a 2:1 ratio as provided by Tree Removal Permit P -TR25-0021. Any proposed changes to the proposed tree planting plan and/or landscaping sheets from the project plan set dated August 8, 2025, approved at the Planning Commission public hearing on September 10, 2025, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. (P)

21. Environmental Assessment Compliance: The Project is subject to the applicable mitigation

measures in the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) in the 15164 Addendum (August 2025) to the 1000 Gibraltar Drive Final Environmental Impact Report (March 2021) (SCH# 2020069024). Permittee shall comply with the requirements of the Addendum’s MMRP (Exhibit 3) pursuant to State law (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). (P)

22. Public Art Requirement: Permittee shall comply with the City’s Public Art Requirements for Private Development, as set forth in Milpitas Municipal Code Section XI-10-14. If Permittee opts to pay a fee in lieu of installing public art on site, the fee shall be no less than one-half of one percent of building development costs and shall be payable at time of building permit issuance, or installation of “Public Ar t”, as defined per MMC Section V- 20-310 and XI-10-14.01. (P)

23. Parking: The Project shall supply at least 781 vehicle parking spaces and 50 oversized truck trailer parking spaces onsite, pursuant to the project plans dated August 8, 2025, and approved at the Planning Commission hearing on September 10, 2025. Any deviations shall be reviewed by the Planning Division, meet minimum requirements of the City’s Municipal Code for Off-Street Parking Regulations and shall maintain compliance with all applicable laws. (P)

24. Landscaping: Prior to certificate of occupancy permit issuance, all required landscaping shall be planted in place. All planter areas (including containerized planters) shall be serviced by a sprinkler or drip system. (P)

25. Landscaping Maintenance and Replacement: All required landscaping, as approved on the final landscape plan, shall be replaced and continuously maintained as necessary to provide a permanent, attractive and effective appearance. (P)

26. Lighting: Exterior lighting shall be shielded or recessed so that direct glare and reflections are contained within the boundaries of the parcel, and shall be directed downward and away from adjoining properties and public rights-of-way. Fixtures shall be appropriate in terms of height, style, design, scale and wattage to the use of the property. Fixtures shall be spaced appropriately to maximize pedestrian safety. Prior to building permit issuance, the Permittee shall submit details and elevations of all site lighting fixtures to the Planning Division for review and approval. (P)

27. Trash Enclosures and Equipment Screening: All trash enclosures and equipment screening shall meet MMC Section XI-10-54.16, Trash Enclosures, Equipment and their Screening.

Rooftop equipment shall be adequately screened from the parking lot areas and street level views through rough design that is architecturally integrated with the building, such as equipment wells and parapets . All ground-mounted and mechanical equipment including ground transformers and meters shall be adequately screened, if feasible, and subject to the Planning Department review and approval. If the screening is proven infeasible as solely determined by the Planning Director, then all ground-mounted equipment and surrounding bollards (if any) shall be of design and color that will minimize visual impact. (P)

28. Signage: Prior to approval of any signage for the development, proper applications, depending on signage type will need to be submitted to the Planning Department. (P)

OFFICE OF HOUSING

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

29. Non-Residential Affordable Housing Impact Fee: Per MMC Section XII-1-5.01 of the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance, the Project is subject to payment of a non -residential affordable housing impact fee due prior to the issuance of the building permit. The impact fee will be calculated per MMC Section XII-1-5.02 and per Section MMC XII-1.5.01 is subject to change and will be officially calculated once the gross non -residential square footage is finalized and the building permit application is approved.

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - ENGINEERING DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION PLAN SUBMITTALS
The following conditions shall be met prior to any detailed construction plan check submittals (Building or Engineering, except demolition and rough grade plans), unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. City reserves the right to reject any plan check submittal if any of the following conditions are not met. (E)

30. Modifications: The Site Development Plan plans dated 8/8/2025 is subject to change during the plan check stage based upon City’s previous comments and conditions stated herein.

31. Solid Waste and Recycling Handling Plan : Permittee shall submit final Solid Waste and Recycling Handling Plan based upon City’s previous comments for City’s review and approval by the Solid Waste Program. The Plan shall show calculations of waste generation volumes and how materials will be transferred from the waste generation areas to the trash enclosure/external collection point ; demonstrate how recyclin g food waste, and yard trimmings shall have a separately maintained process from garbage handling; address other requirements such as waste generation and compactor sizing, chute shut -off and property management responsibility for bin management and litter control; outreach and education to tenants/occupants, and procure sufficient service frequency based upon waste generation calculation volumes.

32. Stormwater Control Plan: Permittee shall submit City approved final Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) that complies with the latest Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, including Low Impact Development (LID) Section C3.c.i.(2)(b) measures for harvesting and reuse, infiltration, or evapo -transpiration, for City’s review and approval by the Engineering Division.

33. Photometric Analysis: Permittee shall submit streetlight photometric analysis for City’s review and approval by the Engineering Division along Milpitas Boulevard, Gibraltar

Dr, and public sidewalk area that meet the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA), RP8, for roadway and sidewalk lighting standards and City standard design guidelines.

34. Recycled Water Cross-Connection Specialist: In order to comply with the California Code of Regulations Title 17 and 22, and for timely plan approval by the California State Water Resources Control Board/Division of Drinking Water (SWRCB/DDW) as well as by South Bay Water Recycling (SBWR), Permittee must hire a certified cross-connection specialist for their consultation as to irrigation water system design and construction phasing. The name and contact information of the certified cross-connection specialist shall be provided on all landscape submittal plans.

35. Submittal Requirements : Permittee to ensure that all plan check submittals are in accordance with City’s submittal check list for each permit type, including but not limited to, payment of permit fees and/or fee deposit at the time of the submittal.

36. Project Job Account/Fee Deposit : Permittee shall open a new PJ account as a deposit to cover the costs for Engineering Department’s services for review and inspection of the project. The amount shall be determined based on the approved City fee schedule at the time of application submittal.

PRIOR TO OFF-SITE PLAN APPROVAL/ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ISSUANCE The following conditions shall be addressed as part of the off -site improvement plan review and shall be met prior to encroachment permit issuance, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. (E)

37. Public Improvement Design Standards : All public improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable public improvement design standards, including but not limited to:
a. Milpitas Design Guidelines: (https://www.milpitas.gov/317/Land-Development- Procedures-Guidelines);
b. Standard details and specifications: (https://www.milpitas.gov/333/Standard-Details- Specifications);
c. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, where applicable.

38. Improvement Agreement and Securities : Permittee shall execute an Improvement Agreement and provide improvement securities in accordance with MMC Title XI, Section 17, and submit all other supplemental documents as stipulated in the Improvement Agreement (such as certificate of insurance).

39. Sanitary Sewer Calculations : Permittee shall submit a completed “Sewer Needs Questionnaire” form and sanitary sewer calculations to justify lateral size design, allocation of discharge for each of the lateral, and impact to the existing main. Permittee shall be responsible to implement any necessary improvements if there is any identified deficiency to the existing main as a result of the project.

40. Storm Drain Design : Permittee shall submit storm drain hydrology and hydraulic calculations based upon a 10-year storm event to justify the size of the storm drain lateral flowing full, without surcharging the main line pipe, and to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division.

41. Domestic Water and Fire Service Calculations : Permittee shall submit potable water and fire service calculations to confirm adequacy of lateral size, pressure and flow, to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division and Fire Department. Hydraulic modeling analysis by the City and paid by the Permittee may be required as needed.

Permittee shall be responsible to implement any necessary improvements if there is any identified deficiency to the existing main as a result of the project.

42. Specific Improvements : In addition to standard public improvements required under Milpitas Municipal Code (MMC) Title XI, Chapter 1, Section 7, Permittee shall install other specific improvements listed below including incidental improvements as required by the City as part of the encroachment permit.
a) Installation of separate water service tap and meter for each of the following services:
residential, non-residential, irrigation, and fire.
b) Installation of separate utility service lines (domestic water, fire service, sanitary sewer) for non-residential.
c) Installation of radio -transmitted water meters with a meter antenna, any repeaters or transmitters as needed with dedicated power supplies at no cost to the City at locations acceptable to the City to ensure accurate and timely reception of meter readings.

Permittee shall execute a recorded instrument providing dedicated space, access rights and dedicated power supplies to the City for operation/maintenance/repair/replacement of subject radio antenna.
d) Installation of full street width 3-inch Asphalt Concrete (AC) grind and overlay (G&O), with a 3-inch base repair on Gibraltar Dr. Including the intersection of Gibraltar Dr and South Milpitas Blvd., and full street width crack and slurry seal with base repairs on South Milpitas Blvd, along the project frontage limits. e) Installation of ADA -compliant curb ramps at two intersections along South Milpitas Blvd., Ames Ave., and Gibraltar Dr., and sidewalk along the project frontage, ensuring compliance with the latest ADA standards.
f) Remove curb ramp at southeast corner of Gibraltar Dr. & S. Milpitas Blvd. intersection and replace it with City standard sidewalk.
g) The crosswalk on south leg of the Gibraltar Dr. and S. Milpitas Blvd. inter section should be closed due to non -ADA compliant and a sign combination of R9 -3 & R49 (CA) shall be installed on southwest corner of the intersection h) Installation of street trees along the project frontage. The locations, spacing of street tree and tree species shall be in compliance with applicable City standards and details. i) Installation of a 36 -strand fiber optic cable within the existing SIC conduit from Yosemite Dr to the Gibraltar Dr inter section along South Milpitas Blvd, or wireless Signal Interconnect (SIC), to enhance connectivity and improve traffic flow along the corridor. Additionally, implementation of a wireless SIC connection between the Gibraltar Dr and Garden St intersection. This is necessary to ensure better traffic flow thru proper connection to and communication from City owned Advance Traffic

Management System (ATMS). City to confirm make and model of wireless SIC or type of Fiber optic cable at later time.
j) Installation of a new traffic cabinet with new traffic signal equipment at the Ames Ave and South Milpitas Blvd inter section, along with battery backups. Removal and replacement of any required existing traffic signal equipment related to traffic signal communication only at Gibraltar Drive and South Milpitas Blvd. intersection, to ensure efficient and uninterrupted traffic flow along the corridor. City to confirm the make and model of the traffic signal equipment at later time. k) Installation of a new Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) to replace the outdated and non-functioning RRFB at its existing location along Gibraltar Dr. City to confirm make and model of the RRFB at later time.
l) Installation of video detection cameras (VDS) and Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS) at two intersections along S. Milpitas Blvd. from Ames Ave. to Gibraltar Dr. City to confirm make and model of VDS and APS at a later time.
m) Either install the Video Detection Cameras (VDS) on existing signal pole or install a new traffic signal pole with a mast arm at the northeast corner and replace the two existing poles without mast arms at the Gibraltar Dr and South Milpitas Blvd. intersection. City to confirm the type of pole and mast arm length at later time. n) Developer to finish an additional street light pole and be delivered to the Public Works Corporation Yard for storage and future use in the event of a pole getting damaged.

43. Abandonment of Existing City Utilities: Permittee shall cap, abandon or remove any unused existing public utilities based upon City’s Abandonment Notes and to the City’s satisfaction.

44. Relocation and Adjustment of Existing Public Utilities: Permittee shall relocate and/or adjust existing public utilities as needed that are in conflict with the proposed improvements.

45. Maintenance Agreement: Permittee shall record a Maintenance Agreement for perpetual maintenance of certain public improvements, such as sidewalk within the 25’ sidewalk easement, mutually agreed between the City and the Permittee.

