Milpitas planning commission finds proposed $206 million CIP conforms to general plan, recommends Resolution No. 26-006

Milpitas Planning Commission · March 26, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After a staff presentation and commissioner questions about funding, costs and sewer odor, the Milpitas Planning Commission voted unanimously to find the proposed 2027–2031 Capital Improvement Program (138 projects, $206 million) in conformance with the city General Plan and recommended adoption of Resolution No. 26-006.

Milpitas — The Planning Commission on March 25 reviewed a five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) staff said includes 138 projects totaling $206,000,000 and recommended that the City Council adopt a conformity finding for the program.

Leha, the city’s Public Works Engineering Division manager, told the commission that staff is recommending 39 projects (about $35.7 million) be funded in fiscal year 2026–27 and that the full five-year CIP “consists of 138 project in the amount of $206,000,000.” He outlined project categories — community, park, street, water, sewer and storm — and highlighted several priorities, including a federally funded $2,000,000 traffic safety package (with a $230,000 local match) and a roughly $20,000,000 force‑main construction scheduled in FY 2027–28.

Why it matters: The Planning Commission must determine whether the CIP is consistent with the city’s General Plan before the council considers adoption. Staff said most projects advance General Plan policies but acknowledged that some CIP items are operational needs (for example, HVAC or elevator repairs) that do not directly further planning goals but do not undermine the General Plan.

Commissioners pressed staff on the program’s finances, project costs and public outreach. Commissioners were told the first year of the program is fully funded and that projected funding for years 2–5 remains uncertain: staff identified an estimated $22,600,000 shortfall across the final four years and said later-year funding depends on revenue projections, developer park fees and grant opportunities. In response to a question about the FY 2027–28 spending spike, staff said the timing reflects several high-cost projects being scheduled in that year, notably the force‑main project; they said financing options could include bonds or other municipal financing.

On sewer and odor: Commissioners asked whether allocated sewer funds relate to odor complaints in Milpitas. Leha said the city pays its share for rehabilitation work at the regional treatment facility and does not control regional landfill emissions. Another staff speaker said the landfill and regional operations are largely responsible for intermittent odors, and that San Jose, the county and Milpitas have implemented monitoring and mitigation steps “to control that odor as best as they can.”

On costs and procurement: Commissioners asked whether staff time and overhead are included in project budgets; staff confirmed they are and described applying a percentage for staff/design/soft costs when compiling total project estimates. The chair referenced a planning fee schedule figure and raised the city’s hourly charge; staff said buried details such as prevailing wage rules and project scope (trenching, PG&E service) can materially change costs. Staff explained the city posts contract documents publicly, invites bids (posted in newspapers and on OpenGov/plan room), evaluates responsiveness and recommends awards to the City Council.

Outcome: Commissioner Calkins moved to adopt Resolution No. 26-006, finding the proposed 2027–2031 CIP in conformance with the Milpitas General Plan; a second was recorded and the commission voted 4–0 (Commissioners Castillo, Calkins, Galang and Chair Gupta voting Aye) to recommend the resolution to the City Council.

What the commission did not do: No public speaker cards were submitted for the item and no substantive amendments were made at the meeting. Staff said more detailed project schedules and funding decisions for years 2–5 will be revisited annually as revenue forecasts firm up.

Next steps: The Planning Commission’s conformity finding will accompany the CIP when staff presents the program to the City Council for its consideration and final adoption.