Agenda packet — Milpitas City Council, June 16, 2026 (part 9 of 11)

Page 6 of 11 ends

*Recorded by: Architectural Resources Group *Date: May 19, 2023  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # ___________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________________ State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # ___________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________________ and passenger trains arrived and departed from the Western Pacific Railroad depot several times daily, and the growing highway network precipitated the development of several roadside restaurants and other services for travelers. However, the community remained relatively small and predominantly rural throughout this period. In early 1954, when the city incorporated, its population stood at 825 people.3
The 1950s and the early 1960s introduced substantial changes to the newly incorporated city, including the construction of Interstate 880 (the Nimitz Freeway), which linked the major urban centers of San José and Oakland on the east side of San Francisco Bay, and the completion of the Ford Motor Company Assembly Plant in south Milpitas in 1955. Subsequent commercial and residential development swallowed up hayfields and other agricultural land, and Milpitas rapidly transformed from a rural farming and shipping community into a densely developed suburb of San José.4 By 1960, a number of single-family residential neighborhoods had been laid out and built between N. Main Street, which was the city’s historic downtown commercial street, and the new interstate.5 Development continued in earnest through the 1970s and 1980s, and the city’s population has continued to grow into the twenty-first century. At the time of the 2020 census, Milpitas claimed more than 80,000 residents.6 Calaveras Business Center History
Topographic maps and aerial photographs reveal that the site now containing the Calaveras Business Center was in agricultural use from the late nineteenth century into the post-World War II period. The construction and expansion of the Nimitz Freeway and SR 237 in the 1950s and 1960s ate away at surrounding agricultural properties and catalyzed new residential and suburban development, rapidly eroding the site’s rural character. By 1968, portions of the agricultural property northeast of the interchange between the Nimitz Freeway and SR 237 had succumbed to residential development, although area including the present Calaveras Business Center remained open and undeveloped into the 1970s. 7 In 1976, the Sunnyvale-based real estate developer Orosel Enterprises announced its plans to construct a six-building commercial office park, the Calaveras Business Center, at the site. 8 Founded by Richard J. Orosel (b. 1937), Orosel Enterprises was involved in the construction of several office and industrial parks in the San Francisco Bay Area during the 1970s and 1980s, including the Lester-Orosel Business Park at 1400 Stierlin Road in Mountain View and the Hollister Business Park near the Hollister Municipal Airport.9 Orosel himself had experience in both general contracting and sales, and he had owned at least one general contracting venture before establishing Orosel Enterprises around 1970. 10 Newspaper announcements suggest that Orosel Enterprises occasionally partnered with other corporations to finance large development projects, as it may have done for the Calaveras Business Center; a 1976 announcement for the Calaveras Business Center’s construction refers to the developer as “OroselRusso,” a name that did not appear in other newspaper records from the same period.11 3 Burrill, Images of America: Milpitas, 51, 109; The Ervin Consulting Group, Milpitas Redevelopment Amendments, 6.3-4. 4 The Ervin Consulting Group, Milpitas Redevelopment Amendments, 6.3-4. 5 Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC, Historic Aerials, photographs of 600 Valley Way, Milpitas, CA, 1948, 1956, 1960, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.
6 The Ervin Consulting Group, Milpitas Redevelopment Amendments, 6.3-4; “QuickFacts: Milpitas city, California,” United States Census Bureau, accessed May 10, 2023, at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/milpitascitycalifornia/PST045222. 7 Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC, Historic Aerials, photographs of 600 Valley Way, Milpitas, CA, 1948, 1956, 1960, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer; Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC, United State Geological Survey 7.5-minute maps, “San Jose, CA” quadrangle, 1897, 1909, 1926, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. 8 “What’s New All Around the Bay Area,” San Francisco Examiner, November 7, 1976. 9 “The Building Scene: Mountain View,” San Francisco Examiner, January 28, 1973; “Real estate notebook,” San Francisco Examiner, August 2, 1981; Lon M. Carlston, “Quake-prone Hollister commits itself to growth,” Oakland Tribune, August 24, 1980. 10 “Certificate of Business,” Van Nuys News and Valley Green Sheet, October 5, 1961; “Plan Opening Today at Apartments,” Van Nuys News and Valley Green Sheet, January 24, 1965; “Professional Man,” San Francisco Examiner, February 10, 1970; “Shapell Appointees,” Oakland Tribune, November 21, 1971; Linnea Waltz, “Multi-use developments share costs,” San Luis Obispo County Telegram-Tribune, July 7, 1983. 11 “What’s New Around the Bay: Santa Clara,” San Francisco Examiner, April 14, 1974; “What’s New All Around the Bay Area,” San Francisco Examiner, November 7, 1976.

Page 1200 of 1482 ends

Page 7 of 11 ends

Each of the buildings was designed to house several commercial office tenants. Many of the earliest tenants have not been identified; however, newspaper research indicates that occupants of the Calaveras Business Center included several scientific instrument companies as well as financial and administrative services. Known tenants during the 1970s and 1980s include Delta Associates (507 Valley Way, Building 2), Philips Test & Measuring Instruments, Inc. (489 Valley Way, Building 1), and FlexStar Corporation (606 Valley Way, Building 5), all of which produced scientific instruments; a Bay Area loan company called North American Funding Service (572 Valley Way, Building 4); and the Del Taco administrative offices for northern California (580 Valley Way, Building 4, and later 489 Valley Way, Building 1).16 The complex is currently owned by Sobrato Philanthropies, the philanthropic arm of the Sobrato Organization, and is known as the Sobrato Milpitas Center. 17 California Register of Historical Resources Evaluation The following is an evaluation of the Calaveras Business Center under the four evaluative criteria of the California Register of Historical Resources.

California Register of Historical Resources, Criterion 1 The Calaveras Business Center was constructed as part of a much broader trend of commercial development in the San Francisco Bay Area (and in Milpitas, in particular) that began in the early post-World War II period. However, research did not conclude that the property played a significant role in this trend. The office park was constructed more than two decades after the beginning of the South Bay’s major postwar development boom, and it does not represent an innovative or rare property type; many other extant properties in the Milpitas area speak to the same context of 1970s and 1980s commercial development.

Furthermore, no known tenant of the property appears to have made significant contributions to their respective industries, nor to the local or state economies considered more broadly. The office complex has no apparent associations with significant 12 Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC, United State Geological Survey 7.5-minute maps, “San Jose, CA” quadrangle, 1969, 1975, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.
13 “What’s New All Around the Bay Area,” San Francisco Examiner, November 7, 1976. 14 “Milpitas Center,” SOBRATO Philanthropies, accessed May 10, 2023, at https://www.sobrato.com/sobrato-philanthropies/what-wefund/silicon-valley/sobrato-centers-for-nonprofits-scnp/milpitas-center/. 15 Office of the Assessor, Santa Clara County, “Property Information - Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 022-28-022,” County of Santa Clara, accessed May 9, 2023, at https://www.sccassessor.org/index.php/apn-redirect?ApnValue=02228022; Office of the Assessor, Santa Clara County, “Property Information - Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 022-28-024,” County of Santa Clara, accessed May 9, 2023, at https://www.sccassessor.org/index.php/apn-redirect?ApnValue=02228024; Office of the Assessor, Santa Clara County, “Property Information - Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 022-28-025,” County of Santa Clara, accessed May 9, 2023, at https://www.sccassessor.org/index.php/apnredirect?ApnValue=02228025. 16 “Research & Development: R & D positions are rare and ultimately more challenging,” San Francisco Examiner, October 7, 1979; “Step Right In: An Opportunity to Step into Management at Del Taco,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, April 22, 1979; “Restaurant: The Team That Swept the Southland is Growing North!” The Chico Enterprise Record, March 4, 1980; “Loan Officers,” Sacramento Bee, March 9, 1980; “Manufacturer’s Representative,” Sacramento Bee, January 13, 1981; “Sales Rep,” Los Angeles Times, November 1, 1987. 17 “Milpitas Center,” SOBRATO Philanthropies, accessed May 10, 2023, at https://www.sobrato.com/sobrato-philanthropies/what-wefund/silicon-valley/sobrato-centers-for-nonprofits-scnp/milpitas-center/.

Page 1201 of 1482 ends

Page 8 of 11 ends

California Register of Historical Resources, Criterion 2 Research did not identify persons associated with the subject property who would be considered historically significant at the local, state, or national levels. Newspaper records indicate that the owner of the property’s development company, Richard J.

Orosel, was not particularly prolific, innovative, or eminent among other Bay Area developers working in the 1970s and 1980s.

Similarly, none of the property’s known tenants could be shown conclusively to have made a significant impact in local, state, or national history during their period of occupancy or afterward. As such, the property does not meet the threshold for significance under this criterion.

California Register of Historical Resources, Criterion 3 Although the Calaveras Business Center appears to remain relatively intact to its period of construction, it does not embody high architectural or artistic value that would render it architecturally significant. Research did not reveal the office park’s original designer(s) or builder(s) and did not suggest that it is the work of a master architect, builder, or landscaper. Rather, the general forms, materials, and stylistic elements utilized throughout the complex represent a generally attractive but unremarkable design strategy to house commercial and office tenants within a low-scale, suburban office park environment. Numerous other examples of similar complexes exist in the South Bay area, and the Calaveras Business Center does not have any architectural characteristics that distinguish it from comparable properties. As such, the property does not meet the threshold for significance under this criterion.

California Register of Historical Resources, Criterion 4 Criterion 4 pertains to the potential for a resource to provide information on pre- and/or post-contact history and is generally applied to archaeological resources. In consideration of this criterion, no component of the Calaveras Business Center, nor the complex as a whole, appears to fill a known data gap or research questions related to the history of commercial development in the South Bay region during the 1970s and 1980s that is not otherwise detailed extensively available primary and secondary historical sources. Therefore, the property does not appear to meet the threshold for significance under this criterion.

Conclusion
As described above, the subject property does not rise to the level of significance necessary for inclusion in the California Register. Consequently, the subject property is not considered a historical resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
*D7. References (continued):
“A brief history of Milpitas, California.” Milpitas Community Museum. Accessed May 10, 2023. http://www.milpitashistory.org/home/.
“The Building Scene: Mountain View.” San Francisco Examiner. January 28, 1973.

Burrill, Robert. Images of America: Milpitas. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2004.

Carlston, Lon M. “Quake-prone Hollister commits itself to growth.” Oakland Tribune. August 24, 1980. “
Certificate of Business.” Van Nuys News and Valley Green Sheet. October 5, 1961.

The Ervin Consulting Group. Milpitas Redevelopment Amendments: Thirteenth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Milpitas Project Area No. 1, Sixth Amendment to the Great Mall Redevelopment Plan: Draft Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 2009092025. Prepared for the Milpitas Redevelopment Agency, December 2009. “Loan Officers.” Sacramento Bee. March 9, 1980.
“Manufacturer’s Representative.” Sacramento Bee. January 13, 1981.

Page 1202 of 1482 ends

Page 9 of 11 ends

Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. Historic Aerials. Photographs of 600 Valley Way, Milpitas, CA. 1948, 1956, 1960. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.
------. United State Geological Survey 7.5-minute maps, “San Jose, CA” quadrangle. 1897, 1909, 1926, 1969, 1975. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

Office of the Assessor, Santa Clara County. “Property Information - Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 022-28-022.” County of Santa Clara. Accessed May 9, 2023. https://www.sccassessor.org/index.php/apn-redirect?ApnValue=02228022. ------. “Property Information - Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 022-28-024.” County of Santa Clara. Accessed May 9, 2023. https://www.sccassessor.org/index.php/apn-redirect?ApnValue=02228024. ------. “Property Information - Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 022-28-025.” County of Santa Clara. Accessed May 9, 2023. https://www.sccassessor.org/index.php/apn-redirect?ApnValue=02228025. “Plan Opening Today at Apartments.” Van Nuys News and Valley Green Sheet. January 24, 1965. “Professional Man.” San Francisco Examiner. February 10, 1970. “Real estate notebook.” San Francisco Examiner. August 2, 1981. “Research & Development: R & D positions are rare and ultimately more challenging.” San Francisco Examiner. October 7, 1979. “Restaurant: The Team That Swept the Southland is Growing North!” The Chico Enterprise Record. March 4, 1980. “Sales Rep.” Los Angeles Times. November 1, 1987.
“Shapell Appointees.” Oakland Tribune. November 21, 1971. “Step Right In: An Opportunity to Step into Management at Del Taco.” Santa Cruz Sentinel. April 22, 1979.

United States Census Bureau. “QuickFacts: Milpitas city, California.” United States Census Bureau. Accessed May 10, 2023. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/milpitascitycalifornia/PST045222.

Waltz, Linnea. “Multi-use developments share costs.” San Luis Obispo County Telegram-Tribune. July 7, 1983. “What’s New All Around the Bay Area.” San Francisco Examiner. November 7, 1976. “What’s New Around the Bay: Santa Clara.” San Francisco Examiner. April 14, 1974.

Page 1203 of 1482 ends

Page 10 of 11 ends

View of Building 2 and adjacent walkways and planting beds, view facing north-northwest (ARG, April 2023).

Page 1204 of 1482 ends

Page 11 of 11 ends

View of Building 5 and adjacent landscaping, parking, signage, and utilities, view facing northwest (ARG, April 2023).

Page 1205 of 1482 ends

Page 1 of 4 ends

DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # ___________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial __________________________________________________________ NRHP Status Code __________________________________
Other Listings _______________________________________________ Review Code __________________ Reviewer ________________ Date ________________ P1. Other Identifier: Building 1
*P2.Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted
*a. County: Santa Clara
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad Milpitas Date: 2021 Township: 6S; Range: 1W c. Address: 461-495 Valley Way City: Milpitas Zip: 95035 d. UTM: Zone 10S, 597753 mE/ 4141203 mN
e. Other Locational Data: APN 022-28-022
*P3a. Description:

The subject property located at 461-495 Valley Way (Building 1) is one of five buildings within the Sobrato Milpitas Center and is located in the southeastern portion of the complex. The building is oriented east-northeast on an irregularly shaped parcel (APN:
022-28-022), which it shares with another building (Building 2) to the north. The parcel containing both buildings is accessed by Valley Way, which includes a cul-de-sac that gives way to additional vehicular drives and surface parking lots along each side of the parcel. (See continuation sheet.)
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP6. 1-3 story commercial building *P4.Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other P5b. Description of Photo:

View of Building 1 south façade, view
facing north, April 28, 2023 (Architectural
Resources Group)
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:
 Historic  Prehistoric  Both
1977 (County Assessor)

*P7. Owner and Address:

The Sobrato Organization
599 Castro Street, Suite 400
Mountain View, CA 94041

*P8. Recorded by:

Architectural Resources Group
Pier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 107
San Francisco, CA, 94111
*P9. Date Recorded: April 28, 2023
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive-level Survey

*P11. Report Citation: None
*Attachments:  NONE  Location Map  Continuation Sheet  Building, Structure, and Object Record  Archaeological Record  District Record  Linear Feature Record  Milling Station Record  Rock Art Record  Artifact Record  Photograph Record  Other (List): Sketch Map P5a. Photograph or Drawing

Page 1206 of 1482 ends

Page 2 of 4 ends

DPR 523K (9/2013) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# ______________________________________________________________ SKETCH MAP Trinomial __________________________________________________________ *Drawn by: Architectural Resources Group *Date of map: April 28, 2023 Sketch map of the Sobrato Milpitas Center with the red outline denoting the property’s boundary (ESRI World Topographic Map, 2021).

Page 1207 of 1482 ends

Page 3 of 4 ends

*Recorded by: Architectural Resources Group *Date: April 28, 2023  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # ___________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________________ Continuation of P3a. Description:

Building 1 is set back from Valley Way and flanked on all sides by intermittently spaced concrete walkways and planter beds, interrupted by driveways up to service bay doors. The planters have concrete curb surrounds, and are filled with a combination of low manicured shrubs, lawn, flowers, or mature trees.

Building 1 is a one-story commercial structure, with elements of the Spanish Revival style. Constructed in 1977, the building has low, horizontal massing and is generally rectangular in plan, with a projection along a portion on the east (rear) façade. The building has a slab foundation and has a flat roof covered by built-up roofing with a low parapet wall. The building’s exterior walls are clad with textured stucco and include a board formed concrete belt course running along the upper portion of all the façades.

Each façade features recessed loading docks with roll-up metal doors, behind segmental arched openings. The commercial tenant spaces are accessed on the south, west, and north façades, with each entrance demarcated by an enclosed projection that meets the primary building volume below the belt course and parapet wall. The projections typically include two separate aluminum-frame storefront assemblies, each with a fully glazed door and two full-height fixed windows. With the exception of a single entrance on the south façade, all entrance projections include a central wall clad in vertical T1-11 siding and wood signage boxes near each set of doors. The enclosed entrance projections have shed roofs with overhanging eaves and are covered in clay barrel tiles. Remaining fenestration includes narrow, two-light divided fixed windows with aluminum surrounds that rise from the ground and are topped by slightly recessed plastered arches.

Page 1208 of 1482 ends

Page 4 of 4 ends

East façade, view facing west (ARG, April 2023).

Page 1209 of 1482 ends

Page 1 of 4 ends

DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # ___________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial __________________________________________________________ NRHP Status Code __________________________________
Other Listings _______________________________________________ Review Code __________________ Reviewer ________________ Date ________________ P1. Other Identifier: Building 2
*P2.Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted
*a. County: Santa Clara
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad Milpitas Date: 2021 Township: 6S; Range: 1W c. Address: 501-533 Valley Way City: Milpitas Zip: 95035 d. UTM: Zone 10S, 597763 mE/ 4144266 mN
e. Other Locational Data: APN 022-28-022
*P3a. Description:

Building 2 is located at 501-533 Valley Way and situated on the easternmost parcel (APN: 022-28-022) within the Sobrato Milpitas Center. The one-story, irregularly shaped building shares the parcel with an additional building (Building 1) located to the south. The subject property is oriented north-northwest and is set back from the road. Valley Way runs along the structure’s western façade. It is accessed by Valley Way and flanked on all sides by surface parking lots. (See continuation sheet.) *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP6. 1-3 story commercial building *P4.Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other P5b. Description of Photo:

View of Building 2 west façade, view facing
east, April 28, 2023 (Architectural
Resources Group)
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:
 Historic  Prehistoric  Both
1977 (County Assessor)

*P7. Owner and Address:

The Sobrato Organization
599 Castro Street, Suite 400
Mountain View, CA 94041

*P8. Recorded by:

Architectural Resources Group
Pier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 107
San Francisco, CA, 94111
*P9. Date Recorded: April 28, 2023
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive-level Survey

*P11. Report Citation: None
*Attachments:  NONE  Location Map  Continuation Sheet  Building, Structure, and Object Record  Archaeological Record  District Record  Linear Feature Record  Milling Station Record  Rock Art Record  Artifact Record  Photograph Record Other (List): Sketch Map P5a. Photograph or Drawing

Page 1210 of 1482 ends

Page 2 of 4 ends

Page 1211 of 1482 ends

Page 3 of 4 ends

A concrete footpath with planter beds runs along the west façade, while irregularly shaped planter beds with concrete curb surrounds project between driveways and parking spaces along the remaining three facades. The planters have low manicured shrubs and mature trees.

The building was constructed in 1977 and is irregular in plan, with stepped projections along the northern and southern facades.

It was designed in a similar style as Building 1 to the south, and is a commercial building with Spanish Revival details. The roof is flat with a low parapet wall and covered with built-up roofing. The walls are clad in textured stucco plaster and are interrupted by a horizontal, board formed concrete belt course running the length of each façade. The building’s longest and westernmost rectangular massing includes evenly spaced, projecting entrances along its west (primary) façade. The primary entrances consist of enclosed projections with low-pitch shed roofs covered in clay barrel tiles. The roofs include overhanging eaves that are terminated on each end by a concrete wall projecting perpendicularly from the building’s main façade wall. Primary entrances consist of glass storefront entrance doors with aluminum surrounds with two sidelights on one side. A wall surface clad in central wall clad in vertical T1-11 siding is at the center or to the side of entrance projections, with each wall surface featuring signage boxes. The south façade has a projection that is similar in design to those found on other façades, only it contains a band of six fixed full-height windows and lacks doors or vertical board siding.

Secondary entrances are located on the east (rear) façade and consist of commercial storefront doors with sidelights that are flush with the façade wall. Industrial rolling service doors are located on the south, east, and north façades—all beneath slightly recessed segmental arched bays. The winged, east façade projections to the north and south consist only of these service bay doors. One storefront entrance at the rear façade appears to be located in a previously infilled service bay. Additional fenestration includes metal security doors and narrow fixed, divided light windows with recessed plastered arch openings at the head.

Page 1212 of 1482 ends

Page 4 of 4 ends

*Recorded by: Architectural Resources Group *Date: April 28, 2023  Continuation  Update DPR 523K (9/2013) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # ___________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________________ South façade with band of six fixed full-height windows, view facing north (ARG, April 2023).

Industrial rolling service doors along winged east façade, view facing west (ARG, April 2023).

Page 1213 of 1482 ends

Page 1 of 4 ends

DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # ___________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial __________________________________________________________ NRHP Status Code __________________________________
Other Listings _______________________________________________ Review Code __________________ Reviewer ________________ Date ________________ P1. Other Identifier: Building No. 3
*P2.Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted
*a. County: Santa Clara
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad Milpitas Date: 2021 Township: 6S; Range: 1W c. Address: 500-538 Valley Way City: Milpitas Zip: 95035 d. UTM: Zone 10S, 597251 mE/ 4143583 mN
e. Other Locational Data: APN 022-28-024
*P3a. Description:

The subject property (Building 3) is located at 500-538 Valley Way and situated at the southernmost portion of the Sobrato Milpitas Center complex, which consists of five total buildings. Building 3 is oriented west-northwest and shares an irregularly shaped parcel (APN: 022-28-024) with an identical building (Building 4) to the north. The parcel is accessed by Valley Way, which is punctuated by a cul-de-sac that gives way to additional vehicular roads and surface parking lots along each side of the parcel. (See continuation sheet.)
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP6. 1-3 story commercial building *P4.Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other P5b. Description of Photo:

View of Building 3 east façade, view facing
west, April 28, 2023 (Architectural
Resources Group)
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:
 Historic  Prehistoric  Both
1978 (County Assessor)

*P7. Owner and Address:

The Sobrato Organization
599 Castro Street, Suite 400
Mountain View, CA 94041

*P8. Recorded by:

Architectural Resources Group
Pier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 107
San Francisco, CA, 94111
*P9. Date Recorded: April 28, 2023
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive-level Survey

Page 1214 of 1482 ends

Page 2 of 4 ends

Page 1215 of 1482 ends

Page 3 of 4 ends

Building 3 is set back from Valley Way and features wide planter beds with concrete curb surrounds, concrete walkways, and parking spaces along the west, east, and south facades. The planter beds include low bushes, mature trees, and ivy ground cover.

There is a landscaped area located to the north of the subject property with grass and mature trees, as well as a concrete pad with tables and benches.

Building 3 was constructed in 1978 and consists of a two-story, commercial building with elements of the Spanish Revival style. It has simple, horizontal massing and rectangular in plan, with two exterior stairwell projections on the west and east façades that help create the building’s symmetrical design. The exterior walls are covered in textured stucco plaster. The building has a flat primary roof plane with built-up roofing, surrounded by a low parapet wall. The building is encircled by two-story, unenclosed walkways with low-pitched, shed roofs clad in clay barrel tiles. The shed roofs meet the building’s main mass at the base of the parapet wall around the primary roof plane. The shed roofs and walkways feature board formed concrete spandrel panels that extend down to form segmental arch openings beneath the eaves before carrying further down to form square concrete columns. A broad stucco-clad section of wall spans each façade between the first and second stories. The second-story walkway features a wood baluster with a wide metal top rail and corner posts.

Exterior stairwell projections on the west and east façades consist of open-riser stairs with a half-turn, landing slab, and wood baluster. The projections have concrete walls that frame the stairwells and extend the shed roof above the walkways. A wood baluster with a wide metal top rail runs between the two concrete walls at the landing slab. Primary entrances are located on both levels on the west and east façades. The building fenestration on these longer facades consists of evenly placed blocks of fixed divided light windows with aluminum surrounds, or matching single storefront entrance doors in place of one of the end windows. Signage boxes are placed on walls adjacent to entrance doors. The north and south facades feature either single fixed windows or the characteristic band of four fixed windows.

Page 1216 of 1482 ends

Page 4 of 4 ends

North façade and picnic area, view facing south (ARG, April 2023).

Page 1217 of 1482 ends

Page 1 of 4 ends

DPR 523K (9/2013) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # ___________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial __________________________________________________________ NRHP Status Code __________________________________
Other Listings _______________________________________________ Review Code __________________ Reviewer ________________ Date ________________ P1. Other Identifier: Building No. 4
*P2.Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted
*a. County: Santa Clara
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad Milpitas Date: 2021 Township: 6S; Range: 1W c. Address: 540-580 Valley Way City: Milpitas Zip: 95035 d. UTM: Zone 10S, 597762 mE/ 4143041 mN
e. Other Locational Data: APN 022-28-024
*P3a. Description:

Building 4 is located at 540-580 Valley Way in the Sobrato Milpitas Center, a five-building business complex. The subject property is oriented north-northwest and shares a parcel (APN: 022-28-024) with an additional, identical building (Building 3) located to the south. It is set back from Valley Way and situated in the western portion of the complex property. Surrounding the building are wide planter beds with concrete curb surrounds; concrete walkways along the building perimeter and to the road; as well as parking spaces along the west, east, and north facades. (See continuation sheet.) *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP6. 1-3 story commercial building *P4.Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other P5b. Description of Photo:

View of Building 4 east façade, view facing
west, April 28, 2023 (Architectural
Resources Group)
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:
 Historic  Prehistoric  Both
1978 (County Assessor)

*P7. Owner and Address:

The Sobrato Organization
599 Castro Street, Suite 400
Mountain View, CA 94041

*P8. Recorded by:

Architectural Resources Group
Pier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 107
San Francisco, CA, 94111
*P9. Date Recorded: April 28, 2023
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive-level Survey

Page 1218 of 1482 ends

Page 2 of 4 ends

Page 1219 of 1482 ends

Page 3 of 4 ends

The planter beds include low bushes, mature trees, and ivy ground cover. There is a landscaped area located to the south of the subject property with grass and mature trees, as well as a concrete pad with tables and benches.

Constructed in 1978, Building 4 consists of a two-story, commercial building with Spanish Revival details. It has simple, horizontal massing and rectangular in plan. The primary west and east façades are designed symmetrically. The building has a flat roof with built-up roofing, as well as a low parapet wall. The exterior walls are covered in textured stucco plaster. Low-pitched, shed roofs clad in clay barrel tiles meet the building’s main mass at the base of the parapet wall to create broad, overhanging eaves that run the length of each façade’s second story. The shed roofs and walkways feature board formed concrete spandrel panels that extend down to form segmental arch openings beneath the eaves before carrying further down to form square concrete columns. A broad stucco-clad section of wall spans each façade between the first and second stories. The balcony features a wood baluster with a wide metal top rail and corner posts that extend further above.