46. Water Service Agreement : Permittee shall complete a water service agreement to obtain water service.

47. Encroachment Permit: Prior to any work in the public right-of-way and/or public easement, obtain an encroachment permit with insurance requirements for all public improvements including a traffic control plan per the latest California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division.

48. Pothole Encroachment Permit : Due to multiple new utility service connections on arterial/collector streets, Permittee shall pothole and verify all potential utility crossing conflict as part of the public improvement plan during the design stage.

PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE

The following conditions shall be addressed during the building plan check process and shall be met prior to any building permit issuance (except demolition permit and rough grade permit), unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. (E)

49. Easements on the Building Permit Plans : Permittee shall depict all existing easements to remain based upon current preliminary title report and depict new easements on applicable building permit plans.

50. Concurrent Off-site Plan Reviews : Permittee shall submit separate off -site improvement plans for City’s review and approval by the Engineering Department.

51. Abandonment/Quitclaim Easements : Permittee shall abandon/quit claim existing easements that are in conflict with or unnecessary for the project.

52. Stormwater Facility Operation & Maintenance Plan : Permittee shall incorporate design details into applicable construction plans in accordance with City -approved SWCP.

Permittee shall also submit Stormwater Facility Operation & Maintenance Plan that describes operation and maintenance procedures needed to ensure that treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other storm water control measures continue to work as intended and do not create a nuisance (including vector control).

53. Stormwater Management Facilities O&M Agreement : Permittee shall execute and record a Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement associated with the SWCP O&M Plan, including perpetual maintenance of treatment areas/units, as reviewed and accepted by the Engineering Divis ion. The subject O&M Agreement shall be referenced in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), if applicable.

54. Water Supply and Force Majeure : The City reserves the right to suspend the issuance of building permits in case of an emergency declaration of water supply in the case of a major catastrophic event that restricts City’s assurance to provide water supply.

55. Recycled Water Approval : Permittee shall use recycled water for landscape irrigation purpose, except for the interior courtyard/podium areas within the building footprint where the potable water shall be used for irrigation. Permittee shall comply with California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3, titled “Water Recycling Criteria”, CCR, Title 17, Division 1, Chapter 5, Subchapter 1 titled “Drinking Water Supply” and all other recycled water regulations as listed under the publicatio n titled “California Department of Public Health Regulations Related to Recycled Water June 18, 2014 ”.

Permittee shall obtain approval from the California State Water Resources Control Board/Division of Drinking Water, SBWR and the City for recycled water design, including but not limited to on -site irrigation design, based upon SBWR Guidelines and City of Milpitas Supplemental Guidelines. All landscape plants shall be compatible with recycled water.

56. Water Efficient Landscapes: Permittee shall comply with Milpitas Municipal Code Title VIII, Chapter 5 (Water Efficient Landscapes) for landscape design, including but not limited to, providing separate water meters for domestic water service and irrigation service and providing applicable landscape documentation package.

57. Solid Waste and Recycling Facility Design: Permittee shall comply with all applicable City design guidelines/details associated with haul route, turning radius, vertical and horizontal clearance, trash enclosure, staging area, storage area, etc.

58. Recycling Report Prior to Demolition Permit Issuance: Permittee shall submit Part I of a Recycling Report on business letterhead to the Building Department, for forwarding to the Engineering Division for review and approval. The report shall describe the following resource recovery activities:
a) What materials will be salvaged.
b) How materials will be processed during demolition.
c) Intended locations or businesses for reuse or recycling. d) Quantity estimates in tons (both recyclable and for landfill disposal). Estimates for recycling and disposal tonnage amounts by material type shall be included as separate items in all reports to the Building Division before demolition begins.

Permittee shall make every effort to salvage materials for reuse and recycling and shall comply with the City’s demolition and construction debris recycling ordinance.

59. Recycling Report Prior to Building Permit Issuance: Permittee shall submit Part II of the Recycling Report to the Building Department, for forwarding to the Engineering Division.

Part II of the Recycling Report shall be supported by copies of weight tags and/or receipts of “end dumps.” Actual reuse, recycling and disposal tonnage amounts (and estimates for “end dumps”) shall be submitted to the Building Department for approval by the Engineering Division prior to inspection by the Building Department.

60. Development Fees: Permittee shall pay the following development fees. The information listed in items “a” through “ e” are based upon current fee rates; however, those fee rates are subject to change. The exact fee amount shall be determined at the time of building permit fee payment.
a) Water connection fee at $1,164/unit for residential and $5.97/gpd for commercial, based upon increased water usage.
b) Sewer connection fee at $1,406/unit for residential and $8.52/gpd for commercial, based upon increased average wastewater flow.
c) Wastewater Treatment Plant fee per MMC VIII, Chapter 2, Section 7.04. d) Calaveras Boulevard Widening Traffic Impact fee per Resolution No. 7894. e) 3.8% of applicable fees in accordance with City Resolution No. 8969 as Permitting Automation Fee.

61. Mailboxes: The Permittee shall coordinate with US Postal Services regarding placement of required mailboxes. Mailbox location shall not be on public street frontages and shall

be approved by City and US Postal Services prior to building permit issuance. Mailbox locations shall be shown on the improvement plans and Permittee shall submit a letter to the City’s Land Development Engineering Section from the Postmaster approving the location of the mailbox. Structures to protect mailboxes may require Building, Engineering and Planning Department review.

DURING CONSTRUCTION
The following conditions shall be complied with at all times during the construction phase of the project, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. (E)

62. Dewatering: If dewatering is needed during construction, Permittee shall obtain a Short - Term Industrial Wastewater Permit from the San Jose/Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility for discharging the groundwater to a sanitary sewer system.

63. On-site Recycled Water Coordination : Permittee’s cross -connection specialist shall coordinate the phasing of the construction; facilitate the cross-connection testing in order to minimize the impact for occupied buildings during cross -connection testing; sign -off before the water meter set; coordinate on -site construction inspection; complete the site inspection; fill out required paperwork/questionnaire; and provide them to the C ity for forwarding to SBWR. Developer shall notify SBWR 7 days in advance to schedule attendance of SBWR inspector during Cross-Connection Test.

64. Prohibition of Potable Water Usage: Permittee shall use recycled water for construction purposes, including dust control and compaction. Permittee shall comply with MMC VIII- 6-5.00 and 6-6.00 where potable water usage is prohibited, unless otherwise approved by the City Council.

65. Construction Staging and Employee Parking: Permittee shall place all construction related materials, equipment, and arrange construction workers parking on-site and not located in the public right-of-ways or public easements.

66. Water Shut-down Plan: Permittee shall provide a water shut-down plan at least seven days in advance of the shut -down in coordination with the Engineering Inspector and notify affected property owners/tenants when cut-in tee(s) is/are required.

PRIOR TO FIRST OCCUPANCY
The following conditions shall be met prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy of the approved project, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.

67. Completion of Public Improvements : Permittee shall complete all public improvements, including but not limited to S. Milpitas Boulevard and Gibraltar Dr . frontage improvements including pavement restoration, signing and striping, concrete work, stormwater treatment facilities, and traffic signal modifications as shown on City approved plans.

68. Grant deed shall be revised to state Property Owner/Developer shall maintain Public Sidewalk around project frontage.

69. Landscape Certificate of Completion : Permittee shall submit a Certificate of Substantial Completion that complies with the Milpitas Municipal Code Water Efficient Landscapes ordinance.

70. Certificate of Cross-Connection: Permittee shall ensure that the cross-connection specialist complete the required recycled water construction inspection checklist, cross connection test results and any special inspection checklist as required by SBWR and forward them to the City.

71. Record Drawings : Permittee shall submit record drawings in Full size hard copy, AutoCAD, T IFF, and PDF formats for City records. Record drawings shall include all public improvements. Additionally, if the project uses recycled water, the permittee shall also submit record drawings of on-site irrigation facilities.

72. Private Job (PJ) Balance: Permittee shall pay for any remaining balance from the Private Job deposit.

OFFICE OF BUILDING SAFETY

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

73. Compliance with California Code of Regulations . The Project shall comply with the requirements of the Office of Building Department and the California Code of Regulations Title 24 and the Milpitas Municipal Code as adopted by the City. Building permits shall be submitted to and approved by the Building Safety and Housing Department prior to start of construction. All California Code of Regulations Title 24 and Milpitas Municipal Code requirements applicable at the time of building permit application must b e met in advance of any building permit approvals or related construction. Changes to the site plan and/or building plan require review and approval by the Office of Building Safety.

FIRE DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

The plans approved by the City Council , Planning Commission, and/or the Planning permit process are not building construction plans and have not been reviewed nor approved for conformance to the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC) and the Milpitas Municipal Code (MMC). Do not consider this review as a final review for building construction plans approved by the Fire Department. Building construction plans must be submitted for review and approval before construction is to commence. The following notes are a general list of the applicable code requirements (2022 Edition) and are provided to assist with the building permit process. Please note that these are not all inclusive. All applicable Building, Fire and Municipal Code requirements must be met in advance of any building permit approvals or related construction.

74. Technical Assistance: To determine the acceptability of technologies, processes, products, facilities, materials, and uses attending the design, operation or use of a building or premises subject to inspection by the Fire Code Official, the Fire Code Official is authorized to require the owner or agent to provide, without charge to the jurisdict ion, a technical opinion(s), plan review(s) and/or report(s). CFC Section 104.8.2

75. Electronic Documents: The Fire Code Official may require electronic base documents for all construction documents and operational permits. The Fire Code Official shall designate the software base format for the electronic documents. CFC Section 106.1.1, added by MMC Section V-300-2.28

76. Fire Department Access: Fire Department apparatus and staff access shall be provided to all buildings and site. Detailed review will be done during construction permit process.

The plans submitted appear to be in general conformance with the requirements. Final design shall meet the requirements listed below. CFC Section 503

76.1 Minimum Number of Fire Apparatus Access Points: A Minimum of two independent and approved (approved by the Fire Code Official) means of fire apparatus access shall be provided for the site. Buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm), or three stories in height, or 50,000 square feet (5760 m 2) shall be provided with at least two means of fire apparatus access for each structure. CFC, Section D104.1, adopted and amended by MMC V-300-2.170

76.2 Fire Apparatus Clearance: Fire apparatus access roads shall provide a minimum clear width of 26 feet. Only conditions with 26 feet roads are applicable. This requirement is for the use and function of a fire ladder apparatus. CFC, Appendix D, Sections D103.1 and D105.2, adopted and amended by Milpitas Municipal Code. MMC V-300-2.169 and 2.172

76.3 Timing of Installation and Serviceability of Fire Protection Elements: When fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Combustible construction shall not begin until water mains and hydrants are operational and fire apparatus access roads are installed (paved). CFC Section 501.4

76.4 Fire Apparatus Access: Fire apparatus access shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of exterior walls of the building/structure per the California Fire Code Section 503.1.1. When there is a dead-end condition, means for fire apparatus turn- around shall be provided.

76.5 Turning Radius: Fire apparatus access roads shall meet the Milpitas Fire Department turning radii guidelines and shall provide continuous apparatus travel. Turning radii for fire apparatus access roads shall be a minimum net clearance of 48 feet 6 inches for the outside radius and 28 feet 0 inches for the inside radius. The layout for the

outside and the inside radius shall be from the same reference point (center). CFC Section 503.2.4

76.6 Adjacent Access Rights: No source of access from lands adjoining a property to be developed shall be considered fire apparatus access roads, unless there is obtained the irrevocable and unobstructed rights and recorded as an ingress/egress access easement with the Country of Sant a Clara. CFC Section 503.7, added by MMC V - 300-2.51

76.7 Fire Access Road Materials and Load Bearing Requirements: Fire access roads shall be paved (concrete and/or asphalt cement, or other concrete type pavement approved by the Fire Dept.). Fire apparatus access roads/lanes and emergency vehicle roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather capabilities. CFC Section 503.2.3

76.8 Access and loading. Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road with an asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the im posed load of fire apparatus weighing up to 75, 000 pounds ( 34,500kg).

