Planning Commission Meeting (2026-06-10)

CITY OF MILPITAS Planning Commission June 10, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1 MEETING MINUTES 7:00pm JUNE 10, 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 Galang led the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL Recording Secretary Medina called the roll. PRESENT: Chair Gupta, Vice Chair Kong, Galang, Awasthi (*arrived at 7:10pm), and Caulkins. ABSENT: Castillo STAFF: Jay Lee, Christopher Creech, Lillian VanHua, 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, with Item IX-3, Pulte Residential Townhomes – 1601–1765 S. Main St., continued to a date certain of June 24, 2026. Motion/Second Kong/Brown Motion carried by a vote of AYES: 5 NOES: 0 APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES By motion, approve the meeting minutes for May 27, 2026. Motion/Second Caulkins/Brown Motion carried by a vote of AYES: 4 NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (Galang) ANNOUNCEMENTS Planning Director Lee announced that the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for June 24, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. He also noted that the Commission will observe its regular July recess following that meeting. PUBLIC FORUM Chair Gupta invited members of the public to address the commission, and there were two speakers. Wilfred Kong, a resident of the Pines neighborhood for over 24 years, expressed concerns regarding the proposed South Bay Tech Center redevelopment project. He stated that the project would remove existing mature trees and construct three-story residential units adjacent to existing homes, resulting in privacy impacts for nearby residents. Mr. Kong also expressed concerns regarding increased traffic and parking demands in the area and requested that the City help preserve the privacy and character of the neighborhood.

June 10, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 Helen Tuet, a resident of Pinewood Court, stated that she had submitted written comments regarding the South Bay Tech Center project, which was continued to the June 24, 2026 meeting. She encouraged the Planning Commissioners to visit the project site and surrounding neighborhood to better understand potential impacts on residents, businesses, and existing trees. Ms. Tuitt expressed concerns regarding the loss of privacy for adjacent homeowners, the displacement of businesses and services, and the removal of mature trees. She advocated for retaining business uses at the site or pursuing a mixed-use development approach and requested that the Commission carefully consider community impacts before making a decision. No additional speakers came forward, and the Chair closed the Public Forum. PUBLIC HEARING IX-1 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT FOR TOBACCO RETAIL BUFFERS – CITYWIDE (P-ZA26-0001): A City-initiated Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to modify and add regulations to limit the concentration of tobacco retailers within the City and encourage responsible tobacco retailing. The proposed amendments would specifically prohibit new tobacco retailers from locating within a certain distance from existing tobacco retailers and youth-sensitive areas (schools), prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products, and adopt other local regulatory standards. The Project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with General Plan). As a separate and independent basis, the Project is also exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption). Project Manager: Lillian VanHua, Principal Planner (34:46) Commissioners asked staff whether an analysis had been conducted to map existing tobacco retailers, schools, and applicable buffer areas to determine where future tobacco retailers could potentially locate under the proposed regulations. Staff explained that, based on the mapping completed to date, additional tobacco retailers could still be established in areas not affected by the proposed retailer-to-retailer and school buffer requirements. Staff noted that additional analysis could be completed prior to City Council consideration to better identify eligible locations. Commissioners inquired about the rationale for the proposed 1,000-foot separation between tobacco retailers and the 500-foot buffer from schools. Staff stated that the proposed distances were based on public health best practices and standards adopted by other jurisdictions. Staff also noted that representatives from the County of Santa Clara were available to provide additional information regarding the research supporting the proposed regulations. Commissioners discussed the proposed Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) process and associated fees for tobacco retailers. Staff reported that the current MCUP fee is approximately $1,526. Several Commissioners expressed concern regarding youth access to tobacco products and referenced recent enforcement actions involving local tobacco retailers. Questions were raised regarding the City's enforcement capabilities and whether proactive inspections or enforcement efforts could be implemented. Staff explained that code enforcement activities are largely complaint-driven due to limited staffing resources and that criminal violations fall under the jurisdiction of the Police Department and other enforcement agencies. Staff noted that proactive inspection programs would require additional staffing and resources. Commissioners discussed the City's existing smoke-free ordinance and suggested increasing public awareness through additional signage at businesses and shopping centers. Staff noted that smoking is already prohibited within specified distances of entrances and exits to public businesses and in various public areas throughout the City. Staff further stated that signage requirements are already included in the City's

