Milpitas City Council
April 19, 2022

6.10 IMPLEMENTATION

ACTIONS
Plan policies in the preceding chapters will be
implemented by developers, property owners,
and the City over the course of the Plan horizon,
many as a result of development applications.

However, certain policies require implementation
that must be initiated by City staff and/or
proactively coordinated with other public
agencies. Table 6-1 summarizes proactive steps
needed to implement the Milpitas Metro Specific
Plan, agencies responsible for implementation,
and the expected timeframe for each action.

Related policies and goals from preceding
chapters for each implementation action are also
referenced in the below table.

Following Plan Adoption actions are anticipated
to completed directly following the adoption of
the Metro Plan.

Ongoing actions are expected to be
implemented throughout the planning period.

Short-term actions are actions that are expected
to be completed within 0 to 4 years from the
Milpitas Metro Specific Plan’s adoption.

Mid-term actions are anticipated to be
implemented within 5 to 9 years from the
Plan’s adoption,
Long-term actions are expected to
be completed between 10 to 20 years
from adoption.
annexed to the Metro Area, and the City is
monitoring opportunities to obtain support for
affordable housing through State programs as
well as potential Countywide funding initiatives.

As fees accrue in the Affordable Housing Fund,
the City should consider opportunities for site
acquisition, landlord assistance to maintain
older housing stock, and financing support for
affordable housing developers. An affordable
housing provider can leverage the City’s local
contribution to access Low Income Housing Tax
Credits (LIHTC) and other sources of financing.

This can amount to actual housing production
that is two to four times greater than inclusionary
unit production and with on-site services.

Funding Public Services. The primary source of
funding for the City’s public services, including
police and fire services as well as road and parks
maintenance, are the general tax revenues that
accrue to the City’s General Fund. These include
property taxes, sales, use taxes, and transient
occupancy taxes among others. In the TASP, there
was a recognition that additional funding would
be required to support public safety and other
services to new residential development within
the TASP. As a result, a Community Facilities
District (CFD) was established that requires new
residential development to pay an annual special
tax to cover the cost of additional public service
provision. For market-rate housing, the base rate
established in 2009/2010 was $510 per annum,
though these rates can be escalated using the
Consumer Price Index up to a maximum of 2
percent each year. It should also be noted that
Community Facilities District special taxes can
also be established to help fund and potentially
issue bonds for infrastructure. However, for the
TASP, this use of CFD’s has not been necessary
265 504
Item # 2.
166 CHAPTER 6. IMPLEMENTATION
Table 6-2. Implementation Plan
# Action
City Department
or Public Agency
Responsible
Timeframe Subdistrict or
Areawide
Land Use and Zoning
IM 1
Establish a methodology to internally track
and evaluate on at least an annual basis the
implementing of the Milpitas Metro Specific
Plan and its success in promoting desired
development, infrastructure and other
changes in the Plan Area, and to facilitate
plan updates where necessary.

Planning/ City Manager’s Office/ Economic DevelopmentFollowing Plan AdoptionAreawide
IM 2
Revise zoning code to establish new zoning
districts specific to Milpitas Metro. The revisions increase residential and commercial density closest to the transit stations and
major corridors to take advantage of transit
and circulation infrastructure. (LU 1.1)
Planning
Following
Plan AdoptionAreawide
IM 3
Revise zoning code to establish design
guidelines and standards for new development that support human-scaled vibrant development. (LU 1.1, LU 6)
Planning
Following
Plan AdoptionAreawide
IM 4 Update the General Plan to reflect the newly adopted MMSP boundaries. (LU 1.2) Planning Following
Plan Adoption
Innovation
District, Main
Street
IM 5
Revise the plan boundaries of the Midtown/
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Plan to reflect
the Metro Plan’s boundaries. (LU 1.2)
Planning
Following
Plan AdoptionAreawide
IM 6
Field questions, facilitate desired project
design, and proactively reach out to property owners and local brokers to identify opportunities for investment and lot consolidation and to promote the transit-orientation vision of the Plan. (LU 2) Economic Development, Planning Ongoing Areawide
IM 7
Assign Housing Element sites to the Great
Mall property upon adoption of the Housing Element. Housing Short-term Great Mall IM 8
Consider designating parcels in the Plan
Area as Housing Opportunity Zones to facilitate affordable housing development. (LU

3.5)
Housing Short-term Areawide
266 505
Item # 2.