76.9 Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA): EVA roads, when required, shall meet the fire department site access requirements. CFC Section 503

76.10 Obstruction of Fire Access: Ground structures (including landscape) and building projections shall not encroach or impede the fire apparatus access requirements. CFC Section 503.4

76.11 Marking of Fire Access Roads. The required access road shall be designated and clearly marked as a fire lane. The designated fire lane shall be identified as set forth in Section 22500.1 of the Vehicle Code. The designation shall be indicated (1) by a sign posted immediately adjacent to, and visible from, the designated place clearly stating in letters not less than one inch in height that the place is a fire lane, (2) by outlining or painting the place in red and, in contrasting color, marking the place with the words "FIRE LANE", which are clearly visible from a vehicle, or (3) by a red curb or red paint on the edge of the roadway upon which is clearly marked the words "FIRE LANE". CFC Section 503.3. Minimum marking shall be pole signage and red curb with “FIRE LANE” stencil. Signage and red curbs shall be done throughout and as needed to clearly identify the no parking zones.

76.12 Site Design Changes: The Fire Department reserves the right to request site design changes as needed to meet the requirements of the CFC, and/or make the request for additional fire protection measures in conformance with the CFC.

77. Fire Protection. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed and made serviceable during the time of construction.

Combustible construction shall not begin until water mains and hydrants are operational and fire apparatus access roads are installed (paved). CFC Section 501.4

78. Fire Protection Water Supply (Hydrants, On-site and/or Public): An approved water supply (hydrants on-site and/or public) capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided upon which facilities, buildings, or portions of buildings are hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. Water supply shall meet the Fire Code and the City of Milpitas Engineering Division water supply guidelines and the CFC Section 507, Appendix B and Appendix C. Note, the Civil drawings submitted under this Planning review are not approved for construction.

78.1 Water System Calculations: Private fire service mains and appurtenances shall be designed and installed in accordance with the City of Milpitas Engineering design guideline requirements and the NFPA 24. Design calculations and all the necessary design information for the water system to meet the domestic and fire flow requirements as per the City of Milpitas Engineer Division water design requirements shall be provided as part of the construction permit process. CFC Section 507

78.2 Fire Flow Requirement for Buildings. Section B105 fire flow for buildings amends section B105.2 to read:

B105.2 Buildings other than one-and two-family dwellings, Groups R3 and R4 buildings and townhouses. The minimum fire-flow and flow duration for buildings other than one- and two-family dwellings, Group R3 and R4 buildings and townhouses shall be as specified in Tables B105.1(2) and B105.2.

The maximum fire flow reduction for all commercial buildings greater than 30,000 square feet and residential podium buildings shall not exceed 25 percent of the fire flow specified in Table B105.1(2). The maximum fire flow seduction for all other buildings shall not exceed 50 percent of the fire flow specified in Table B105.1(2).

Industrial areas shall have a fire flow not less than 5,000 gpm, with 20 psi residual pressure.

78.3 Fire Hydrant Location : The location and quantity of hydrants will be evaluated during the construction permit process. This applies to the on -site private streets as well as to the public streets. CFC Section 507.5

78.4 Hydrant for Automatic Fire Sprinkler/Standpipe Systems: Buildings equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system and/or a standpipe system installed in accordance with Sections 903 and or 905 shall have a fire hydrant within 50 feet of the fire department connections. CFC Section 507.5.1.1, amended by MMC Section V-300-

2.56 78.5 Private Hydrant Requirements: Private hydrants shall have the bottom 6 inches of the hydrant painted, with a weather resistive paint, white in color. CFC Section 507.5.7, added by MMC V-300-2.62.

78.6 No Parking in Front of Hydrants: No parking is permitted in front of fire hydrants.

Hydrants located on streets (Public or Private Street) shall have an unobstructed clearance of not less than 30 feet per CA Vehicle Code 22514

79. Automatic Fire Sprinkler System for Structures:

79.1 Automatic Fire Sprinkler. The buildings shall be provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system in conformance with the NFPA 13 Standards. California Fire Code Section 903

79.2 Sprinkler Valves: All valves controlling the water supply for the automatic sprinkler system shall be electrically supervised by a listed fire alarm control unit.

CFC 903.4

79.3 Sprinkler Monitoring: Alarm, supervisory and trouble signals shall be distinctly different and shall be automatically transmitted to an approved supervising station.

CFC Section 903.4.1

79.4 Fire Riser Location. The fire sprinkler system riser shall not be located within electrical rooms or storage closets and shall be provided with clear access and working clearance. California Fire Code Section 903.3.5.3, added by MMC Section V-300-2.73

79.5 Sprinkler Design. Hydraulic design for the automatic fire sprinkler system shall provide a minimum of 20% safety margin. CFC Section 903.3.5.6, MMC V-300-2.76

79.6 Requirements for Fire Service Water Laterals for Building Sprinkler Systems :

Each building shall have a fire service water laterals for the automatic fire sprinkler system and shall meet the California Fire Code requirements Chapter 9 and the NFPA applicable Standards. Note that the civil drawings provided are not reviewed nor approved for construction. CFC Section 912.1

79.7 Fire pump room and access. There shall be direct and unobstructed access to the fire pump room.

79.8 Fire Pump power. PG&E is not considered a reliable source of power. Standby power will be a requirement. Or provide other listed (listed by a national recognized testing lab) and approved (approved by the local fire dept.) means of power for the fire pump. CA Fire Code Section 102.9

79.9 Fire Pump(s). When required, fire pumps shall be installed in conformance with California Fire Code, the NFPA 20 and applicable standards. And the fire pump room shall be dedicated for no other use.

79.10 FDC/PIV (fire department connection/post indicating valve) Location(s). The location of the fire department FDC’s/PIV’s shall be at a readily visible and accessible location off the fire access road and approved by the Fire Code Official.

FDC’s/PIV’s shall not be located behind parking stalls, trees, landscape structures, nor behind any other obstruction. Final review for location for the FDC’s/PIV’s will be conducted during the construction permit process. CFC Section 912.2.1

Note, the required FDC’s and PIV’s shall be located off Gibraltar Dr and not on the onsite fire apparatus access road.

All FDC’s and PIV’s shall have fire department approved locking connection caps/locks. CFC Section 912.4.1

79.11 FDC/PIV Signage. A metal sign with raised letters at least 1 inch in size shall be mounted on all fire department connections. Signage shall be reflective, weather resistive and approved by the Fire Code Official. CFC Section 912.5

79.12 Backflow Protection. Potable water supply to the automatic sprinkler and/or the standpipe systems shall be protected against backflow as required by the Health and Safety Code section 13114.7 and the City of Milpitas Utilities Engineering Division.

CFC Section 912.6

79.13 Water Drainage. All new installations of sprinkler systems shall preclude sprinkler test and system drain water from discharging into the storm drain; provisions to direct water to the sanitary sewer or landscape or other approved means shall be provided. Sprinkler system design shall include the proposed method for drainage of sprinkler system discharge. Storm Water Pollution Regulations.

80. Fire Alarm System:

80.1 A fire alarm system shall be installed when required in the buildings when required by the CA Fire Code Section 907.

80.2 All valves controlling the water supply for the automatic sprinkler system shall be electrically supervised by a listed fire alarm control unit. CFC 904.3

80.3 Electrical supervision of the automatic fire sprinkler system shall be transmitted to an approved supervising station. CFC 903.4.1

80.4 One exterior approved audible device (for each riser) shall be connected to every automatic sprinkler system in an approved (by the Fire Code Official) location. CFC 903.4.2

80.5 Fire Alarm Panel: Fire alarm panel (or fire alarm annunciator panel) shall be located in a readily accessible location and shall be provided with the necessary access and working clearance as required by the CA Electrical Code. CFC Section 907.6.5

80.6 Fire Alarm Monitoring : Fire alarm monitoring (approved supervising station - UL, or FM approved). Fire alarm systems required by the Fire Code or by the California Building Code shall be monitored by an approved supervising station in accordance with the NFPA 72. CFC Section 907.6.6

81. Building/Structure Other Requirements:

81.1 Premises Identification: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numerals or alphabet letters and shall be consistent with Milpitas standardized addressing guidelines. CFC Section 505. The Fire Dept. may require the installation of address numbers at multiple building locations. CFC Section 102.9

81.2 Address Illumination: All required addresses shall be illuminated. CFC Section 505.3, added by MMC V-300-2.55

81.3 Fire Department Emergency Key Box (aka: Knox Box, Knox Locks, Knox Electric Switches, etc.): The Fire Code Official is authorized to require a key box(es) to be installed in an approved location(s) if necessary for lifesaving or fire-fighting purposes. Quantity and location shall be as directed by the Fire Code Official. CFC Section 506. Locked mechanical closets, fire alarm closets, sprinkler riser closets, etc. will need a Fire Dept. approved lock or “Knox” key box.

81.4 Access Control Devices. When access control devices including bars, grates, gates, electric or magnetic locks or similar devices, which would inhibit rapid fire department emergency access to the building, are installed, such devices shall be approved by the fire code official. All access control devices shall be provided with an approved means for deactivation or unlocking by the fire department. Access control devices shall also comply with Chapter 10 Egress. CFC Section 504.6, added to the CFC by MMC Section V-300-2.54

Means to deactivate the locking system shall be located in the fire command room (when required) or other location as directed by the fire department.

In addition, all door lock control systems shall meet the requirements of the CFC Sections 1010.2.

81.5 Fire Command Center. Where required by other sections of this code and in all buildings classified as high-rise buildings by the California Building code and Group I2 occupancies having occupied floors located more than 75 feet above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access and in all F -1 and S -1 occupancies with a building footprint greater than 500,00 square feet, a fire command center for fire department shall be provided and shall comply with the Sections 508.1.1 through 508.1.7.

A fire command center is required to be located at the front of the building (near fire dept. point of approach) with readily access from the exterior. Location to be approved by the Fire Dept. CFC 508.1.1

Separation. The fire command center shall be separated from the remainder of the building by not less than 2-hour fire barrier constructed in accordance with Section 707 of the California Building Code or horizontal assembly constructed in accordance with Section 711 of the California Building Code, or both. CFC 508.1.2, amended by MMC Section V-300-2.59.

Layout approval. A layout of the fire command center and all features required by this section to be contained therein shall be submitted for approval prior to instal1ation. CFC Section 508.1.4

Required features (CFC Section 508.1.6). The fire command center shall comply with NFPA 72 and shall contain the following features:
i. All items (applicable) noted under the CFC Section 508.1.6.

ii. Knox locking key box, approved by the fire code official, large enough for ten (10) sets of master keys. Added by MMC Section V-300-2.60

iii. Ten (10) sets of master keys for the building(s). Added by MMC Section V- 300-2.60

iv. A complete set of architectural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing plans for the building. Sets shall be “as -built” sets. Added by MMC Section V-300-

2.60 v. A complete set of underground fire water lines, automatic fire sprinklers, automatic fire alarm drawings, standpipe systems, other fire suppression systems, emergency responders’ ratio coverage, etc. All drawings shall be the latest sets and as-built.