June 10, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 municipal code and that tobacco prevention signage had previously been distributed to local businesses through County programs. Commissioners also discussed potential tobacco control measures adopted in other jurisdictions, including minimum pricing and minimum package size requirements for tobacco products. Staff explained that such regulations had been considered during ordinance development but were not included due to anticipated enforcement challenges. Staff noted that the Planning Commission could recommend that the City Council consider such measures. A Commissioner asked how Milpitas compares to neighboring jurisdictions in terms of the number of tobacco retailers. Staff stated that while a per-capita analysis had not been completed, Milpitas is believed to have a relatively high number of tobacco retailers compared to other cities that have previously adopted tobacco retail regulations. Chair Gupta opened the public hearing. Brian Lam, representing the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance, expressed support for efforts to reduce youth tobacco use but raised concerns regarding potential impacts on existing convenience stores and gas stations. He stated that the proposed proximity requirements could negatively affect business owners seeking to sell or transfer ownership of their businesses. Mr. Lam requested that the Commission consider exempting gas stations and convenience stores from the proposed separation requirements. No additional speakers came forward. Chair Gupta closed the public hearing. Following public comment, Commissioners discussed tobacco advertising regulations and expressed interest in obtaining additional information regarding the proposed ordinance, including enforcement mechanisms, the inclusion of private schools in the school buffer requirements, and the overall regulatory framework. Staff explained that previous efforts to establish a tobacco retailer licensing program had been evaluated but were determined to be infeasible due to staffing and budget limitations. Staff indicated that grant funding was available for the current ordinance effort but that timelines existed for completing the project. Commissioners discussed expanding the definition of schools subject to the buffer requirements. Staff clarified that the ordinance currently applies to schools serving kindergarten through twelfth grade and recommended expanding the buffer requirements to include both public and private schools as well as childcare centers. Commissioners also discussed potential enforcement recommendations, including increased coordination with the Police Department and consideration of licensing- based enforcement programs. Staff explained that such programs would require additional resources and had previously been considered by the City Council. The Commission generally expressed support for strengthening protections for youth while ensuring that staff return with clarifying language regarding school definitions and related buffer requirements prior to City Council consideration. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and adopt resolution No. 26-004, recommending that the City Council approve Zoning Text Amendment No. ZA26-0001, amending the Milpitas Municipal Code Title XIII, Chapters B.6, B.8, C.10, and E.4 relating to the regulation of tobacco retailers within the City. * The Commission requested staff to provide additional clarification regarding school definitions and associated buffer requirements for City Council consideration.

June 10, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 4 Motion/Second Caulkins/Galang Motion carried by a vote of AYES: 6 NOES: 0 (1:39:22) IX-2 NEW BUSINESS PARK RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUILDINGS - 710-790 SYCAMORE DRIVE, 1511 BUCKEYE DRIVE, AND 1610-1630 MCCARTHY BLVD – P-SD25-0007, P-EA26-0002, AND MASTER SIGN PROGRAM -- SD25-0009: A request for a Site Development Permit, Environmental Assessment, and Sign Program to allow redevelopment of an approximately 16.79-acre site located at 710–790 Sycamore Drive, 1511 Buckeye Drive, and 1610–1630 McCarthy Boulevard within the Business Park Research and Development (BPRD) Zoning District. The project proposes construction of three new two-story speculative industrial buildings with ancillary office space, totaling approximately 330,718-square feet, including 293,218-square feet of industrial warehouse space and 37,500-square feet of office space, consistent with the BPRD land use designation. The maximum building height would be approximately 40- feet to the top of parapet. Site improvements include new internal roadways, landscaping, off-site public improvements, and seven driveway access points. The project would provide a surface parking lot with 432 vehicle parking spaces, six drive-in doors, and 39 loading dock doors. The Sign Program includes installation of 22 signs, consisting of five primary building identification signs, two monument signs, seven wayfinding totem signs, three building address signs, and five tenant identification signs. (2:04:34) Project Planner Sean Manalo and applicant team addressed commissioners' clarifying questions. Commissioners questioned the applicant regarding projected economic benefits associated with the proposed development, including job creation, annual economic activity, and construction-related impacts. Concerns were raised regarding the range of uses permitted within the proposed facilities and whether the project would ultimately be occupied by advanced manufacturing tenants, as anticipated, or by other permitted industrial uses such as warehousing, logistics, or research and development operations. The applicant stated that the project was specifically designed to attract advanced manufacturing users and that market demand for modern industrial facilities in Silicon Valley strongly supports that expectation. While no specific tenant commitments have been secured, the applicant indicated that the building design, infrastructure investments, and anticipated rental rates are intended to attract advanced manufacturing businesses rather than traditional warehouse operators. Commissioners requested information regarding the potential fiscal benefits to the City. Staff referenced estimates provided by the Economic Development Department indicating that the project could support more than 1,000 middle-income jobs, generate approximately $100 million in annual economic activity, and create an estimated $62 million in one-time construction-related economic impact. Staff noted that a detailed analysis of recurring City revenues, such as property and sales tax generation, had not been prepared as part of the Site Development Permit review. Staff reminded the Commission that the application under consideration was a Site Development Permit focused on the proposed building improvements and site design. Future tenant occupancy would be reviewed for consistency with the zoning regulations and permitted uses within the Business Park Research and Development (BPRD) zoning district. Commissioners also inquired about anticipated tenant occupancy, project marketing, and leasing efforts. The applicant stated that the buildings are designed to accommodate multiple tenants and that marketing activities would begin following project approvals and during construction. Several Commissioners expressed support for the project, noting its potential to strengthen Milpitas' advanced manufacturing sector, generate employment opportunities,