CHAPTER 6. IMPLEMENTATION 167
IM 9
Amend Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing
Program in the Housing Element and related policies to include the promotion of affordable housing development in the Metro Plan Area. (LU 3.1)
Planning Short-term Areawide
IM
10 Consider annexation of the 3.5-acre parcel
between the Innovation District and I-680. Planning Mid-Term Innovation District IM
11 Work with private property owners to explore the feasibility of creating an EcoDistrict in the Innovation District and/or Great Mall Subdistrict. (LU 1.3)
Planning Mid-Term Innovation
District,
IM
12 Explore feasibility of establishing an incentive zone using planning regulations, such as density or streamlining bonuses, or adjustments to the TADIF, in the Innovation District.

Economic Development Mid-Term Innovation
District
Open Space and Public Realm
IM
13 During the planning review process, assess
and determine the siting of public open
spaces throughout the Plan Area for their
ability to provide social, contemplative, and
active recreational opportunities based on
the Recreation Value System. (PPS 3)
Planning, Parks and
Recreation Ongoing Areawide
IM
14 Develop a methodology for permitting and
managing privately owned, publicly-accessible open spaces, including credit for providing that space in lieu of a parks fee, access, easements, operating hours, programming and maintenance policies. (PPS 5) Planning Short-term Areawide
IM
15 Partner with developers to develop privately owned, publicly accessible open spaces maintained by property owners when desired by the City. (PPS 1, PPS 5, PPS 10) Planning Short-term Areawide
IM
16 Establish a Business Improvement District
(BID) or similar entity to develop and maintain public amenities in the Plan Area. (PPS

2.2, PPS 6)
Economic Development Short-term Areawide
267 506
Item # 2.
168 CHAPTER 6. IMPLEMENTATION
IM
17 Construct a park on city-owned property in
the Tango Subdistrict. (LU 8) Public Works Mid-term Tango IM
18 Purchase parkland and construct a public
park in the Innovation District adjacent to
Berryessa Creek.

Public Works Mid-term Innovation District
IM
19 Work with Great Mall developer to ensure
the construction of publicly accessible open
spaces that are at least 1-acre in size each.

Planning Mid-term Great Mall
IM
20 Identify priority areas for tree maintenance
and new tree plantings based on the City’s
Urban Forest Management Plan, particularly
in areas underserved by street trees. (PPS

9.7)
Public Works Mid-term Areawide
IM
21 Develop and install a Branding, Signage
and Wayfinding Program for Milpitas Metro,
including the trail network, which integrates
with the citywide branding program. (PPS

4.3)
Planning, City Manager’s Office Mid-Term Areawide
IM
22 Collaborate with public and/or private
partners to develop public broadband infrastructure allowing for continuous connectivity in public areas.

Public Works Mid-term Areawide
IM
23 Identify a location, funding and management strategy for a performing and visual art center in the plan area when feasible (LU

1.5)
Planning, City Manager’s Office Long-term Areawide
Street and Trail Improvements
IM
24 Review individual development applications
to ensure that design enhances multimodal
street design including bicycle facilities,
pedestrian facilities, and landscaping are
provided and consistent with Milpitas Metro
Specific Plan circulation policies and street
design standards. (M 1.2)
Planning On-going Areawide
268 507
Item # 2.

CHAPTER 6. IMPLEMENTATION 169
IM
25 Work with the Valley Transportation Authority, Bay Area Rapid Transit, and AC Transit to increase ridership for residents and workers
in the planning area. Potential tools to increase ridership such include first/last-mile solutions (e.g., explore Milpitas OnDemand
beyond a pilot program), improved operations (i.e., quicker travel), and infrastructure improvements where appropriate (i.e., better bus shelters and station amenities, bus boarding islands, BRT, etc.). (M 12.2)
Planning Ongoing Areawide
IM
26 Establish a Transportation Management
Association (TMA) for the Metro Area. Establish a funding mechanism to pay for the costs of the TMA, including the cost of a
transportation coordinator to administer the
program. (M 8.1)
Planning Short-term Areawide
IM
27 Establish a transportation demand management program (TDM). (M 8) Public Works Short-term Areawide IM
28 Improve Great Mall Parkway as a Complete
Street with the addition of protected bike
lanes, a multi-use trail, and linear park. (M

2.3)
Engineering,
Public Works Mid-term Areawide
IM
29 Remove the cul-de-sac bulb at the end of
Houret Court, and connect to private roads.

