Milpitas planning commission recommends Sobratos 134-unit townhome project; neighbors press to relocate trash enclosure

The Milpitas Planning Commission on May 27 recommended that the City Council approve Sobratos proposal to build 134 for-sale townhomes on a 7.22-acre site at 600 Valley Way, following a staff presentation, developer remarks and more than an hour of commissioner questioning and public comment.

Senior planner Christina Pang told commissioners the application requests a site development permit, a vesting tentative map, a density bonus permit and an environmental assessment to allow 24 three-story townhome buildings, a one-story clubhouse and associated on-site and off-site improvements. The project proposes 20 below-market-rate (BMR) for-sale units and invokes the state density bonus law (Gov. Code —765915) and Senate Bill 330. "Therefore, the city must grant the applicant's SDBL request to allow for construction of the project and its affordable units," Pang said, describing staff's review and a clerical correction to condition of approval No. 76.

Developer representatives said the design emphasizes pedestrian connections and public open space. "My name is Caroline Laden, and I'm representing the Sobrato organization," Laden told the commission, and described the plan for a Paseo linking Heath Street and Valley Way, three pocket parks, a clubhouse and a mix of three- and four-bedroom townhomes. The applicant said units would have private two-car garages and that many parking stalls would be EV-capable; the team also said it would provide valet trash service and a professional waste-management program to keep the trash enclosure maintained.

The project team and staff identified several technical conclusions: a project-specific environmental checklist and technical reports concluded the project is consistent with the Milpitas Gateway specific-plan EIR and exempts the project under the CEQA guideline the staff cited for specific-plan consistency; a transportation operations analysis (TOA) showed existing streets can accommodate the project and identified off-site improvements (sidewalk infill and Valley Way resurfacing) the applicant must fund; and Milpitas Unified School District indicated sufficient capacity and that the applicant must pay the district's school impact fee.

Commissioners concentrated questioning on several neighborhood impacts. Multiple speakers and a nearby resident, Harshal, pressed the applicant to relocate a proposed trash enclosure currently sited near the property's northern single-family neighbors. Harshal said some neighbors did not receive mailed notices and said he worries about pests and children's exposure to waste near a home-based daycare. The applicant acknowledged some mailings may have been lost in the post, said it had used the city's mailing list and said the proposed enclosure replaces a previously located enclosure in the same general area. The applicant also said site constraintsincluding required parking minimums, stormwater retention areas, high-voltage PG&E line clearances and turning-radius requirements for collection truckslimited alternate locations.

The commission asked the applicant to take additional steps before the City Council review. Commissioners voted to recommend approval of Resolution No. 26-009 (which would forward site development permit SD24-0005, vesting tentative map MT24-0002, density bonus permit DB24-0001 and environmental assessment EA24-0003) with a clerical revision to condition 76, and they directed staff to record commissioner feedback in the minutes that the applicant should work with the city attorney, public works and staff to: (1) demonstrate whether the trash enclosure must remain where proposed or present factual alternatives; (2) evaluate relocation or mitigation for four large trees neighbors flagged; and (3) reconcile the applicant's proposed condition language with city legal standards for SB 330 and related provisions.

The staff report and applicant materials document that the project would remove 115 ordinance-sized trees and replace them at a roughly 2:1 ratio on-site; provide 20 BMR units (moderate income) and pay an in-lieu fractional amount for the 0.1 unit; and include site landscaping, a dog run and 3 public pocket parks. The planning commission noted a discrepancy in the record regarding guest parking: staff's presentation cited "6 outdoor guest parking stalls," while the applicant later described providing "60 visitor surface parking spots"; commissioners asked staff to clarify the correct number before the council hearing.

The commission's recommendation will go to the City Council for a final decision at a future public hearing. The commission voted Aye: Commissioner Calkins; Commissioner Wasey; Vice Chair Kong; and Chair Gupta. Commissioners Castillo, Brown and Galang were absent.