Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Milpitas planning commission recommends approval of PY Homes 272‑unit townhome project, asks developer to meet tenants and neighbors
Summary
The Planning Commission voted 6‑0 on June 24 to forward a recommendation that city council approve PY Homes’ 272‑unit townhome development at 1601–1765 South Main Street, while asking the developer to hold voluntary meetings to address tenant relocation and adjacent‑neighbor privacy concerns.
The Milpitas Planning Commission voted 6‑0 on June 24 to recommend city council approval of a 272‑unit townhome project by PY Homes at 1601–1765 South Main Street, adopting Resolution 26‑014 that forwards the site development permit, conditional use permit, vesting tentative map, density bonus permit and environmental assessment for council action.
Staff and the applicant described the project as 29 multifamily buildings on an 11.2‑acre site (the staff report cites 11.2 acres) with 272 for‑sale condominium units, including 41 below‑market‑rate units reserved at moderate income levels (15% of units), 637 total parking stalls (two per unit plus 93 guest stalls), three pocket parks totaling about 0.95 acres of private common open space and on‑site landscaping. Planners said the proposal relies on the State density bonus law (Gov. Code §65915) and Senate Bill 330, which allow concessions and waivers when a project provides a qualifying share of affordable housing.
Why it matters: staff told commissioners the project meets applicable objective design standards except for one concession and two waivers the developer requested to meet the state density bonus eligibility. Staff emphasized the city’s legal obligations under state laws that limit what conditions the city may require of SB 330 projects and recommended forwarding the entitlements to the city council for final action.
What was decided: Commissioner Kulkins moved and Vice Chair Kong seconded adoption of Resolution 26‑014 recommending city council approve site development permit SD25‑00003, conditional use permit UP25‑00001, vesting tentative map MT25‑00001, density bonus permit DB25‑00001 and environmental assessment EA25‑00001. The motion passed by roll call: Castillo, Kulkins, Wasi, Golong, Vice Chair Kong and Chair Gupta voted yes; no commissioners voted no.
Commission recommendations: commissioners added two voluntary recommendations for the city council packet. First, staff recorded the applicant’s voluntary offer to hold a community meeting with remaining tenants and adjacent homeowners to discuss tenant relocation options, timing and privacy mitigation measures; the applicant said it would try to arrange a meeting with the property owner’s broker and tenants and report back before council. Second, the commission asked staff and the applicant to explore privacy mitigations for adjacent homeowners, including increased setbacks (the applicant has proposed 20–23 ft setbacks near the single‑family property line), screening landscaping, potential wall modifications and options such as obscure glazing on upper‑floor windows.
Details and legal context: project planner Christina Funk and Planning Director Jay Lee explained the project’s entitlement package and legal framework. The applicant is invoking the state density bonus law and SB 330, which allow reductions in parking and other concessions when a project includes a qualifying percentage of affordable units; staff said the project qualifies for one concession and several waivers under those laws. Staff also reported that the project team’s environmental checklist consultant concluded the project is consistent with the city’s general plan EIR and CEQA guidelines (staff cited CEQA Guidelines sections 15183 and 15162) and recommended adoption of the environmental assessment.
Public input and staff findings: staff reported 22 written comments in the packet and received more than 10 speakers at tonight’s hearing. Planning staff noted that building permits, fire review, public works and traffic engineering reviews will refine construction‑level details and conditions of approval if the council approves the entitlements.
Next steps: the Planning Commission’s resolution is a recommendation; the city council will hold a future public hearing to make the final decision on the entitlements. Planning staff will track and report any voluntary meetings and proposed privacy or tenant‑relocation measures the applicant agrees to before the council hearing.