Accommodate the turn around as a loop on
connecting private roads. (M 1.1)
Engineering Mid-term McCandless
IM
30 Connect private roads across parcels from
McCandless Drive to Houret Court to provide pedestrian and Emergency Vehicle Access and allow for access to all parcels that are connected. (M 1.1)
Engineering Mid-term McCandless
IM
31 Construct a pathway for pedestrians and
bicyclists off of Houret Court that provides
access to McCandless Park. (M 1.1)
Engineering Mid-term McCandless
IM
32 Construct roads to connect Sango Court to
Jubilee Drive and Tarob Court. (M 1.1) Engineering Mid-term Tango IM
33 Extend the existing trails along Penitencia
Creek and the railroad tracks in the McCandless and Tango subdistricts to the Milpitas Transit Center, and provide connections from the neighborhood to the trail system as indicated. (M 1.1, M 5.1, M 5.2)
Public Works Mid-term McCandless,
Tango
269 508
Item # 2.
170 CHAPTER 6. IMPLEMENTATION
IM
34 Construct trails adjacent to Berryessa Creek
in the Innovation District. (M 1.1, M 5.2) Public Works Mid-term InnovationDistrict IM
35 Pave city-owned trails with all-weather surfacing. Public Works Mid-term Areawide IM
36 Coordinate with Santa Clara Valley Water
District to develop a creek trail system that
connects with the citywide pedestrian and
bicycle network. (M 5)
Planning,
Engineering Long-term Areawide
IM
37 Work with private developers to construct
new roads as identified in the Circulation
Map (Figure 4-6) that comply with the Plan’s
design standards for different street types.
(M 1, M 2, M 3, M 4, M 6)
Planning,
Engineering Long-term Areawide
IM
38 Improve the Great Mall Parkway and Main
Street intersection (M 2.4)
Engineering,
Public Works Long-term Main Street
IM
39 Work with Santa Clara County Roads to
complete improvements on Montague Expressway (M 2.5)
Engineering,
Public Works Long-term Areawide
IM
40 Complete multimodal street improvements
on Trade Zone Boulevard (M 2.6)
Engineering,
Public Works Long-term Tango
IM
41 Provide pedestrian connections between
the following subdistricts using the TADIF: Engineering Long-term Areawide Tango Subdistrict: Provide an at-grade
bridge across East Penitencia Creek to connect Mattos Mabel Elementary and expand existing safe walking and bicycling routes to
schools into the Milpitas Metro Area. (M 10,
M 11.1)
Tango to McCandless Subdistrict: Provide a
pedestrian overcrossing bridge across Montague Expressway at Penitencia Creek East. (M 10)
Innovation District: Connect the Milpitas
Transit Center to the Innovation District with
an at grade bridge over Berryessa Creek.
(M 12)
Enhance at-grade pedestrian crossings at
S. Milpitas Blvd Extension and Capitol Avenue, McCandless and Great Mall Parkway, and at Great Mall Parkway and Main Street.
(M 10)
270 509
Item # 2.

CHAPTER 6. IMPLEMENTATION 171
Provide an overhead pedestrian connection
between the Great Mall LRT Station and the
corner of Main and Great Mall Parkway. (M

2.4)
(Desired) Provide a safe and attractive
overhead or underground pedestrian route
from the Piper Subdistrict to the Great Mall
across the BART tracks. (M 10)
(Desired) Provide an at-grade connection
between Great Mall Subdistrict and the
neighborhood adjacent to the north. (M 10,
M 11)
(Desired) Provide an at-grade connection
between Innovation District and neighborhoods to the south. (M 1.1) (Desired) Provide a pedestrian connection
across Lower Penitencia Creek from McCandless Subdistrict to Main Street. (M 1.1, M 10)
Infrastructure and Public Service Improvements
IM
42 For infrastructure and public services implementation, refer to policies in the Chapter 5: Infrastructure.