There are two exterior stairwells towards each end of the west and east façades. They consist of open-riser stairs with a halfturn, landing slab, and wood baluster. Broad concrete walls extend on two sides of the stairs from the midway point of the shed tile roof down to the ground level, while the shed roof extends further out to cover the stairwell on the second story. A wood baluster with a wide metal top rail runs between the two concrete walls at the landing slab. Primary entrances are located on the west and east façades, on both levels, and accessed by a covered walkway. The building fenestration on both facades consists of evenly placed blocks of fixed divided light windows with aluminum surrounds, or matching single storefront entrance doors in place of one of the end windows. Signage boxes are located on walls adjacent to entrance doors. The north and south facades feature either single fixed windows or the characteristic band of four fixed windows.

Page 1220 of 1482 ends

Page 4 of 4 ends

South façade, view facing north (ARG, April 2023).

Page 1221 of 1482 ends

Page 1 of 4 ends

DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # ___________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial __________________________________________________________ NRHP Status Code __________________________________
Other Listings _______________________________________________ Review Code __________________ Reviewer ________________ Date ________________ P1. Other Identifier: Building No. 5
*P2.Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted
*a. County: Santa Clara
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad Milpitas Date: 2021 Township: 6S; Range: 1W c. Address: 600-606 Valley Way City: Milpitas Zip: 95035 d. UTM: Zone 10S, 594026 mE/ 4143327 mN
e. Other Locational Data: APN 022-28-025
*P3a. Description:

The subject property (Building 5) is situated in the northwest portion of the Sobrato Milpitas Center. It is one of five buildings and located at 600-606 Valley Way on an irregularly shaped parcel (APN: 022-28-025). The building is set back from Valley Way and flanked on all sides by intermittently spaced concrete walkways and planter beds, interrupted by driveways up to service bay doors on the west façade. The planters have concrete curb surrounds and are filled with a combination of low manicured shrubs, lawn, flowers, or mature trees. (See continuation sheet.)
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP6. 1-3 story commercial building *P4.Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other P5b. Description of Photo:

View of Building 5 south and east façades,
view facing north, April 28, 2023
(Architectural Resources Group)
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:
 Historic  Prehistoric  Both
1985 (County Assessor)

*P7. Owner and Address:

The Sobrato Organization
599 Castro Street, Suite 400
Mountain View, CA 94041

*P8. Recorded by:

Architectural Resources Group
Pier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 107
San Francisco, CA, 94111
*P9. Date Recorded: April 28, 2023
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive-level Survey

Page 1222 of 1482 ends

Page 2 of 4 ends

Page 1223 of 1482 ends

Page 3 of 4 ends

Building 5 was constructed in 1985 as a one-story commercial structure, with elements of the Spanish Revival style. The building has horizontal massing and is generally rectangular in plan, with a projection along a portion of the north façade. The building was constructed using a slab foundation and has a flat roof clad in built-up roofing with a low parapet wall. The building’s exterior walls are clad with textured stucco plaster. The east (primary) façade features a low-pitched, shed roof clad in clay barrel tiles that meets the building’s main mass at the base of the parapet wall and runs the width of the façade. The eave of the shed roof overhangs the east façade.

The primary entrance is located in a recessed bay at the center of the east façade and is accessed by a concrete walkway and pad with metal railing around the perimeter. The entrance consists of a commercial storefront double door with a row of four, fixed windows on one side, and a single sidelight on the opposite side. A similar, floor to ceiling band of fixed windows is located adjacent to the entrance. The remaining fenestration on the east façade consists of bands of fixed windows with aluminum surrounds and secondary entrances at the north and south ends, with storefront doors and sidelights.

The north and south façades comprise expansive concrete walls that rise slightly above the shed roofs on the east and west facades. The north façade has a partial width projection that is set further back from Valley Way and features small shed roofs on the east and west facades, clad in the same clay barrel tile. A secondary entrance comprised of single storefront door is located on the east façade. An additional shed roof, of similar width, is located at the west façade. These three, smaller shed roofed sections, as well as the north, south, and west facades, all have fixed windows with wide plaster surrounds situated atop a rectangular base with vertical wood siding. The west façade also features two sets of deeply recessed rolling service doors beneath segmental arched openings with square column supports at the center.

Page 1224 of 1482 ends

Page 4 of 4 ends

South façade, view facing north (ARG, April 2023).

Page 1225 of 1482 ends

Appendix B
Climate Action Plan
Consistency Checklist

Page 1226 of 1482 ends

1 455 E. Calaveras Blvd | Milpitas, CA 95035 | 408-586-3279 | [email protected] Climate Action Plan
Consistency Review
Checklist
Introduction
The City of Milpitas (City) adopted a Climate Action Plan Update (CAP Update) in 2022. The CAP Update outlines strategies and measures that the City will undertake to achieve its proportional share of State greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets. The purpose of the CAP Consistency Checklist (Checklist), in conjunction with the CAP Update, is to provide a streamlined review process for all proposed development projects that are subject to discretionary review and/or trigger environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Analysis of GHG emissions and potential climate change impacts from new development is required under CEQA. The City’s CAP Update is a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(d), and 15183(b), a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative GHG emissions effect may be determined not to be cumulatively considerable if it complies with the requirements of the CAP Update.

The purpose of this Checklist is to implement GHG reduction measures from the CAP Update that apply to new discretionary development projects. New development that demonstrates consistency with relevant CAP Update strategies and the City’s General Plan 2040 and would not conflict with the City’s ability to achieve the identified GHG reduction targets through implementation of applicable measures. Projects that are consistent with the CAP Update, as determined through the use of this Checklist, may rely on the CAP Update and its associated CEQA documentation for the cumulative impact analysis of GHG emissions. Projects that are not consistent with the CAP Update must prepare a comprehensive project-specific analysis of GHG emissions, including quantification of existing and projected GHG emissions and incorporation of the measures in this Checklist to the extent feasible. Projects that are unable to meet the requirements of this Checklist should look to alternative compliance approaches to GHG analyses using the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s CEQA Guidelines. Cumulative GHG impacts would be significant for any project that is not consistent with the CAP Update.

This Checklist may be updated periodically to incorporate new GHG reduction techniques or to comply with later amendments to the CAP Update or local, State, or federal law. Comprehensive updates to this Checklist will be coordinated with each subsequent CAP update. Administrative updates to the Checklist may occur regularly, as necessary for the purpose of keeping the Checklist up-to-date and implementable.

Page 1227 of 1482 ends

2 455 E. Calaveras Blvd | Milpitas, CA 95035 | 408-586-3279 | [email protected] Applicability and Procedures
This Checklist is required only for discretionary projects1 that are subject to and not exempt from CEQA. Projects that are exempt from CEQA are deemed to be consistent with the City’s CAP Update, and no further review is necessary, with the exception of a Class 32 “In-Fill Development Projects” categorical exemption (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332), for which projects are required to demonstrate consistency with the CAP Update through this Checklist.

General procedures for Checklist compliance and review are described below. Specific guidance is also provided under each of the questions in the Checklist. Project applicant completes the Checklist and submits to the City’s Planning Department as part of the project’s conditions of approval. Refer to the City’s Development Review Handbook for details on the development review process. The City’s Planning Department, Building Safety & Housing Department, and Public Works Department review the Checklist and make determinations regarding environmental review requirements under CEQA.
The specific applicable requirements outlined in the Checklist shall be required as conditions of project approval.
The project applicant must provide written documentation and supporting evidence that demonstrate how the proposed project would implement each applicable Checklist requirement described herein to the satisfaction of the Planning Department, Building Safety & Housing Department, and Public Works Department. If a measure is deemed not applicable for reasons other than those outlined in each question or if an exemption does not apply, supporting evidence will need to be provided by the project applicant and would be subject to Planning Department approval. A project may be determined to be inconsistent with the CAP Update if lack of compliance is deemed to be not supported by credible evidence. Development projects requiring discretionary review that cannot demonstrate consistency with the CAP Update using this Checklist shall prepare a separate, project-level GHG analysis as part of the CEQA document prepared for the project. 1 In this context, a project is any action that meets the definition of a “Project” in Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Page 1228 of 1482 ends

3 455 E. Calaveras Blvd | Milpitas, CA 95035 | 408-586-3279 | [email protected] Application Information
Contact Information
Project Name:

Property Address and
APN:

Applicant Name and
Co.:

Contact Phone:

Contact
Email:

Was a consultant retained to complete this checklist? տ Yes տ No If Yes, complete the following:

Consultant Name:

Contact
Phone:

Company Name:

Contact
Email:

Project Information

1. What is the size of the project site (gross acres)?

2. What are the existing General Plan/zoning
designation(s) for the project site (as stated in the
Milpitas General Plan 2040)?

2. Identify all applicable proposed land uses:
տ Residential (indicate # of single-family dwelling
units):
տ Residential (indicate # of multi-family dwelling
units):
տ Commercial (indicate total square footage):
տ Industrial (indicate total square footage):
տ Other (describe):

3. Provide a description of the project proposed. This description should match the basic project description used for the CEQA document. The description may be attached to the Checklist if there are space constraints.
600 Valley Way
602, 538, 461 Valley Way, Milpitas, CA 95035 APN: 2228025, 2228024, 2228022 Tim Steele - The Sobrato Organization
408 832-4200 [email protected]
x
Studio T-SQ., Inc.

Justin Huang 510.451.2850
[email protected]

7.22 AC
GENERAL PLAN: GNC (GENERAL COMMERCIAL)
ZONING : C2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL)
x 134 UNITS
See attachment

THIS PROJECT FALLS UNDER THE MILPITAS GATEWAY-MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN (MGSP), CURRENTLY BEING UPDATED AND EXPECTED TO BE ADOPTED IN FALL 2025. THE PROJECT PROPOSES GW-MU ZONING DESIGNATION WHICH WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH MGSP.

Page 1229 of 1482 ends

4 455 E. Calaveras Blvd | Milpitas, CA 95035 | 408-586-3279 | [email protected] General Plan Land Use Consistency
The first step in determining CAP Update consistency for a discretionary development project is to assess the project’s consistency with the land use assumptions in the Milpitas General Plan 2040 and zoning designations, which were used to calculate the future GHG emissions forecasts and targets for the CAP Update. If the proposed project is consistent with applicable General Plan and zoning designations, the proposed project may be determined to be within the scope of emissions covered under the CAP Update.

If the project is not consistent with the Milpitas General Plan 2040 and zoning designations, it is possible that the land use changes required for the project could still be consistent with the growth projections used in the CAP Update depending upon the level of proposed changes. The questions below must be completed, as applicable, to determine whether the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan 2040 and zoning designations and related GHG emissions forecasts and targets.

General Plan Land Use Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide an explanation and supporting documentation for your answer)
Yes No

1. Are the proposed land uses in the project consistent with the Milpitas General Plan 2040 land use and
zoning designations?
If “Yes” is selected, please skip to the CAP Measures
Consistency section of the checklist.

If “No” is selected, please proceed to question 2.
ۿ ۿ

2. Is a General Plan amendment and/or rezoning
required for the project?
If “No” is selected, please skip to the CAP Measures
Consistency section of the checklist.

If “Yes” is selected, please proceed to question 3.
ۿ ۿ

3. If the proposed project is not consistent with the
General Plan land use or zoning designations, does the
project include a land use plan and/or zoning
designation amendment that would result in an
equivalent or less GHG-intensive project when
compared to the existing designations?
If “Yes” is selected, please attach to this checklist the estimate project emissions under both existing and
proposed designation(s) for comparison. Compare the
maximum buildout of the existing designation and the
ۿ ۿ

THIS PROJECT FALLS UNDER THE MILPITAS

GATEWAY-MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN (MGSP),
EXPECTED TO BE ADOPTED IN FALL 2025. THE

PROJECT'S PROPOSED GW-MU ZONING

DESIGNATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED
LAND USE AND ZONING IN THE MGSP. HENCE,

APPLICANT IS ASSUMING THAT THIS ITEM IS NOT

APPLICABLE AS THE PROJECT PLANS TO MOVE

FORWARD WITH ENTITLEMENT APPROVALS AFTER
THE MGSP IS ADOPTED.
x
N/A
N/A

THIS PROJECT FALLS UNDER THE MILPITAS

GATEWAY-MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN (MGSP),
EXPECTED TO BE ADOPTED IN FALL 2025. THE

PROJECT'S PROPOSED GW-MU ZONING

DESIGNATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED
LAND USE AND ZONING IN THE MGSP. HENCE,

APPLICANT IS ASSUMING THAT THIS ITEM IS NOT

APPLICABLE AS THE PROJECT PLANS TO MOVE

FORWARD WITH ENTITLEMENT APPROVALS AFTER
THE MGSP IS ADOPTED.

Page 1230 of 1482 ends

5 455 E. Calaveras Blvd | Milpitas, CA 95035 | 408-586-3279 | [email protected] General Plan Land Use Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide an explanation and supporting documentation for your answer)
Yes No
maximum buildout of the proposed designation. If the
proposed project is determined to result in an
equivalent or less GHG-intensive project when
compared to the existing designations, proceed to the
CAP Measures Consistency section of the checklist.

If “No” is selected, the applicant must conduct a full
GHG impact analysis for the project as part of the
CEQA process. The project shall incorporate each of
the applicable measures identified in the CAP Measures
Consistency section of the checklist to mitigate
cumulative GHG emissions impacts.

Page 1231 of 1482 ends

6 455 E. Calaveras Blvd | Milpitas, CA 95035 | 408-586-3279 | [email protected] CAP Measures Consistency
The goal of the CAP consistency review process is to evaluate a project’s consistency with the applicable strategies and measures of the CAP Update and General Plan 2040. Each Checklist item is associated with a specific GHG reduction measure in the City’s CAP Update. “N/A” should only be checked based on the direction provided in each Checklist Item question. All projects for which the measure is applicable must demonstrate that they would implement measures consistent with the Checklist item, or fully substantiate how the item would be infeasible for project implementation. “N/A” responses are subject to Planning Department review and approval. If “No” is provided as a response to a question, the project would be determined to be inconsistent with the CAP Update and General Plan 2040 and result in a significant GHG impact.

CAP Measures Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide an explanation and supporting documentation for your answer)
Yes No

1. All-Electric New Buildings
(CAP Measure BE-2.1)
a) Will the project use electricity as the source of
energy for:
space heating,
water heating,
fireplaces,
electric vehicle charging
cooking appliances, and
clothes drying appliances?
ۿ ۿ
b) Will the project install natural gas infrastructure? If “No” is selected in question 1(a), please skip to
question 2(a).
ۿ ۿ
c) If the requirements above in questions 1(a)-(b)
cannot be met, will the project comply with 2022
Building Energy Efficiency Standards and install
electrical conduit and wiring sufficient to operate
electrical appliances?
ۿ ۿ
x
x
The requirements above in
questions 1(a)-(b)
are met.

Page 1232 of 1482 ends

7 455 E. Calaveras Blvd | Milpitas, CA 95035 | 408-586-3279 | [email protected] CAP Measures Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide an explanation and supporting documentation for your answer)
Yes No

2. Clean Energy (CAP Measure BE-1.1)
a) Will the project install onsite renewable energy and storage systems capable of meeting anticipated
building energy consumption?
If “Yes” was selected in question 2(a), no further
answers are required.
ۿ ۿ
b) If “No” was selected in question 2(a), will the
project require residents/tenants/occupants to
participate in a group-buy solar and storage
program or opt in to Silicon Valley Clean Energy’s
carbon-free electricity option?
ۿ ۿ
c) Will the project include a parking structure?
If “No” was selected in question 2(c), no further
answers are required.
ۿ ۿ
d) If “Yes” was selected in question 2(c), will the
project install solar photovoltaics on the parking
structure if the structure is above ground?
ۿ ۿ
e) Will the project include heated swimming pools?
If “No” was selected in question 2(e), no further
answers are required.
ۿ ۿ
f) If “Yes” was selected in question 2(e), will the pool heaters be solar powered? ۿ ۿ
g) If the requirements above in questions 2(b), (d),
and/or (f) cannot be met, do one of the following
exceptions apply?
Practical challenges to make satisfaction of the
requirements infeasible.
Alternate on-site renewable source used to
satisfy measure.
Procurement of renewable electricity.
Ground mounted solar installations as
voluntary alternative.
Excludes value of aesthetic exterior alterations
from permit valuation.
ۿ
ۿ
ۿ
ۿ
ۿ
ۿ
ۿ
ۿ
ۿ
ۿ
ۿ
ۿ
x
x
The project will be PV ready in compliance
with Title 24.
x

Page 1233 of 1482 ends

8 455 E. Calaveras Blvd | Milpitas, CA 95035 | 408-586-3279 | [email protected] CAP Measures Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide an explanation and supporting documentation for your answer)
Yes No
Please substantiate answer selections for question 2:
____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________

3. Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Planning
(CAP Measure TR-1.1)
a) Will the project achieve a 15 percent reduction in
per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT) compared
to the baseline conditions as defined in the City’s
SB 743 guidelines?
ۿ ۿ
Please substantiate answer selections for question 3:
____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________

4. Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (CAP Measure TR-2.1) a) Will the project install electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure consistent with Chapter 19 of the
City’s Municipal Code (Green Buildings Standard
Code)?
ۿ ۿ
The Traffic Consultant is currently working with the
City on the scope of the traffic impact analysis and
alignment with CEQA timeline and process.
x
All townhomes are all electrical. No parking structure has been proposed on site. The project will be PV ready in compliance with Title 24.

The Traffic Consultant is currently working with the City on the scope of the traffic impact analysis and alignment with CEQA timeline and process.

Page 1234 of 1482 ends

9 455 E. Calaveras Blvd | Milpitas, CA 95035 | 408-586-3279 | [email protected] CAP Measures Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide an explanation and supporting documentation for your answer)
Yes No
Please substantiate answer selections for question 4:
____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________

5. Reduce Vehicle Idling (CAP Measure TR-2.3)
a) Will the project include loading docks? If “No” was
selected in question 5(a), no further answers are
required.
ۿ ۿ
b) If “Yes” was selected in question 5(a), will there be sufficient electrical power sufficient to support delivery trucks and associated equipment to reduce vehicle
idling when making deliveries?
ۿ ۿ
Please substantiate answer selections for question 5:
____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________

6. Active Transportation Options (CAP Measure TR-3.3)
a) Does the project include land uses other than
single-family residential? If “No” was selected in
question 6(a), no further answers are required.
ۿ ۿ
b) If “Yes” was selected in question 6(a), will shortterm and long-term bicycle parking facilities be provided that comply with the City’s standards for
bicycle parking facilities?
ۿ ۿ
c) If the project included nonresidential development,
will the project provide “end-of-trip” facilities for
ۿ ۿ
x
x
x
N/A
No loading dock provided on site.

All resident parking will meet City Reach Code mandates, providing approximately 26% Level 2 EVCS within the tuck-under garage in townhome units and 74% Level 2 EV Ready in both garage and outdoor spaces. Please refer to parking summary in submittal set.

The project does not include
non-residential development.

Page 1235 of 1482 ends

10 455 E. Calaveras Blvd | Milpitas, CA 95035 | 408-586-3279 | [email protected] CAP Measures Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide an explanation and supporting documentation for your answer)
Yes No
bicyclists, including showers, secure bicycle lockers,
and changing spaces?
d) Will the project have e-bike and e-scooter
infrastructure and options? ۿ ۿ
Please substantiate answer selections for question 6:
____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________

7. Waste Reduction (CAP Measure SW-1.1)
Will the project meet the requirements of SB 1383?
ۿ ۿ
Please substantiate answer selections for question 7:
____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________

8. Construction Demolition (CAP Measure SW-1.4)
a) Will the project reach a 75 percent diversion rate for construction and demolition waste?
ۿ ۿ
Please substantiate answer selections for question 8:
____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________

x
x
The project does not include non-residential development.

The project does not include single-family development.

The project's trash will be collected in three streams (waste, mixed recycling, and compost). Compost will be collected via a 2CY loose container located in the trash enclosure.

Long-term bike parking will be provided in private garage. Short-term bike parking will be provided outdoor on site. Long-term bike parking meets the MGSP bike parking requirement. Short-term bike parking meets zoning bike parking requirement, as MGSP does not specify short-term bike parking requirement.
x

Page 1236 of 1482 ends

11 455 E. Calaveras Blvd | Milpitas, CA 95035 | 408-586-3279 | [email protected]

9. Landscape Equipment (CAP Measure OT-1.1)
a) Will the project install sufficient exterior electrical outlets to charge electric-powered landscaping
equipment?
ۿ ۿ
Please substantiate answer selections for question 9:
____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________

10. Water Conservation (CAP Measure WA-1.1)
a) Will the project install ultra-low-flow water fixtures? ۿ ۿ
Please substantiate answer selections for question 10:
____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________

11. Landscaping (CAP Measure WA-1.2)
a) Will the project use drought-tolerant, waterconserving, and/or native landscaping? ۿ ۿ
Please substantiate answer selections for question 11:
____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________

12. Recycled Water (CAP Measure WA-1.3)
a) If the project is located along the city’s recycled water system (i.e., within the Transit Area Specific Plan
planning area), will the project use recycled water for landscape irrigation?
ۿ ۿ
x
The landscape plan is proposing to use more than 75% low water use planting as shown on the Hydrozone Plan. The majority of understory planting will be native plants. x
x
x
Design to be developed in a later phase.

Design to be developed in a later phase.

Page 1237 of 1482 ends

12 455 E. Calaveras Blvd | Milpitas, CA 95035 | 408-586-3279 | [email protected] b) Will the project include a separate piping system for recycled water (i.e., “purple pipes”) for irrigation and outdoor water use?
ۿۿ
Please substantiate answer selections for question 12:
____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________

13. Heat Island Effect (CAP Measure CS-1.2)
a) Will the project install cool pavements? ۿۿ
b) Will the project plant low-maintenance and
drought-tolerant landscaping? ۿۿ
c) Will the project plant shade trees? ۿۿ
d) Will the project include surface parking lot(s)? If
“No” was selected in question 13(d), no further
answers are required.
ۿۿ
e) If “Yes” was selected in question 13(d), will the
project reduce heat gain from surface parking
lot(s) by a minimum of 50% of the project site’s
hardscape?
ۿۿ
Please substantiate answer selections for question 13:
____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________

14. Energy and Telecommunications Infrastructure (CAP
Adaptation Measure 2.5)
a) Will the project include new power and
telecommunications lines and/or transformers? If
“No” was selected in question 14(a), no further
answers are required.
ۿۿ
x
x
x
x
The majority of pedestrian paving will be cool pavement with SRI values exceeding 29. The project also plans to use permeable paving including decomposed granite and wood decking. The vehicular areas will include stamped asphalt with SRI values of 29 or greater as well.

The project proposes to use low-water use/drought tolerant planting as shown in the Hydrozone Plan and planting diagrams. Shade trees are shown along the internal streets and in the open spaces. x
x
__________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ RECYCLED WATER NOT AVAILABLE AT THE SITE. ONSITE PIPE SHALL BE INSTALLED FOR POTENTIAL CONVERSION AT A LATER DATE.

Page 1238 of 1482 ends

13 455 E. Calaveras Blvd | Milpitas, CA 95035 | 408-586-3279 | [email protected] b) If “Yes” was selected in question 14(a), will the
project underground power and
telecommunications lines and/or transformers?
ۿۿ
Please substantiate answer selections for question 14:
____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________

15. Flooding Impacts (CAP Adaptation Measure 3.2)
a) Is the project located near San Francisco Bay or at
flooding risk from local waterways which discharge
to San Francisco Bay?
ۿۿ
Please substantiate answer selections for question 15:
____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ x
x
ALL NEW DRY UTILITYIES WILL BE PLACED UNDERGROUND FOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT. TRANSFORMERS WILL BE INSTALLED AT GRADE ABOVE THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE). q
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ PROJECT IS WITHIN FEMA FLOOD JURISDICTION; HOWEVER, NEW RESIDENCE VERTICAL ELEVATIONS ARE BEING PLACED TO 1' ABOVE MINIMUM STANDARDS AS MITIGATION MEASURE. PLEASE REFER TO SUBMITTED "100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN ANALYSIS" AND "GRADING PLAN" (SHEET TM-5.1).

Page 1239 of 1482 ends

Appendix C
Floodplain Analysis

Page 1240 of 1482 ends

10236 Donner Pass Road, Suite A
Truckee, CA 96161
(408) 246-4848

MEMORANDUM
June 26, 2025
To: Paul Boumann, Kier & Wright
From: Cindy Steele, PE
Subject: 600 Valley Way, 100-Year Floodplain Analysis
Job #: K&WI.281.25
Introduction
Kier & Wright contracted Schaaf & Wheeler to analyze the 100-year Floodplain for the proposed Townhomes at 600 Valley Way in Milpitas, California. The Site is bound by Coyote Creek and Nimitz Freeway (880) to the west, residential housing and Lower Penitencia Creek to the east, and the Nimitz Freeway (880) and W Calavera Blvd interchange to the south (Figure 1).

Currently, the Site is developed with five existing commercial structures which will be demolished as part of this project with intent to build 24 residential buildings. The Valley Way Townhomes project proposes to develop the approximately 7.1-acre Site into a maximum of 134 residential condominiums (Figure 2). Portions of the Site are within FEMA special flood hazard area AE on FIRM panel 06085C0066J and this analysis is meant to establish required finished floor elevations (FFE) and determine impacts of fill in the floodplain. This memorandum presents results on the NAVD88 vertical datum.

Figure 1. Vicinity Map

Page 1241 of 1482 ends

To: Paul Boumann, Kier & Wright
2 June 26, 2025
Figure 2. Proposed Site Plan
FEMA Base Flood Elevations
According to Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM panel 06085C0066J), the Site is located in a FEMA special flood hazard area AE indicating a 100-year base flood elevation (BFE) of between 18 and 19 feet across the site. A Firmette panel with the site boundary is shown in Figure 3.

Page 1242 of 1482 ends

To: Paul Boumann, Kier & Wright
3 June 26, 2025
Figure 3. FEMA Firmette Panel
The City of Milpitas floodplain ordinance section XI-15-5.1(c)(1) requires that residential finish floor elevations be 1 foot above the BFE within an AE Zone. All residential structures must be elevated such that the finish floor meets or exceeds this value. Non-residential structures may remain in the floodplain and be floodproofed to an elevation at least one foot above the BFE per ordinance section XI-15-5.1(c)(2). Floodproofed structures must meet the requirements of the FEMA technical bulletins to be “Reasonably Safe from Flooding” and complete a flood proofing certificate, signed and stamped by a registered engineer. The floodproofing certificate would be kept on file with the City, owner, and insurance company.

Best Available Data
In 2019, Schaaf & Wheeler was contracted by Santa Clara Valley Water District to perform a complete remapping of the floodplain as part of a cooperating technical partnership (CTP) with FEMA. As part of that work, new hydrology was developed and coupled with the existing storm drain system and creeks using Infoworks ICM modeling software. This modeling and associated remapping of the floodplain was submitted to FEMA in 2019 and represents the best available floodplain data. It is used herein to estimate the impacts of placing fill for the Valley Way project.