81.6 Fire Equipment ID signs . Fire protection equipment shall be identified in an approved manner. Rooms containing controls for air-conditioning, systems, sprinkler risers and valves, or other fire detection, suppression or control elements hall be identified for the use of the fire department. CA Fire Code Section 509

81.7 Emergency Responder Radio Coverage: A Fire Department approved emergency responder radio coverage system shall be provided. SVRIA (Silicon Reginal Interoperability Authority) registration is required prior to any design. CFC Section 510, MMC V-300-2.61

81.8 Electrical Energy Storage Systems . Stationary storage battery systems shall comply with the CFC, Section 1207.

81.9 Portable Fire Extinguishers. Portable fire extinguishers shall be selected, installed and maintained in accordance with CFC Section 906.

81.10 Fire Protection Service (CFC Section 901.6). All fire alarm systems, fire detection systems, automatic sprinkler or extinguishing systems, communication systems, and all other equipment, material or systems required by these regulations shall be maintained in an operable condition at all times in accordance with this code and California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1. Upon disruption or diminishment of the fire protective qualities of such equipment, material or systems, immediate action shall b e instituted to affect a reestablishment of such equipment, material or systems to their original normal and operational condition. California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, §1.14

81.11 Electrical Generators. Generators with fuel tanks shall meet the requirements of the CFC Chapters 50, 57 and the NFPA 30

i. Installation of aboveground tanks shall conform to Unidocs document UN- 018. Please see the following link for a copy.
http://www.unidocs.org/hazmat/new-construction/un-018.pdf

ii. Tank Design and Construction
Each tank shall be designed and constructed in accordance with nationally recognized standards (UL 142/2244 or equivalent. UL 2085 is the listing for protected tanks). CFC 5704.2.7, NFPA 30, 21.4.2.1

iii. Tank Protection. Approved means shall be provided to protect tanks subject to vehicle damage. CFC 5704.2.8.6, CFC 312, NFPA 30, 22.15

iv. Aboveground tanks located outside of buildings shall be located in accordance with Table 22.4.1.1(a) of NFPA 30. CFC 5704.2.9.6.1.1

v. Secondary Containment (protected and unprotected tanks). Tanks shall be provided with secondary containment. CA Fire Code Section 5004.2

vi. Signage and Labeling. Warning and identification signs shall be posted to clearly identify hazards. CFC 5003.5, CFC 5703.5, NFPA 30, 21.7.2.1

vii. Provide a fire extinguisher (minimum 40B:C rating) at each generator location. CFC 5704.3.3.1, NFPA 30, 9.10.2

viii. Hazardous Material Business Plan. Each application for a permit shall include a Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP) in accordance with the CA Fire Code Section 5001.5.1. The fire code official is authorized to accept a similar plan required by other regulations.

ix. HMBPs shall be submitted electronically. HMBPs shall be submitted on the California Environmental Reporting System at http://cers.calepa.ca.gov/. CA Fire Code Section 5001.5.1

82. Fire Safety: Fire safety during construction, alteration or demolition of the building shall meet the requirements of Chapter 33 of the California Fire Code and the Standards for Construction Site Fire Safety (un -024) by “unidocs” organization (http//:www.unidocs.org). A Construction Site Fire Safety plan shall be submitted to the Milpitas Fire Prevention Division for review and approval prior to the start of combustible construction. CFC Chapter 33

83. Landscape sheets: The proposed landscaping may be impacted by the comments above and the requirements for fire access, fire systems and devices (such as apparatus access, hydrants, fire service lines, fire department connections valves, etc.). The Fire Dept. reserves the right to relocate, delete or change the proposed landscaping when in conflict with fire systems and devices. CFC 507.5.4.

84. Plan Submittal: Complete plans and specifications for all aspects of fire protection systems shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to system installation. CFC Section 901.2

POLICE DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

85. All Ingress and egress of traffic on Gibraltar Drive and South Milpitas Boulevard do not appear to be a concern because the development is being incorporated with an already existing business park.

86. Parking lot areas shall have postings with appropriate signs per 22658(a) CVC to assist in removal of vehicles at the property owners’/managers’ request.

87. “No Trespassing/Loitering” signage should be posted at the entrances of parking lots placed in conspicuous areas. Signs should be at least 2’ x 1’ in overall size, with white background and black 2’’ high letters.

88. The parking project should allow circulation for police patrols (vehicles, foot, and bicycles), to prevent and reduce the likelihood of criminal activity occurring in the area.

Addressing:

89. Address numbers shall be illuminated during hours of darkness and should be strategically positioned as to be readily visible from the street. Address numbers should have a minimum height of 12 inches. If numerous alarm zones are utilized then zone numbers should be clearly marked above appropriate common doorways (i.e. office space, break rooms, recreational area, etc.).

Visibility:

90. Parking lots and associated driveways, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses, and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness.

91. A building design that encourages visibility of potential crime locations and natural surveillance.

92. Stairwells and/or elevator lobbies should be of open design whenever possible, making users open to visual scrutiny.

93. Any posters, material, and objects near common area exterior windows should not block views in those common areas from the street.

94. All trash enclosures should be located at the perimeter of the parking lot, not adjacent to exterior doors, or in areas where such enclosures can compromise surveillance.

95. Any other line of sight obstructions (including recessed doors, alcoves, etc.) should be avoided on building exterior walls and interior hallways.

96. From a public safety perspective, the front entrance area needs to have as much natural surveillance as possible and exposed to public view. When natural surveillance is afforded, the likely occurrence of burglaries, robberies, etc. to that particular establishment/area are substantially reduced because the risk of detection and apprehension of the perpetrator increases. Seclusion is one of the main elements sought after by perpetrators of a crime.

Accessibility:

97. Any and all areas controlled by electronic security devices (i.e. key fobs, access cards, keypads, etc.) should have Knox boxes installed near such access points with the Knox boxes containing the appropriate security devices to gain entry. If access points are controlled by keypads or access cards, management should provide the police department with the needed code(s) or electronic key(s) and regularly update the police department if such code(s)/key(s) change.

98. An up-to-date map of the interior floor plan shall be provided to the Police Department.

The map should minimally identify the locations of each entry/exit points, elevators, storage areas, entry/exit points controlled by electronic security devices, locations of security cameras, maintenance areas, stairwells, recreation centers, etc.

Landscaping:

99. Landscaping shall be of the type and situated in locations to maximize observation while providing the desired degree of aesthetics. Security planting materials are encouraged.

Landscaping shall not conceal doors or windows from view, obstruct visibility o f the parking lot from the street, nor hinder access to the roof, if needed.

Security:

100. Video/security cameras security system shall be required for the site, with coverage at all access points to the building in and around the business. The video/security cameras shall record in high definition and also cover the parking lot area to have the clarity necess ary to identify an individual, vehicle, etc., and have a field of view to maximize the area of coverage. The video/security system shall have the capacity to save/store footage for a minimum of thirty (30) days and have the capability to be downloaded. A copy of video/security footage shall be made available to law enforcement upon request for investigative purposes. It is recommended the employees of the business be appropriately trained on how to use the security surveillance camera system so that footage can be reviewed and collected in a timely fashion by the Police department if needed.

101. Extra security measures should be taken to properly secure mail deliveries including larger boxes. Installing temporary package lock boxes or large parcel drop boxes should assist in preventing package theft. A security camera system should be installed covering both the package lock boxes and the cluster box units to assist the police department and the US Postal Service Inspectors in identifying package/mail thieves.

102. Video/security cameras shall be required for the site with coverage at all access points into the building. The video/security cameras shall record in high definition and cover main areas, entrances/exits, any hallway leading to the restrooms, and the exte rior parking lot.

Miscellaneous:

103. The Property Manager shall file an emergency notification form with the police department so law enforcement can contact the property manager in the event of any major accident, emergency, or unforeseen circumstance.

104. Applicant shall have fire extinguishers on site during normal business hours.

Key:
(P) = Planning
(B) = Building
(E) = Engineering
(F) = Fire Prevention
(PD) = Police Department
(CA) = City Attorney
(ALL) = All

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO PROTEST
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), began on date of adoption of this resolution. If you fail to file a protest within this 90 -day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.

AGREEMENT

Permittee/Property Owner

The undersigned agrees to each and every condition of approval and acknowledges the NOTICE OF RIGHT TO PROTEST and hereby agrees to use the project property on the terms and conditions set forth in this Permit.

Date: _____________________ ______________________________________ Signature of Permitee

CITY OF MILPITAS
Planning Commission

September 10, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1

MEETING MINUTES
7:00pm
SEPTEMBER 10, 2025

CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
455 E CALAVERAS BLVD, MILPITAS, CA
and
via TELECONFERENCE (Zoom Webinar)

CALL TO ORDER Chair Gupta called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Galang led the pledge of allegiance.

ROLL CALL Recording Secretary Medina called the roll.

PRESENT: Chair Gupta, Vice Chair Caulkins, Galang, Kong , Medina-Ashby, and Awasthi.

ABSENT: Albana

STAFF: Lillian VanHua, Christopher Creech, Lillian VanHua , Anjulie Palta (consultant), and Elizabeth Medina.

CONFLICT OF

INTEREST/CAMPAIGN

CONTRIBUTION

DECLARATION

Assistant City Attorney Christopher Creech asked if any member of the commission had any personal or financial conflict of interest related to any of the items on the agenda, and there were none.

APPROVAL OF THE

MEETING AGENDA

By motion, approve the meeting agenda for September 10, 2025.

Motion/Second Galang/Medina-Ashby
Motion carried by a vote of AYES: 6 NOES: 0

APPROVAL OF THE

MEETING MINUTES

By motion, approve the meeting minutes for August 27, 2025.

Motion/Second Awasthi/Kong
Motion carried by a vote of AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (Medina-Ashby)

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Commissioner Caulkins expressed appreciation to all firefighters in recognition of National Firefighter Appreciation Month, and extended thanks to all public servants.

Lillian VanHua noted that Planning Director Jay Lee was not present, and she is serving as Acting Director on behalf of Jay Lee.

PUBLIC FORUM Chair Gupta invited members of the public to address the commission, and there were none.

PUBLIC HEARING

IX-1 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDING (WAREHOUSING AND DISTIRBUTION) – 1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE – P-SD24-0006, P-EA24-0002, and P-TR25-0021: A request for a Site Development Permit, Environmental Assessment, and Tree Removal Permit to remove and replace 25-ordinance sized trees, demolish all existing structures on the site including four industrial/office buildings, surface parking lots, and ass ociated improvements, and develop a new, one -story, 487,564 -square foot tilt -up concrete industrial building with office space and associated site improvements on an approximately 28.96-acre site in the M2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning District l ocated at 1000 Gibraltar Drive (also known as 1001 S Milpitas Blvd.). The height of the new

September 10, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2

building will be approximately 46 -feet and 6 -inches above grade level (up to a maximum height of 49 -feet and 6 -inches to top of parapet). Proposed site improvements include new internal roadways, landscaping, offsite public improvements, and a new surface parking lot with 781 vehicle parking spaces, 50 oversized parking stalls for tractor -trailers, and 27 loading dock doors. As a Lead Agency, the City has prepared an Addendum to the 1000 Gibraltar Drive Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2020069024 ) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 and 15164.

(47:42) Project Planner Kristina Phung and applicant team addressed commissioners' clarifying questions on various topics.