IM
43 Identify potential partners that are local, regional, and/or private to coordinate regional improvements and share costs. (M 2.5, ICS 15, ICS 27, ICS 29)
Planning, Engineering Ongoing Areawide
Development and Permitting
IM
44 Update the TADIF to reflect changes in expected development, public in-vestments and improvements, and transportation projects, including the Montague Expressway and Calaveras Boulevard Widening Project.
(LU 7.3)
Planning
Following
Plan AdoptionAreawide
271 510
Item # 2.
172 CHAPTER 6. IMPLEMENTATION
IM
45 Expand the TADIF boundaries to reflect the
boundaries of the Metro Plan Area. (LU 7.3) Planning
Following
Plan AdoptionAreawide
IM
46 Work with property owners and devel-opers
to provide for unique and de-tailed consideration of development of significant large sites, such as the use of a Development
Agreement to se-cure development rights
and obliga-tions that are consistent with the
Plan generally and within the allowances of
the governing environmental docu-ment.
(LU 1.1, LU 1.3, LU 2.3, LU 3.1, PPS 5.1)
Planning Ongoing Great Mall
IM
47 Work with large commercial energy customers, such as industrial uses, to promote use of clean energy. This could include focused
collaboration on implementing the General
Plan’s solar promotion policies, rebates for
on-site energy generation, or other innovative methods to reduce reliance on non-renewable energy. (BD 10.1) Public Works Ongoing Areawide
272 511
Item # 2.

CHAPTER 6. IMPLEMENTATION 173 273 512
Item # 2.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)
Item Title: Receive a Report on Community Odor Monitoring Pilot Program Results (Staff Contact: Tony Ndah, Public Works Director, 408-586-2602) Category: Community Services and Sustainable Infrastructure Meeting
Date:
4/19/2022
Recommendation: Receive a report on the Community Odor Monitoring Pilot Program Results and provide direction to Staff.

Background:

On February 26, 2019, the City Council approved funding for City staff to implement a Community Odor Monitoring Pilot Program which was to be conducted in collaboration with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) South Bay Odor Attribution Study. The City’s study was to focus on assessing the characteristics of the odors impacting the community, while the BAAQMD study focused on identifying the types and quantity of odors from targeted facilities (and their processes) in and around the City.

In June 2019, Public Works staff executed a consultant agreement with Jacobs Engineering Group (Jacobs) to provide technical support with the development of the City’s approach, monitoring plan, and ongoing technical support including staff training and data analysis for the pilot community odor monitoring program. Based on their review of historic odor data, Jacobs developed a Monitoring Plan which included two main monitoring approaches: (1) weekly point in time monitoring events where staff visit specific monitoring locations and collect data related to weather, wind, and odor conditions; and (2) odor sample collection events where air samples are gathered and sent to UCLA laboratory for analysis.

Staff participated in training sessions led by Jacobs to gain knowledge on how to properly use the odor monitoring equipment and how to categorize odors in the field. The odor monitoring equipment used by staff included a Scentroid SM1000 field-olfactometer, weather monitoring equipment, and Teflon bags for sampling.

With the odor monitoring equipment, staff were able to detect odorous conditions based on what humans would naturally smell.

Staff conducted weekly field odor monitoring activities beginning November 2019 through July 2021. Each week staff visited 11 key locations to characterize point-in-time odor impacts. This was accomplished by setting up monitoring equipment, collecting data at that point in time, and moving the equipment to the next location to repeat the process. The locations are located relative to areas of historic concentration of odor complaints and from downwind of presumed odor sources. The presumed odor sources include Newby Island Landfill, Zero Waste Energy Development (ZWED), San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF), and the City’s Main Lift Pump Station.

There was a gap in data collection from March 2020 through June 2020 due to Covid 19 Shelter-In-Place order. Additionally, there was an additional gap in data collection due to poor air quality as a result of the summer 2020 wildfires. The pilot odor study was completed in Summer 2021 when staff collected additional seasonal data that was missed during 2020.

Additionally, staff worked with Jacobs Engineering Group to conduct the sample collection on October 22, 2020, March 4, 2021, and May 20, 2021. The collected samples were sent to UCLA for analysis. 513
Item # 3.

Analysis:

This section summarizes the attached Community Odor Monitoring Study with laying out the study’s goals, highlighting key results, and seeking Council input on consultant recommendations.

Community Odor Monitoring Pilot Program Goals
The City’s Community Monitoring Pilot Program focused on assessing and documenting the characteristics and intensity of the odors observed impacting the Milpitas community. The pilot program did not have access to odor source facilities and was not designed to determine odor sources. By contrast, the BAAQMD South Bay Odor Attribution Study focused on identifying the relative contribution and variability of odor causing compounds from targeted source facilities (and their processes) in and around the City. The BAAQMD Study utilized measurement technology that can measure at parts per trillion levels over an extremely large range of compounds in order to aid the community in potentially identifying sources.