Page 1243 of 1482 ends

To: Paul Boumann, Kier & Wright
4 June 26, 2025
During a 100-year storm event, water approaches the site from the east and, at peak, is unable to drain into Lower Penitencia Creek, but does not reach the project site boundary. Flood depths of 1 foot or greater remain near Whittier Street, while the flooding that approaches the site is less than 1 foot in depth. The maximum water surface elevation that the floodwaters reach is

16.5 feet, while the lowest grade on the site is 17.8 feet. Any flooding that occurs remains to the north along Heath Street and to the east along S. Abbott Avenue. Figure 4 shows the extent of the 100-year flood from the ICM model in relation to the project site.

Figure 4. ICM 100-year Flood Extent
Impacts Analysis
The ICM modeling demonstrates that flood waters do not reach the proposed development during the 100-year event. Therefore, placing fill on the project site will not cause any adverse impact to the 100-year flooding extents or depths.

Conclusion
As shown and described above, the project does not impact the floodplain based on the best available data from the CTP ICM model. The FEMA effective BFE is 18-19 feet while the best available data results in a BFE of 16.5 feet adjacent to but not reaching the project site, during a 100-year flood event. Due to an ongoing lawsuit, FEMA has suspended the processing of CLOMR-F and LOMR-F applications that would typically be used to remove the site from the floodplain. Since the CTP ICM modeling has not yet been incorporated by FEMA as the effective map of record, the project is required to required finish floor elevations based on the FEMA effective BFEs as listed in the table below in order to adhere to the municipal code requirements. If the ongoing CLOMR-F and LOMR-F suspension is eventually lifted, the site could potentially be removed from the floodplain by applying for a LOMR-F after construction.

Page 1244 of 1482 ends

To: Paul Boumann, Kier & Wright
5 June 26, 2025
Table 1. Effective BFE and Desing FFE
Building Number FEMA Effective BFE (ft) Required FFE (ft) 1 18.0 19.0
2 18.0 19.6
3 18.0 19.4
6 18.0 20.4
8 18.5 19.5
9 18.5 21.3
18 18.8 19.8
20 18.8 20.9
23 19.0 20.1
24 19.2 20.2

Page 1245 of 1482 ends

Appendix D
Sewer and Water Flow Analysis

Page 1246 of 1482 ends

Technical Memo
Date: June 25, 2025
Project No. A18141-001
From: Paul Boumann, PE (Kier+Wright)
Subject: 600 Valley Way Development Utility Impact Analysis EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

This memo provides a preliminary estimate of the anticipated sewer and water flow, including hydrology/hydraulic analysis for the storm drain system for the 600 Valley Way Development project (Project). This report analyzes the sewer, water and storm drain flow rates for both existing and proposed conditions. To calculate existing and anticipated sanitary sewer demand, we have referred to the “City of Milpitas Water and Sewer Master Plan Update”, dated December 17, 2009, for water and sewer calculations.

Storm drain hydrology we used the Rational Method to calculate a 10-year storm flow rate.

The On-Site existing and proposed project site totals 7.22+/- acres and is located within a fully urbanized area in the City of Milpitas (City) and is currently developed with 87,000+/- SF of commercial buildings, including parking lots and a looped street system. The proposed development shall have 24 townhome buildings consisting of 134 dwelling units. This development shall have a looped road and three individual drive aisles, including bioretention basins for storm water management.

The analysis determined that the existing wet weather peak flows for the on-site sewer system is 27,128 GPD and the proposed wet weather peak flows for the proposed sewer system is 56, 924 GPD, The net increase in sewer flow would be 29,796 GPD, which is equal to 0.05 CFS. This is considered a minor increase when considering the hydraulic flow within an 8-inch sewer pipe. See attached calculation spread sheet.

The analysis determined that the existing peak water demand is 62,948 GPD and the proposed peak water demand is 62,377 GPD. Therefore, the proposed development peak water demand is less than the existing peak water demand. See attached calculation spread sheet.

The analysis determined that the existing 10-year storm water peak flow rate is 9.12 cubic feet per second (cfs) and the peak flow rate for the proposed development would be 6.2 cfs. Therefore, the proposed peak flow rate is less than the existing conditions peak flow rate. See attached calculations.

CA LI FOR IA N
N
E
E
R
C I V
ENG
AL
SI I
I
O
ATE
ST
TSI G
DERE
F
S
E
R
OFE
PR ON
L
N
A
UM
L BO
AP
U
N.

C53962

Page 1247 of 1482 ends

3350 Scott Boulevard, Building 22,
Santa Clara, CA 95054
925.245.8788
www.kierwright.com

CONCLUSION
Peak Wet Weather Sewer Flow (PWWSF) increased from 27,130+/- GPD (0.042+/- CFS) to 56,924+/- GPD (0.088+/- CFS). Even though there is a slight increase in the sewer flow for the proposed development, the existing 8-inch sanitary sewer pipe within Valley Way cul-de-sac has adequate capacity to accept this additional flow with more capacity to spare. All sewer flow from the current office building development discharges to the sanitary sewer manhole within Valley Way cul-de-sac. The existing 8-inch sewer pipe that exits that manhole has a slope of 0.15% (0.0015). Based on that information the capacity of the existing 8-inch sewer pipe is 0.28 CFS, flowing half full, and is greater than the PWWSF for the new 134 dwelling unit development that discharges 0.088+/- CFS. This increased discharge is only 31% of the pipe capacity. Therefore, the new development does not have a negative impact on the existing sanitary sewer infrastructure. See attached Manning Formula Uniform Pipe flow calculations.

Based on the water demand analysis, the proposed development shows no increase in peak water demand and therefore there should not be any impact on the existing water infrastructure.

Based on the hydrology/hydraulic calculations attached the proposed development shows no increase in storm water runoff flow and therefore should not impact the existing storm drain infrastructure within Valley Way cul-de-sac.

Page 1248 of 1482 ends

Kier + Wright | Page 3

SANITARY SEWER CALCULATIONS

Page 1249 of 1482 ends

600 VALLEY WAY
A18141-1
Description Net Acre GPD/Net Acre1
Average Daily Flow
(QADF)
Peaking Factor1
(PF)
(QADF) x (PF)
GPD Comments
Existing Commercial (Town Center) 7.225 1,700 12,283 1.45 17,810 Description Net Acre GPD/Net Acre1
Rainfall Inflow and Infiltration Flow (I/I)
GPD
Rainfall Inflow and Infiltration 7.225 970 7,008
Description Net Acre GPD/Net Acre1 Groundwater Infiltration Flow (GWI) GPD Groundwater Infiltration 7.225 320 2,312
27,130 [Existing (QADF) x (PF)] + (I/I) + (GWI)
EXISTING SEWER FLOWS - 600 VALLEY WAY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT EXISTING PEAK FLOW (GPD) =
GWI- Groundwater Infiltration1 per City of Milpitas 2009 Sewer Master Plan (net acre is defined as area excluding major private streets, freeways and railroads) QADF- Average Daily FlowI/I- Rainfall Inflow and InfiltrationPF- Peak Factor = 1.45GPD- Gallons per Day Z:\2018\A18141-1\DOCS\ENTITLEMENT\CALCS\SEWER & WATER DEMAND\A18141-1 600 VALLEY SS EXISTING.xlsx 6/16/2025

CITY OF MILPITAS DESIGN CAPACITY & AVERAGE DAILY FLOW GENERATIONS

Page 1250 of 1482 ends

600 VALLEY WAY
A18141-1
Description Total Units GPD/DU1
Average Daily Flow
(QADF)
Peaking Factor1
(PF)
(QADF) x (PF)
GPD Comments
Multiple Family Residential Units 134 245 32,830 1.45 47,604 Description Net Acre GPD/Net Acre1 Rainfall Inflow and Infiltration Flow (I/I) GPD Rainfall Inflow and Infiltration 7.225 970 7,008
Description Net Acre GPD/Net Acre1
Groundwater Infiltration Flow (GWI)
GPD
Groundwater Infiltration 7.225 320 2,312
PROPOSED PEAK DESIGN FLOW (GPD) = 56,924 [Existing (QADF) x (PF)] + (I/I) + (GWI) GPD- Gallons per DayDU- Dwelling Unit
PROPOSED DESIGN SEWER FLOWS - 600 VALLEY WAY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT GWI- Groundwater Infiltration1 per City of Milpitas 2009 Sewer Master Plan (net acre is defined as area excluding major private streets, freeways and railroads) QADF- Average Daily FlowI/I- Rainfall Inflow and InfiltrationPF- Peak Factor = 1.45 CITY OF MILPITAS DESIGN CAPACITY & AVERAGE DAILY FLOW GENERATIONS Z:\2018\A18141-1\DOCS\ENTITLEMENT\CALCS\SEWER & WATER DEMAND\A18141-1 600 VALLEY SS EXISTING.xlsx 6/16/2025

Page 1251 of 1482 ends

MANNINGS FORMULA UNIFORM

PIPE FLOW CALCULATIONS
FOR
EXISTING 8-INCH SEWER PIPE Page 1252 of 1482

!"##$#%&'()%*#+,,-&# ./00

234

5
/.//06 789:7; <

2= .6 >7?@AB
<

2 CDEEEE >A

CDFGHI >AJK
C CDEHLF <

=C ICDCCCC M
N
FDCHGO >A P2

< ODCCCC
RDCCCC S
Q2
FDIRHH >A:89@ S
Q2
CDCFTL U8 V'()W+&#)XY+'-&V CDII Z

1Q
Q5

CDCFIT U8> [\]^_`a1
5 CDOGTI @>8

bC CDIIEF <

b=bC CDICCC >7?@AB
c
d efgh`gh`ifj`k\]^`lmn`njoif`gmhgnj`lm`pqrpqpstuvwuxqy`ogojz

24

Q
2DZ

FDI

Q2 ,++&X{&|}X$#)~+&~)~('$"
Q

Q
Q

PRD
C
C
C

Page 1253 of 1482 ends

Kier + Wright | Page 4

WATER DEMAND CALCULATIONS

Page 1254 of 1482 ends

600 VALLEY WAY
A18141-1
Description Net Acre1 GPD/Net Acre2 GPD Peaking Factor2 Average Daily Flow
GPD Comments
Existing Commercial (Town Center) 3.85 10,900 41,965 1.50 62,948 62,948 [Existing (GPD) x (PF))
GPD- Gallons per Day (net acre is defined as area excluding major private streets, freeways and railroads)PF- Peaking Factor1 Net acres is total acres minus street and parking areas (7.225-3.27)2 per City of Milpitas Water (Potable) Water Design Specifications EXISTING 600 VALLEY WAY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT - WATER DEMAND EXISTING PEAK FLOW (GPD) =
Z:\2018\A18141-1\DOCS\ENTITLEMENT\CALCS\SEWER & WATER DEMAND\A18141-1 600 VALLEY WTR EXISTING.xlsx 6/13/2025

CITY OF MILPITAS AVERAGE DAILY FLOW GENERATIONS

Page 1255 of 1482 ends

600 VALLEY WAY
A18141-1
Description Total Units GPD/DU1 GPD Peaking Factor1
PeaK Flow Rate
GPD Comments
Residential (Town Center) 134 245 32,830 1.90 62,377
62,377 [(GPD) x (PF))
PROPOSED 600 VALLEY WAY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT - WATER DEMAND 1 per City of Milpitas Water (Potable) Water Design Specifications DU- Dwelling Unit
PROPOSED PEAK DESIGN FLOW (GPD) =
PF- Peaking FactorGPD- Gallons per Day (net acre is defined as area excluding major private streets, freeways and railroads) Z:\2018\A18141-1\DOCS\ENTITLEMENT\CALCS\SEWER & WATER DEMAND\A18141-1 600 VALLEY WTR PROPOSED.xlsx 6/13/2025

CITY OF MILPITAS AVERAGE DAILY FLOW GENERATIONS

Page 1256 of 1482 ends

Kier + Wright | Page 5

HYDROLOGY/HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS

Page 1257 of 1482 ends

Page 1258 of 1482 ends

Page 1259 of 1482 ends

Page 1260 of 1482 ends

Page 1261 of 1482 ends

Page 1262 of 1482 ends

Page 1263 of 1482 ends

AGENDA ITEM: IX-1

MILPITAS PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
May 27, 2026
APPLICATION: SOBRATO RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOMES – 600 VALLEY WAY – P-SD24-0005, P-MT24-0002, P-DB24-0001, P-EA24-
0003. A Site Development Permit, Vesting Tentative Map, Density Bonus Permit, and Environmental Assessment to develop a multifamily residential Project with 134-unit condominium townhomes and a 2,182-square-foot one-story clubhouse. The application was submitted under California Senate Bill 330 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019) and will consist of 24 three-story, multi-family residential buildings approximately 38-feet in height (up to a maximum height of 45-feet to the top of the highest architectural element) with 268 resident vehicle parking stalls, 60 outdoor surface level guest parking stalls, landscaping, and associated site improvements on a

7.22-acre site located within the Gateway-Mixed Use (GW-MU) Zoning District in the Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan area at 600 Valley Way.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open and close the public hearing, consider the Project’s CEQA exemption pursuant to conformity with the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SCH No.
2024070432) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15182, and adopt Resolution No. 26-009,
recommending that the City Council approve Site Development Permit No. SD24-0005, Vesting Tentative Map No. MT24-0002, Density Bonus Permit No. DB24-0001, and Environmental
Assessment No. EA24-0003, subject to the findings and
Conditions of Approval.

PROJECT LOCATION:

Addresses and Assessor's
Parcel Numbers (APNs): 600 Valley Way (222-80-022, -024, -025) Area of City: Gateway District of Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan, south of Heath Street, west of Valley Way, east of Interstate 880 PEOPLE:

Project Applicant: Caroline Layden, Senior Development Manager The Sobrato Organization, Mountain View, CA
Consultant(s): Architect: Studio T-SQ, Inc., Oakland, CA Civil Engineer: Kier + Wright, Santa Clara, CA
Landscape Architect: The Guzzardo Partnership Inc., San Francisco, CA

Page 1264 of 1482 ends

Page 2 of 31 ends

Property Owner: The Sobrato Organization, Mountain View, CA Project Planner: Kristina Phung, AICP, Senior Planner
LAND USE:

General Plan Designation: Milpitas Gateway-Main St. Specific Plan (MGSP) Specific Plan Designation: Milpitas Gateway Main St. Specific Plan (MGSP) Zoning District: Gateway Mixed Use (GW-MU)
ENVIRONMENTAL: As a Lead Agency, the City has determined the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182. CEQA Guidelines Section 15182 states that projects in conformity with a specific plan that has a certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are exempt from CEQA, provided the project results in none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. The City prepared an Environmental Checklist for the Project to evaluate its consistency with the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No.
2024070432), which demonstrates the Project would result in none of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Milpitas (City) received an application from The Sobrato Organization “Sobrato” (Applicant), requesting a Site Development Permit, Vesting Tentative Map, Density Bonus Permit, and Environmental Assessment to allow the development of a 134-unit townhome condominium subdivision, comprised of 24 multi-family buildings up to 38-feet in height (three stories) (up to a maximum height of 45-feet to the top of the highest architectural element) with a one-story, 2,182- square foot clubhouse, 268 vehicle parking spaces, 60 outdoor surface level guest parking stalls, landscaping, and associated site improvements on a 7.22-acre site located at 600 Valley Way (APNs 222-80-022, -024, -025) in the Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (MGSP) area (the “Project”). The application was submitted in accordance with California Senate Bill 330 (SB 330), also known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019.

The proposed townhomes include three- or four-bedroom units with attached two-car garages. 20 of the 134 units will be reserved for moderate-income households in conformance with the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance. The Project qualifies for concessions, waivers, and parking reductions under the State Density Bonus Law.

The proposed Project requires approval of three entitlements, as follows:

1. Site Development Permit No. SD24-0005: To allow the development of 24 multi-family buildings, up to three stories in height, with up to 134 residential units and a clubhouse amenity building on the 7.22-acre site; and

2. Vesting Tentative Map No. MT24-0002: To combine three lots into one lot, establish 134 residential condominium spaces, related common areas, and associated easements; and

Page 1265 of 1482 ends

Page 3 of 31 ends

3. Density Bonus Permit No. DB24-0001: To ensure compliance with State Density Bonus law and regulations.

Although not an entitlement, Environmental Assessment No. EA24-0003 was prepared with a Project-specific Environmental Checklist to establish CEQA compliance to consider the Project’s CEQA exemption pursuant to its conformance with the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2024070432) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15182.

BACKGROUND
The Project site includes three adjacent parcels owned by Sobrato, collectively known as “600 Valley Way”: 602 Valley Way (APN 222-80-025), 538 Valley Way (APN 222-80-024), and 461 Valley Way (APN 222-80-022). The parcels currently have five (5) one- to two-story office/industrial buildings, totaling approximately 109,775-square feet.

During the community outreach and engagement efforts with stakeholders for the MGSP, Sobrato expressed interest in redeveloping the Project site with residential uses. In anticipation of the redevelopment of the site, Sobrato conducted extensive voluntary outreach over the years to all existing nonprofit tenants to assist in relocation, including meetings, surveys, grants ranging from $20,000-50,000, options to move into another Sobrato non-profit center in various other nearby South Bay locations. All tenants were vacated by the end of 2025 in anticipation of construction of the proposed Project with demolition potentially occurring in the latter half of 2026.

Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (MGSP)
In 2021, the City initiated an update to the Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan, originally adopted by City Council in 2002 and updated in 2010 to maximize land use, transportation, and economic opportunities along the City’s historic Main Street and to energize and catalyze mixed-use, transitoriented development in the Midtown area, also known as the “heart” of Milpitas. The update included renaming the Midtown Specific Plan to “Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan” (MGSP). The MGSP area includes Calaveras Boulevard and Main Street, covering approximately 605 acres bordered by I-880 to the west, the Union Pacific Railroad tracks to the east, and Great Mall Parkway to the south.

The MGSP established new zoning districts to achieve the plan’s vision, strategies, and policies by providing clear but flexible development standards to facilitate redevelopment. The update also included a change to the MGSP area boundaries to annex several areas that would benefit from inclusion into the MGSP. On October 28, 2025, the City Council adopted the MGSP and certified the associated Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, including Specific Plan Amendment No.

SP20-0002, Zoning Text and Map Amendment No. ZA25-0002 (with Ordinance No. 38.859 first introduced on this date and adopted at a second reading by the City Council on November 18, 2025), and General Plan Amendment No. GP25-0002, thereby annexing the Project site into the northwest portion of the MGSP boundary area and amending the site’s former zoning and general plan land use designation of General Commercial to Gateway Mixed-Use and MGSP, respectively.

Page 1266 of 1482 ends

Page 4 of 31 ends

California Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) (Housing Crisis Act of 2019) On January 7, 2026, Sobrato submitted a preliminary application pursuant to California SB 330 for a 134-unit townhome subdivision at the Project site after the MGSP was adopted1. On March 20, 2026, Sobrato submitted a formal application within the required SB 330 submittal timelines for the same townhome housing development.

SB 330 is a statewide bill intended to reduce the time to approve housing developments in California. It became effective on January 1, 2020, and Senate Bill 8 (SB 8) recently extended SB 330 through January 1, 2030. Under SB 330, eligible projects receive enhanced streamlining and vesting opportunities by filing a preliminary application, limits the City’s ability to apply design standards that are not objective, and prohibits reliance on subjective standards to deny a housing development project that otherwise complies with applicable objective standards that were in effect at the time of the preliminary application submittal. Some benefits include:
• Generally freezes the ability of local governments to downzone, adopt new development standards, or change land use in residential and mixed-use areas if the change results in lessintensive uses. • Expedites the permitting process for all housing development and limits the list of application materials that cities can review.
• Generally freezes adopted certain fiscal year rates for fees applicable to the proposal in effect at the time of the preliminary application review period, including development impact fees (DIFs) in effect at the time of the preliminary application review period, with some exceptions as detailed in SB 330. The proposed Project will generally be subject to Fiscal Year (FY) 24-25 fee rates, as the City’s FY 25-26 fees were not in effect until mid-February 2026.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Overview
The Project consists of the development of 134 new townhome condominium units in 24 buildings with a one-story, 2,182-square foot clubhouse with associated landscaping and site improvements, including private alleyways and outdoor amenity spaces. The site currently has five existing commercial/office buildings and surface parking lots that were constructed in the 1970s. If the Project’s entitlement requests receive final approval by the City Council after receiving a recommendation from the Planning Commission, the Applicant will be required to obtain a Demolition Permit to allow for demolition of all existing structures, and a building permit to allow for construction of the Project from the Office of Building Safety.

The Project includes a vesting tentative map for a major subdivision, combining three lots into one

7.22-acre irregular-shaped lot for the condominium units, private streets, related common areas, easements, and other shared site improvements to support the future residents. 1 The Applicant originally submitted for the proposed Project’s entitlements on November 18, 2024, which required the submittal of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zoning Amendment (ZA) at the time to begin early interdepartmental review of the Project. After the MGSP was formally adopted in late Fall 2025, the GPA and ZA request were deemed void. The Applicant shortly thereafter invoked SB 330 in early January 2026, starting new formal timelines for the requested Project entitlements.

Page 1267 of 1482 ends

Page 5 of 31 ends

The proposed townhomes consist of three (3) unit types, ranging from approximately 1,326 to 2,013-square feet of habitable space, each with a three-bed/three-bath or four-bed/four-bath configuration including an attached two-car private garage in tandem or zipper (side-by-side) parking for each unit. The Project provides a total of 328 vehicle parking spaces (268 spaces within a garage, 60 guest onsite surface parking spaces). In total, the proposed Project will provide approximately 307,102-gross square feet of new residential development.

All 24 residential buildings will be three stories, reaching 38-feet in height to the top of roof and a maximum height of 45-feet to the top of the tallest architectural element (used as a ladder roof access tower for maintenance only). The one-story clubhouse is located near the center of the site, serving as the community hub providing a space for gatherings and a management office.

New pedestrian walkways, paseos, alleyways, and streets would provide access within the Project site to the proposed townhomes and proposes other site and mobility improvements required in the MGSP to improve neighborhood connections between communities and reduce barriers. A centrally located open space spine will serve as the Project’s main connecting publicly accessible pedestrian paseo and would provide connectivity to the adjacent single-family residential neighborhood to the north and nearby commercial areas through the Project site as a future “greenway” connection as required in the MGSP for the site. Three pocket parks located along this central paseo would provide a variety of activities and lounging spaces connected through this central spine by other new pathways that extend to all the townhomes, clubhouse, and would include outdoor amenities such as picnic areas, recreation areas, shade structures, lounging areas with seating, and a bocce ball court. A dog run area will also be located in the northwest corner of the Project site.

The Project’s new landscaping improvements are proposed around the perimeter of the lot and within portions of the pedestrian pathways with new native and drought tolerant grasses, shrubs, perennials, and trees from the MGSP recommended list. All of the new pedestrian walkways and streets will be lined with trees and other such groundcover improvements. Additionally, new stormwater detention basins will be constructed on the site. The Project proposes to remove 1152 ordinance-sized trees and will be planted with a two-to-one required planting ratio by adding approximately 341 new trees to the site, in addition to retaining seven (7) existing ordinance-sized trees, bringing the new onsite tree total to approximately 348. The landscaping sheets of the Project Plans (Attachment D) show details of the proposed landscaping and open space plans.

Location and Context
The Project site is generally flat and is west of Valley Way at the end of a cul-de-sac and south of Heath Street. Interstate Highway 880 abuts the site to the west, an existing single-family residential neighborhood is located to the north, and a mix of retail and commercial uses are to the south and east as detailed in Table 1. Figure 1 shows the aerial location of the Project site and Figure 2 shows the zoning map.
2 Per the City’s Tree Removal Ordinance per MMC Sec. X-2-7.01 on developed commercial property, a protected tree is designated as one that has thirty-seven-inch (37"), or greater circumference of its trunk measured 4 1/2 feet from the ground. The Applicant applied for Tree Removal Permit No. TR24-0018 issued by the Public Works Department with replacement trees to be commensurate with the size of the tree being removed as determined by the Planning Director or his or her designee per MMC X-2-4.02.

Page 1268 of 1482 ends

Page 6 of 31 ends

Figure 1 – Project Site Aerial Location
Figure 2 – 600 Valley Way (Zoning Map)

Page 1269 of 1482 ends

Page 7 of 31 ends

Table 1: Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses
General Plan Zoning Existing Uses
Subject
Site
Milpitas GatewayMain St. Specific
Plan (MGSP)
Gateway Mixed-Use
(GW-MU)
Five (5) Multi-tenant
Office/Industrial Buildings
North Low Density
Residential (LDR)
Single-Family
Residential (R1-6)
Existing Single-Family
Residences
South
Milpitas GatewayMain St. Specific
Plan (MGSP)
Gateway Mixed-Use
(GW-MU)
Best Western Inn/Multitenant Commercial Plaza
East
Milpitas GatewayMain St. Specific
Plan (MGSP)
Gateway Mixed-Use
(GW-MU)
Gas Station/7-Eleven
Convenience Store
West Caltrans Caltrans Interstate Highway 880/
I-880

PROJECT ANALYSIS
This section will evaluate elements of the proposed Project for conformance with the Milpitas 2040 General Plan, MGSP, Zoning Ordinance (ZO), ODS, Milpitas Municipal Code (MMC), Senate Bill 330, and State Density Bonus Law.

Milpitas 2040 General Plan Conformance
The General Plan designation for the Project site is Milpitas Gateway-Main St. Specific Plan (MGSP). The proposed Project is in conformance with the applicable policies and standards in the City's General Plan, as outlined in Table 2:

Table 2: General Plan Consistency
Policy Conformance
Policy LU 1-4: Continue to provide for a
variety of housing types and densities that
meet the needs of individuals and families and
offer residents of all income levels, age
groups, and special needs sufficient housing
opportunities and choices for locating in
Milpitas.

Consistent. The Project will provide 134 new
three- to four-bedroom for sale townhome
condominiums in three (3) unit type floor
plans with modern design elements such as
including a minimum of three bathrooms and
private balconies in each unit. The Project will
also provide housing opportunities with those
with special needs by providing at least 10
percent of the total units (14 units) as
accessible (ADA) units. Additionally, 20 of
the residential units will be reserved for
moderate-income households in compliance
with the City’s AHO.

Policy LU 2-1: Utilize Specific Plans to guide
development within Milpitas’s special
Consistent. The MGSP establishes four new
zoning districts to align with the development

Page 1270 of 1482 ends

Page 8 of 31 ends

Policy Conformance
planning areas. Properties located within
Specific Plan areas shall conform to the
underlying Specific Plan’s land uses, zoning,
and development standards.
goals of the MGSP’s four focus areas and
incentivize redevelopment. The Project site is
within one of the identified focus areas in the
Gateway Mixed-Use (GW-MU) Zoning
District and was evaluated and designed in
conformance to the MGSP’s land uses, zoning,
and development standards including meeting
the majority of the site’s main standards shown
for MGSP Figure 3-6, Gateway District
Regulating Plan for the Project site area by
providing adequate freeway edge setback and
front setbacks of new structures, new
alleyways, a new greenway connecting Valley
Way to Health Street, and meeting the singlefamily residential transition requirements from the existing housing located immediately north
of the site. The Project requests minor
deviations to some subsections of these
standards using the State Density Bonus Law
but will still provide all of the main MGSP
Figure 3-6 standards.

