Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Impact topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Milpitas residents, small‑business owners warn PY Homes plan would displace services and strip neighborhood privacy
Summary
Business owners and neighbors told the Planning Commission the project would displace urgent care clinics, child care and gyms, remove century‑old trees and create privacy and relocation hardships; Economic Development staff said 35 tenants hold active business licenses representing about 244 employees.
At the June 24 public hearing, more than a dozen residents and business owners urged commissioners to slow or condition approval of the PY Homes proposal at the South Bay Tech Center, saying demolition of the existing business park would displace services many local families use daily. Speakers named urgent care clinics, after‑school programs, daycare and fitness studios as services that would be lost or forced to relocate if the site is redeveloped for 272 townhome condominiums.
Local business owners described long operating histories at the plaza and said options for relocation within Milpitas are limited and often more expensive. "These small businesses provide health and after‑school services — where will they go?" asked Jackie Carlos, who co‑owns a martial‑arts gym at the Tech Center. Michael Thomas, the city's economic development coordinator, said staff found 35 businesses with active city business licenses at the site, totaling about 244 employees; he said the department is attempting to coordinate relocation assistance but that the property owner and broker also have a role to play.
Neighborhood privacy and trees: adjacent homeowners described privacy loss if three‑story units are built 20 ft from rear yards and raised strong objections to the planned removal of protected trees. Speakers asked the commission to require immediate screening—taller trees and wall changes—and to ensure any landscape mitigation occurs before residents lose their existing screening. The applicant said it would plant replacement trees at a 2:1 ratio (252 trees) and offered to work with adjacent homeowners on additional plantings and voluntary contributions to accelerate screening.
Commission response and next steps: commissioners acknowledged the intensity of community concern and adopted two voluntary recommendations in their motion: they asked the applicant to hold a community meeting with tenants and neighbors and directed staff to explore additional privacy mitigation options and report back for the city council packet. The Planning Commission’s action recommended approval of the entitlements but included these requests to document voluntary commitments before the council hearing.
What remains unresolved: no binding financial relocation assistance was committed on the record by the property owner or broker; the broker said he would convey relocation requests to the owner. Commissioners and staff noted SB 330 and state density bonus rules limit what the city can require, so many suggested measures must be voluntary or addressed through negotiated agreements between applicant, property owner and tenants.