Community Odor Monitoring Pilot Program Results
Field odor assessments were conducted using a field olfactometer to measure the odor strength and describe the odors observed (character, intensity and hedonic tone). A total of fifty field odor monitoring assessments were undertaken at eleven discrete locations in the community between November 2019 and July 2021. On average, two field assessments were undertaken every three weeks on random days of the week and a random time of the day, resulting in a total of 580 field observations. See Attachment 1 for City of Milpitas Phase 1 Community Odor Study Report prepared by Jacobs summarizing the results, findings, and recommendations. A summary of the report follows.

The frequency of odors present, the odor intensity, the odor strength (Dilution/Threshold or D/T) and the hedonic tone of the odors observed at the discrete locations in the community have been established.

One of the key assessments taken at each monitoring event is the odor strength which is measured in units known as Dilution/Threshold or D/T. The Dilution/Threshold is defined as the number of times a sample must be diluted to reach the odor detection threshold. The field olfactometer draws in sample air and dilutes it with odorless air from a compressed air tank, starting at a high dilution, and slowly adjusts the dial to incrementally increase the sample dose (lower dilution) until the odor is detected. The sampler then records the dial setting and uses the instrument specific calibration certificate to determine the D/T.

The following table shows the average odor strength detected at each of the monitoring locations over the course of the pilot. The odor strength at the discrete locations inside the community were typically faint (D/T around 5) and unpleasant, which may lead to nuisance and complaints depending on the sensitivity of the locality and nature of the odor (i.e., frequency, duration, and offensiveness). The odor strength was occasionally distinct (D/T > 10) and revolting at the Milmont Drive, Tramway Drive, and Marylinn Drive survey locations, which makes the likelihood of odor nuisance and complaints highly likely. 514
Item # 3.

Noticeable odors were consistently observed directly downwind of the following facilities:
 Newby Island Resource Recovery Park (NIRRP), comprised of Newby Island Landfill (NISL), Material Recovery Facility (MRF), and NIRRP composting facility;  San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF);  Zero Waste Energy Development (ZWED), a dry anaerobic organic waste processing facility; and  Main Lift Station, which is the main collection point of the sewage that is transferred to the RWF.

These odors were always strong and often extremely strong. The odor strength downwind of the NIRRP, RWF and ZWED facilities was on average greater than 50 D/T and described as ‘revolting’, which makes the likelihood of odor nuisance and complaints almost certain in these locations.

Odors were observed during each season and no significant differences were observed between the odor strength and odor character emitted in the Winter-Spring 2019/2020 period (before COVID-19 restrictions) and in the Winter-Spring 2020/2021 period (during COVID-19 restrictions). 515
Item # 3.

The odor character downwind of the three main odor-emitting facilities are relatively unique and have mostly been described by different field assessors as follows:
 RWF facility: Sewage, Septic, Fecal or Urine
 Newby facility: Garbage, Sweet or Rotten Vegetables
 ZWED facility: Rancid, Putrid, Manure, Rotten Vegetables or Pungent These relatively unique odor descriptors have been used to assess the origin of the odors that are experienced in the community. All three main odor-emitting facilities contribute to odors frequently observed in the community. Although the odors emitted from ZWED are by far the most intense and the most unpleasant, their reach is mostly limited to only the first locations in the west and south-west areas of the City. Odors emitted from the NIRRP facility contribute to a large extent to the odors observed at most of the discrete survey locations, while odors emitted from the RWF contribute to a lesser extent at most of the discrete survey locations and more to the further away location in the east and south-east of the community (Mt Shasta Avenue).

Sample Analysis by UCLA
Bag samples were taken three times and submitted for lab odor analyses at UCLA by trained panelists to identify the multiple dominant odor characters in a single sample and their respective intensities at different dilutions. The obtained results were consistent with the observations in the community during the field assessments.

Consultant Recommendations
Based on the analysis of the data collected during the pilot, Jacobs has identified two recommendations for ongoing data monitoring and community odor reporting that could be forwarded to BAAQMD for implementation as the BAAQMD is able to use such data to better regulate odor emitting facilities, measure progress, and implement enforcement. Based on Council feedback, these recommendations could be championed with BAAQMD by Vice Mayor Montano, who serves as the BAAQMD Board Member, Mayor Tran, who is a member of the South Bay Odor Stakeholder’s Group, and/or staff.