• Clarification about truck exit routes; applicant confirmed Gibraltar exit allows left/right turns, main entry will be signalized.
• Question raised about electric vehicle/truck charging; applicant noted 20 EV chargers day one, 90 prepped, and code requires at least one truck charger. • Commissioners asked what makes the facility unique; staff said it’s a sub same - day (SSD) delivery model with on-site goods for rapid delivery and gig-style drivers (Flex program).
• Expected to create 363 on-site jobs (not including delivery drivers); additional parking provided to support drivers.
• Discussion on sales tax: City and HDL consultant are working with Amazon to capture Bradley-Burns sales tax; currently similar Amazon sites generate only county pool revenue; SSD hybrid model could generate local sales tax but not confirmed yet.
• Commissioner asked about height concerns from adjacent businesses; applicant said required notices sent, no objections received.
• Confirmed Amazon purchased site (~$120M) and plans ~$80M development investment; total ~500k sq. ft facility.
• Amazon rep highlighted over 500 existing Milpitas jobs, expects 363 more, and reiterated partnership with City.

Chair Gupta invited members of the public to address the commission and there were two speakers:
• Doug Chesshire (Carpenters Local 405) spoke in opposition to the project as proposed, citing Amazon’s history of using non-local, low-wage contractors, lack of benefits, and avoidance of state-certified apprenticeship programs. He urged the Commission to require binding commitments for local labor, living wages, benefits, and apprenticeship participation before approving the project. • Rene Baez (Carpenters Local 405) requested that the Commission continue the item to a later date to allow the public more time to review the recently released EIR addendum. She noted that the original EIR was from March 2021 and circumstances have changed since then, and stated that five days of review is insufficient.

Additional discussion prior to closing Public Forum included:
• EIR/Addendum: Consultant (First Carbon Solutions) confirmed no significant new impacts since original EIR; traffic analysis showed impacts consistent with prior findings. Addendum does not require public circulation per CEQA. • Labor Practices: Amazon representative stated they use both union and non-union labor via open bid; about 50% of projects nationwide have used union labor. • Workforce Programs: Amazon highlighted $1.2B investment in employee training and education (Career Choice program), prepaid tuition, and free tech training programs; partnerships with local colleges.

September 10, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3

• Wages: Average warehouse starting wage ~$22.50/hr (higher in Bay Area); delivery drivers average ~$23/hr and are employed by third-party companies. • Truck & Delivery Operations: About 15 inbound and 15 outbound semi-truck trips daily, staggered roughly every 2 hours; ~1,500 small-vehicle deliveries per day spread throughout the day (not in large waves); 50 trailer parking stalls on site; no on-site maintenance—mobile service if needed.
• Planning Commission Scope: City attorney clarified Commission’s decision must be based only on CEQA compliance, tree removal permit, and site development permit (general plan consistency, zoning compliance, and compatibility with surrounding development); labor standards are outside Commission’s jurisdiction.

Motion to close the Public Forum.

Motion/Second Medina-Ashby/Galang
Motion carried by a vote of AYES: 6 NOES: 0

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open and close the public hearing, consider the Addendum to the 1000 Gibraltar Drive Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2020069024) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, and adopt Resolution 25-012, approving Site Development Permit No. SD24 -0006, Environmental Assessment No. 24 -0002, and Tree Removal Permit No. 25-0021 subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval.

Motion/Second Medina-Ashby/Galang
Motion carried by a vote of AYES: 6 NOES: 0

NEW BUSINESS

NO ITEMS.

ADJOURNMENT Chair Gupta adjourned the meeting at 8:27 pm Motion/Second Awasthi/Kong
Motion carried by a vote of AYES: 6 NOES: 0

Meeting Minutes submitted by
Planning Commission Secretary Elizabeth Medina

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-4109
415.434.9100 main
415.434.3947 fax
www.sheppardmullin.com

October 28, 2025
File Number: 19AG-416341

VIA E-MAIL

City of Milpitas City Council
Milpitas City Hall, 3rd Floor
455 E. Calaveras Blvd.

Milpitas, CA 95035
[email protected]

Re: 1000 Gibraltar Drive Project (P-SD24-0006, P-EA24-0002, and P -TR25-0021; SCH No. 2020069024): Response to Appeal

Dear Honorable Councilmembers:

This firm represents Panattoni Development Company, Inc., the applicant for the proposed industrial warehouse project (the “Project”) at 1000 Gibraltar Drive. On September 10, 2025, the Planning Commission approved the Project, including a site development permit, a tree removal permit, an environmental assessment, and an addendum to the certified 1000 Gibraltar Drive EIR (SCH No. 2020069024), consistent with CEQA. The Mitchell M. Tsai Law Firm, on behalf of the Carpenters Local Union #405 (the “Appellant”), filed an appeal of the Project, which is scheduled for hearing on November 18, 2025. The appeal challenges the City’s approval of the addendum, claiming that additional environmental review should be required. We write to explain why the Appellant’s arguments are meritless , and to request that you deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project. Additional technical support for this letter can be found in the letter from FirstCarbon Solutions (the “FirstCarbon Letter”), the CEQA consultant for the Project, attached as Attachment A.

I. The Certified EIR Is Final and Not Subject to Challenge The EIR was certified on March 24, 2021, and a Notice of Determination was filed on April 2, 2021. The statute of limitations for challenging the certified EIR has long since expired and the certified EIR may no longer be challenged. Thus, the Appellant’s criticisms of the certified EIR should not be considered on appeal; and this letter responds only to the Appellant’s arguments as they pertain to the adequacy of the Project’s addendum. (See Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 949.) II. Legal Standards for Requiring Additional Environmental Review Under CEQA Under CEQA, where an EIR was previously prepared for a project, the lead agency may not require a subsequent or supplemental EIR unless one o r more of the following conditions exist:

City of Milpitas City Council
October 28, 2025

1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identifie d significant effects;
2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
(Pub. Res. Code § 21166; see also 14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15162.) CEQA includes a presumption against requiring further environmental review once an EIR has been prepared for a project, in order to provide a level of finality. (Pub. Res. Code § 21166; see also Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens.)
Where a project requires some changes or additions but those changes or additions do not meet the conditions listed above, the lead agency is required to prepare an addendum to the previously certified EIR. (CEQA Guidelines § 15164.) The decisionmaking body must then consider the addendum along with the final EIR before making a decision on the project. (14 Cal.

Code of Regs. § 15164(d).)

City of Milpitas City Council
October 28, 2025

III. The Project Changes Are Not Substantial and Do Not Trigger Additional CEQA Review
A subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required for the Project because, as documented in the addendum, none of the triggers set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21166 are met.

As to trigger (1), there are no changed circumstances requiring major revisions to the EIR due to new or more significant environmental impacts. As to trigger (2), there is no new information showing that the Project would cause new or more significant environmental impacts or that additional mitigation measures are appropriat e. The Appellant does not contest either of those points. (Appellant Letter, p. 2.) Rather, based on trigger (3), Appellant argues that the Project’s increase in impervious surface area constitutes a substantial change to the Project requiring further environmental review. This is incorrect for the following reasons.

First, the Appellant mischaracterizes the 5.7 percent increase in impervious surface area (from 928,755 to 982,012 square feet ) as a “dramatic” increase that warrants further environmental review. CEQA does not set a numeric threshold for determining whether a project change is “substantial.” Rather, the threshold for whether a change is “substantial” and warrants further environmental review is whether the change will result in new or more severe impacts not addressed in the certified EIR . (CEQA Guidelines § 15162.) Here, the addendum adequately demonstrates that the increase in impervious surface area will not result in new or more severe impacts to hydrology and water quality because the Project will incorporate on-site stormwater control measures, including detention basins, bioretention basins, pervious pavement, and storm drains. (Addendum, p. 116.) Furthermore, as explained in the FirstCarbon Letter, these features were designed to ensure that the post-construction runoff rates and volumes will not exceed pre- project conditions, which is a requirement under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit required for this Project . (FirstCarbon Letter, p. 4.) Further, the increase in impervious surface area does not alter the site’s drainage characteristics because the site is located in a highly urbanized environment with predominantly impervious surfaces. (Id.) As such, the increase in impervious surface area does not meet the level of a “substantial change” under CEQA and no further environmental review may be required.

Second, c ontrary to the Appellant’s clai m, the addendum does not rely on regulatory compliance in lieu of analyzing the Project’s impacts. Rather, the addendum refers to the Project’s compliance with these regulatory standards to show that , despite the increase in impervious surface area, the Project’s robust stormwater management measures remain adequate and no new or more severe impacts will result. (Addendum, p. 116.) The FirstCarbon Letter explains that regulatory compliance measures create further assurances that the Project will not result in significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. (FirstCarbon Letter, p. 4.) For instance, the Project was required to submit a Stormwater Quality Control Plan, certified by a qualified Professional Engineer, with the Project’s plans. (Id.) The City will verify these stormwater control features prior to issuing building permits, ensuring that the Project as built will have no significant impacts. Additionally, prior to completion of construction, the Project operator must submit a Best Management Practice Operation and Maintenance Plan, within which the operator must commit to verifying that the stormwa ter control features are being maintained in accordance with the Stormwater Quality Control Plan. These requirements ensure that the Project will not create significant impacts during both construction and operation.

City of Milpitas City Council
October 28, 2025

Finally, Appellant claims that the addendum inaccurately described the Project site’s flood risk as “low,” despite the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) describing the applicable flood hazard zone as having a “moderate” risk. This is not a substantive argument, but rather a misunderstanding of word usage. The addendum accurately explains that the Project site remains outside of a 100 -year flood hazard zone (1 percent risk of flooding in any given year) , which is characterized as a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area (“SFHA”),1 but is within a 500-year flood hazard zone. ( Addendum, p. 117.) The risk of flooding in a 500 -year flood hazard zone is

0.2 percent in any given year. As the FirstCarbon Letter explains, FEMA characterizes the risk of flooding in a 500-year flood hazard zone as “moderate.” (FirstCarbon Letter, p. 5.) FEMA defines a “moderate” risk of flooding as a risk that is lower than in an SFHA but still exists. 2 Despite the Project site’s “moderate” risk of flooding by FEMA’s definition, the risk of flooding is low compared to the risk in a 100-year flood hazard zone. Further, as the FirstCarbon Letter explains, the Project addresses the site’s flood risk through the stormwater control measures incorporated into the Project’s design. (Id.) As explained above, local and statewide regulatory standards ensure that the Project’s stormwater control measures are effective, eliminating the risk that the Project will create new or more severe impacts to flood flows.

IV. Conclusion
CEQA contains a strong presumption that once an EIR has been prepared for a project, further review is not required unless there are substantial changes, new circumstances, or new information that will result in new or more severe environmental impacts. The addendum adequately demonstrates that no new or more severe environmental impacts will result from the changes to the Project. The Planning Commission acted within its discretion and in full compliance with CEQA in approving the addendum to the certified EIR and in approving the Project overall.

The Appellant fails to identify any legal or factual basis to require further environmental review.

For all of the reasons above, we respectfully request that you deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project.

Sincerely,

Alexander L. Merritt
for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
SMRH:4906-7239-0515.4
cc: Kristina Phung, AICP, Senior Planner

1 FEMA, “Flood Zones,” https://www.fema.gov/about/glossary/flood-zones (last updated July 8, 2020).
2 FEMA, “How to Read a Flood Map,” p. 4,
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/how-to-read-flood-insurance-rate-map- tutorial.pdf (January 2022).