Policy LU 5-1: Require new development and
redevelopment to be compatible,
complementary and, where appropriate, well
integrated with existing residential areas.

Integrate new largescale development projects
into the fabric of the existing community
rather than allowing projects to be insular and
self-contained, walled off, or physically
divided from surrounding uses. Improve
connectivity between neighborhoods and
services with new development. Tie circulation
systems and open spaces into existing streets
and open spaces. Reduce unnecessary barriers
and improve connections between
neighborhoods and services by retrofitting
existing development over time as area
improvements or redevelopment occurs.

Consistent. The Project, as proposed, is well
integrated with the existing residential,
commercial, and mixed-use developments.

The overall scale, bulk, and height of the
Project is compatible with the existing one to
two-story single-family residences to the north
by demonstrating compliance with MGSP
Objective Design Standard Section 4.1.3(A),
Transitions to Single-Family Residential
Neighborhoods, by meeting required daylight
plane provisions as demonstrated on Project
Plan Sheet A-300. Although the GW-MU
zoning district allows for buildings with a
maximum of up to 5-stories and 65-feet in
height, the Project is proposing all 24
residential buildings to be a maximum of
three-stories (up to a roof height of 38-feet to
45-feet to the top of an architectural element).

The Project’s compliance with the daylight
plane requirements will help ensure the
abutting residences to the north continue to
receive adequate sunlight and air, protects
against privacy concerns, and preserves views
by limiting the Project’s visible building mass.

Page 1271 of 1482 ends

Page 9 of 31 ends

Policy Conformance
Additionally, the Project was designed to meet
the MGSP Figure 3-6, Gateway District
Regulating Plan requirement for a new
greenway connection described as the “central
open spine” in the Project Description. This
new greenway will provide a new publicly
accessible pathway from Valley Way to Health
Street to integrate the new development with
existing neighborhoods and reduce existing
physical barriers between the commercial and
residential areas. The existing dead-end
portion of Heath Street is currently walled off
with a locked chain-link fence, and the
proposed Project will eliminate this insular
barrier by removing a segment of this fence,
which will lead to the greenway to reduce
unnecessary barriers and improve connectivity
between the surrounding communities.

Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) will be
maintained along the greenway path and
would be protected by removable bollards.

Furthermore, the proposed Project will also tie
circulation systems and open spaces into
existing streets and open spaces by providing
a new internal circulation system within the
development along with the greenway which
will lead to the three pocket parks and
clubhouse amenity building, and will include
on and offsite public improvements such as
rebuilding sidewalks and infilling a missing
sidewalk connection around the Valley Way
cul-de-sac and frontage by the vacant,
undeveloped lot (APN 222-80-026) located
southeast of the Project site on the north side
of Valley Way. All of the aforementioned
improvements will integrate the new
largescale development Project into the fabric
of the existing community, and helps achieve
goals within MGSP’s mobility and
transportation network by including complete
streets and eliminating existing barriers with
infrastructure that will be built up to modern
City code and design and code standards.

Page 1272 of 1482 ends

Page 10 of 31 ends

Policy Conformance
Policy LU 5-3: Ensure new development is
consistent with specific height limits
established within the City's Zoning
Ordinance as applied through the zoning
district for all properties within the City.

Consistent. The Project meets the height
standards by proposing one, single-story
clubhouse building and 24 residential
buildings that are three stories each, up to 38-
feet in height to the top of roof and up to a
maximum of 45-feet to the top of an
architectural element in the GW-MU zoning
district, which allows a maximum height of
65-feet and 5-stories.

Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (MGSP) Conformance The MGSP vision and strategies are organized into (4) focus areas or districts: (1) Crossroads (2) Main Street, (3) Gateway, and (4) Abbott. The MGSP is envisioned as a group of neighborhoods that together create a complete community and center for Milpitas. New Infill housing and mixeduse development will be paired with complete streets, new urban open spaces, and placemaking to distinguish the MGSP area as a walkable and bike-friendly urban community. The guiding principles are organized around four (4) themes: (1) vision and placemaking, (2) land use and development, (3) transportation and access, and (4) open space and community amenities.

The Project site is within the Gateway District, one of the MGSP’s four focus areas and the proposed Project supports the purpose and intent of this district. Table 3 below outlines the Project’s consistency with applicable MGSP Policies:

Table 3: Milpitas Gateway Main-Street Specific Plan (MGSP) Consistency Policy Conformance
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Guiding
Principle:

Integrate a mix of housing types, scales, and
affordability, including mixed-use, housing
for families, smaller unit homes, live-work,
senior housing, and affordable housing.

Consistent. The Project site was identified as
a Rezone Site in the City’s 2023-2031 Housing
Element Update and will provide 134, threestory condominium townhomes and a onestory clubhouse with other open space amenities for all ages to enjoy including
pocket parks and a bocce ball court. 20 of the
134 townhomes will be reserved for moderateincome affordable units to comply with the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance and
distributed amongst unit types and buildings.

The proposed Project will be scaled
appropriately from existing single-family
residences to the north and other existing
development through compliance with MGSP
Section 4.1.3.A, Transitions to Single-Family
Residential Neighborhoods.

MGSP Section 2.5 - Gateway District Vision:

A vital west gateway entry into the City, the
Gateway District will be a highly visible
Consistent. The proposed Project meets the
Gateway District Vision by fully redeveloping
a site and demolishing five aging,

Page 1273 of 1482 ends

Page 11 of 31 ends

Policy Conformance
community commercial node along Calaveras
Boulevard, with opportunities for freewayoriented retail and services, neighborhood shopping, and hotel and convention space.

This district transitions to more neighborhoodoriented retail and services along Abbott Avenue north of the Calaveras Boulevard
frontage. Higher-intensity development,
oriented along Calaveras Boulevard, will
attract and support the needs of travelers along
the corridor, while offering a neighborhoodscale residential and mixed-use north of Calaveras Boulevard.

Complete streets improvements planned for
Calaveras Boulevard will balance the scale of
this busy corridor with a more comfortable
bike and pedestrian experience, branding, and
complete street improvements.
underutilized multi-tenant office buildings
constructed over 50 years ago with a modern,
Spanish architectural themed concept that
offers a neighborhood-scale residential
development with its maximum building
heights around the mid-point of the 65-ft. and
five stories height limit of the GW-MU Zoning
District, and also includes several
improvements to the multimodal network.

Some improvements include the on- and offsite public improvements such as constructing new sidewalks and reconstructing existing
City sidewalks, including infilling sidewalk
gaps along the Valley Way cul-de-sac,
roadway resurfacing, and constructing a new
internal circulation network with new native
landscaping and tree lined pedestrian
pathways built to modern code requirements.

The proposed Project will meet MGSP Figure
3-6 by providing a new greenway pathway
connecting Valley Way to Health Street, new
alleyways around the Project site, and meeting
its single-family residential transition and
freeway edge setback requirements.

Furthermore, the Project will introduce more
residents to the immediate area who may
utilize and support local business operations at
nearby retail stores and commercial shopping
centers.

Zoning Conformance
The Project site is located in the Gateway Mixed-Use (GW-MU) Zoning District within the MGSP.

Per the Zoning Ordinance, the GW-MU Zoning District supports a freeway and commercial corridor service orientation along Calaveras Boulevard and I-880, transitioning to a neighborhood-oriented residential focus to the north, and a commercial/mixed-use focus adjacent to Crossroads Mixed-Use. Development shall comply with the standards of MGSP Section 3.7.3, Gateway District, including MGSP Figure 3-6, Gateway District Regulating Plan.

Table 4 describes the proposed Project’s conformance or consistency with the development standards in the Zoning Ordinance for the MGSP GW-MU Zoning District. MGSP Chapter 4 includes specific objective design standards tailored to the plan area (MGSP ODS) to provide criteria for site planning, urban form, building design, and pedestrian-level design. Pursuant to MMC Section XIII.D.10.020(C), “The regulations provided by an adopted Specific Plan shall replace those of the current or underlying zone or zones, and the development standards and/or design standards or guidelines identified in the Specific Plan shall take precedence over the general standards included in this Title and any adopted design standards or guidelines.” In addition to the

Page 1274 of 1482 ends

Page 12 of 31 ends

MGSP ODS requirements, the proposed Project must also demonstrate compliance with the City’s 2022 Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards “City ODS”, detailed in the next section.

Where the Project is not in compliance with any of the aforementioned standards, the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) requires the City to grant appropriate concessions, waivers, and parking reductions for qualifying projects, as further described in Table 5.

Table 4: Summary of MGSP GW-MU Zoning District Development Standards Development
Standard
(GW-MU)
Required Proposed Conformance
Density 18-65 du/ac 19 du/ac; 134 units total Yes
Floor Area Ratio 2.0 (Max.) 0.98 FAR Yes
Front Yard
Setback (Min. –
Max.) Valley
Way
5 ft. (min.) -
12 ft. (max.)
Four Proposed Buildings #16, 18, 22
and 24 front Valley Way. All four
meet minimum 5-ft. front setback;
three exceed 12-ft. maximum front
yard setback as follows:

Bldg 16: 15’-5” ft.

Bldg 18: 13’-5” ft.

Bldg 24: 14’-3” ft.

Yes,
with approval
of a SDBL
waiver for max.
front yard
setback for
three (3)
buildings
Interior Side
Yard Setback
(East Side)
0 ft. (min.)
10’-3” to
13’-6” Yes
Interior Side
Setback
Adjacent to
Single-Family
Residential
10 feet; also
see MGSP
Section 4.1.3
A
6’ (Trash Enclosure)
28’-5” to 38’ (Townhomes on North
Side)
Yes,
with approval
of a SDBL
waiver for the
side setback for
the trash
enclosure
Interior Rear
Yard
Setback Along
Freeway Edge
MGSP Section

4.1.3(B):

Min. 60 feet
from edge of
freeway rightof-way
99’-2” to 144’ Yes
Height (Max.) 65 ft. and five
(5) stories
38 ft. to top of roof (45 ft. max to
tallest architectural feature), three (3)
stories
Yes

Page 1275 of 1482 ends

Page 13 of 31 ends

Development
Standard
(GW-MU)
Required Proposed Conformance
Common
Outdoor Open
Space
6+ units
requires
minimum 60
S.F/unit
Minimum area
for common
open space
shall be 1,000
S.F., with a
min.
dimension of
40 ft. x 25 ft.

The proposed Project incorporates
several outdoor amenity areas
including but not limited to bocce ball
court, turf activity areas for open lawn
and play areas, native landscaping,
trellises, and picnic tables.

Total Required: 8,040 S.F.

Total Provided: 9,974 S.F.

Yes
Private Open
Space
6+ units
requires
minimum 40
S.F./unit
Minimum
dimension of
5-feet in all
directions
Each unit has a private ground level
porch or patio meeting the minimum
dimensional and size requirements.

Some units also have a private upper
deck.

Total Required: 5,360 S.F.

Total Provided: 13,967 S.F.

Yes
Vehicle Parking
(Min.)
Off-street
parking: 1.5
spaces per
unit; plus 1.0
guest parking
space per 3
units
Total Required: Off-street parking -
201 stalls (1.5 spaces x 134 units);
Guest parking 45 stalls (134 units/1
guest stall per 3 units)
Total Provided: 268 stalls (2 private
spaces per unit in each garage); 60
guest parking stalls
Yes
Bicycle Parking

0.5 spaces per
unit
Total Required: 134 units x 0.5
bicycle stalls per unit = 67 bicycle
stalls
Total Provided: 134 long-term indoor
bicycle parking stalls (one in each
unit’s garage), 12 short-term outdoor
bicycle stalls
Yes
In addition to meeting the standards outlined above, the Project is consistent with most of the applicable MGSP ODS criteria, some of which directly refer to a standard from the City ODS or ZO. Attachments E and F provides a detailed compliance matrix of all MGSP ODS and City ODS

Page 1276 of 1482 ends

Page 14 of 31 ends

requirements with the associated SDBL letter request explaining why relief to some standards are needed. In summary, the Project was designed to meet the standards specifically identified for the Project site as shown on MGSP Figure 3-6, Gateway District Regulating Plan to implement the future vision of the district, including those related to transitioning to adjacent single-family residential neighborhoods, setbacks from freeways, and building design and architecture, other than those that the Applicant has requested to use a concession or waiver per the SDBL, as detailed in an upcoming section.

Objective Design Standards (ODS)
The City adopted its Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards (ODS) on November 1, 2022, to facilitate project designs by establishing objective development and design standards for all multi-family and mixed-use projects.

The ODS are intended to bring consistency and clarity to project review and permitting while eliminating subjectivity to provide uniform language. The proposed Project includes 134 townhomes on a 7.22-acre site, which would be classified as a Large project type and a “Medium” building type. While full compliance with the ODS is only required for projects seeking permit streamlining (i.e., ministerial review), all projects proposing two or more dwelling units must demonstrate how it meets the intent and purpose of the ODS.

As described in the prior subsection, pursuant to MMC XIII-D.10.020(C), the Project must also comply with all of the MGSP ODS, in which the MGSP ODS standards prevail over the City ODS and have some references to City ODS requirements. Although the Applicant is not seeking ministerial review and invoked SB 330, the proposed Project was required to demonstrate compliance with all MGSP ODS as well as complying or meeting the intent of all City ODS. Refer to Attachment F for the Project’s compliance analysis, which demonstrates the Project is consistent or meets the intent with most of the applicable MGSP ODS and City ODS. In conclusion, the Project is considered compliant because it conforms or meets the intent of all applicable ODS standards, other than those that the Applicant has requested to use a concession or waiver per the SDBL, as detailed in the following section.

State Density Bonus Law
To encourage affordable housing production, the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) (Gov. Code §§ 65915 et seq.) allows developers to receive density bonuses and other incentives, such as concessions, waivers, and parking reductions, when affordable housing is incorporated within a project. Specifically, an applicant may request relief from the City’s development standards through waivers and concessions in order to achieve the proposed density in exchange for including affordable housing in their project.

As detailed in the Housing Accountability Act, jurisdictions generally have limited authority to deny such requests for SDBL waivers, concessions, and incentives unless they make findings of specific adverse impacts as defined in state law, which have a high evidentiary burden. The SDBL is a state mandate, and any project that meets the requirements of the state law is entitled to receive the requested waivers and incentives, which supersede local jurisdiction requirements.

The proposed Project qualifies for waivers and one concession under SDBL because more than 10 percent of total units will be reserved as affordable units for moderate-income households. The

Page 1277 of 1482 ends

Page 15 of 31 ends

Project includes 20 affordable units, which satisfies the 15 percent total units required under the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance.

Table 5 below lists the request for one (1) concession and 10 waivers for the proposed Project, as detailed in the Applicant’s SDBL Letter (Attachment E) and MGSP/ODS Compliance Matrix (Attachment F). The request includes five (5) waivers from MGSP standards, three (3) waivers and one (1) concession from the from the Citywide Objective Design Standards (ODS), and two (2) waivers from the City’s adopted Zoning Ordinance (ZO).

Table 5: State Density Bonus – Proposed Project Concessions, Waivers, and Incentives SDBL
Waiver/
Concession
Regulating Objective Development Standard Subsection
Concession #1 ODS Section 5.3.1 – Fenestration Design – 2-inch Recessed Windows Waiver #1 MGSP Section 3.7.3 - Max. Front Setback
Waiver #2 MGSP Section 3.7.3 - Interior Side Setback Adj. to Single-Family Residential for Trash Enclosure
Waiver #3 MGSP Section 3.7.3(1)(a) - Min. 60% Building Frontage Waiver #4 MGSP Section 4.1.3(B)(1) - Adjacent to Freeways – Double Row of Trees Waiver #5 MGSP Section 5.3.9 - Future Service Alleys
Waiver #6 ODS Section 3.9.1.3 – Planting (Spacing of Trees/Shrubs) Waiver #7 ODS Section 3.9.3.3 - Adjacent to Freeways – Double Row of Trees Waiver #8 ODS Section 4.1.3.6 - Open Space Quality – Min. of 40-ft in width and depth Waiver #9 ZO Section C.2.120 - Refuge and Recycling Areas – E.6 Enclosures – Location Waiver #10
ZO Section C.6.080.D - Size and Dimensions of Parking Spaces – Parallel Parking Spaces and Dimensions for Guest Parking
The Applicant’s SDBL requests are summarized below. The Project’s proposed plan set for the requested entitlements were reviewed by the City’s Building, Fire, Engineering, and Planning Departments and did not identify any specific, adverse health and safety impacts for the SDBL requests.
• Concession #1 is requested by the Applicant regarding the ODS Section 5.3.1 requirement for the fenestration design of windows to all be recessed a minimum of 2-inches. The Project proposes to include the 2-inch recessed windows along the residential building elevations fronting the main entryway to the units via publicly accessible pathways and open space areas only, and requests a relief to the requirement for elevations facing private alleyways as full compliance would add significant construction costs. The Applicant has identified an actual cost reduction the Project will need to ensure financial feasibility to construct the Project and provide for the affordable units, with estimated construction costs to be approximately $620 per recessed window with over 1,000 windows potentially subject to this requirement. • Waivers #1 and #3 are requested as the City’s MMC requirements for a new subdivision will require the dedication of new 10-ft. Public Utility Easement (PUE) along the front setback along the Valley Way cul-de-sac, which prohibits permanent physical structures being constructed within the PUE. Three buildings along the front will exceed the maximum front yard setback of 12-ft. by a minor range of 1.5-3.5-ft. and will not be able to meet the minimum 60 percent building frontage requirements due to the angle the buildings are oriented and placed as the lot is irregularly-shaped and along a cul-de-sac frontage.

Page 1278 of 1482 ends

Page 16 of 31 ends

• Waivers #2 and #9 involve the proposed interior yard setback and location of the proposed trash enclosure by the northeast corner of the Project site. The proposed trash enclosure will be setback 6-ft. from the side interior property line instead of the required 10-ft. Due to site constraints, the Applicant was unable to find another feasible location for the trash enclosure to be located further away from the existing single-family residences to the north without a reduction in Project density.
• Waivers #4 and #7 refer to a request for relief to the same standard, as the MGSP ODS subsection directly cites the need to comply with ODS Section 3.9.3.3 regarding the requirement to plant a double row of trees adjacent to a freeway. Due to an existing PG&E overhead powerline easement along the western edge of the Project site next to Interstate Highway 880, the Applicant confirmed with PG&E via email correspondence that no trees are allowed to be greater than 2-ft. tall in this easement, thereby making implementation of this standard infeasible. PG&E also indicated the Applicant will not be required to underground existing PG&E utilities.
• Waiver #5: The proposed Project requests a waiver for an alternative private two-way alley design. MGSP Figure 5-14 requires a 35-ft. wide alley with a 25-ft. right-of-way (ROW) and a 5-ft. setback on both sides, and the Project proposes a 34-ft. wide alley, consisting of a 26-ft. wide right-of-way (ROW) with 4-ft. setbacks on both sides. • Waiver #6 involves a relief request from ODS requirements on detailed spacing requirements for planting new trees and shrubs along shared property lines and side/rear setbacks. The Project will exceed the number of required new trees to be planted onsite via Tree Removal Permit No. TR24-0018 but cannot meet all spacing and distancing requirements due to site constraints, and is partially related to Waivers #4 and #7 as no trees will be able to be planted along the rear setback of the property adjacent to I-880 due to an existing PG&E overhead powerline easement.
• Waiver #9: The Applicant requests a waiver from ODS Section 4.1.3.6 as the Project’s design was unable to have one common space area meeting the minimum dimension of 40 ft. by 40 ft. due to site constraints but will still meet all other MGSP requirements for private and common open space.
• Waiver #10: The Project requests a waiver from the Zoning Ordinance requirement for minimum parallel parking stall dimensions (10’ wide by 22’ depth). The Project proposes outdoor surface parking stalls along alleys that are approximately 9’wide by 20-22’ depth.

Affordable Housing Ordinance
According to MMC Section XII-1-3.00 of the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO), the Applicant must reserve fifteen percent (15%) of the total number of dwelling units within the development as affordable units, resulting in 20.1 units for the Project. The Applicant proposes to meet the City’s affordable housing requirement by reserving 20 of the 134 units on-site for moderate-income households. However, the AHO states if the 15% calculation results in a fractional unit that is less than 0.5 (i.e., less than half a unit), the developer may pay an in-lieu fee for the remainder of the fractional unit or provide another BMR unit. The Applicant will pay for the remaining 0.1 fractional in-lieu payment calculated at the time of building permit issuance.

The City’s Office of Housing reviewed the proposed Project for compliance with the City’s AHO, and has included conditions of approval for the Applicant to complete post-entitlement during the building permit review phase, including executing an agreement imposing appropriate ownership controls on the affordable units and payment of the in-lieu fee for the fractional unit of the 15

Page 1279 of 1482 ends

Page 17 of 31 ends

percent calculation. The Applicant has agreed to distribute the 20 BMR units between the three unit types as shown in Table 6 with eight BMR units of Unit Types 1 and 2 and four BMR units of Unit Type 3. Refer to Sheet G-007 of the Project Plans (Attachment D) for the proposed BMR distribution placement among the 24 residential buildings.

Table 6: Proposed Project Unit Type and Affordable Unit Distribution Unit Type Total S.F. Per Unit
Moderate
BMR
Units*
Market
Rate
Units
Total Units
(% Unit Mix)
Unit Type 1
(3 bed/3 bath)
1,326 S.F. Habitable Space with 477
S.F. Private Tandem Garage
Total Net S.F.: 1,803
8 47 53 Units
(41%)
Unit Type 2
(3 bed/3 bath)
1,710 S.F. Habitable Space with 442
S.F. Private Side by Side Garage
Total Net S.F.: 2,152
8 47 53 Units
(41%)
Unit Type 3
(4 bed/4 bath)
2,013 S.F. Habitable Space with 449
S.F. Private Side by Side Garage
Total Net S.F.: 2,462
4 20 24 Units
(18%)
* Required Affordable Unit Type Distribution per City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance.

Housing Element
While the Project with its proposed 134 units would result in fewer units to be built on the Project site than the potential maximum site capacity anticipated in the Housing Element Sites Inventory (202 units), the No Net Loss Law as codified in Government Code Section 65863 requires a jurisdiction to maintain adequate housing sites to accommodate its remaining unmet RHNA by each income category at all times throughout the entire planning period. If a jurisdiction approves a development of a site identified in its Housing Element Sites Inventory with fewer units than shown in the Housing Element, it must find that the remaining sites have sufficient capacity to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA by each income level. The Milpitas 2023-2031 Housing Element identified a total capacity of 9,397 units, which exceeds Milpitas’ RHNA obligation of 6,713 units by 2,684 units. Although the Project would result in the loss of 68 units relative to the anticipated number of units identified in the Sites Inventory, the City currently has more than enough capacity to accommodate its remaining unmet RHNA in each income category. Moreover, any reduction of units was appropriately considered during the City’s approval of the GatewayMain Street Specific Plan, the City at that time made all required findings for the adoption of the applicable zoning, including those findings required by the No Net Loss Law, and no further findings are required at this time. Those findings and analysis are incorporated herein by this reference.

Subdivision Ordinance
The Project's form, content, and dedications of the proposed tentative map have been reviewed by the City’s Public Works Land Development Division and deemed consistent with the provisions of MMC Section XI-1-4 (Tentative Maps), as outlined in Resolution No. 26-009. Tentative Maps

Page 1280 of 1482 ends

Page 18 of 31 ends

require approval by Resolution by the Planning Commission that recommends final approval or denial by the City Council.

Site & Architectural Design
The Project's design concept for the future residential development includes a modern Spanish architectural theme. All 24 three-story residential buildings and the one-story clubhouse building will be built within the GW-MU zoning district height limits. The design of buildings incorporates varied rooflines, balconies, and projections to add visual interest, and will include a mix of window sizes, decorative trim, and roof overhangs including awnings and Juliet balconies to further reinforce the architectural style.

The overall color scheme will remain neutral and earth-toned and complements the architectural theme, and many portions of the internal circulation network will have stamped asphalt vehicular accent paving to imprint a brick or cobblestone-like pattern into the pavement in line with the design concept.

The Project’s modern Spanish architectural design includes the following design accents and materials:
• Roof: Tile Roofs in two deep orange/red colors – Eagle Blend and Antigua Spanish • Exterior: Stucco Finish with two white/beige paint finishes with brown/wood-like balcony base color and trims
• Trim/Accents: Balcony metal railing – dark gray, accent bronze vinyl window trim, accent colors in brown / wood-like finishes, accent mosaic tile, decorative patterned metal screens, stained wood trellis to match medium brown tones
• Entry Door: Wood-like finish
• Garage Door: Steel Garage Door with Wood-like finish
One elevation of the Project is shown in Figure 3 and other massing, site plans, proposed colors and materials, and other elevations are included in the Project Plans (Attachment D). The front of each entry unit along the publicly accessible pathways will also include a wood trellis with new landscaping and trees planted along both sides of the new walkways to enhance the pedestrian experience and streetscape design.

Figure 3 – Proposed Project’s 4-Plex Building Front and Rear Elevations

Page 1281 of 1482 ends

Page 19 of 31 ends

Tree Removal and Landscaping
The Project includes removal of 115 ordinance sized trees and the removal of 16 smaller nonordinance sized trees, shrubs, and other vegetation from the site and will retain seven onsite ordinance-sized trees. Pursuant to MMC Title X, Chapter 2 (Tree Maintenance and Protection), the Project must plant a minimum of two replacement trees for every one ordinance sized tree that is removed, and requires approval Tree Removal Permit No. TR24-0018 by the City’s Public Works Department with replacement trees determined by the Planning Director or designee. The Project will plant 341 new trees on the same site to increase the overall site canopy, with species chosen from the City’s MGSP and ODS recommended lists. Seven (7) ordinance sized-trees will be retained onsite, bringing the total number of proposed onsite trees to 348. Additional new landscaping improvements to complement the new tree planting include installation of various native and drought-tolerant plants with a collection of shrubs, grasses, perennials, and groundcovers with a new efficient irrigation system is detailed in the landscaping sheets of the Project Plans (Attachment D).

Private and Common Outdoor Open Space
Per the MGSP, private development with over six units requires private open space with a minimum of 40-square feet per unit and must have a minimum dimension of 5-feet in all directions.

The Project proposes each unit with its own private ground level porch or patio meeting the minimum dimensional and size requirements, with some units also having a private upper balcony deck. The proposed Project will exceed the private open space requirements of 5,360-square feet by providing a total of 13,967-square feet of open space (12,501-square feet within private patios/porches and 1,466-square feet in upper decks).