Consultant Recommendation #1: Purchase four Instrumental Odor Monitoring Systems (IOMS) with automatic air samplers.

Instrumental odor monitoring systems (IOMS) are intelligent electronic multi-sensing tools with multiple sensors for which the primary application is indicating odors as perceived by human observers. An IOMS can alert the BAAQMD or can initiate an air bag sample, allowing inspectors to capture transient odors within the community. The auto air bag sampler takes a sample of the air and stores it, enabling detailed analyses later by a mobile lab for origin determination. Jacobs recommends installing IOMS with auto air bag samplers near each of the following survey locations as a minimum: Milmont Drive, Tramway Drive, Marylinn Drive, and Murphy Ranch.

These units should be purchased and installed by the BAAQMD in partnership with the City to provide broader understanding of odor impacts and to measure progress on future odor reduction actions. Purchase of four IOMS with auto samplers and the required software is estimated to be $176,256. The ongoing subscription cost of the software platform would be $3,700 per year after the first year. Each bag sample analysis is estimated to cost $695. As an example, the analysis cost of 80 samples over a one-year period is estimated to cost $55,600.

Consultant Recommendation #2: Develop a dedicated mobile app or enable mobile odor complaint reporting in an existing app for the community to provide improved feedback on the odors observed and to support public outreach efforts. Reporting should include key odor characteristics identified by Jacobs and used in the monitoring pilot program for improved response. This improves on existing odor reporting systems which provide only generic information on the odor occurrence.

This information could help the BAAQMD to better understand the areas suffering from odor nuisance, which may help to optimize the regulatory framework and may help to enforce remedial actions to address the 516
Item # 3.
nuisance more effectively. Online submission of odor complaints would aid in tracking complaints more quickly and provide more detailed information for improved response. This could also allow complaints to be forwarded to plant operators/supervisors at the main odor emitting facilities immediately for interpretation and response.

The cost of introducing a mobile app for odor complaints is estimated to be minimal but would require staff time to tailor the app and advertise it to the community.

Policy Alternatives:

Alternative 1: Direct staff to implement the Consultant recommended actions.

Pros: City would gain improved understanding of the odor impacts and be able to measure progress on future odor reduction actions taken by others.

Cons: City would have to fund the recommendations; there would also be staffing impacts for ongoing operations and management of the odor monitoring stations.

Reason not recommended: City does not have enforcement authority over the odor contributing facilities and is not in a position to take any action based on collected data. Any ongoing data collection systems/program would best be maintained by the BAAQMD who can use the data to monitor facility emissions and take enforcement measures if needed.

Fiscal Impact:

This is an informational item for Council review and comment.

California Environmental Quality Act:

The City Council’s action in providing direction is not an action subject to the California Environmental Quality as it is more akin to information collection which is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15306. It is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15303 as the construction of small structures which may occur with the instrumental odor monitoring systems installation.

Recommendation:

Receive report on Community Odor Monitoring Pilot Program results and provide direction to staff.

Attachments:

1. City of Milpitas Phase 1 Community Odor Study Report 517
Item # 3.
518
Item # 3.

Community Odor Study
Document No. | rev 2
October 21, 2021
City of Milpitas
Client Reference
Document Title
C
i
t
y
o
f
M
i
l
p
i
t
a
s
Document history and status
Revision Date Description Author Checked Reviewed Approved 0 9/11/21 first draft BK
1 10/21/21 final draft BK SC SC / ML ML
2 12/6/2021 Updated final draft BK SC SC / ML ML
Distribution of copies
Revision Issue
approved
Date
issued
Issued to Comments
1 ML 10/21/21 City of Milpitas Final draft for client review 2 ML 12/17/21 City of Milpitas Updated final draft for client review 3 BK 03/21/22 City of Milpitas Final report
519
Item # 3.