City of Milpitas City Council
October 28, 2025

Attachment A – FCS Letter Responding to Appeal

1 Memorandum
Date: October 22, 2025
To: Kristina Phung, Senior Planner, City of Milpitas
From: Janna Waligorski, Associate Director, FirstCarbon Solutions Subject: 1000 Gibraltar Drive Project–Response to CEQA Appeal (Update)

INTRODUCTION
An appeal to the Planning Commission’s approval of the 1000 Gibraltar Drive Project (P-SD24-0006, P- EA24-0002, and P-TR25-0021) and related Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addendum was filed on October 9, 2005. FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS), is providing the following information to assist the City of Milpitas with response to the CEQA-related items identified in the appeal.

Background
An EIR was prepared for a previously proposed industrial warehouse project in 2021 on the same site as the currently proposed 1000 Gibraltar Drive Project (proposed project). The previous project and related Final EIR (FEIR; State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2020069024) were approved and certified, respectively, by the City of Milpitas on March 24, 2021, per Resolution 21-007. However, the previously approved project was not constructed.

In 2025, an Addendum to the previously certified FEIR (previous FEIR), was prepared for a modified site plan for the same project site at 1000 Gibraltar Drive. The proposed project and Addendum were approved and certified by the Milpitas Planning Commission at a public hearing on September 10, 2025.

The Addendum concluded that the newly proposed project remains within the impacts previously analyzed in the previous FEIR per CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

Appeal
The appeal, submitted by Mitchell M. Tsai Law Firm on behalf of Carpenters Local Union 405 on September 22, 2025, requests the withdrawal of the Notice of Determination for the project’s Addendum

2 and claims that additional environmental review should be required and circulated for public comment prior to any new project approval.

The appeal’s accompanying letter states that the previous FEIR does not provide real discussion of the potential impacts associated with the increase in impervious surface on the project site and, furthermore, the Addendum’s reliance on compliance with existing regulations is not sufficient to support a finding of less than significant impact for the proposed project. The appeal states that there is lack of evidence to support a finding that the proposed project would not have any significant impacts relati ng to the impediment or redirection of flood flows. Further the appeal indicated that the Addendum incorrectly identified the project site’s flood hazard as low risk when it should have been identified as moderate, related to its designation as Zone X by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The appeal suggests, without supporting data, that the proposed on-site increase of impervious surface, combined with existing on-site flood risk and nearby off-site flood risk, raises significant concerns about the project’s potential for flooding hazard impacts. The appeal indicates that without any supporting data related to the potential for flooding, the City cannot conclude with the necessary substantial evidence that the project would not have significant flooding related impacts and therefore the EIR and Addendum are deficient under CEQA.

Certified Previous FEIR is Final
While the appeal criticizes the certified previous FEIR, it is important to reiterate that the previous FEIR for the 1000 Gibraltar Drive Project (SCH No. 2020069024) was certified on March 24, 2021. A Notice of Determination was filed on April 2, 2021, and the statute of limitations for challenging the certified EIR has long since expired. As such, the EIR is final and no longer subject to challenge. See Friends of Davis v.

City of Davis (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1018 (when an EIR is certified and the statute of limitations has passed, “the interests of finality are favored over the policy favoring public comment and the rule applies even if the initial review is discovered to have been inaccurate . . .") As the California Supreme Court emphasized in Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 949, “[t]he event of a change in a project is not an occasion to revisit environmental concerns laid to rest in the original analysis” (citations omitted). Accordingly, this response memorandum addresses the appeal’s comments specifically as they pertain to the Addendum.

Standard of Review
Public Resources Code Section 21166 provides that, when an EIR has been certified—as is the case here—no subsequent or supplemental EIR shall be required by the lead agency or any responsible agency unless (1) substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the EIR, or (2) substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions in the EIR, or (3) new information, which was not known and could not have been known when the EIR was certified, becomes available.

This provision demonstrates that agencies are prohibited from requiring further environmental review unless the stated conditions are met. (Fund for Environmental Defense v. County of Orange (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1538, 1544.)

3 As further explained in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, “[w]hen an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project” unless there is substantial evidence (emphasis added). In setting forth rules and processes for addendums, Section 15164(a) expressly directs that if some changes or additions to a project are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred, the lead agency “shall prepare an addendum to the previously certified EIR” (emphasis added) . The use of “shall” in both Sections 15162 and 15164 makes this a mandatory duty, not a discretionary choice. The Addendum for the proposed 1000 Gibraltar Project was prepared in strict compliance with CEQA’s mandates, as the proposed changes did not trigger any of the circumstances requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR under Section15162.

The burden rests with the challenger to demonstrate that the City’s determination to prepare an Addendum is not supported by substantial evidence. See Committee for Re-Evaluation of the T-Line Loop v. San Francisco Mun. Transp. Agency (2016), 6 Cal.App.5th at 1253. “As with all substantial evidence issues, an appellant challenging the evidence must lay out the evidence favorable to the other side and show why it is lacking.” (Mani Bros. Real Estate Group v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1385,1402).

The City’s decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR, and to document changes to the project with an addendum, will be upheld by a court if it is supported by any substantial evidence in the record. See, e.g., Committee for Re
-Evaluation of the T-Line Loop v. San Francisco Mun. Transp. Agency (supra) 6 Cal.App.5th 1237, 1247; Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 788; River Valley Preservation Project v. Metropolitan Transit Dev. Bd. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 154; Mani Bros. Real Estate Group v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1398; Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. City of San Jose (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 689, 703; Friends of Davis v. City of Davis (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1018.
“Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment does not constitute substantial evidence.” ( CEQA Guidelines § 15384(a)). Accordingly, a party challenging the use of an addendum must point to substantial evidence in the record that one of the conditions requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR exists. Mere disagreement with the City’s conclusions, or speculation unsupported by facts, is not sufficient. See Committee for Re-Evaluation of the T-Line Loop, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at 1253; Mani Bros.

Real Estate Group, supra, 153 Cal.App.4th at 1397, 1402. The City is not required to prepare a subsequent EIR in response to comments that do not meet this evidentiary threshold.

Here, as discussed below, the appeal contains no facts or substantial evidence to support the allegations.

Conversely, the conclusions in the Addendum are supported by substantial evidence.

Response to Appeal
The Addendum acknowledges that the revised project increases impervious surface area by approximately 53,257 square feet compared to the previously approved project (from 928,755 to 982,012

4 square feet), which represents a 5.7 percent increase. This increase is not considered significant for several reasons. First, the proposed project incorporates robust stormwater management features, including detention basins, bioretention areas, and pervious pavement (self-retaining areas) that are specifically designed to capture, treat, and reduce runoff from the additional impervious surfaces. These features ensure that post-construction runoff rates and volumes will not exceed pre-project conditions, as required by the City’s Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) and the proposed project’s Stormwater Control Plan. Second, the site is already highly urbanized and predominantly impervious, so the incremental increase does not substantially alter the site’s drainage characteristics. Finally, as discussed in more detail below, the Addendum confirms, based on both technical analysis and regulatory compliance, that the increase in impervious surface area will not result in new or more severe impacts related to hydrology or flooding compared to what was previously analyzed in the certified EIR.

Contrary to the allegations in the appeal, the Addendum does not rely solely on regulatory compliance as a substitute for analysis. Rather, it explains how compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, City standards, and Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater management systems requirements ensures that the proposed project will not result in significant impacts related to water quality, flooding, or drainage system capacity. Based on the entire record, the Addendum concludes that the proposed project would have less than significant impacts related to the alteration of existing drainage patterns in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off -site; a substantial increase in the rate of surface runoff; runoff exceeding the stormwater system capacity or substantial additional polluted runoff; or addition of impervious surfaces that would impede or redirect flood flows.

The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco Bay RWQCB) requires an NPDES permit for the proposed project. The NPDES requirements include Provision C.3. C.3 requirements are separate from—and in addition to—requirements for erosion and sediment control. 1 As
a part of C.3 requirements, post-project runoff flows and volumes shall not exceed pre-project flows and volumes. Stormwater analysis and management are required to be incorporated into project site, drainage, and landscaping designs prior to project approval and issuance of an NPDES permit.

Consistent with this, the proposed project’s plans included a Stormwater Quality Control Plan, certified by a qualified Professional Engineer, which included demonstration of C.3 regulation compliance.

Incorporation of stormwater control features in site plans are verified prior to issuance of building permits.

In addition, a Best Management Practice (BMP) Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan must be submitted to the City before the end of construction wherein the occupant or owner must verify, at least annually, that the treatment and hydromodification management devices on-site are being maintained according to the Stormwater Control Plan.

Consistent with City and C.3 regulations, the proposed project’s site plans include a preliminary stormwater quality control plan, as prepared by Kier+Wright, inclusive of stormwater quantity calculations based on, but not limited to, mean annual precipitation, proposed impervious surfaces areas, basin storage volume, and rain event duration. Such analysis ensures that stormwater flow would not exceed pre-project flows and volume. As such, the proposed project would not be likely to result in impacts

1 City of Milpitas. 2005. Stormwater C.3 Guidebook, 3rd Edition. October 6.

5 related to flooding on or off-site. Refer to Attachment A for additional information on stormwater calculations prepared for the proposed project.

The Addendum accurately describes the FEMA flood designation and risk. The project site is not located within a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area (i.e., not within a 100-year floodplain) but is within a 500-year flood hazard zone (Zone X-shaded), which is considered to have a moderate risk of flooding (0.2 percent annual chance). This is consistent with FEMA mapping and the City’s Storm Drain Master Plan. Note that the moderate risk of flooding within Zone X (0.2 percent) is notably lower than the risk associated with a 100-year floodplain (1 percent). Accordingly, because the site is not in a 100-year floodplain, the moderate risk associated with the 500-year floodplain is addressed through the proposed project’s design and compliance with City and regional standards. The appeal has not provided any substantial evidence to the contrary.

CONCLUSION
As indicated here, the proposed project would be required to comply with NPDES requirements, including C.3 regulations that ensure that the proposed project would not result in increased flooding on- or off-site.

Analysis of existing and proposed impervious surfaces and on-site treatment/detention capacity were analyzed in accordance with C.3 provisions to ensure appropriate capacity for stormwater. Such analysis was required prior to the issuance of the project’s approval. Furthermore, identified design measures required to ensure sufficient stormwater capacity are required on project site plans, prior to the issuance of building permits, and the required O&M Plan ensures that such features would operate effectively in perpetuity.

Therefore, reliance on the compulsory compliance with regulatory requirements (NPDES, C.3 requirements) in terms of stormwater control, which directly addresses on- or off-site flooding, provides sufficient evidence that the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to flooding.

Accordingly, the Addendum provides a detailed project-specific analysis demonstrating that the revised project’s hydrology and flooding impacts remain less than significant and that all regulatory requirements and best practices are being met. No substantial evidence has been presented in the appeal or elsewhere in the record that would establish substantial evidence that a subsequent EIR is required for the proposed project.

6 Attachment A:

Kier+Wright Response to Appeal

October 2, 2025

CITY OF MILPITAS CITY COUNCIL & CITY CLERK
Milpitas City Hall, 3rd Floor
455 E Calaveras Blvd.

Milpitas, CA 95035
RE: Response to ‘Appeal to City Council regarding approval of entitlements and EIR Addendum for the 1000 Gibraltar Project (PSD -24-0006, P-EA24- 0002, and P-TR25-0021; SCH#: 2020069024)
To Whom it May Concern:

We are writing in response to the appeal letter dated September 23, 2025, regarding the proposed industrial project at 1000 Gibraltar. Specifically, we would like to address the concerns raised regarding flood risk and stormwater management.

Flood Zone Designation
The project site is located within FEMA Flood Zone X (shaded) , which represents an area with a moderate annual flood risk between 1% and 0.2%.