The MGSP requires common outdoor open space for the Project to be a minimum of 60-square feet per unit, with the minimum area of 1,000-square feet and having a dimension of at least 40- feet by 25-feet. The proposed Project requires a total of 8,040-square feet and will provide approximately 9,974-square feet of code compliant common open space, with three common outdoor open space pocket parks located along the greenway path with various amenities.

The common open space areas will be publicly accessible but will be privately owned and maintained by the future residents of the subdivision and are not proposed to be dedicated as public parkland to the City in the subdivision map. Additionally, a small dog park with turf and concrete paving will be provided in the top left corner of the Project site.

Public Parkland Dedication or In-Lieu Payment Requirements The MGSP requires all new developments to provide 3.5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 persons or payment of park in-lieu fees, as allowed by MMC Section XI-1-9 (Improvements: Dedication of Land or Payment of Fee or Both, for Recreational Purposes). The Parkland Fee is based upon the estimated number of persons expected to reside in the development (per U.S. Census definitions) and the estimated value of parkland in the City (currently $2,787,840 per acre).

In the MGSP at least, two (2) of every three and a half (3 ½) acres (57.4%) shall be provided as public parkland. The remaining acreage can be provided as private parkland (42.6%). Estimates from the U.S. Census show 2.49 people will occupy each unit for multi-family developments with 5 units or more. The Project proposes 134 units, resulting in an estimated population of 334 persons and a total parkland requirement of 1.17 acres, equivalent to approximately $3,255,667.43. The Applicant will receive a credit of 0.23 acres out of the maximum 0.5-acre allowance of private

Page 1282 of 1482 ends

Page 20 of 31 ends

parkland they will be providing onsite with the three pocket park areas as described in the aforementioned section. Therefore, the City has determined the Applicant must pay for a total of

0.94 acres, or $2,615,664.30 to satisfy the MGSP parkland requirement. A full analysis for the parkland requirement is demonstrated in Table 7 below.

Table 7: Project MGSP Parkland Requirements Analysis
Sobrato Townhomes Proposed 134
Sobrato Townhomes Population Estimate
(2.49 persons/unit per Census) 334 persons
MGSP Parkland Requirement 3.5 acres/1,000 people or
equivalent fees-in-lieu
Total Parkland Acreage or In-Lieu Fee Required 1.17 acres / $3,255,667.43 Total Required Amount Satisfied Through Dedicating Public Parkland to the City or payment of Park-In Lieu Fees
(Acreage/Dollars)

1.17 acres x 57.4% =

0.67 acres / $1,855,730.44
Remaining Max. Parkland Acreage Allowed as Private
Common Open Space

1.17 acres x 42.6% =

0.50 acres
Total Private Common Open Space Proposed in Project 0.23 acres Project’s Net Additional Requirement of Parkland Acreage 0.27 acres Balance of Parkland Acreage or In-Lieu Fee Due 0.94 acres / $2,615,664.30
Access, Circulation, and Parking
The Project has two points of access from the public right-of-way. The first is via a cul-de-sac to Valley Way on the eastern edge of the Project site, which would act as the main ingress/egress to the site. This frontage would contain three driveways on the cul-de-sac bulb and a public sidewalk, which would be rebuilt as part of the Project. The second point of access is via a short segment of Valley Way to the north of the Project site which would act solely as an emergency vehicle access (EVA) point, outfitted with a new driveway and removable bollards. Non-emergency vehicle access to the Project site, such as residents and guests, would be provided from Valley Way at the cu-de-sac and connect to internal private streets.

An internal private street and alley grid will provide access to 134 private residential garages to fit two cars in a tandem or side-by-side configuration with a total of 268 covered vehicle spaces. In addition, 60 guest parking spaces will be provided around the private streets and alleys as uncovered surface parking stalls. Additionally, each unit’s private garage provides one long-term bicycle parking space, totaling 134 long-term spaces with 12 short-term bike stalls provided outdoors.

Traffic and Transportation
The City’s 2022 Transportation Analysis (TA) Guidelines contains thresholds on assessing when projects may require a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) study pursuant to CEQA and when a

Page 1283 of 1482 ends

Page 21 of 31 ends

separate requirement for a transportation operation analysis (TOA) are needed for projects to address transportation deficiencies and conform to the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program. A Project-specific VMT study was not required as the Project did not meet the screening thresholds to require a separate report, and was analyzed within build out projections in the MGSP SEIR and as summarized in Section 3.17, Transportation, of the Project’s CEQA exemption checklist (Attachment B).

A Project-specific TOA Report (Attachment G) was prepared and reviewed in consultation with the City’s Transportation and Traffic Engineering staff demonstrating the Project’s anticipated traffic generation can be accommodated by the existing street network. The City’s Transportation and Fire staff have also reviewed the Project plans and are requiring conditions of approval to ensure adequate emergency vehicle access and have confirmed that the internal private streets and driveways will adequately serve the development.

Utilities
The Project site is located in an urban area and is currently served by existing utilities, including water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, electricity, and telecommunications infrastructure. All public utilities will be provided to the Project site with the proposed improvements coordinated under the purview of the City’s Engineering Division within the Public Works Department. The proposed Project improvements to infrastructure include new water, sewer, and stormwater mains and laterals. Additional details regarding the proposed infrastructure improvements are shown on the civil sheets of the Project plans.

Climate Action Plan
The City of Milpitas Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted in 2013 and updated in 2022, and included Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction goals, policies, and actions for new and existing development projects. The Project would follow these goals and policies by locating future residents near public transportation, jobs, restaurants, and services. In addition, the Project would incorporate green building measures in compliance with CAL Green standard building measures for residential buildings and Title 24 requirements to reduce energy usage as further assessed by the Office of Building Safety during the building permit review phase. The proposed Project’s CAP Checklist is included as an appendix in Attachment C.

Development Fees
The Project was submitted under SB 330 with a preliminary application review period from January 7 to February 6, 2026, and will be subject to the FY 24-25 fee rates unless meeting an exempt fee as detailed in the state law3. The Project is subject to the following impact fees and has been conditionally approved to require:

Parkland Impact Fee
The requirements are detailed above in the Public Parkland Dedication or In-Lieu Payment Requirements section and in Table 7 per MMC Section XI-1-9. The Applicant will pay the estimated $2,615,664.30 park in-lieu fee prior to issuance of the final certificate of occupancy. 3 The Citywide fee study update for FY 25-26 became effective on February 14, 2026 after the Project’s SB 330 preliminary application period was complete. Therefore, the Project will be subject to the City’s FY 24-25 fee schedule unless meeting an SB 330 exemption.

Page 1284 of 1482 ends

Page 22 of 31 ends

Public Art Fee
The Project will comply with the City's Public Art Requirements for Private Development, as set forth in MMC Section XI-14. This fee is currently set at one-half of one percent of building development costs. The proposed Project will pay the fee based on the construction valuation of each building permit.

Affordable Housing Impact Fee
The Project will comply with the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance, as set forth in MMC Section XII-1-3.00 which requires a minimum of 15 percent of the total units to be dedicated as affordable units or 20.1 units for the Project. The Applicant will be designating 20 for-sale on-site affordable units for moderate-income households, The Applicant will be required to pay an in-lieu fee for the remaining 0.1 unit, which is calculated at building permit issuance.

Engineering Division Impact Fees
The Applicant will have to pay for any necessary utility connection fees as required by the City’s Engineering Division and detailed in the attached Conditions of Approval as applicable, including but not limited to water, sewer, and wastewater treatment. The Applicant will also have to contribute to the Calaveras Boulevard Widening Traffic Impact Fee pursuant to Resolution No. 7894.

FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
A finding is a statement of fact relating to the information that the Planning Commission has considered in making a decision. Findings shall identify the rationale behind the decision to take a certain action.

Site Development Permit Findings
To approve the Site Development Permit, the following findings must be made pursuant to (MMC Section XIII-D.4.020.F(1.a-d) for All Site Development Permits and MMC Section XIIID.4.020.F(2.a-c) for Specific Projects) 1a. The proposed project is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance.

The proposed Project is generally consistent with the Milpitas Zoning Ordinance per MMC XIII-B.14, Gateway-Main St. Specific Plan Area as demonstrated in Table 4 of the staff report. The proposed Project meets its applicable section of the Gateway Mixed-Use (GWMU) zoning district purpose statement as described in MMC XIII-B.14.010(D) as “… transitioning to a neighborhood-oriented residential focus to the north…” as it will be located in the northwest corner of the Gateway District MGSP boundary, and will be accessible off of Valley Way from S. Abbott Avenue and Calaveras Boulevard.

The Project also conforms to MMC Section XIII-C.12 (Density Bonus for Affordable Housing Developments). Where exceptions to the GW-MU standards are needed including to the MGSP ODS, Citywide ODS, and Zoning Ordinance, the Applicant has requested 11 waivers and one (1) concession under the State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code §§ 65915 et seq.). The requested waivers and concession exception will support the development of affordable housing on a site where it would not otherwise be possible through a strict application of the specified standard and the financial feasibility of constructing the Project.

Page 1285 of 1482 ends

Page 23 of 31 ends

Furthermore, the Project site was identified as a Rezone Site in the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element cycle and thus was envisioned for housing.

Furthermore, the proposed Project complies with MMC XIII-C.2.030(A) Affordable Housing, as the Applicant will comply with the City’s affordable housing requirements pursuant to MMC XII-1 (Affordable Housing Ordinance) by dedicating 20 out of the 134 proposed townhome condominium units for moderate-income families, meeting the minimum 15% requirement pursuant to the City’s AHO. The Office of Housing reviewed the proposed Project and has conditionally approved the Project, and will coordinate further with the Applicant during the building permit phase, including the executing the affordable housing agreement, collection of the partial fractional affordable in-lieu fee, and reaffirming the distribution of affordable units on the site. 1b. The proposed use and project are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan:

The proposed Project’s use as a multi-family residential development within the Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (MGSP) is consistent with the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan 2040. The General Plan 2040 description of MGSP notes that “a variety of uses are allowed in this designation, including entertainment, retail, commercial, residential, civic, cultural, office, and high-density mixed use residential in a compact, walkable, and unique centralized setting.” The residential Project fits this description and new residents in the immediate area will be able to walk or use other multimodal modes to access nearby adjacent commercial, retail, entertainment, and other related uses as there are several multi-tenant commercial plazas in the vicinity.

In addition, as shown in Table 2 of the staff report, the Project complies with General Plan policies LU 1-4, LU 2-1, LU 5-1, and LU 5-3. The Project will provide 134 new condominium townhome units, 20 of which will be affordable units at moderate-income and 14 of which will be ADA accessible, thereby contributing to the existing housing mix in the surrounding area. The Project is also consistent with the MGSP goals and policies, is compatible in scale and design with the existing neighborhood, will be well-integrated with adjacent developments, and will improve vehicular and pedestrian connectivity in the surrounding area.
1c. The project will not be detrimental to public health, safety, and general welfare:

As part of the City’s standard development review process, projects such as this scale for a new multi-family residential development are routed to several City Departments including but not limited to the Planning Department, Police Department, Office of Building, Fire Prevention, and the Engineering Division within the Department of Public Works. Each Department reviews the proposed Project for conformance to applicable adopted codes, regulations, and other requirements under their respective purview to try and identify any major public health, safety, and general welfare concerns. The Applicant must address and revise the proposed Project’s plans and/or other materials as part of the application until such issue is corrected to no longer be detrimental to public health, safety,

Page 1286 of 1482 ends

Page 24 of 31 ends

and general welfare. Furthermore, the Project-specific CEQA Environmental Checklist did not identify any detrimental public health, safety, or general welfare concerns. 1d. The proposed project is in compliance with the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):

As a Lead Agency, the City has determined the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182 and created Environmental Assessment No. EA24-0003 to verify consistency with CEQA.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15182 states that projects in conformity with a specific plan that has a certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are exempt from CEQA, provided the project results in none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. The City prepared an Environmental Checklist for the Project to evaluate its consistency with the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2024070432), which demonstrates the Project would result in none of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. The Project-specific Environmental Checklist and the supporting technical reports are included as Attachments B and C to the staff report.
2a. The proposed use and Project are consistent with the goals and policies of any Specific Plan, if applicable:

The MGSP also was initiated in 2021 and anticipated that the Project site would be analyzed as part of the future Gateway District of the MGSP. The Project site was annexed into the MGSP boundaries with a rezone and general plan amendment to allow for residential uses in late October 2025 as the former General Commercial zoning and land use designation does not allow for any residential development. The proposed Project meets the GW-MU density requirements at 19 dwelling units/acre where the range requires 18-65 dwelling units/acre. The Project would reaffirm the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Guiding Principle and the Gateway District Vision per MGSP Section 2.5. The Project will also improve the mobility network as desired by the MGSP and complete the vision in MGSP Figure 3-6 by connecting a new greenway, perimeter alleyways, and proper setbacks from the freeway side and meets the daylight plane and height requirements in consideration of the existing single-family residences to the north. With approval of the Applicant’s SDBL requests for 10 waivers and one concession, the Project will be consistent with the MGSP.
2b. The proposed siting, form, architectural style, materials, and other elements of multi-family residential and mixed-use developments are consistent with City Objective Design Standards:

As the Applicant invoked SB 330 and the SDBL, the Applicant team was still required to provide documentation to the City on the proposed Project’s compliance with not only the MGSP ODS but the Citywide ODS in separate checklists, and also must identify a consolidated list of SDBL requests for waivers and concessions for streamlining considerations. The Applicant provided all the aforementioned requested documents and for the Citywide ODS, was required to explain how any such proposed design elements in the Project were meeting the intent of such objective standard. The proposed Project generally meets the intent of several adopted objective design standards including having

Page 1287 of 1482 ends

Page 25 of 31 ends

building entries front publicly accessible pathways, include varying rooflines and façade articulation details, 2-inch recessed windows and Juliet awnings along the building’s frontages, a consistent contemporary Spanish style theme throughout the site, use of native, drought tolerant plant species as recommended in the MGSP and ODS, meets the daylight plane and complies with transitions to single-family residential neighborhoods per MGSP Sec. 4.1.3.A and meets the minimum setback distance requirements of being adjacent to a freeway per MGSP Sec. 4.1.3.B. Additionally, the Project will meet the utility and rooftop / at grade screening requirements, proposes to use operable vinyl windows for bird safety and glazing, and utilize high quality materials such as steel garage doors in a wood like finish and accent tiles and trims. With approval of the Applicant’s SDBL requests for 10 waivers and one concession, the Project will be consistent with the Citywide and MGSP ODS.
2c. The proposed siting, form, and architectural style of single-family residential, commercial, and industrial developments are appropriate for the project site and surroundings and create a visually cohesive design, and are consistent with all applicable design standards in this Title:

The above finding is not applicable to the Project, which is a multi-family development and was similarly described in the Site Development Permit Finding 2b.

Vesting Tentative Map
To approve the Major Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, the following findings must be made pursuant to MMC Section XI-1-20.01:

1. The tentative subdivision map is consistent with the General Plan.

The General Plan designation for the Project site references the Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (MGSP). The MGSP sets for the types, locations, and intensities of land uses to be accommodated within the MGSP area, with its purpose to create an economically-viable main street type development that serves as a cultural hub of the City, and supports a variety of uses including entertainment, retail, commercial, residential, civic, cultural, office, and high-density mixed use residential in a compact, walkable, and unique centralized setting. The General Plan defers to the MGSP document for all development standards including density ranges. The MGSP identified the Project site to be in the Gateway District and is zoned Gateway-Mixed Use (GW-MU). The intent of this designation is to provide a compatible mix of land uses with residential density proposals at a range of 18-65 dwelling units/acre. As this Project proposes 19 dwelling units/acre, it is consistent with both the intended land use of the General Plan and the MGSP and the relevant density requirement. In addition, the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element identified the Project site as a Rezone Site. As such, the Project site has been incorporated into projections for affordable housing opportunities. The tentative subdivision map is necessary for the proposed multi-family residential Project, and would allow three lots to combine into one lot to establish the condominium areas, common areas, and easements to facilitate a new compact, walkable development with several on- and off-site public improvements that have been conditionally approved under the purview of the City’s Public Works Land Development Division to improve the City’s infrastructure and mobility network with modern standards on the Project site which has not been improved since the 1970s.

Page 1288 of 1482 ends

Page 26 of 31 ends

Furthermore, as shown in Tables 2 and 3 in the staff report, the Project complies with General Plan policies LU 1-4, LU 2-1, LU 5-1, LU 5-3, and the MGSP’s Guiding Principle and MGSP Section 2.5: Gateway District Vision. Therefore, the vesting tentative map is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan.

2. None of the conditions identified in California Government Code Section 66474 exist, to wit:

A. The proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Government Code Section 65451.

As outlined above, the Project site includes the development of 134 residential condominium units and one clubhouse amenity building at a density of 19 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) and within the MGSP. The General Plan, MGSP designations, and the GW-MU zoning district permits residential development at intensities of 18 to 65 du/acre. Therefore, the proposed Project’s density is consistent with the required density range as designated in the MGSP. The City’s Public Works Land Development Division reviewed the proposed map with the Planning Department and worked with the Applicant’s civil engineer team from Kier+Wright on necessary revisions to the proposed map before issuing a conditional approval letter to allow the Project to proceed with public hearings for the tentative map. Therefore, the proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and MGSP.

B. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

The design and improvements of the Vesting Tentative Map are consistent with the General Plan and MGSP in that it would allow for multifamily residential development with associated public improvements, which are consistent with the applicable General Plan and MGSP goals and policies as described in Tentative Map Finding 1 and identified in Tables 2 and 3 of the staff report, except for minor exceptions to design standards the Applicant has requested and is allowed pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. The Project site is located within the Gateway District of the MGSP, which includes a vision for higher-intensity development, oriented along Calaveras Boulevard, to attract and support the needs of travelers along the corridor, while offering a neighborhood-scale residential and mixed-use north Calaveras Boulevard with complete streets improvements planned along this right-of-way. The Vesting Tentative Map would allow for development that is compatible with a new residential community north of Calaveras Boulevard and would complete the MGSP’s vision for the Gateway District including MGSP Figure 3-6, Gateway District Regulating Plan, and will include a new internal circulation network with a new greenway connection, improvements to the onsite and off-site sidewalks to support complete streets in the MGSP, and will be required to pay associated fees for the Calaveras Boulevard Widening Traffic Impact Fee as contributions for the future right-of-way improvements.

C. The site is not physically suitable for the type of development.

Page 1289 of 1482 ends

Page 27 of 31 ends

The Project site is surrounded by properties designated for mixed-use development under the City’s General Plan and zoned for this type of development under the MGSP and GW-MU zoning district. The proposed Project will be an infill development that has already been developed since the 1970s with a mix of five industrial/office buildings, surface parking lots, and associated infrastructure with all tenants vacated before the end of 2025, and would demolish all existing structures and add 134 condominium units and a clubhouse amenity building. In addition, the site is suitable for the proposed townhome development based on the location and physical attributes of the site and is surrounded by other types of development including retail and commercial plazas. The site is located in an urban context suitable for multifamily development and is generally flat and approximately 7.22 acres in size, which is sufficient to accommodate the development. The Vesting Tentative Map includes the necessary infrastructure improvements to adequately serve the site from a transportation and utilities perspective.

D. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

The Project site is suitable for the proposed medium density townhome development based on the location and physical attributes of the site. The site is located in an urban context suitable for medium density multifamily infill development and is approximately 7.22 acres in size, which is sufficient to accommodate the proposed density of development. The Vesting Tentative Map includes the necessary infrastructure improvements including utilities built up to modern code standards to adequately serve a multifamily residential development at the proposed density.

E. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

The Project, including the subdivision and its associated improvements, is located in within a heavily urbanized area and was previously developed with five multi-tenant office buildings, surface parking lots, and infrastructure and is surrounded by a mixture of other commercial and residential development. A Project-specific CEQA environmental checklist was also prepared, which confirmed that the proposed Project will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

F. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.

The Project, including the proposed subdivision and its associated improvements, has been designed in a manner that will not cause serious public health problems. The Project has been reviewed by Building, Planning, Housing, Fire, Engineering, Traffic, Utilities, and Solid Waste Departments to review for such design issues and the Applicant must address all Department comments sufficiently prior to allowing the Project to be considered for public hearings to consider approval of the subdivision and improvements. The Vesting Tentative Map includes various public improvements in the public rights-of-way related to transportation and utilities to ensure the Project will be adequately serviced and thereby preserve public health and wellness, including a new dedicated 10-foot Public Utility Easement along the Project’s frontage along

Page 1290 of 1482 ends

Page 28 of 31 ends

Valley Way as required per MMC X-I-8.06, Granting of Easements. Additional public improvements include utility services such as water, wastewater, storm drain, gas, electrical, and telecommunications. The Project site will also have include modern stormwater improvements pursuant to requirements of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program and as codified per MMC XI-16-1, Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control. Pavement restoration including a minimum 2- inch grind and overlay will be provided along the Valley Way frontage up to the Abbott Avenue intersection and new sidewalks along the Valley Way cul-de-sac and infilling missing segments of the sidewalk built to the City’s Engineering Standard Details with matching curbs and gutters to aid in the MGSP’s vision for complete streets. Other required public improvements are detailed in the Engineering Department’s “Specific Improvements” section of the conditions of approval and include new street tree wells, installation of radio-transmitting water meters with built-in antennas, and a lighting analysis on the existing streetlight conditions along Valley Way and on S. Abbott Avenue between Valley Way and W. Calaveras Boulevard to determine if any upgrades or new lighting improvements are necessary during the building permit review phase.

G. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

Upon the City’s Engineering Department review of the subdivision map, it has been determined that the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The Project will comply with MMC X-I8.06, Granting of Easements, and include a new dedicated 10-ft. Public Utility Easement (PUE) from the Valley Way cul-de-sac. The property contains an existing 8- inch Public Water Main and associated 15-ft. Waterline Easement running through the middle of the site between the two connections to Valley Way. The water main will be abandoned and capped in place, and the associated easement will be vacated. The Project will provide a new 10-inch water line that runs through proposed Alley 1 in a looped system that will reroute and connect the existing water line along Valley Way.

The proposed public water lines will be installed within the new private streets/PUE.

The existing PG&E overhead powerline easement will remain along the westerly boundary line and will not require the Applicant to underground the existing overhead transmission lines. The private streets will be covered by proposed typical 26’ wide emergency vehicle access easements and typical 34’ wide public service & utility easements. Additional private easement needs may be identified in further stages of design and will be recorded through separate instruments. All existing easements onsite are to be quitclaimed or vacated, unless noted otherwise. Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&R's) will be prepared to facilitate and manage the operations, maintenance and related functions of the common areas. Therefore, the proposed subdivision and relevant improvements will not conflict with easements or access to the property.

Page 1291 of 1482 ends

Page 29 of 31 ends

Density Bonus Permit
To qualify for a Density Bonus Permit, the following standards must be met pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915:

1. The maximum allowable base density specified in the General Plan, including any other permitted increases to density.

The proposed Project includes 134 townhome condominiums on a 7.22-acre lot, equaling a residential density of approximately 19 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), which meets the minimum density of 18 du/acre in the GW-MU zoning district with a maximum density of 65 du/acre in this zoning district. Therefore, the Project is within the density range as specified in the General Plan and MGSP, and will not exceed the maximum allowable base density including any other permitted increases to density.

2. All affordable units shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the Project, shall contain on average the same number of bedrooms as the non-affordable units in the project, and shall be comparable with the non-affordable units in terms of appearance, materials and finished quality. The Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council modifying the requirements as to unit size or type, if it is found that such a modification would better serve the affordable housing need of Milpitas.

The Applicant has allocated a total of 20 units as affordable units reserved for moderateincome households. In order to meet the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) requirements, the affordable units will be distributed across the Project site. The three (3) unit types and distribution of the 20 affordable units are listed below. All units will be three-stories in height and include private balconies and a 2-car garage. The affordable unit locations have been identified and approved by the Office of Housing as meeting the intent of the AHO, and will reaffirm compliance with the distribution and placement of each unit during the building permit phase. and must be developed with the same specifications and appliances as the standard, market-rate units. Additionally, pursuant to XII-1-3.00 and as detailed in the Affordable Housing Ordinance section of the staff report, the Applicant will be conditioned to complete an in-lieu Housing Affordable fee for the fractional 0.1 unit resulting from the City’s AHO 15 percent calculation.
• Eight (8) Affordable Units: Unit Type 1 (3 bedroom/1,326-square feet habitable space) • Eight (8) Affordable Units: Unit Type 2 (3 bedroom/1,710-square feet habitable space) • Four (4) Affordable Units: Unit Type 3 (4 bedroom/2,013-square feet habitable space)

3. Prior to final building inspection and occupancy for a project containing affordable units, the Applicant shall execute and record at the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office the City's Agreement Imposing Restrictions on Real Property, which Agreement shall explain the affordability requirements. The Agreement shall be approved by the Milpitas City Attorney prior to recordation.

The Project has been conditioned to provide an agreement to the City of Milpitas explaining the affordability requirements, processes and procedures, to the satisfaction of the Milpitas City Attorney prior to the release of Certificate of Occupancy.

Page 1292 of 1482 ends

Page 30 of 31 ends

4. Retaining Affordability. A developer shall agree to, and the City shall insure continued affordability of, all lower- or very low-income density bonus units for thirty (30) years or a longer period of time, if required by the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program.

This standard is not applicable to the Project, as the Project is allocating 20 of the 134 townhome condominium units for sale at the moderate-income affordability levels.

However, if the Applicant or a different Permittee may want to change the affordable levels to low- or very low-income, this standard shall apply: prior to final building inspection and occupancy for the Project containing affordable units, the Applicant shall execute and record at the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office the City’s Agreement Imposing Restrictions on Real Property, which Agreement shall explain the affordability requirements, including continued affordability for moderate-income households. The agreement shall be approved by the Milpitas City Attorney prior to recordation.

5. Affordable Rents. Those units targeted for lower-income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code shall be affordable at a rent that does not exceed thirty (30%) of sixty (60%) percent of the Santa Clara County median income. Those units targeted for very low-income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code, shall be affordable at a rent that does not exceed thirty (30%) of fifty (50%) percent of County median income.

This standard is not applicable to the proposed Project, as the Project is creating 134 townhome condominiums for sale with 20 units allocated to moderate-income BMR households, rather than for rent. Affordability provisions will be assessed on the sale of the individual townhome condominium unit.

6. Relation to Statute. Density bonus requirements not specified in these regulations shall be governed by the State Density Bonus Law, Government Code section 65915, et seq.

The Applicant has identified and requested 10 waivers and one concession pursuant to State Density Bonus Law.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City conducted an environmental assessment for the proposed Project (P-EA24-0003) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), as amended. The City certified a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the MGSP on October 28, 2025 (State Clearinghouse No. 2024070432). The SEIR provides an assessment of the reasonably foreseeable and potentially significant adverse environmental effects of the MGSP that may occur beyond what was evaluated in the City of Milpitas 2040 General Plan EIR. The SEIR for the MGSP was prepared at the program “first-tier” level of environmental review consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15152 and 15168) for the overall MGSP area.