June 10, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 5 and contribute to the City's economic development goals. Comparisons were made to the growth of advanced manufacturing in neighboring communities, particularly Fremont. Questions were raised regarding sustainability features and energy demands associated with the project. The applicant confirmed that solar installations are required and will be incorporated into the development. Commissioners also discussed potential construction impacts, particularly traffic congestion during demolition and construction activities. The applicant stated that construction operations would be managed in accordance with City requirements and permit conditions, with efforts made to minimize impacts on surrounding roadways and adjacent properties. Commissioners encouraged coordination with City staff to avoid scheduling heavy truck traffic during peak commute periods. Additional discussion addressed building tenant improvements, parking, electric vehicle infrastructure, and demolition procedures. The applicant explained that tenant spaces would be delivered as shell buildings with completed office components, allowing future tenants to customize manufacturing and operational areas to meet their specific needs. Staff confirmed that the project includes 432 parking spaces, including 91 electric vehicle- capable spaces distributed throughout the site. Commissioners also asked whether the facility could accommodate a future data center use. Staff noted that data centers are a permitted use within the zoning district; however, the applicant stated that the project was not designed to support the electrical demands typically associated with modern data center operations Chair Gupta opened the public hearing. Albert Alcorn, Vice President of the Milpitas Chamber of Commerce, expressed the Chamber's strong support for the project, citing the need for modern industrial space, job creation, and economic growth opportunities within the community. Allison Soper spoke in support of the project, stating that redevelopment of the long- vacant site would return productive use to the property, create quality employment opportunities, and strengthen the local economy. Leticia Samame also expressed support for the proposal, emphasizing the importance of expanding local employment opportunities and reducing commute times for Milpitas residents through the creation of advanced manufacturing jobs. No additional speakers came forward. Chair Gupta closed the public hearing. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open and close the public hearing, consider the exemption from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning). and adopt Resolution 26-012, approving Site Development Permit No. SD25-0007, Environmental Assessment No. 26-0002, and Master Sign Program Permit No. 25-0009 subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval. Motion/Second Awasthi/Brown Motion carried by a vote of AYES: 6 NOES: 0 NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Caulkins requested an update regarding the use of City-issued email accounts for Planning Commissioners. Recording Secretary Medina reported that, after consultation with the Information Technology Director, City-issued email accounts will continue to be used solely for calendaring purposes. Staff explained that providing and maintaining individual email accounts involves licensing costs, account administration, and ongoing monitoring by Information Technology staff. Given the limited term lengths

June 10, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 6 of Planning Commissioners and associated resource requirements, Commissioners will continue to use personal email accounts for correspondence. ADJOURNMENT Chair Gupta adjourned the meeting at 9:25 pm Meeting Minutes submitted by Planning Commission Secretary Elizabeth Medina