Importantly, Flood Zone X is not classified as a Special Flood Hazard Area , and therefore no additional FEMA floodplain development provisions are required for this project.

Stormwater Management and Flood Risk Reduction
Although the project increases total impervious area from 851,336 square feet to 982,012 square feet, multiple design features have been incorporated to reduce runoff and improve stormwater detention:
• Bioretention Planters: The project proposes five (5) bioretention planters totaling 34,146 square feet, which exceed the minimum stormwater treatment area requirement of 27,061 square feet.

These planters will act as detention basins, capturing and holding stormwater before controlled release.

• Pervious Pavement: Approximately 65,298 square feet of pervious pavement is proposed, which further reduces effective impervious coverage and promotes onsite infiltration.

• Pre- vs. Post-Development Flows: Hydrologic modeling
demonstrates that pre-project 10-year 24-hour storm runoff is 54.2 cubic feet per second (cfs), while post-project runoff decreases to

49.1 cfs with the implementation of bioretention measures. This indicates a reduction in peak flows compared to existing conditions.

Drainage Patterns
The site has a natural grade differential of approximately 17 feet from the northwest corner (Gibraltar Dr. and Milpitas Blvd.) down to the east corner

2850 Collier Canyon Road
Livermore, CA 94551
925.245.8788
www.kierwright.com
along Gibraltar Dr. The proposed design does not significantly alter existing drainage patterns and conforms to existing street grades, ensuring that stormwater continues to flow as it does under current conditions.

Existing Conditions Flooding
The City of Milpitas Storm Drain Master Plan 2021 (SDMP) prepared by Schaaf & Wheeler evaluated the existing public storm drain system and identified potential flood areas from a 10-year design storm. Per Figure 3-1 in the SDMP, there was no flooding near the project site.

Conclusion
The project not only meets but exceeds City stormwater requirements and will result in improved onsite stormwater management and reduced peak stormwater flows compared to existing conditions. The flood risk concerns raised in the appeal letter are therefore without technical basis.

We respectfully request that the City upholds its approval of the project.

Sincerely,

KIER & WRIGHT
Elizabeth Class, PE
SR. PROJECT MANAGER
[email protected]
925.245.8788

Date Form Completed:

Completed by:

SCVURPPP C.3. Data Form Page 1 of 5 April 2023
Provision C.3 Data Form

1. Project Information
Project Name: ____________________________________APN # ____________________________________ Project Address: ____________________________________________________________________________ Cross Streets: _______________________________________________________________________________ Applicant/Developer Name:

Project Phase(s): ______of______ Engineer:

Project Type (Check all that apply):  New Development  Redevelopment  Private  Public  Large Detached Single-Family Home
 Residential  Commercial  Industrial  Mixed Use  Institutional  Other _________________________________________________________________________________ Project Description: __________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Project Watershed/Receiving Water (creek, river or bay):___________________________________________ Which Projects Must Comply with Stormwater Requirements? Effective July 1, 2023, the following projects must comply with Stormwater Requirements:
• All development/redevelopment projects (except single-family home projects) that create and/or replace 5,000 sq. ft. or more of impervious surface on the project site must fill out this worksheet and submit it with the development project application.
• All large single-family home projects that create and/or replace 10,000 sq. ft. or more of impervious surface on the project site must also fill out this worksheet.

These projects are called Regulated Projects. The Regulated Project area includes portions of the public right-of- way that are developed or redeveloped as part of the Regulated Project.

Excluded Projects - Interior remodeling projects, routine maintenance or repair projects such as re-roofing and re- surfacing, and smaller single-family homes that are not part of a larger plan of development are NOT required to complete this worksheet.

What is an Impervious Surface?
An impervious surface is a surface covering or pavement that prevents the land’s natural ability to absorb and infiltrate rainfall/stormwater. Impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to rooftops, walkways, paved patios, driveways, parking lots, storage areas, impervious concrete and asphalt, gravel surfaces, and any other continuous watertight pavement or covering.

Pervious pavement, underlain with pervious soil and pervious storage material (e.g., drain rock), that infiltrates rainfall at a rate equal to or greater than surrounding unpaved areas OR that stores and infiltrates the water quality design volume specified in Provision C.3.d of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP), is not considered an impervious surface.

For More Information
The SCVURPPP C.3 Stormwater Handbook provides more information on selection of site design, source control, and treatment measures for a development project as well as guidance on preparing a stormwater control plan.

SCVURPPP C.3. Data Form Page 2 of 5 April 2023

2. Project Size
a. Total Site Area: ______________(ft2) b. Total Land Area Disturbed During Construction: _________ (ft2) (including clearing, grading, stockpiling, or excavating) Project Totals Total Existing (Pre-
project) Area (ft2)
Existing Area
Retained1 (ft2)
Existing Area
Replaced2 (ft2)
New Area
Created2 (ft2)
Total Post-
Project Area (ft2)
Impervious Area (IA)
c. Total on-site IA
d. Total off-site IA3
e. Total project IA
f. Total new and replaced IA
Pervious Area (PA)4
g. Total on-site PA
h. Total off-site PA3
i. Total project PA
j. Total Project Area (2.e.+2.i.)
k. Percent Replacement of IA in Redevelopment Projects: (Existing on-site IA Replaced ÷ Existing Total on-site IA) x 100% _______%
1“Retained” means to leave existing IA in place. An IA that receives surface treatment (e.g., pavement resurfacing/slurry seal/grind) only is considered “retained”. This category does not apply to off-site areas. 2 The “new” and “replaced” IA are based on the total project area and not specific locations within the project. Constructed IA on a project that does not exceed the total pre-project IA will be considered “replaced” IA. A project will have “new” IA only if the total post-project IA exceeds the total pre-project IA (total post-project IA – total pre-project IA = New IA). 3 Off-site areas include sidewalks and other parts of the public right-of-way (e.g., roads, bike lanes, curbs, ramps, park strip) that are being reconstructed as part of the project footprint. Note that gravel is considered an impervious surface. 4 Include bioretention areas, infiltration areas, green roofs, and pervious pavement in PA calculations.

3. State Construction General Permit Applicability:
a. Is #2.b. equal to 43,560 ft2 (1 acre) or more?
 Yes, applicant must obtain coverage under the State Construction General Permit (see https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/construction.html )  No, applicant does not need coverage under the State Construction General Permit.

4. MRP Pr
ovision C.3 Applicability:
a. Is #2.f. equal to 5,000 ft2 or more, or 10,000 ft2 for single family homes?  Yes, C.3. source control, site design and treatment requirements apply  No, C.3. source control and site design requirements may apply – check with local agency b. For redevelopment projects, is #2.k. equal to 50% or more?  Yes, C.3. requirements (site design and source control, as appropriate, and stormwater treatment) apply to the entire on-site area
 No, C.3. requirements only apply to the impervious area created and/or replaced

5. Hydromodification Management (HM) Applicability:
a. Does the project create and/or replace one acre or more of impervious surface AND is the total post-project impervious area greater than the pre-project (existing) impervious area?  Yes (continue)  No – exempt from HM, go to page 3
b. Is the project located in an area of HM applicability (green area) on the HM Applicability Map? www.scvurppp.org/hmp-map
 Yes, the project must implement HM requirements
 No, the project is exempt from HM requirements

SCVURPPP C.3. Data Form Page 3 of 5 April 2023

6. Selection of Specific Stormwater Control Measures:

Site Design Measures
❑ Minimize land disturbed
(e.g., protect trees and soil)
❑ Minimize impervious
surfaces (e.g., reduction in
post-project impervious
surface)
❑ Minimum-impact street or
parking lot design (e.g.,
parking on top of or under
buildings)
❑ Cluster structures/ pavement
❑ Disconnected downspouts
(direct runoff from roofs,
sidewalks, patios to
landscaped areas)
❑ Pervious pavement
❑ Green roof
❑ Other self-treating5 area
(e.g., landscaped areas)
❑ Self-retaining5 area
❑ Rainwater harvesting and
use (e.g., rain barrel, cistern
for designated use) 6
❑ Preserved open space
❑ Protected riparian and
wetland areas/buffers
❑ Other _______________
Source Control Measures
❑ Wash area/racks, drain to
sanitary sewer7
❑ Covered dumpster area,
drain to sanitary sewer7
❑ Sanitary sewer connection
or accessible cleanout for
swimming
pool/spa/fountain7
❑ Beneficial landscaping
(minimize irrigation, runoff,
pesticides and fertilizers;
promotes treatment)
❑ Outdoor material storage
protection
❑ Covers, drains for loading
docks, maintenance bays,
fueling areas
❑ Maintenance (pavement
sweeping, catch basin
cleaning, good
housekeeping)
❑ Storm drain labeling
❑ Other ______________
Treatment Measures
❑ None (all impervious surface
drains to self-retaining
areas)
LID Treatment
❑ Bioretention area
❑ Flow-through planter
❑ Tree Well Filter or Trench
with bioretention soils
❑ Rainwater harvest/use
(e.g., cistern for designated
use, sized for C.3.d
treatment)
❑ Pervious pavement, sized for
C.3.d treatment
❑ Infiltration trench
❑ Infiltration well/dry well
❑ Subsurface Infiltration
System (e.g., vault or large
diameter conduit over drain
rock)
❑ Other _______________
Non-LID Treatment Methods
❑ Proprietary high flow rate
tree box filter8
❑ Proprietary high flow media
filter (sand, compost, or
proprietary media)8
❑ Vegetated filter strip9
❑ Extended detention basin9
❑ Vegetated swale9
❑ Other ______________
Flow Duration Controls for Hydromodification Management (HM) ❑ Extended Detention
basin
❑ Underground tank or
vault
❑ Bioretention with outlet
control
❑ Other
_____________
______________________________________________________________________________ 5 See SCVURPPP C.3 Stormwater Handbook for definitions. 6 Optional site design measure; does not have to be sized to comply with Provision C.3.d treatment requirements. 7 Subject to sanitary sewer authority requirements.
8 These treatment measures are only allowed if the project qualifies as a “Special Project”. 9 These treatment measures are only allowed as part of a multi-step treatment process (i.e., for pretreatment).

SCVURPPP C.3. Data Form Page 4 of 5 April 2023

7. Stormwater Treatment Measure (STM) Sizing for Projects with Treatment Requirements Stormwater Treatment Measure (STM) Hydraulic Sizing Criteria Used* *Key: 1a: Volume – WEF Method
1b: Volume – CASQA BMP Handbook Method
2a: Flow – Factored Flood Flow Method
2b: Flow – CASQA BMP Handbook Method
2c: Flow – Uniform Intensity Method
3: Combination Flow and Volume Design Basis

8. Additional Stormwater Treatment of Non-Regulated Areas - Is the project providing stormwater treatment for non-regulated impervious area that is not included in Item 2 Project Size? For example, stormwater treatment of right-of-way areas that are outside the project footprint, or treatment measures that are treating more right-of- way impervious area quantities than required.
 Yes, complete the table below
 No
Additional Stormwater Treatment of Non-Regulated Areas
Non-Regulated Area Draining to Treatment Measure
Treatment Measures Hydraulic Sizing Criteria Impervious Area Treated (ft2)
Pervious Area
Treated (ft2)
Total Area
Treated (ft2)

9. Alternative Certification: Was the treatment system sizing and design reviewed by a qualified third-party professional that is not a member of the project team or agency staff?  Yes  No Name of Third-party Reviewer_______________________________________________

SCVURPPP C.3. Data Form Page 5 of 5 April 2023

10. Operation & Maintenance Information
A. Property Owner’s Name: _______________________________________________________________ B. Responsible Party for Stormwater Treatment/Hydromodification Control O&M:
a. Name: ________________________________________________________________________ b. Address: ______________________________________________________________________ c. Phone/E-mail: __________________________________________________________________ This section to be completed by Municipal staff.