According to Section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines, certain residential, commercial and mixeduse projects that are consistent with a specific plan adopted pursuant to Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8 of the Government Code are exempt from CEQA. Section 15182(c) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a residential project undertaken pursuant to and in conformity to a specific plan that included certification of an EIR are exempt from CEQA unless one of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 occur as a result of the project.

Page 1293 of 1482 ends

Page 31 of 31 ends

The 600 Valley Way Environmental Checklist is included as Exhibit 2 of the Resolution (Attachment B) and Exhibit 3 of the Resolution (Attachment C). They include the supporting technical reports as substantial evidence for the CEQA exemption. The Project-specific checklist was prepared to provide supporting information that none of the events outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 have occurred, that the Project is consistent with Section 15182 and the MGSP SEIR. As the prepared document is considered a CEQA exemption, no public circulation of the exemption and no public comment period is required. As the Project site is within the MGSP area and as listed in the exemption document, the Project will still have relevant Conditions of Approval included as part of the Resolution (Attachment A). Therefore, the Project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA, and no further environmental review is required.

PUBLIC COMMENT/OUTREACH
Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with City and State public noticing requirements. At the time of publishing this report, one public comment has been received. A notice was published in the Milpitas Post on May 15, 2026. In addition, notices were sent to all owners and occupants within 300-feet of the Project site. A public notice was also posted at the Project site, on the City's Website, www.milpitas.gov, and at City Hall.

The Applicant also hosted a virtual neighborhood meeting via Zoom on November 10, 2025, to provide detailed information about the Project and respond to questions from members of the community. No attendees came to the virtual neighborhood meeting; however, the Applicant has remained available for public comments and questions. A summary of the neighborhood meeting is included in Attachment H.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:

1. Open the Public Hearing to receive comments;

2. Close the Public Hearing;

3. Consider the exemptions in accordance with CEQA; and

4. Adopt Resolution No. 26-009, recommending that the City Council approve Site Development Permit No. SD24-0005, Vesting Tentative Map MT24-0002, Density Bonus Permit No. DB24-0001, and Environmental Assessment No. EA24-0003, subject to the Conditions of Approval.

ATTACHMENTS
A: Resolution No. 26-009, including Exhibit 1 to the Resolution: Conditions of Approval B: Exhibit 2 to the Resolution: CEQA Exemption Environmental Checklist C. Exhibit 3 to the Resolution: CEQA Exemption Supporting Technical Studies D: Senate Bill 1214 (SB 1214) Project Plans
E: State Density Bonus Law Request Letter
F: MGSP and City ODS Compliance Matrix
G: Transportation Operation Analysis Report
H: Project Summary

Page 1294 of 1482 ends

CITY OF MILPITAS
Planning Commission
May 27, 2026 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Page 1

MEETING MINUTES
7:00pm
MAY 27, 2026

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 7:00pm.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Awasthi led the pledge of allegiance.

ROLL CALL Recording Secretary Medina called the roll.

PRESENT: Chair Gupta, Vice Chair Kong, Awasthi, and Caulkins.

ABSENT: Galang, Brown, and Castillo.

STAFF: Lillian VanHua, Christopher Creech, Kristina Phung, 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.

APPROVAL OF THE

MEETING AGENDA
By motion, approve the meeting agenda for May 27, 2026.

Motion/Second Caulkins/Awasthi
Motion carried by a vote of AYES: 4 NOES: 0

APPROVAL OF THE

MEETING MINUTES
By motion, approve the meeting minutes for April 22, 2026.

Motion/Second Kong/Caulkins
Motion carried by a vote of AYES: 4 NOES: 0
ANNOUNCEMENTS No announcements.

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

PUBLIC HEARING IX-1 SOBRATO RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOMES – 600 VALLEY WAY – P-SD24- 0005, P-MT24-0002, P-DB24-0001, P-EA24-0003: A Site Development Permit, Vesting Tentative Map, Density Bonus Permit, and Environmental Assessment to develop a multi-family residential Project with 134-unit condominium townhomes and a 2,182-square-foot one-story clubhouse. The application was submitted under California Senate Bill 330 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019) and will consist of 24 threestory, multi-family residential buildings approximately 38-feet in height (up to a maximum height of 45-feet to the top of the highest architectural element) with 268 resident vehicle parking stalls, 60 outdoor surface level guest parking stalls, landscaping, and associated site improvements on a 7.22-acre site located within the Gateway-Mixed Use (GW-MU) Zoning District in the Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan area at 600 Valley Way. As a Lead Agency, the City has determined the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to

Page 1295 of 1482 ends

May 27, 2026 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15182. CEQA Guidelines Section 15182 states that projects in conformity with a specific plan that has a certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are exempt from CEQA, provided the project results in none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. The City prepared an Environmental Checklist for the Project to evaluate its consistency with the GatewayMain Street Specific Plan Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2024070432), which demonstrates the Project would result in none of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
(55:02) Project Planner Kristina Phung and applicant team addressed commissioners' clarifying questions related to the following:
• Proposed modifications to the Conditions of Approval; • The location and operation of the project’s trash enclosure; • Resident concerns regarding landscaping and replacement trees along adjacent residential property lines;
• Emergency vehicle access and internal site circulation; • Proposed pedestrian paseo improvements;
• Landscaping and screening adjacent to Interstate 880; • Electric vehicle charging infrastructure;
• Project density and consistency with the Gateway Specific Plan; • Air quality, noise, traffic, school impacts, and overall residential livability; • Guest parking provisions;
• Relocation assistance provided to existing nonprofit tenants occupying the site.

The applicant and staff responded to Commissioner questions and provided additional information regarding site constraints, density bonus waivers, environmental review, parking requirements, valet trash service operations, utility limitations, traffic analysis, school district coordination, and project design considerations.

Staff added that only a clerical correction to Condition of Approval No. 76 was recommended for approval. Staff did not recommend approval of the applicant’s remaining proposed revisions related to State Housing Law language, indemnification provisions, and automatic permit extensions during emergencies, citing legal and procedural concerns.

Chair Gupta opened the public hearing.

Harshad Patel, an adjacent property owner, spoke regarding concerns related to the proposed trash enclosure location adjacent to neighboring residential properties and a daycare operation. Concerns included odors, pests, litter, and potential impacts to children. Mr. Patel requested that the trash enclosure be relocated farther from residential property lines.

A second speaker, Mrs. Patel, expressed concerns regarding existing and proposed trees adjacent to the property line. Concerns included maintenance issues, falling pine needles, and potential impacts to children using the daycare facility. She requested consideration of relocating or modifying the proposed trees.

The applicant acknowledged the concerns and stated that additional evaluation would occur regarding tree placement and other design considerations while maintaining compliance with applicable City requirements.

No additional speakers came forward.

Chair Gupta closed the public hearing.

Page 1296 of 1482 ends

May 27, 2026 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 Commissioners discussed the testimony received and generally expressed support for the project while encouraging continued coordination between the applicant, City staff, and neighboring residents regarding:
• The proposed trash enclosure location;
• Potential relocation or modification of trees adjacent to neighboring properties;
• Clarification of the applicant’s requested Conditions of Approval revisions prior to City Council consideration.

Commissioners also acknowledged the project’s contribution to the City's housing goals and recognized the applicant’s efforts to assist nonprofit tenants with relocation.

Recommendations:

Motion No. 1 - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open and close the public hearing, consider the Project’s CEQA exemption pursuant to conformity with the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2024070432) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15182, and adopt Resolution No. 26-009, recommending that the City Council approve Site Development Permit No. SD24-0005, Vesting Tentative Map No. MT24- 0002, Density Bonus Permit No. DB24-0001, and Environmental Assessment No.

EA24-0003, subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval. * including the clerical revision to Condition of Approval No. 76 and the photometric analysis revision discussed by staff.

Motion/Second Caulkins/Kong
Motion carried by a vote of AYES: 4 NOES: 0
Motion No. 2 - Chair Gupta moved that the Planning Commission’s recommendations be forwarded to the City Council and reflected in the meeting record, including:

1. The applicant work with staff and provide additional information demonstrating why the proposed trash enclosure location is necessary and whether alternative locations would physically preclude development at the density permitted under State Density Bonus Law;

2. The applicant work with the Public Works Department regarding evaluation of the four trees discussed during the public hearing and determine whether removal or relocation is feasible and consistent with City requirements;

3. The applicant continue coordinating with City staff and the City Attorney’s Office regarding the three proposed Conditions of Approval revisions not recommended by staff and provide any additional factual basis or supporting information prior to City Council consideration.

Motion/Second Gupta/Caulkins
Motion carried by a vote of AYES: 4 NOES: 0
NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Caulkins noted that correspondence received for the meeting had been addressed to Commissioners using their City-issued Milpitas.gov email addresses and inquired about access to those accounts.

Staff explained that the City-issued email addresses are currently used for calendaring purposes only, as Commissioners' calendars are publicly accessible. Staff noted that the accounts are not presently intended for general email communication.

A Commissioner commented that City staff had previously sent emails to the Cityissued address and expressed concern about not receiving those communications. Staff acknowledged the concern and stated that the matter would be discussed with the

Page 1297 of 1482 ends

May 27, 2026 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 Information Technology Director to determine whether additional access options should be considered moving forward.

No further new business was discussed.

ADJOURNMENT Chair Gupta adjourned the meeting at 8:53 pm

Meeting Minutes submitted by
Planning Commission Secretary Elizabeth Medina

Page 1298 of 1482 ends

Page 1299 of 1482 ends

Page 1300 of 1482 ends

Page 1301 of 1482 ends

Page 1302 of 1482 ends

Page 1303 of 1482 ends

Page 1304 of 1482 ends

Page 1305 of 1482 ends

Page 1306 of 1482 ends

Page 1307 of 1482 ends

Page 1308 of 1482 ends

Page 1309 of 1482 ends

Page 1310 of 1482 ends

Page 1311 of 1482 ends

Page 1312 of 1482 ends

Page 1313 of 1482 ends

Page 1314 of 1482 ends

Milpitas, CA 95035
[email protected]
Re: 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project (Site Development Permit PSD24-0005, Tentative Map (P-MT24-0002), Density Bonus P-DB24-0001, Tree Removal Permit P-TR24-0018, and Environmental Assessment P-EA24-0003) State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915) Request Letter Dear All:

This firm represents The Sobrato Organization (the “Applicant”) regarding the 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project (the “Project”), which is located on the approximately 7.22-acre site at 600 Valley Way (APNs 222-80-25, 222-80-24, and 222-80-22) (the “Project Site”) in the City of Milpitas (the “City”). The Project will replace five existing non-residential structures with a new 134-unit for-sale residential community, including 20 for-sale units available below market rate for affordable housing for moderate-income households. The purpose of this letter is to provide an overview of the applicable provisions of the State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915) (“SDBL”) and formally request benefits available to the Project under the SDBL, including:

1. The Project requires one (1) concession.

2. The Project requires ten (10) waivers.

3. The Applicant reserves the right to modify its request for SDBL benefits, including but not limited to concessions and waivers, at a later time.

4. We note that the SDBL imposes a heavy burden on cities that seek to deny concession or waiver requests.

I. The Project qualifies for benefits under the State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915) (“SDBL”)
The SDBL requires the City to grant certain development benefits (e.g. bonuses, concessions, waivers and parking reductions) to developers who agree to provide affordable housing. The

Page 1315 of 1482 ends

April 23, 2026

Page 2 ends

Project qualifies for SDBL density bonuses, incentives and concessions from development standards, waivers, and parking reductions by providing 20 moderate income for-sale affordable homes, or 15% of the overall residential count of 134 residential units. This percentage of moderate income, for-sale homes exceeds the minimum 10% moderate income for-sale eligibility threshold for a project to be entitled to take advantage of SDBL benefits.1 The following are the SDBL benefits that the Applicant seeks at this time. The Applicant reserves its right to revise all eligible SDBL benefits at a later time.

II. The Project requires one (1) concession to achieve cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs.

The Project is entitled to one incentive or concession by including at least 10% of the total units as affordable units available for sale to moderate income households.2“Concession” is defined expansively to include but is not limited to “A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in [Health and Safety Code Section 18901 et seq.], including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required that results in identifiable and actual cost reductions, to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted [affordable units in the housing project],” “Approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and if the commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses are compatible with the housing project and the existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing project will be located,” and “Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the city, county, or city and county that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted [affordable units in the housing project].”
3 While the Applicant reserves its right to modify its concession request at a later time, at this stage, the Project requests the following concession:

1. Milpitas Residential & Mixed Use Objective Design Standard 5.3.1: Fenestration Design – 2-inch Recessed. This requirement significantly increases cost—the 2-inch recess costs approximately $620 per window. The creation of an exterior recess requires additional lumber, waterproofing, stucco, and other materials, increasing the costs of construction.

As the Project contains more than one thousand windows subject to this requirement, this increased cost would undermine the Project’s financials. While the Project will comply with this requirement for some windows (those facing the pedestrian pathways), compliance for all windows is not feasible. The significant costs that would be imposed 1 Gov. Code § 65915(b)(1)(D).
2 Gov. Code § 65915(d)(2)(A).
3 Gov. Code § 65915(k).

Page 1316 of 1482 ends

April 23, 2026

Page 3 ends

by complying with this requirement for the alley-facing windows will be reduced by use of the concession to provide for the moderate income affordable housing component of the Project.

The circumstances in which the City can deny a concession request are highly limited. The SDBL dictates that the City “shall” grant the request unless the City makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, that the concession (1) does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, (2) would have a specific, adverse health and safety impact for which there is no feasible mitigation, or (3) the concession would be contrary to state or federal law.4In any action, the City “shall bear the burden of proof for the denial of a requested concession.”5 III. The Project requires ten (10) waivers of development standards that physically preclude the Project at the proposed density as designed.

The Project is entitled to “a waiver or reduction of development standards that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development . . . at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted [by the SDBL],” and there is no limit on the number of waivers that may be sought.6 The fact that alternative designs may exist that achieve the same unit density without requiring waivers cannot negate a requested waiver. Each waiver request must be assessed on its own terms at the level of plan detail at which it is presented and in the context of the narrow parameters discussed further below under which it may be rejected. While the Applicant reserves its right to request additional waivers at a later time, at this stage the Project will require at least the following waivers:

1. MGSP Urban Design Standard 3.7.3: Setback – Maximum Front Setback. This standard would result in the loss of floor area impacting residential units as designed and thereby forcing a reduction in Project density.

2. MGSP Urban Design Standard 3.7.3: Setback – Interior Side Setback Adjacent to SingleFamily Residential. This standard would result in the loss of approximately two (2) units, forcing a reduction in Project density.

3. MGSP Urban Design Standard 3.7.3: Minimum 60% Building Frontage. This standard would result in the loss of approximately twenty-one (21) units, forcing a reduction in Project density.

4. MGSP Urban Design Standard 4.1.3.B: Adjacent to Freeways – Double Row of Trees.

This standard would result in the loss of approximately twenty-nine (29) units, forcing a reduction in Project density.
4 Gov. Code § 65915(d)(1).
5 Gov. Code § 65915(d)(4).
6 Gov. Code § 65915(e).

Page 1317 of 1482 ends

April 23, 2026

Page 4 ends

5. MGSP Urban Design Standard 5.3.9: Future Service Alleys. This standard would result in the loss of approximately forty-eight (48) units, forcing a reduction in Project density.

6. Milpitas Residential & Mixed Use Objective Design Standard 3.9.1.3: Planting. This standard would result in the loss of approximately twenty-three (23) units, forcing a reduction in Project density.

7. Milpitas Residential & Mixed Use Objective Design Standard 3.9.3: Adjacent to Freeways – Double Row of Trees. This standard would result in the loss of approximately twenty-nine (29) units, forcing a reduction in Project density.

8. Milpitas Residential & Mixed Use Objective Design Standard 4.1.3.6: Open Space Quality – Minimum of 40 feet in Width. This standard would result in the loss of approximately 2,500 SF or one (1) unit, forcing a reduction in Project density.

9. Milpitas Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Standard C.2.120: Refuse and Recycling Areas – E.6 Enclosures – Location. This standard would result in the loss of approximately two (2) units, forcing a reduction in Project density.

10. Milpitas Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Standard C.6.080.D: Size and Dimensions of Parking Spaces – Parallel Parking Space Dimensions. This standard would result in the loss of approximately forty-three (43) units, forcing a reduction in Project density.

The circumstances in which the City may refuse a waiver are highly limited. The City may only do so if granting the waiver would result in a “specific, adverse impact” “upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact,” would have an “adverse impact” on a historic resource, or “would be contrary to state or federal law.”7 The burden is on the City to make such a showing based on the preponderance of the evidence.8 Furthermore, the SDBL “shall be interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of total housing units,”
9 which indicates that the City and courts must aim their analysis of waiver requests to maximize housing production as proposed by project applicants.

IV. Conclusion
As identified above, the Applicant reserves the right to revise all eligible SDBL benefits at a later time. Thank you for your ongoing cooperation and support as the Applicant seeks to deliver much-needed housing for the City, including for-sale affordable housing. We would be happy to discuss the concession and waiver requests further, if helpful. 7 Gov. Code § 65915(e)(1); see also Schreiber v. City of Los Angeles (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 549, 556. 8 Gov. Code 65589.5(d)(2).
9 Gov. Code § 65915(r) (emphasis added).

Page 1318 of 1482 ends

April 23, 2026

Page 5 ends

Sincerely yours,

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Tamsen Plume

Page 1319 of 1482 ends

TABLE-1

Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (MGSP) Urban Design Standards Compliance

Standard
Meet
Standard
Does Not
Meet
Standard
Not
Applicable Drawing Reference Waiver or Concession Notes

3.3 Intensity and Scale �� G-001
G-002
The project proposes 19 du/ac and a 0.98 FAR, within
MGSP GW-MU limits. It includes 3-story townhomes and
one-story clubhouse, with building heights of 38' to the roof and 45' to the tallest element, below the max. 65' and 5 stories limit.

Buildings 16 and 22 have been revised, resulting in a slight reduction in floor areas compared to the last submittal.

Updated project total floor area: 307,102 SF
Current FAR: 0.98. FAR Calculation: 307,102 sf / (7.22 ac x 43,560 sf) =0.98 FAR
See Sheet G-001 & 002 (Project Information, Building
Type Summary, and Indication of Property).

3.4 Economic & Development
Incentives
�� N/A The applicant is not applying any incentives at this time.

3.7.3 Setback
�� G-001
A-110 to A-130.

A-200 to A-261
A-400 to A-460, A-480
A-310
SDB letter
Waiver #1, #2,#3 are
requested.

See State Density
Bonus Letter
Per MGSP 3.5, Minimum setbacks apply to all stories.

Maximum setbacks apply only to the ground Floor. New
Sheets A-110 to A-130 have been added to show setback
dimensions for the various building levels, including roof overhangs. A setback summary for each building is also
provided in the lower-left corner of these sheets. The
table on the G-001 table has also been updated.

The proposed trellises and roof eaves (18" depth) comply with the allowed setback encroachment standards per
CZO Table C.2.130-A. See Sheet A-310 for building
sections, and Sheets A-200 and A-400 series for specific details and dimensions.

Front Setback applies to Vally Way cul-de-sac, Bldg. 18, 16, 22, and 24. (MGSP 5-12 feet required)
Minimum setback – compliant. (see Sheet A-110
to A-130)
11'-7" (Bldg 18) > min 5’ requirement
13'-11" (Bldg 16) > min 5’ requirement
11'-10" (Bldg 22) > min 5’ requirement
14'-3" (Bldg 24) > min 5’ requirement
Maximum setback: partially compliant (see Sheet
A-110):
13'-5" (Bldg 18)> max 12’’ requirement
15'-5" (Bldg 16) > max 12’’ requirement
11'-10" (Bldg 22) < max 12’’ requirement
14'-3" (Bldg 24) > max 12’’ requirement
Setbacks for Buildings 18, 16, 22, and 24 have
been updated to provide 10' PUE requirement at
the cul-de-sac on Valley Way, per the direction
accepted by City Public Works at the October 16
meeting. Meeting notes were sent to the City on
10/23/2025.

All four buildings meet the min. setback
requirements. Building 22 meets the max.
setback requirements. Bldg. 16, 18, and 24 do
not meet the maximum setback standards. A
waiver is requested.

Building Frontage on Vally Way cul-de-sac.
(Min. 60% required):

The building frontage (Bldg. 16, 18, 22, 24) does
not meet the minimum 60% of building frontage
to meet the minimum front setback, per
MGSP 3.5 & 3.7.3. requirements. A waiver is
requested.

Interior setback applies to the east edge of the site. Bldg. 17, 18, and 24. (MGSP Min. 0 feet required)
The project complies with this setback
requirements. Proposed setback ranges from 10’-
3” to 13’-6”, as listed below: ( See sheet A-110 to
A-130)
Bldg. 17: 12’-11” > min. 0’ requirement
Bldg. 18: 10’-3” > min. 0’ requirement
Bldg. 24:13’-6” > min. 0’ requirement
Interior Side Setback Adjacent to Single-Family residential applies to the north edge of the site, for Bldg. 1, 10, 11, 17 and trash enclosure. (MGSP Residential. Min. 10 feet
required). Setbacks are proposed as below:

Bldg. 1: 38’ > min. 10’ requirement
Bldg. 10: 38’ > min.10’ requirement
Bldg. 11:38’ > min. 10’ requirement
Bldg. 17:28’-5” > min. 10’ requirement
Trash Enclosure: 6’ < min. 10’ requirement

All 4 buildings comply with setback

Page 1320 of 1482 ends

requirements. The rash enclosure does not
comply with setback requirements. A waiver is
requested.

Transitions to Single-Family Residential
Neighborhoods: The project complies with MGSP

4.1.3A and ODS 3.9.1. See Sheet A-300, A-450,
and A-480 for compliance with daylight plane
requirements.

Setback Along Freeway Edge applies to the west edges of the site, for Bldg. 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 20, 23, and 24. (MGSP 4.1.3 B requires a minimum setback of 60 feet)
Proposed setbacks from Freeway:

Bldg. 1: 106’-5” > min. 60’ requirement
Bldg. 2: 99’-2” > min.60’ requirement
Bldg. 6:102’-5”> min. 60’ requirement
Bldg. 8:136’-4” > min. 60’ requirement
Bldg. 9:121’-1” > min. 60’ requirement
Bldg. 20:139’-9” > min. 60’ requirement
Bldg. 23:144’ > min. 60’ requirement
Bldg. 24:139’ > min. 60’ requirement
Sheet A-110 to A-130 shows setbacks of over 100
feet from the edge of freeway to proposed
buildings, well exceeding the 60 feet minimum.

3.7.3 Active Frontage Design & Public
Realm Improvements
�� A-100, A-110 Compliant. Ground floor residential unit entries are oriented towards the publicly accessible pathway.

Provided open spaces are consistent with Figure 3-6.

3.9 Open Space Standards �� L7.01 Compliant. Requirements have been noted as shown on L7.01 and L7.11.

3.9.1 Minimum Open Space �� L7.01 Compliant. The project meets the requirements on MGSP table 3.8 as shown on the table included on sheet L7.01.

L7.01 shows the locations of the qualifying open spaces. A table noting the requirements and how the project meets them is included on this sheet. L7.11 has enlargements of the 3 common open space areas used to meet the
requirements. This sheet includes the dimensions for the areas and information about the amenities included.

All common open space is publicly accessible; meeting
min. 5% of the open space shall be publicly accessible.

Common Open Space 9,974 SF / (Common Open Space
9,974 SF+ Private Balconies 2,154 SF + Private Terraces 12,498 SF) = 9,974 / 24,626 = 40.5%.

3.9.2 Common Outdoor Open
Space
�� L7 series
L5.01 and L5.02.

Compliant. The plans and tables on sheets in the L7 series show the open space size requirements. L7.11 has
enlargements of the 3 common open space areas used to
meet the requirements. This sheet includes the
dimensions for the areas and information about the
amenities included.

A total of 9,974 square feet of common open space is
provided, exceeding the minimum requirement of 8,040
square feet. Additionally, 13,967 square feet of private open space is provided through terraces and balconies,
exceeding the minimum requirement of 5,360 square
feet.

The plans show the planting requirements have been
met. The lighting requirements are met as shown on the
L7 series and the lighting and photometric sheets L5.01 and L5.02. The open space areas are open to the sky and include the items noted in 3.9.3.8.

3.9.3 Private Open Space �� L7.01
L7.11
A-200 to A-260
Compliant. The amount of private open space is met as
shown on the table on L7.01.

See Sheets A-200 to A-260. Private porches and upper
decks are labeled with dimensions and square footage. All private open spaces meet the minimum dimensional
requirements as shown (min.5 feet in all directions)

3.10 Parking Standards

3.10.1 Parking Ratios
�� G-001
G-002
G-005
The project is not within one-half mile of a VTA light
station. The proposed number of parking spaces and
parking ratio meet the MGSP Table 3-9 requirements.

Plan Review Manager, Betty Chan, confirmed in her email dated October 14, 2025, that the latest parking types and quantities meet the requirements.

A total of 268 resident parking spaces will be provided through private garages. A total of 60 guest parking
spaces are provided outdoors.

The vehicular parking summary tables on Sheet G-002
have been updated with all the requested information,
including min. stall dimensions, EV, accessible, tandem or side-by-side...etc.

No compact stalls are proposed. No SDB ratio/parking
reduction is applied at this time.

All outdoor guest parking spaces are designated for guest use and are shown on the G-005 site plan. Stall types,
typical dimensions, EV spaces, private garage size, and accessible parking spaces are labeled on the plans.

3.10.2 Shared Parking �� N/A No shared parking is proposed.

Page 1321 of 1482 ends

3.10.3 Unbundled Parking �� N/A Resident parking spaces for the project are provided within the private garage of each unit. All outdoor parking spaces are guest parking, unassigned.

3.10.4 Parking Location and
Access
��
See Waiver
#11 under
the CZO

1. Not applicable. The project is not located within the Crossroads or Main Street districts.

2. Compliant. On-site parking spaces are accessed
through the alleys.

3. Not applicable. The project is not located within 50 feet of existing street parking.

4. Noted.

5. Compliant with exception. The project complies with
the applicable requirements of the CZO, except for
Section C.6.080.D – Size and Dimensions of Parking
Spaces (parallel parking spaces). A waiver has been
requested.

3.10.5 Electric Vehicle Charging �� G-002, G-005, A-200 to A261 The proposed EV, EV ready, and/or EVCS are compliant
and provided pursuant to the following codes:
- Pursuant to CBC 1109a.2.1 private garage, exception
1 applied to the project. Project complies.
- Pursuant to MMC chapter 19 - 4.106.4.1 one-and
two-family dwellings and town-houses with
attached private garages. The 1st stall is Level 2 EV
Ready. The 2nd stall is Level 1 EV Ready. Project
complies.
- pursuant to MMC chapter 19 - section 4.106.4.2.1 -
25% of spaces with EVCS level 2 EV ready. 75% of
spaces with low power level 2 EV ready. Project
complies.
- Pursuant to CBC 1109a.5 unassigned and visitor
accessible parking spaces & 1109a.8.6 van accessible
parking space requirements. Project complies.
- Required resident and visitor parking ratio are based on MGSP. Project complies.
- Parking provided in garage of the TH1 unit type are
tandem parking spaces. Other unit types (TH2 &
TH3) are side-by-side parking in garage.