O&M Responsibility Mechanism
Indicate how responsibility for O&M is assured. Check all that apply:
 O&M Agreement
 Other mechanism that assigns responsibility (describe below):
____________________________________________________________________________________________ This section to be completed by Municipal staff (Note: This is an optional section that agencies should modify per their internal review and tracking process.)
Reviewed:

Community Development Department Public Works Department  Planning Division  Engineering
 Building Division  Other (Specify)
Return form to: ______________________ Data entry performed by: ____________________

National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250
Feet
Ü

SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT

SPECIAL FLOOD

HAZARD AREAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A, V, A99
With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway

0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile Zone X
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood Hazard Zone X
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes. Zone X
Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D
NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D
Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance

17.5 Water Surface Elevation
Coastal Transect
Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.

The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 10/30/2025 at 4:04 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.

This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.

Legend

OTHER AREAS OF

FLOOD HAZARD

OTHER AREAS

GENERAL

STRUCTURES
OTHER

FEATURES

MAP PANELS
8 B 20.2
The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.
1:6,000
121°53'51"W 37°25'20"N
121°53'14"W 37°24'51"N
Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023

City of Milpitas

408.586.3000
455 E. Calaveras Blvd.

Milpitas, CA 95035

www.milpitas.gov

November 7, 2025

City Council
City of Milpitas

Re: 1000 Gibraltar Drive Site Development Permit Application

Dear Milpitas City Council Members,
On behalf of the Office of Economic Development, I am writing to express our strong support for Amazon’s proposed last-mile distribution facility located at 1000 Gibraltar Drive. This facility will serve as a sub-Same Day hub and is the first of its kind in the South Bay. The facility will focus on traditional delivery service and will expand access and convenience for Milpitas residents and the surrounding communities.

Amazon’s $120 million acquisition of 1000 Gibraltar Drive will be magnified by an anticipated $80 million in capital improvements and represents a significant investment in the Milpitas economy. These investments will significantly increase the property’s assessed value, generating additional property tax revenue for the City. The new facility will meaningfully contribute to local employment opportunities in Milpitas by creating approximately 363 jobs, furthering the job creation goals of City Council. Distribution drivers are not included in this job count. The Office of Economic Development is working closely with the applicant, our sales tax consultant, HdL, and the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) to explore the potential for capturing local sales tax revenue generated by the facility.

This project supports the City of Milpitas’ economic development objectives by promoting job creation, enhancing tax revenue, and reinforcing the City’s strategic role within Silicon Valley’s commercial ecosystem. These outcomes underscore the importance of protecting and preserving employment lands as vital economic assets.

Although demand for office space has declined significantly since the pandemic, industrial space in Milpitas has seen a 30% increase in market asking rates since 2020. Over the past three years, Milpitas’ industrial space has maintained a low average vacancy rate of 6.35%, compared to 22.74% for office space. The availability of competitively priced industrial space is one of Milpitas’ key advantages in the Silicon Valley ecosystem. To ensure long-term economic resilience and business growth opportunities, the City should continue to implement the Milpitas 2040 General Plan’s Economic Development Element Action ED-1f by maintaining a sufficient inventory of employment lands that allow businesses to expand and thrive.

We respectfully recommend that City Council approve the Site Development Permit No. SD24-0006, Environmental Assessment No. EA24-0002, and Tree Removal Permit No. TR25-0021 and support this important investment in our community.

Sincerely,

Alex Andrade
Director of Economic Development and Strategic Initiatives

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Consider Appropriating Unassigned Fund Balances or Reserves based on the November 4, 2025 Prioritization Vote (Staff Contact: Matt Cano, Assistant City Manager, 408-586-3012)
Category: Leadership and Support Services
Meeting Date: 12/2/2025
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution to appropriate unassigned fund balances or reserves for approved one-time funded priorities based on the November 4, 2025 prioritization vote.

BACKGROUND:

On October 2, 2025, the Milpitas City Council (Council) attended a City Council Priority Setting Workshop during which staff delivered a presentation on the City’s fiscal condition, strategy, and work plan efforts, and provided an overview of completed, existing, and new Council referrals. Additionally, staff presented a two-step process to prioritize and rank referrals and requested Council to adopt a resolution to appropriate unassigned fund balances or reserves for prioritized referrals. Council engaged in discussion and started the voting process but then directed staff to bring the prioritization vote and ranking back to the November 4, 2025 City Council meeting.

On November 4, 2025, the Council voted and ranked the referrals, which resulted in a final list of priorities. The list of newly approved priorities is set forth as an exhibit to this agenda report as Attachment A - List of Newly Approved Priorities. Council subsequently voted to defer the adoption of the resolution on funding appropriation to a December Council meeting. Information on the source of one-time funds and one-time funded priorities is set forth as an exhibit to this agenda report as Attachment B – Use of One-Time Funds Options.

ANALYSIS:

Based on Council direction, staff requests that Council discuss and adopt a resolution to appropriate unassigned fund balances or reserves for referrals ranked and prioritized for funding. The resolution is set forth as an exhibit to this agenda item as Attachment C – Resolution to Increase Appropriation for Priorities.

POLICY ALTERNATIVE:

Alternative 1: Postpone the adoption of funding resolution to a later date.

Pros: Postponing may allow Council additional time to decide on the priorities to fund using one-time funds.

Cons: Postponing the allocation of one-time funds would impact referrals that have a target completion or implementation date.

PROJECT SCHEDULE/KEY MILESTONES
Staff will report back on the progress of prioritized referrals and related work plans at future prioritization sessions and/or through other channels.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact will be determined by the City Council approval and adoption of a resolution to appropriate unassigned fund balances or reserves for referrals ranked and prioritized by the City Council for funding.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):

This item is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline 15378(b).

ATTACHMENT(S):
(a) List of Newly Approved Priorities

(b) Use of One-Time Funds Options
(c) Resolution to Increase Appropriation for Priorities

Workshop Prioritization Process: Prioritization Results High Priority Important Nice to Have
• Explore expansion of SMART
transportation services
• Storefront & Crime Prevention
Business Initiative/provide grants
to victims ($100,000)
• Strategic Land Acquisition
Revenue Reserve Fund ($200,000)
• Temporary Police Office on Main
Street ($310,000)
• Develop Fentanyl Policy
• Ring Doorbell Neighborhood
Initiative ($120,000)
• Update Mural Program Policy
• ADU Permit Subsidy ($60,000)
• Council Special Events Fund
($10,000)

Source & Use Summary Table
# Source Amount Detail
1 Community Investment
Fund $472,419 June 30, 2025, balance from unallocated and completed program fund balance 2  Stratford School $1,000,000 $1.0 million has been provided to the city as part of the Development Agreement. 3  VTA Reimbursement $840,200 City received the VTA reimbursement in June 2025, for BART Extension pavement and structural street repairs. Note: Funds may be used differently.
4  Fiscal Strategy – Contract
Review  $1,000,000 As of now, staff has identified over $1,000,000 that can be liquidated due to expired contracts.

TOTAL $3,312,419 One-Time Funds Only

Type Amount

One Time Funds $3,312,419

Staff Recommendations ($1,005,000)

New Council Priorities ($800,000)

One Time Fund Balance $1,507,419

Staff Recommended* for One-Time Funding Allocation
*Recommendations are based on Council requests and feedback.

# Proposal Est. One-
Time Cost Detail
1 Library: Improved security and
maintenance (Montano) $300,000 Library security enhancement for 24 months: this includes security guard presence at the Library to address on-going vandalism and security needs ($100k/yr). Library improved maintenance includes an extra $50,000/year to provide for quicker clean up and proactive maintenance. 2 Park Improvements Grant Matching
Funds (Montano) $200,000 Matching funds for potential future grant applications for a city park project. 3 Main Street Revitalization (Main St.

Subcommittee) $100,000 Funds streetscape beautification, marketing/branding, or a financial incentive program to attract retail and restaurants into vacant buildings. A funding plan would be presented to Council before implemented, but it includes Street Eats 209 event ($7,500/event) 4 Milpitas Youth Force Summer Job
Program (Montano) $80,000 Funds appx. 20 youth to participate each summer (@ approximately $2000 per student). 5 Expand Emergency Motel Stay (Chua) $100,000 Funds motel stays for the unhoused during emergencies for 2 - 4 years. 6 FIFA/Superbowl events and small business
promotion (Full Council) $75,000 Fund events promoting Milpitas businesses during FIFA/Superbowl. Note timeline needed for approval to allow for Superbowl events. 7 Economic Development Strategy (Full
Council) $150,000 To fund the development of a citywide Economic Development Strategy.

TOTAL $1,005,000

Council Priorities for One-Time Funding Allocation
# Priority Est. One-Time
Cost Detail
1 Temporary Police Office on
Main Street $310,000
Staff worked with various contractors to determine the current condition of the building and identified 5 key building systems that need to be addressed for the building to be occupied by Police personnel. A total of $301,760 would be needed for the building improvements. $310,000 requested for contingency.
2 Strategic Land Acquisition
Revenue Fund $200,000 or TBD The Council has long expressed the need to build up funding for strategic land acquisition that enables revenue generating opportunities for the City. A contribution of any sort builds on that goal. This would add to the current reserve of $710,248. 3 Storefront & Crime Prevention
Business Assistance $100,000
This initiative would refocus the City's existing storefront rehabilitation fund with crime prevention improvements, enabling businesses to take proactive measures to address safety needs for patrons and business facilities. The Storefront fund has $87,000 available for re- distribution to this initiative, if desired.
4 Ring Doorbell Neighborhood
Initiative $120,000 The average Ring doorbell costs $115 and this reflects the purchase of 1000 doorbells, with a $5,000 contingency. 5 Council Special Events Fund $10,000
Establishes a pilot program for two years allowing $1,000/yr for each Councilmember to attend non-political events where it is deemed beneficial for the City of Milpitas to be represented. This would begin following completion of a new council approved policy for funding distribution.
6 ADU Permit Subsidy $60,000 Subsize approximately 10 permit fees for each new ADU; average building permit and plan check fees per ADU is $6,000. Additional funding would be added to approximately $130,000 remaining in current program.

TOTAL $ 800,000

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MILPITAS

AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE TO THE APPROPRIATION OF UNASSIGNED FUND

BALANCES OR RESERVES FOR REFERRALS RANKED AND PRIORITZED BY THE

CITY COUNCIL OF MILPITAS

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Milpitas has received and discussed a presentation on the City of Milpitas fiscal condition, strategy, and work plan efforts; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed, prioritized, and approved City Council Referrals using a two- step prioritization process, with direction to City staff to return at a future meeting with additional analysis and costing that may be required; and

WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to appropriate unassigned fund balances or reserves for certain referrals ranked and prioritized by the City Council at its December 2, 2025 meeting;

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

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

2. The action has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and is not a project pursuant to Pub. Resources Code, § 21065 and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15378. Even if a project, the action is exempt from further CEQA review pursuant to Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15061(b)(3) as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

3. The City Council hereby authorizes a budget increase of $[XXXXX] of unassigned fund balances or reserves for the current fiscal year for certain referrals ranked and prioritized by the City Council at its December 2, 2025 meeting.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of December 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk Carmen Montano, Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Christopher Creech, Acting City Attorney