The parking numbers provided were also confirmed by
city staff on 10/14/2025 via email. See Sheet G-002 for EV parking breakdown and Sheet G-005 for locations.

All parking spaces comply with City Reach Code (MMC Ch
19) mandates: each private 2-car garage includes one
Level 2 EV Ready stall and one Level 1 EV Ready stall. For outdoor guest parking spaces, 25% of stalls will be EVCS with Level 2 infrastructure, and 75% will be Low Power
Level 2 EV Ready.

3.10.6 Bicycle Parking �� G-002 , L1.01, A-200 to A261 L6.02
Per MGSP, 0.5 spaces are required per unit for residential bike parking. The project requires 68 bike parking spaces.

Total 134 long-term bike parking spaces are provided.

One bike parking space is provided in the private garage of each unit. See Sheets A-200 to A-261. of the building plans for bike parking stall locations.

Per CZO Table C.6.100, 15% of required bike parking
spaces shall be short-term spaces. The project requires 11 short-term bike spaces. (68 x 15% = rounded up to 11).

Total 12 short-term outdoor bike spaces (bike racks) are provided on the site for the project. See L1.01 for bike rack locations. See L6.02 for bike rack.

4.1.1.A
Block Size Standards
�� G-008 Compliant. All blocks’ perimeters are under 1,400 feet. All blocks’ lengths are under 400 feet. New Streets and
connections aligned with Mobility Framework.

4.1.2.A
Building Siting and Orientation
�� A-100. All building unit entries are facing publicly accessible pathways and common open spaces.

4.1.2.B
Building Encroachment
�� N/A
A-100.

Not applicable. Project does not have setback
encroachments for the design feature of Table 4-1.

4.1.3.A
Transitions to Single-Family
Residential Neighborhoods
�� A-300, A-110 to A130
Compliant. Daylight plane: The project complies with
MGSP 4.1.3A and ODS 3.9.1. as shown on Sheet A-300

4.1.3.B
Adjacent to Freeways
�� A-100 to A-130
L1.01, L2.01
Waiver #4 is
requested.

See State Density
Bonus Letter
(for double rows of
trees requirement)
The setback is compliant. MGSP 4.1.3 B requires a
minimum setback of 60 feet from the edge of freeway
right-of-way. Sheet A-100 to A-130 show setbacks of over 100 feet from the edge of freeway to proposed buildings, well exceeding the 60 feet minimum. Project complies
with setback.

The double rows of trees cannot be planted due to the
overhead powerline easement. A waiver is requested.

4.1.3.C
Adjacent to Railroad Lines
�� N/A
G-001, A-100.

Not applicable. Project is not adjacent to railroad lines.

4.1.3.D
Adjacent to Creeks and
Channels
�� N/A
G-001, A-100.

Not applicable. Project is not adjacent to creeks and
channels.

4.1.4.A
Service and Parking Entries
�� N/A
G-001, A-100.

Not applicable. Site does not face main public street with building. All street access to buildings are provided
through private streets.

4.1.4.B
Surface Parking Lots
�� N/A Not applicable. Site does not provide surface parking lots.

4.1.4.C
Parking Structures
�� N/A Not applicable. Site does not provide parking structures.

4.1.5.A
Service and Utility Areas
�� TM-1.0 to TM-7.5 Compliant. Utilities will be meeting city’s flood plan management construction standards.

Rooftop AC unit is screened by the mansard roof. Atgrade AC unit is screened by decorated fence.

Page 1322 of 1482 ends

Underground transformers are not allowed per PG & E,
compliant with MGSP 4.1.5.A.1.

Compliant. Transformers are screened per the
requirement where possible without impeding access.

4.2.1.A
Building Massing and Form
�� N/A
A-100, A-400 to A-470.

No building at street intersections with traffic signals and at community or district gateway sites. No building is taller than 5 stories

4.2.2.A
General Standards
�� N/A
G-001, A-100.

Not applicable. Project is not fronting a continue public right of way. However, the project does provide units and common open space facing the cul-de-sac.

4.2.2.B
Façade Composition
�� N/A
A-100, A-400 – A-470.

Not applicable. Project is not fronting a continue public right of way. However, the project does provide variations in building modulation, articulation and fenestration.

4.2.3.A
Building Entries and Doors
�� G-005, A-100, A-200 – A270, A-400 – A-470.

Building entries of Buildings 16, 18, 22, and 24 are located at corners of the building, face and connect with a
publicly accessible pedestrian path.

All other buildings are N/A, as they are not located along the public right-of-way.

4.2.4.A
Windows and Glazing
�� A--500. Compliant. Project is proposing operable vinyl windows.

4.2.4.B
Bird Safety
�� A--500. Compliant. Project is proposing operable vinyl windows with low reflectivity.

4.2.5.A
Building Materials and Colors
�� A-500. Building materials are provided on Sheet A-500

4.2.6.A
Roof Standards
�� N/A
A-200 – A270
Not Applicable. Common open spaces are not provided
through rooftops.

4.3.1.A
Design of Ground-floor
Residential
�� A-100, A-200 – A-270. Project proposes terraces at entries that meet the requirements.

4.3.2.A
Design of Commercial
Shopfronts and Corners
�� N/A Not Applicable. Project does not provide commercials on ground floor.

4.3.2.B
Guideline
�� N/A Not Applicable. Project does not provide commercials on ground floor.

4.3.3.A
Outdoor Dining General
Standards
�� N/A Not Applicable. Project does not provide outdoor dining on ground floor.

4.3.3.B
Sidewalk Outdoor Dining
�� N/A Not Applicable. Project does not provide outdoor dining on ground floor.

4.3.3.C
Parklets
�� N/A Not Applicable. Project does not provide outdoor dining on ground floor.

4.3.4.A
Street Trees
�� L2.01 Compliant. Street trees specified for the Cul-de-sac on L2.01.

4.3.5.A
Lighting
�� L5.01, L5.02, L5.03 Compliant. Lighting has been included on sheet L5.01

4.3.5.B
Signage
�� N/A N/A. No business and/or retail have been proposed for the Project.

4.3.5.C Guidelines �� L5.01, L5.02, L5.03 The color of the lights will be compatible with the building colors.

5.1 Mobility Framework Project complies with mobility framework in Figure 5.1

5.2 Street Activity Zones �� sheet L1.01. The project provides landscape between building entries and pedestrian walkway as semi-public/public transition.

See sheet L1.01.

5.3 Street Design �� TM-3.1, TM-4.3, A-100, G005

5.3.9 Future Residential Alleys applicable to the project.

5.3.8 Future Residential Streets �� TM-4.2
A-100.

Per discussion with city, a segment of new sidewalk will be added in front of the vacant lot on Valley Way as offsite improvement.

5.3.9 Future Service Alleys �� G-005, A-100, A-300, TM2.3, TM-3.1, TM- 4.3 SDB letter
Waiver #5 is
requested.

See State Density
Bonus Letter
The project proposes a private alley with 26-foot two-way ROW / EVA lane. Additional minimum 4-foot setbacks are
provided on both sides of alley for garage aprons and
landscape planting areas. The total width of the private alley is 34 feet, consisting of the 26-foot ROW and 4-foot setbacks on both sides. Plantings are interspersed
between garage entries, and alternatively pedestrian
walkways are connected throughout the site via unit front entries, creating a safer and more comfortable pedestrian environment. Meeting MGSP Figure 5-14 standards would
require a 35-foot-wide alley (25-foot ROW with 5-foot
setbacks on both sides), resulting in the loss of
approximately 48 units and reduced project density.

A waiver is requested.

5.3.10 Future Paseo �� N/A No “paseo” has been proposed or designated to the project.

5.6 Pedestrian Network �� N/A No pedestrian intersection improvements and/or new signalized intersection are required for the project per MGSP figure 5-17.

5.8 Parking �� G-002 Acknowledged district-wide parking policy and standards.

Table 3-9 parking ratio standards are met as shown on G002 and were also confirmed by the City on 10/14/2025 via email.

No future public parking area applied to the project per Figure 5-1.

6.3.4 Privately-Owned, Public
Open Spaces
�� N/A Project does not include any privately-owned, publicly accessible open spaces (POPOS).

6.5.1 Street Lights and Banners �� L5.02, L5.03 Compliant. Sheets L5.01 and L5.02 show a family of compliant LED lights meeting the requirements in this
section.

6.5.3 Street Landscaping �� L1.01, L2.01, L2.02 Compliant. The streetscape areas use the trees and planting from the list noted in this section. Additional plant species are included in other areas based on
requirements for treatment areas, specific site conditions and to meet requirements from the objective design
standards.

Page 1323 of 1482 ends

TABLE-2
Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards Compliance

6.5.4 Hardscape Material
Palette
�� L1.01 Compliant. The pedestrian paving areas are consistent with the materials noted in this section as shown on
L1.01.All roadways are AC pavement.

7.1.2. Recommended
Stormwater Infrastructure
Improvements (#1-8)
Acknowledged the recommendation.

7.2 Flood Protection �� TM-2.1 Existing Conditions
TM-5.1 Preliminary
Grading
All buildings meet the minimum freeboard above the 100- year based flood elevation.

Kier + Wright (civil) has reviewed all subsections to
Section 7.2. A. Plans meet Section 7.2.A
Small portion of the project is in Flood Zone AE, which is shown on the Existing Conditions Sheet.

Shading has been added to the existing conditions plan to show the hazardous flood zone area.

TM-2.1. see below. All areas inside the yellow
line is outside the flood zone. The BFE elevation is 18.0-

19.0. All buildings FF elevations are set to be a minimum of 1-foot above the BFE and all electrical facilities are above the BFE. See grading plan TM-5.1 and Utility Sheet TM-6.1.

7.6.1 Electricity and Gas �� TM-6.1 All power shall be within the joint trench as shown on the utility sheet and shall meet all of the required agency standards. Gas is not proposed for this development.

The project complies with Milpitas Reach Code for AllElectric Building and EV Parking requirements. The project will be PV ready in compliance with Title 24.

7.6.3 Energy and Technology
Standards
�� TM-6.1 All new facilities shall be undergrounded (transformer is above-grade). It is assumed public broadband facilities are available in the area. There are no new businesses and therefore no fiber-optic connections needed. PG&E will
not allow the overhead transmission lines, along the
southerly property line, to be undergrounded.

Standard
Meet
Standard
Does Not
Meet
Standard
Not
Applicable Drawing Reference Waiver or Concession Notes

1.1.3 Additional Documents �� See Table 1 and 3 on Sheet G-006
The project is also governed by Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance (adopted September 2, 2025) and GatewayMain Street Specific Plan (adopted on October 28, 2025).

1.3 Applicability �� G-001 The project is a multi-family project with total 134 units, including 24 new three-story townhome buildings and
one one-story clubhouse.

2.1.1. Maximum Block Length
�� G-008 Compliant. Block length and perimeter meet the standards.

2.2.1 Mid-block Connections
�� A-100, L1,01 Comply with the standard.

2.2.2 Minimum Building Setbacks for
private streets and publicly
accessible pedestrian pathways
�� G-005 Not applicable. No primary building frontages face publicly accessible pedestrian pathways.

2.2.3 Paseo/ Pedestrian Path
�� A-110, A-400 to A470. The proposed 8-foot-wide publicly accessible pedestrian pathway meets the standard). The building-to-building
width meets the minimum requirement of 20 feet (see
Sheet A-110. No adjacent buildings exceed 35 feet in
height, in accordance with ODS Section 2.2.3 (see building elevations). The project does not include a shared
street/woonerf. Alley dimensions are governed by MGSP
standards.

2.2.4 Shared Street/ Woonerf
�� N/A Not Applicable. The project does not include a shared street/woonerf.

2.2.5 Private Street
�� N/A Not Applicable. Alley dimensions are governed by MGSP standards.

2.3.1 Required Publicly Accessible
Open Spaces
�� L7.01 Not applicable. Project is not a Large Sites/Master Planned project.

2.3.2 Minimum Design Requirements
�� A-100, L1.01 Not applicable. Project is not a Large Sites/Master Planned project.

2.4.1 Mail Delivery
�� L1.01 Comply with the standard. Mailboxes are provided along publicly accessible spaces in front of building clusters.

3.1 Effective Sidewalk Width
⚫ TM-4.1 A 10-foot sidewalk is proposed at the Valley Way cul-desac, as approved per direction from the City Public Works Department.

3.2.1 Building Frontages
�� A-100 Compliant. Individual unit entries face publicly accessible pathways.

3.2.2 Pedestrian Connection
�� L1.01, A-100 Compliant. Publicly accessible pathways are provided at 4 feet.

3.2.3 Building Setback/ Building-toZone
�� G-006, A-100 to A-140. This standard is superseded by the provisions of the MGSP. See MGSP compliance matrix on Sheet G-006.

3.3.1 Landscaping
��
L1.01, A-100 to A-140
Min. 40% planted requirement: Compliant. 59% of the
front setback area are planted.

No trees are required, as the proposed front setback is less than 15 feet.

3.3.2 Encroachments
�� A-100 to A-140 Project meets the standard. The proposed trellises and roof eaves (18" depth) comply with the allowed setback

Page 1324 of 1482 ends

encroachment standards per CZO Table C.2.130-A. See
Sheet A-310 for building sections, and Sheets A-200 and A-400 series for specific details and dimensions.

3.4.1.1 Active Frontages Types
�� A-100 to A-140, A-200 – A270.

Compliant. Ground floor residential units with individual unit entries are provided.

3.4.1.2 Active Frontages Requirements
�� A-100 to A-140, A-200 – A270.

Compliant. The building façades, with individual unit
entries, face publicly accessible pathways.

3.4.1.3 Minimum Depth of Active Uses
�� A-100 to A-140, A-200 – A270.

Compliant. Ground floor residential units have a depth
greater than 16 feet.

3.4.1.4 Finished Floor Heights of Active
Uses
�� TM-5.1, A-300, A-301 Compliant. Residential unit entries are proposed to be above grade at back of pathway.

3.4.1.5 Variable Finished Floor Heights
�� N/A
TM-5.1
Not applicable. Project is designed to meet city’s
floodplain management ordinance.

3.4.1.6 Floor-to-Floor Heights of Active
Uses
�� N/A Not applicable. The project does not include commercial spaces, ground-floor offices, or live/work units.

3.5.1.1 Vehicular Access Hierarchy
�� G-005 Compliant. Project provides parking and service area access from proposed alleys.

3.5.1.2 Driveway and Curb Cuts
�� G-005, TM-8.1 Compliant (Sheets G-005, TM-8.1). The Valley Way cul-desac frontage is approximately 265 feet, with three curb cuts provided for emergency vehicle access, allowed as an exception per ODS 3.5.1.2. The traffic report confirms
that the design is feasible and poses no safety issues.

Driveways are located more than 3 feet from adjoining
parcels.

3.5.1.3 Limitation on Parking and
Loading Frontage
�� N/A Not applicable. The project does not include off-street parking or off-street vehicle loading.

3.5.1.4 Screening for Structured Parking
�� N/A Not applicable. The project does not include parking structure.

3.6.1.1 Bay Friendly Planting and Water
Conservation
�� L2.01 and L2.02 Compliant. Planting information is noted on sheets L2.01 and L2.02.

3.6.2 Non-Plant Materials, Soil and
Mulch
�� L2.01 and L2.02 Compliant. The project proposes planting in all landscaped areas with a 3-inch layer of mulch.

3.6.3.1 Parking Lot Landscaping
�� N/A No off-street parking or parking lots are proposed for the project.

3.6.4 Plant Size and Spacing
�� L2.01 and L2.02 Compliant. Notes have been added to the plans to confirm the plant sizes will be compliant with the size requirements. Tree spacing at the cul-de-sac meets the
requirement.

3.7.1 Service Areas, Storage, Utilities
and Equipment
�� TM-6.1, A-310 Transformers are proposed at grade, as undergrounding of utilities is prohibited by the utility provider, PG&E. Airconditioning condensers are located on the rooftops and are screened by the mansard roof.

3.7.2 Waste Removal
�� A-100 to A-140, A-280, A480, TR-1 to TR-3
The project proposes a concierge service to transport
waste from each unit to the trash enclosure. A pathway
for tenants to access the trash enclosure is not required.

The design of the trash enclosure and the materials used meet the applicable standards.

3.8.1 Nuisance Prevention
�� L5.01, L5.02, L5.03 The lights are positioned and specified to meet the requirements.

3.8.2 Maximum Height
�� L5.01, L5.02, L5.03 No lights are specified to exceed 16’ tall.

3.8.3 Fixture Types
�� L5.01, L5.02, L5.03 All site lighting specified as cut off or full cut off.

3.8.4 Minimum Lighting
Requirements
�� L5.01, L5.02, L5.03 Preliminary photometrics have been included in the set.

The site lighting will be designed to meet the
requirements.

3.8.5 Design of Fixtures
�� L5.01, L5.02, L5.03 The lighting will be designed and specified to meet the requirements.

3.8.6 Energy Efficiency
�� L5.01, L5.02, L5.03 The lighting specified meets the requirements.

3.9.1 Adjacent to Lower Density
Development
�� A-110 to A-140, A-400 to
A-460, A-300, A-480
The north side of the project site shares a property line with an R1-6 residential zone, which requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet. The proposed setbacks on the
north side for buildings greater than two stories range from 26'-5" to 37'-0", exceeding the 25-foot minimum
requirement (see Sheets A-110 to A-140).

No proposed building exceeds a height of 40 feet (see
Sheets A-400 to A-460).

No portion of the proposed buildings encroaches into the 45-degree daylight plane (see Sheet A-300, A-450, A-480).

3.9.1.3. Planting �� L1.01, L2.01 Waiver #6 is
requested.

See State Density
Bonus Letter
Not Compliant: Trees will be planted along the north side of the site and meet the minimum required number.

However, due to site constraints, the project does not
meet the maximum 50-foot tree spacing and the
minimum of three shrubs per 20 linear feet.

Along the freeway side, no trees are allowed due to the existing overhead powerline easement. Denser tree
planting will reduce the parking count and affect unit loss of the project. A waiver is requested.

3.9.2 Adjacent to Major Roadways
�� N/A Not applicable. Project is not adjacent to major roadways.

3.9.3 Adjacent to Freeways
��
(setback)
��
(doble
rows of
trees)
Sheet A-100 to A-140. Waiver #7 is
requested.

See State Density
Bonus Lette
Compliant. Noise study report has been submitted.

Soundwall will be constructed for the project. Project
provides approximately 99’ to 144’ setback from the edge of the I-880 freeway to buildings.

Not compliant. The double rows of trees cannot be

Page 1325 of 1482 ends

TABLE-3
Milpitas Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Standards Compliance planted due to the overhead powerline easement. A
waiver is requested.

3.9.4 Adjacent to Railroads
�� N/A Not applicable. Project is not adjacent to railroads.

3.9.5 Adjacent to Natural
Areas/Creeks/Channels
�� N/A Not applicable. Project is not adjacent to natural areas, creeks and channels.

4.1.1 House-like/ Multiplex
�� N/A Not applicable. Project is not proposing house-like, multiplex building typologies.

4.1.2 Middle Housing
�� G-001 Compliant. Project is proposed as Low-Rise Multifamily (L) under Middle Housing (M)

4.1.3.1 Development Standards Table
�� A-200 to A270, A-400 to A470.

Compliant. The project is proposed as Low-Rise
Multifamily (L) under Middle Housing (M). The Open
Space Standard is superseded by the Milpitas Gateway–
Main Street Specific Plan (MGSP) and shall follow MGSP
standards. Refer to the building plans and elevations for building width dimensions.

4.1.3.2 Façade Modulation and
Articulation
�� A-400 to A-470, A-310, A200 to A-270.

Compliant. Project is proposing modulation through a)
varied roof forms; b) balconies, front porches (arcade), and overhang; c) projections/recesses that are at least one foot in depth.

Project is proposing articulation through variation in c) railings with metal; d) decorative trim elements; e)
Windowsill; f) roof overhangs at least 18 inches deep (see A-310).

4.1.3.3 End Units
�� A-200 to A-261, A-400 to
A-470, G-009 to G-018.

End unit façades does not comply with min. 10%
fenestration. However, governed and superseded by
MGSP Section 4.2.2, blank walls are allowed if they do not exceed 50 feet in length. The end unit facade width is less than 50 feet. Architectural elements (the ladder access tower) comply with a minimum of 18 inches projection.

No ground floor parking proposed on the primary façade
or building entry facing façade.

4.1.3.4 Entries
�� N/A Not applicable. No building entries are proposed on the side of the building

4.1.3.5 Parking + Access
�� N/A Not Applicable. Project is not (S) and Rowhouse building types.

4.1.3.6 Open Space Quality
⚫ L7.01, L7.11 Waiver #8 is
requested.

See State Density
Bonus Letter
Not compliant. Due to the irregular shape of the site, the provided publicly accessible open space does not meet a minimum of 40 feet in width. Complying with this
standard would result in the loss of approximately 2,500 sf or 1 unit. A waiver is requested.

4.2 Large and Extra-Large Building
Types
�� N/A Not applicable. Project is not proposing large and extralarge building types. Project is proposed as Low-Rise Multifamily (L) under Middle Housing (M).

4.3 Façade Design (L)(XL)
�� N/A Not applicable. Project is not proposing large and extralarge building types. Project is proposed as Low-Rise Multifamily (L) under Middle Housing (M).

5.1.1 Building Entries (M)(L)(XL)
�� A-100 to A-140, A-200 – A270.

Compliant. Primary building entries face publicly
accessible pedestrian pathways. The project proposes
individual residential entries for each unit.

5.1.2.2 & 5.1.2.3 Ground Floor
Facades
�� A-200 to 270, A-400 to A470
Some façades do not meet the minimum transparency
requirement; However, governed and superceded by
MGSP Section 4.2.2, blank walls are allowed if they do not exceed 50 feet in length. The facade widths of where no windows proposed are less than 50 feet. All project
façades without windows comply with this standard.

5.2.1 Stoop Entry
�� N/A Not applicable. The project does not propose stoop entry as building entry.

5.2.2 Porch Entry
�� N/A Not applicable. The project does not propose porch entry as building entry.

5.2.3 Dooryard/ Patio Entry
�� N/A Not applicable. The project does not propose patio entry as building entry.

5.2.4 Terrace
�� A-100 to A-140, A-200 – A270.

Not applicable. No building fronts a public space or
street. Nevertheless, the project proposes arcades and
trellises in front of building entries to serve as terraces and provide a transitional space.

5.2.5 Front Court
�� N/A Not applicable. The project does not propose front court as building entry.

5.3.1 Fenestration Design
�� A-400 to A-480 Concession #1 is
requested.

See State Density
Bonus Letter
Not compliant. The project proposes 2-inch recessed
window with sill only on the pedestrian pathway facing
side. Fenestration facing the alleys will be flush windows.

A concession is requested.

5.4.1 Green/ Productive Roofs
�� A-140 Not applicable. All building net roof areas are less than 5,000 sf. Project is proposing mainly pitched roofs and flat roof areas for emergency fire access, HVAC systems and
maintenance. See Sheet A-140.

5.5.1 Allowed Building Materials
�� N/A Not applicable. Superseded by the Milpitas Gateway Specific Plan (MGSP), which governs the standards. Per
MGSP 4.2.5, no more than three materials shall be used
as exterior finish. This standard conflicts with ODS 5.5.1.

6.2.1 Publicly Accessible Open
Spaces
⚫ N/A Project does not include any privately-owned, publicly accessible open spaces (POPOS).

6.2.2 Common Open Space
⚫ L7.01 The common open space is located adjacent to the residential units and is accessible to all residents. It also meets the minimum required dimensions of 20
feet in both width and length.

6.2.3 Private Open Space
⚫ L7.01, A-200 to A261 Compliant. See Sheets A-200 to A-261. The minimum dimension requirement of 5 feet is per MGSP, and the
minimum area requirement of 50 square feet is per ODS.

Project meets both requirements.

Page 1326 of 1482 ends

Standard
Meet
Standard
Does Not
Meet
Standard
Not
Applicable Drawing Reference Waiver or Concession Notes C.2.120 Refuse and Recycling
Areas – E.6. Enclosures
�� Sheet A-100 to A-140 Waiver #9 is
requested.

See State Density
Bonus Letter
Per CZO E.6 - Trash enclosures shall be located as far away as possible from residential zones and residential uses.

Due to site constraints and the areas needed for
stormwater control, there is no alternative location
available for relocating the trash enclosure. A waiver is requested.

Table C.6.080-B: Maneuvering
Aisle Minimum Dimensions
�� Sheet TM-4.1 to 4.2 Compliant. The proposed alleys are 26’ wide for two-way traffic.

C.6.080.D. Size and
Dimensions of Parking Spaces
and Maneuvering Aisles.
�� Sheet G-005, G00-2 Waiver #10 is
requested.

See State Density
Bonus Letter
CZO standards for parallel parking spaces require a
minimum of 10 feet wide and 22 feet long. The project
proposes parallel parking spaces along alleys that are 9 feet wide and 20/22 feet long. A waiver is requested.

Page 1327 of 1482 ends

600 Valley Way Development
Transportation Operational Analysis
Prepared for:

City of Milpitas
May 7, 2026
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Hexagon Office: 100 Century Center Court, Suite 501
San Jose, CA 95112
Hexagon Job Number: 25SJ03
Phone: 408.971.6100

Page 1328 of 1482 ends

600 Valley Way – Transportation Operational Analysis May 7, 2026 Table of Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................... iii

1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................1

2. Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................8

3. Local Transportation Analysis ......................................................................................................13 Appendices
Appendix A - Counts
Appendix B - Volumes
Appendix C - LOS Analysis
Appendix D - Signal Warrant
List of Tables
Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay.................... 5 Table 2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay................ 6 Table 3 Trip Generation Estimate................................................................................................ 14 Table 4 Intersection Levels of Service Summary......................................................................... 22 Table 5 Intersection Queuing Analysis ........................................................................................ 23 List of Figures
Figure 1 Site Location and Study Intersections............................................................................... 2 Figure 2 Site Plan........................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3 Existing Bicycle Facilities................................................................................................ 10 Figure 4 Existing Transit Facilities ................................................................................................ 11 Figure 5 Trip Distribution and Assignment.................................................................................... 16 Figure 6 Existing Lane Configuration ........................................................................................... 17 Figure 7 Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................. 18 Figure 8 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes ............................................................................. 19 Figure 9 Cumulative no Project Traffic Volumes........................................................................... 20 Figure 10 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes ........................................................................ 21

Page 1329 of 1482 ends

600 Valley Way – Transportation Operational Analysis May 7, 2026 P a g e | iii
Executive Summary
This report presents the results of the transportation operations analysis (TOA) conducted for the proposed residential development at 600 Valley Way in Milpitas, California. The project site is located on the cul-de-sac at the end of Valley Way, north of the intersection of Abbott Avenue and Calaveras Boulevard. The project would construct 134 townhomes on an existing office site.

Access to the project site would be via three existing driveways on the cul-de-sac.

The project is located within the Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (MGSP) area. The MGSP was adopted while the TOA for this project was underway. Since the Specific Plan had not been approved at the time of analysis, land use forecasts and transportation improvements identified in the Specific Plan were not assumed for this study. The site circulation and access review is based on the MGSP standards.

Trip Generation
Based on trip generation rates recommended by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), it is estimated that the proposed project would generate 720 net daily trips, including 24 trips during the AM peak hour (18 fewer trips inbound and 42 additional trips outbound) and 49 trips during the PM peak hour (38 inbound and 11 outbound).

Level of Service Analysis
Under cumulative no project conditions, the CMP intersection of Abel Street and Calaveras Boulevard would operate at a substandard LOS F during both peak hours. Under cumulative plus project conditions, the increase in delay and V/C would be minor and would not result in an adverse effect at this intersection. All other study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service.

Queuing Analysis
Currently, the eastbound left-turn pocket queue during the PM-peak hour at the intersection of Abbott Avenue and Calaveras Boulevard exceeds the storage capacity. With the project under existing and cumulative conditions, the 95th percentile queue is expected to increase by 25 feet or one car length. The existing turn pocket could be extended by cutting into the median. It is recommended that Caltrans review the storage deficiency at the Abbott Avenue and Calaveras Boulevard intersection to determine if a project monetary contribution to the existing deficiency is warranted.

Site Access and Circulation Review
The following recommendations have been made based on the site access and circulation review of the site plan:

Page 1330 of 1482 ends

600 Valley Way – Transportation Operational Analysis May 7, 2026 P a g e | iv
• All three project driveways should be stop-controlled to clearly establish the right-of-way for motorists. The westbound approach entering the cul-de-sac should remain freeflowing. • The project should ensure there be no signs, fences, or tall bushes that might block line of sight for 150 feet for the north and south driveways. Furthermore, on-street parking should be prohibited within the cul-de-sac and on the north side of Valley Way along the existing vacant parcel to prevent sight distance issues. • The project should ensure all parking spaces and garages meet the minimum dimensions per the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.
• The project should demonstrate all dead-end access roads and onsite roadways are accessible for emergency vehicles and garbage collection. City staff shall determine whether the proposed design is acceptable.
• The project should coordinate any changes to the Valley Way cul-de-sac radius with the fire department.

Page 1331 of 1482 ends

600 Valley Way – Transportation Operational Analysis May 7, 2026 P a g e | 1

1. Introduction
This report presents the results of the transportation operations analysis (TOA) conducted for the proposed residential development at 600 Valley Way in Milpitas, California. The project site is located on the cul-de-sac at the end of Valley Way, north of the intersection of Abbott Avenue and Calaveras Boulevard (see Figure 1). The project would construct 134 townhomes on an existing office site.

Access to the project site would be via three existing driveways on the cul-de-sac (see Figure 2).

The project is located within the Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (MGSP) area. The MGSP was adopted while the TOA for this project was underway. Since the Specific Plan had not been approved at the time of this analysis, land use forecasts and transportation improvements identified in the Specific Plan were not assumed for this study. The site circulation and access review is based on the MGSP standards.

Transportation Operations Analysis Scope
The effects of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the City of Milpitas and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Congestion Management Program (CMP).

The TOA includes an analysis of AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions for three signalized intersections and one unsignalized intersection in the vicinity of the project site. Since the project is expected to generate fewer than 100 peak hour trips, a CMP analysis is not required. An analysis of site access, on-site circulation, and transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access is also included.

Study Intersections

1. Abbott Avenue & Calaveras Boulevard

2. Abbott Avenue & Valley Way (unsignalized)

3. Serra Way & Calaveras Boulevard

4. Abel Street & Calaveras Boulevard (CMP)
Traffic conditions at the study intersections were analyzed for both the weekday AM and PM peak hours of adjacent street traffic. The AM peak hour typically occurs between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and the PM peak hour typically occurs between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM on a regular weekday. These are the peak commute hours during which most traffic congestion occurs on the roadways.

Page 1332 of 1482 ends

rl
Starlite Park
Penitencia Creek
Milpitas
880
880
237
1 3
4 2 Serra Wy
Valley Way
N
Abel S
N
t
Abbott Ave
Spence Ave
S
mithwood St
Rudyard Dr
Butler St
Heath
St
S
Abel St
S Abbott Ave
N
McCar ht y
B
vl d
W Calaveras Blvd
Ranch Dr
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
600 Valley Way TOA
Figure 1
Site Location and Study Intersections

Page 1333 of 1482 ends

600 Valley Way TOA
Figure 2
Site Plan

Page 1334 of 1482 ends

600 Valley Way – Transportation Operational Analysis May 7, 2026 P a g e | 4
Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios:
• Existing Conditions: New traffic counts were taken at the study intersections in May and August 2025 while school was in session. The intersection of Abel Street and Calaveras Boulevard is a CMP intersection. The base traffic volumes included in the VTA CMP Intersection Report Version 2022 (SP 0-11) were used as the existing PM traffic volumes for this intersection.
• Existing Plus Project Conditions: Existing traffic volumes with the project were estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. Existing plus project conditions were evaluated relative to existing conditions in order to determine the effects the project would have on the existing roadway network. • Cumulative Conditions: The cumulative traffic volumes were estimated using the VTA Countywide Transportation Model for the 2050 forecast year. Modifications are proposed to State Route 237/Calaveras Boulevard between Abel Street and Milpitas Boulevard. The modifications include three continuous travel lanes in both directions in conjunction with other complete streets improvements. The roadway widening is assumed in the VTA 2050 model. However, because this project is currently not funded, City staff directed that it be excluded from the analysis. The project site is located within the proposed Milpitas GatewayMain Street Specific Plan area. Since the Specific Plan had not been approved at the time of analysis, land use forecasts and transportation improvements identified in the Specific Plan were not assumed for this study.
• Cumulative Plus Project Conditions: Cumulative plus project traffic volumes were estimated by adding the trips generated by the project to the cumulative volumes forecasted by the VTA model. Cumulative plus project conditions were evaluated relative to cumulative conditions in order to determine potential project adverse effects.

Methodology
This section presents the methods used to determine the traffic conditions for each scenario described above. It includes descriptions of the data requirements, the analysis methodologies, and the applicable level of service standards.

Data Requirements
The data required for the analysis were obtained from new traffic counts, existing traffic counts, and field observations. The following data were collected from these sources:
• existing peak-hour intersection turning-movement volumes • lane configurations
• intersection signal timing and phasing
Level of Service Standards and Analysis Methodologies
Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. The various analysis methods are described below.

Page 1335 of 1482 ends

600 Valley Way – Transportation Operational Analysis May 7, 2026 P a g e | 5
Signalized Intersections
The City of Milpitas evaluates level of service at signalized intersections based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) level of service methodology using TRAFFIX software. This method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. The City of Milpitas level of service standard for signalized intersections is LOS D or better. Table 1 shows the level of service definitions for signalized intersections. The level of service standard for CMP signalized intersections is LOS E or better.

Unsignalized Intersections
The City of Milpitas does not have an adopted level of service standard for unsignalized intersections.

The correlation between average control delay and level of service for unsignalized, stop-controlled intersections is presented in Table 2. Note that for unsignalized intersections under two-way or one-way stop control, the level of service is reported for the worst approach. Level of service analysis at unsignalized intersections is generally used to determine the need for modification in the type of intersection control (i.e., all-way stop or signalization). As part of the evaluation, traffic volumes, delays and traffic signal warrants can be evaluated to determine if the existing intersection control is appropriate.

Table 1
Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000), p.10-16.

Level of
Service Description
Average Control
Delay Per
Vehicle (sec.)
Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase and do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to the very low vehicle delay.

A 10.0 or less
B
Operations characterized by good signal progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average vehicle delay.

10.1 to 20.0
Higher delays may result from fair signal progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, though some vehicles may still pass through the intersection without stopping.

C 20.1 to 35.0
This level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes of such delay levels.

F greater than 80.0
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable signal progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.

D 35.1 to 55.0
This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Individual cycle failures occur frequently.

E 55.1 to 80.0

Page 1336 of 1482 ends

600 Valley Way – Transportation Operational Analysis May 7, 2026 P a g e | 6
Table 2
Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay Intersection Vehicle Queuing Analysis
The analysis of intersection operations was supplemented with a vehicle queuing analysis at intersections where the project would add a substantial number of trips to the left-turn movements or stop-controlled approaches. The vehicle queuing analysis is used to determine the appropriate storage lengths for the high demand turn lanes where the project would add a substantial number of trips.

Vehicle queues were estimated using a Poisson probability distribution, which estimates the probability of “n” vehicles for a vehicle movement using the following formula:

P (x=n) = 
n e – ()
n!
Where:

P (x=n) = probability of “n” vehicles in queue per lane n = number of vehicles in the queue per lane
 = average # of vehicles in the queue per lane
The basis of the analysis is as follows: (1) the Poisson probability distribution is used to estimate the 95th percentile number of queued vehicles for a particular left-turn movement; (2) the estimated 95th percentile number of vehicles in the queue is translated into a queue length, assuming 25 feet per vehicle; and (3) the estimated 95th percentile queue length is compared to the existing or planned available storage capacity for the left-turn movement. This analysis thus provides a basis for estimating future turn pocket storage requirements at intersections.

For signalized intersections, the 95th percentile queue length value indicates that during the peak hour, a queue of this length or less would occur on 95 percent of the signal cycles, or a queue length longer than the 95th percentile queue would only occur on 5 percent of the signal cycles (about 3 cycles during the peak hour for a signal with a 60-second cycle length). Thus, turn pocket storage designs based on the 95th percentile queue length would ensure that storage space would be exceeded only 5 percent of the time for a signalized movement. Vehicle queuing at unsignalized intersections is evaluated based on the delay experienced by the specific study turn movement.

A Little or no traffic delay 10.0 or less
B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0
C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0
D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0
E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0
F Extreme traffic delays greater than 50.0
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p17-2.

Level of Service Description Average Delay Per Vehicle (Sec.)

Page 1337 of 1482 ends

600 Valley Way – Transportation Operational Analysis May 7, 2026 P a g e | 7
Adverse Operational Effects on Nearby Intersections
Significance criteria are used to establish what constitutes an adverse effect. For this analysis, the criteria used to determine adverse effects on signalized intersections are based on the City of Milpitas’ level of service standards. The project is said to create an adverse effect on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection in the City of Milpitas if for either peak hour:

1. The level of service at the intersection degrades from an acceptable LOS under no project conditions to an unacceptable LOS under project conditions, or

2. The level of service at the intersection is unacceptable under no project conditions and the addition of project trips causes both the critical-movement delay at the intersection to increase by four or more seconds and the demand-to-capacity ratio (V/C) to increase by .01 or more.

An exception to the second rule applies when the addition of project traffic reduces the amount of average delay for critical movements (i.e. the change in average delay for critical movements is negative). In this case, the threshold is an increase in the critical V/C value by .01 or more.

The LOS standard for intersections in Milpitas is LOS D, except at CMP intersections, where the LOS standard is E.

Report Organization
The remainder of this report is divided into two chapters. Chapter 2 describes the existing roadway network, transit service, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Chapter 3 describes the local transportation analysis including the method by which project traffic is estimated, intersection operations analysis, site access and on-site circulation review, and project effects on bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities.

Page 1338 of 1482 ends

600 Valley Way – Transportation Operational Analysis May 7, 2026 P a g e | 8

2. Existing Conditions
This chapter describes the existing conditions for transportation facilities in the vicinity of the site, including the roadway network, transit service, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Existing Roadway Network
Regional access to the project site is provided via Interstate (I) 880 and State Route (SR) 237. Local access to the project site is provided via Calaveras Boulevard, Abbott Avenue, Abel Street, Serra Way, and Valley Way.

I-880 is a north/south freeway that extends from SR-17/I-280 in west San Jose to the Bay Bridge and I80 in Oakland. In the project vicinity, I-880 has three mixed use lanes and one express lane in each direction. Access to the site is provided via its interchange with SR-237/Calaveras Boulevard.

SR 237/Calaveras Boulevard is an east–west roadway that extends from SR 82 in the west to beyond I-680 in the east. West of I-880, SR 237 functions as a freeway with two mixed-flow lanes and one express lane in each direction. East of I-880, it transitions into Calaveras Boulevard, a four- to six-lane arterial roadway. In the vicinity of the project site, Calaveras Boulevard consists of six through lanes, left-turn lanes at major intersections, and a raised center median. The corridor includes continuous sidewalks on both sides of the street, prohibits on-street parking, and does not currently provide dedicated bicycle facilities. Access to the project site is provided via Abbott Avenue Abbott Avenue is a north–south roadway extending from San Andreas Drive in the north to Alvarez Common in the south, where it terminates in a cul-de-sac. In the vicinity of the project site, Abbott Avenue has two to four travel lanes, with on-street parking prohibited along the four-lane section.

Continuous sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street north of Calaveras Boulevard, while intermittent gaps are present south of Calaveras Boulevard. No dedicated bicycle facilities are provided along Abbott Avenue. Access to the project site is provided via Valley Way.

Abel Street is a major north–south roadway located east of the project site connecting to other major roadways such as Milpitas Boulevard, Calaveras Boulevard, and Great Mall Parkway. The street runs from Milpitas Boulevard in the north paralleling Main Street for a majority of its length before terminating into Main Street south of Great Mall Parkway. Turn lanes are present at the major intersections along the corridor. In the vicinity of the project area Abel Street has two travel lanes in each direction; onstreet parking is not permitted. Continuous sidewalks are present on the east side of the corridor, with intermittent sidewalks on the west side of the corridor. Class II bike lanes are present between Corning Avenue and Great Mall Parkway.

Valley Way is a two-lane east-west roadway between the project site and Abbott Avenue. On-street parking is permitted on both sides of the street. The street has sidewalks on both sides except along

Page 1339 of 1482 ends

600 Valley Way – Transportation Operational Analysis May 7, 2026 P a g e | 9
the frontage of the vacant lot on the north side of the street. Valley Way provides direct access to the project site.

Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilites
The bicycle facilities near the project site (see Figure 3) include striped class II bike lanes on S. Main Street roughly 0.5 miles east of the site and striped class II bike lanes on N. Abel street roughly 0.5 miles southeast of the site. Class II Bike Lanes are striped lanes on roadways reserved exclusively for bicycles.

Pedestrian facilities near the project site include sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signal heads with push buttons. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of Valley Way, except along the frontage of the adjacent vacant lot next to the project site. Abbott Avenue, just east of the site, has sidewalks on both sides north of Calaveras Boulevard, with intermittent gaps south of Calaveras Boulevard.

Continuous sidewalks are also provided on both sides of Calaveras Boulevard. At Valley Way & Abbott Avenue, the intersection nearest to the project site, crosswalks are present across the south and the western legs of the intersection with a painted yield line and “Ped Xing” painted on the lanes to alert drivers of the crossing. Pedestrian signal heads and push buttons are present at the signalized intersection of Calaveras Boulevard and Abbott Avenue to cross Abbott Avenue. Pedestrians are prohibited from crossing Calaveras Boulevard at this intersection. The nearest crossing of Calaveras Boulevard is located at Serra Way, approximately 700 feet to the east.

Existing Transit Service
Existing transit service to the study area is provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The bus routes nearest to the project site are VTA’s Route 47, Route 66, and Route 104 as described below and shown in Figure 4.
• VTA Route 47 runs between the Milpitas BART/ VTA Light Rail station, McCarthy Ranch Shopping Center, and Alder VTA Light Rail station on weekdays. On weekends, it runs shorter route between Milpitas BART/ VTA Light Rail station and the McCarthy Ranch Shopping Center.

On weekdays, the route runs from 6:38 AM to 9:37 PM, with approximately 30-minute headways. The closest bus stop to the project site is located at Serra Way and Calaveras Boulevard, a distance of approximately 0.5 miles.
• VTA Route 104 is an express bus which runs between the Milpitas BART Station, the employment centers in north Mountain View, and the Stanford Research Park in Palo Alto. The route runs twice daily in each direction, westbound in the morning and eastbound in the evening. At the nearest stop to the project site, route 104 has westbound departures at 6:12 AM and 7:00 AM, with eastbound arrivals at 5:01 PM and 5:34 PM. The closest bus stop to the project site is located at the intersection of Main Street and Calaveras Boulevard, at a distance of approximately 0.75 miles.
• VTA Route 66 runs between North Milpitas, the Milpitas BART/ VTA Light Rail station, Downtown San Jose, and Santa Teresa VTA Light Rail station. On weekdays, the route runs from 5:16 AM to 12:06 AM, with approximately 15-minute headways. The closest bus stop to the project site is located at the intersection of Main Street and Serra Way, at a distance of approximately 0.7 miles.

Page 1340 of 1482 ends

rl
Starlite Park
Penitencia Creek
Corning Ave
Carlo St
Milpitas
880
880
237
Serra Wy
S Main St
Valley Way
N
Abel S
N
t
Abbott Ave
Spence Ave
S
mithwood St
Rudyard Dr
Butler St
Heath
St
S
Abel St
S Abbott Ave
N
McCar ht y
B
vl d
W Calaveras Blvd
Ranch Dr
= Site Location
LEGEND
= Existing Class II Bike Lanes
= Existing Class I Bike Paths
600 Valley Way TOA
Figure 3
Existing Bicycle Facilities

Page 1341 of 1482 ends

rl
Starlite Park
Penitencia Creek
47 104
47 47, 66 47, 66
104
66 66
104
104
104
47 47
47 47 47
47 Milpitas
880
880
237
Serra Wy
S Main St
Valley Way
N
Abel S
N
t
Abbott Ave
Spence Ave
S
mithwood St
Rudyard Dr
Butler St
Heath
St
S
Abel St
S Abbott Ave
N
McCar ht y
B
vl d
W Calaveras Blvd
Ranch Dr
LEGEND
= Nearby Bus Stop XX
XXX
XX
= Site Location
= Local Bus Route
= Express Bus Routes
XX = Frequent Bus Route
600 Valley Way TOA
Figure 4
Existing Transit Facilities

Page 1342 of 1482 ends

600 Valley Way – Transportation Operational Analysis May 7, 2026 P a g e | 12
Observed Existing Traffic Conditions
Traffic conditions in the field were observed to identify any existing operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of calculated intersection levels of service at the study intersections under existing conditions. Overall, the study intersections operate adequately during the weekday AM and PM peak hours.

Abbott Avenue and Calaveras Boulevard Intersection
AM Peak Hour Observations: Westbound queues from the Calaveras Boulevard and I-880 northbound off-ramp often extended to the Calaveras Boulevard and Abbott Avenue intersection, occasionally preventing some vehicles from clearing the intersection in one cycle. Several southbound right-turning drivers disregarded the “No Right Turn on Red” restriction.

PM Peak Hour Observations: Eastbound queues from the Calaveras Boulevard and Serra Way intersection occasionally extended into the Abbott Avenue and Calaveras Boulevard intersection. The eastbound left-turn pocket at the Abbott Avenue and Calaveras Boulevard intersection frequently overflowed, blocking an eastbound through lane and at times. In addition, the eastbound through queues restricted access to the left-turn pocket.

Abbott Avenue and Valley Way Intersection
AM Peak Hour Observations: Traffic at the Abbott Avenue and Valley Way intersection flowed smoothly with little to no delay for vehicles turning from Valley Way. The southbound right-turn queue from Calaveras Boulevard extended to within 1–3 car lengths of the intersection approximately once every 15–20 minutes but did not create operational issues. Vehicles were observed to seldom yield to pedestrians at the south leg crosswalk.

PM Peak Hour Observations: Traffic generally flowed smoothly with low delay for vehicles turning from Valley Way. Eastbound left-turn traffic experienced slightly higher delays than in the AM peak hour but still minimal overall. The southbound right-turn queue from Calaveras Boulevard occasionally extended close to the intersection but did not result in operational issues under existing conditions.

Serra Way and Calaveras Boulevard Intersection
AM Peak Hour Observations: The queues from the westbound Abbott Avenue and Calaveras Boulevard intersection occasionally backed up one to two car-lengths into the Serra Way and Calaveras Boulevard Intersection. This queue cleared the intersection in the next cycle.

PM Peak Hour Observations: Queues from the eastbound Abel Street and Calaveras Boulevard intersection occasionally extended into the Serra Way and Calaveras Boulevard Intersection. This queue cleared the intersection in the next cycle
Abel Street and Calaveras Boulevard Intersection
AM Peak Hour Observations: The southbound left-turn lane queue frequently backed up during the peak 15 minutes and often did not fully clear within a single signal phase.

PM Peak Hour Observations: The queue from the northbound right-turn lane backed up during the PM peak hour, and often did not fully clear within a single signal phase.

Page 1343 of 1482 ends

600 Valley Way – Transportation Operational Analysis May 7, 2026 P a g e | 13

3.Local Transportation Analysis
This chapter describes the local transportation analysis (LTA) including the method by which project traffic is estimated, intersection operations analysis, any adverse effects to intersection level of service caused by the project, site access and on-site circulation review, parking, and effects on bicycle, pedestrian and transit facilities.

Transportation Network under Project Conditions
The project does not propose any changes to the transportation network. For site access, the project would use the existing driveways located on the cul-de-sac of Valley Way.

Intersection Operation Analysis
The intersection operations analysis is intended to quantify the operations of intersections in the project vicinity and to identify potential negative effects due to the addition of project traffic. Information required for the intersection operations analysis related to project trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment are presented in this section. The study intersections are evaluated based on the intersection level of service analysis methodology and standards described in Chapter 1.

Project Trip Estimates
The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear were estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic traveling to and from the proposed residential development was estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, the directions to and from which the project trips would travel were estimated. In the project trip assignment, the project trips were assigned to specific streets and intersections. These procedures are described below.

Trip Generation
Through empirical research, data have been collected that indicate the amount of traffic that can be expected to be generated by many types of land uses. The standard trip generation rates can be applied to predict the future traffic increases that would result from a new development. The standard trip generation rates come from the publication titled Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11
th Edition.

Project trip generation was estimated by multiplying the size of the development by the appropriate trip generation rates obtained from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11 th Edition (2021). The average trip
generation rates for Single-Family Attached Housing (Land Use 215) were applied to the project.

Page 1344 of 1482 ends

600 Valley Way – Transportation Operational Analysis May 7, 2026 P a g e | 14
The project would construct 134 townhomes, replacing an existing office development. Driveway counts were collected to quantify the trips associated with the existing land use which were then subtracted from the project trips to get the net trips being added to the network as a result of the residential project.

These counts are provided in Appendix A. The project is estimated to generate 720 net daily trips, including 24 trips during the AM peak hour (18 fewer trips inbound and 42 additional trips outbound) and 49 trips during the PM peak hour (38 inbound and 11 outbound). The project trip generation estimates are shown in Table 3.

Table 3
Trip Generation Estimate
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The trip distribution for the project and existing uses was estimated based on existing travel patterns on the surrounding roadway network and the locations of complementary land uses (see Figure 5). The peak-hour trips generated by the proposed project and the existing use were assigned to the roadway system based on the directions of approach and departure, the roadway network connections, and the location of project driveways (see Figure 5).

Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations
Existing conditions
The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were determined by observations in the field and are shown on Figure 6. Existing traffic volumes were obtained from new peak period traffic counts at the study intersections collected in May and August 2025 when school was in session. The intersection of Abel Street and Calaveras Boulevard is a CMP intersection. Therefore, the base traffic volumes included in the VTA CMP Intersection Report Version 2022 (SP 0-11) were used as the existing PM traffic volumes for this intersection. The existing peak-hour intersection volumes are shown in Figure 7. Intersection turning-movement counts conducted for this analysis are presented in Appendix A. All scenario volumes are provided in Appendix B.

Existing Plus Project Conditions
The intersection lane configurations under existing plus project conditions were assumed to be the same as under existing conditions. Project trips, as represented in the above project trip assignment, were added to existing traffic volumes to obtain existing plus project traffic volumes. The existing plus project traffic volumes are shown on Figure 8.

Land Use Rate Trips Rate In % In Out Total Rate In % In Out Total Proposed Use
Townhouse1 134 units 7.20 965 0.48 25% 16 48 64 0.57 59% 45 31 76 Existing Use
General Office2,3 245 34 6 40 7 20 27
Total 134 units 720 -18 42 24 38 11 49
Notes:

2. Exsiting AM & PM peak hour office trips collected from driveway counts on 5/20/2025 Size
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

1. Single Family Attached (Land Use 215): average trip rates in trips per unit. Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.

3. Office use daily trips estimated using ratio of ITE daily trips to ITE peak-hour trips. Page 1345 of 1482 600 Valley Way – Transportation Operational Analysis May 7, 2026 P a g e | 15
Cumulative No Project Conditions
The project site is located within the Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (MGSP) area. The MGSP plans to reconfigure Abbott Avenue from four lanes to two through lanes with a center turn lane, add a two-way Class IV protected bikeway on one side of the corridor and on-street parking on the other side, and provide an amenity zone on both sides for street trees and bike racks. The project may be required to contribute toward these improvements. The Specific Plan had not been adopted at the time of analysis, therefore its land use forecasts and transportation improvements were not assumed in this study.

For the cumulative analysis, traffic volumes were forecasted using the VTA Countywide Transportation Model for the 2050 horizon year. The VTA model includes a proposed widening of State Route 237/Calaveras Boulevard between Abel Street and Milpitas Boulevard to three continuous lanes in each direction, along with complete streets improvements. However, because this project is currently not funded, City staff directed that it be excluded from the analysis.

As a result, the intersection lane configurations under cumulative conditions were assumed to remain consistent with existing conditions. Cumulative no-project volumes are presented in Figure 9.

Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volume
The intersection lane configurations under cumulative plus project conditions were assumed to be the same as under cumulative conditions.

Cumulative plus project traffic volumes were forecasted by adding the trips generated by the project to the cumulative volumes (see Figure 10).

Intersection Traffic Operations
Study intersections were evaluated for level of service during the AM and PM peak hours against City of Milpitas and CMP standards. Table 4 shows the results of the level of service analysis. The detailed intersection level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix C.

Existing Conditions
The results of the analysis show that all of the study intersections operate at an acceptable level of service during both peak hours under existing conditions. Under existing plus project conditions, the intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service during both peak hours.

Cumulative Conditions
Most study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service under cumulative and cumulative plus project conditions. Under cumulative no project conditions, the CMP intersection of Abel Street and Calaveras Boulevard would operate at a substandard LOS F during both peak hours.

Under cumulative plus project conditions, the increase in delay and V/C would be minor and would not result in an adverse effect at this intersection.

Page 1346 of 1482 ends

Milpitas City CouncilJune 16, 2026

Milpitas City Council
June 16, 2026