City of Milpitas Phase 1 Community Odor Study
Document No. W8Y01700-1_rev 1 i
Phase 1 Community Odor Study
Project No: W8Y01700
Document Title: City of Milpitas Phase 1 Community Odor Study Document No.: Document No. W8Y01700-1_rev 3
Revision: rev 3
Document Status: Final
Date: March 21, 2022
Client Name: City of Milpitas
File Name: City of Milpitas Odor Study Report_updated draft Jacobs Consultants Inc.
4 Embarcadero Center
Suite 3800
San Francisco, CA 94111
United States
T +1.415.356.2040
F +1.415.356.2055
www.jacobs.com
© Copyright 2021 Jacobs Consultants, Inc.. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Limitation: This document has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this document by any third party.
520
Item # 3.

City of Milpitas Phase 1 Community Odor Study
Document No. W8Y01700-1_rev 1 ii
Contents
Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................................3

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................8

1.1 Background........................................................................................................................................................................8

1.2 Study Objectives and Scope ........................................................................................................................................8

1.3 Description of Receptor Areas................................................................................................................................. 10

1.4 Climate and Prevailing Wind Direction ................................................................................................................ 11

1.5 Description of Odor-Emitting Facilities of Focus ............................................................................................. 12

1.5.1 Newby Island Resource Recovery Park................................................................................................................. 13

1.5.2 San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility ....................................................................................... 14

1.5.3 Zero Waste Energy Development Facility ........................................................................................................... 15

2. Community Odor Assessment Methodology......................................................................................... 17

2.1 Field Odor Assessments ............................................................................................................................................. 17

2.2 Laboratory Odor Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 18

3. Results and Discussion................................................................................................................................ 21

3.1 Frequency of Odors Observed ................................................................................................................................. 21

3.2 Odor Intensity................................................................................................................................................................. 21

3.3 Hedonic Tone ................................................................................................................................................................. 22

3.4 Odor Strength (D/T).................................................................................................................................................... 23

3.5 Likelihood of Odor Complaints ............................................................................................................................... 23

3.6 Seasonal Influences on Odors Observed............................................................................................................. 24

3.7 Odor Character Downwind of Facilities ................................................................................................................ 25

3.8 Odor Character in the Community ......................................................................................................................... 26

3.9 Odor Profile Method Results .................................................................................................................................... 28

4. Conclusions.................................................................................................................................................... 31

5. Recommendations for Ongoing Odor Monitoring................................................................................ 32

5.1 Recommendation #1................................................................................................................................................... 32

5.2 Recommendation #2................................................................................................................................................... 32 Appendix A. Field Log Sheet
Appendix B. Odor Characterization Wheel
Appendix C. Data Base Results Field Odor Assessments
Appendix D. Odor Descriptors Used at the Community Locations Appendix E. Example of an Instrumental Odor Monitoring System Appendix F. Example of Auto-Bag Sampler
Appendix G. Example of Community Engagement App
Appendix H. Indicative Costs of Recommendations
521
Item # 3.
3 Executive Summary
Odor has been an issue in Milpitas for decades. Over the years, various odor mitigation approaches have been undertaken with varying degrees of success. While the number of odor complaints from residents has decreased in recent years, the high number of complaints indicates a persistent and ongoing odor issue. The City of Milpitas does not have jurisdiction over most of the odor emitting sites but is a key stakeholder as its community has been adversely affected by fugitive odors in the area due to its position southeast and generally downwind of key odor sources.

An Odor Study (Phase 1) has been undertaken by the City of Milpitas to gather data about the potential sources of the odors impacting the community and to determine how these odors are affecting the City’s residents. The study is being done in collaboration with the BAAQMD, the agency in charge of enforcing remedial actions. Based on data collected, recommendations for next steps include continuous odor monitoring stations, which could be strategically installed at odor-sensitive locations within Milpitas to inform future actions to reduce odors, provide better understanding of odor trending in terms of diurnal or seasonal or transient affects, to better understand the key odor sources and to establish methods to measure progress on future odor reduction actions.

Field odor assessments were conducted using a field olfactometer and a portable weather station to measure the odor strength in dilution to threshold (D/T) and describe the odors observed (character, intensity, and hedonic tone) under the wind conditions. A total of fifty field odor assessments were undertaken at eleven discrete locations in the community of the City of Milpitas by multiple field assessors between November 2019 and July 2021. On average, two field assessments were undertaken every three weeks on random days of the week and a random time of the day, resulting in a total of 580 field observations.

Findings
Field Observations
This Study has determined the frequency of odors present, the odor intensity, the odor strength (D/T) and the hedonic tone of the odors observed at the discrete locations in the community during the field assessments. The odor strength at the discrete locations within City boundaries were typically faint (D/T around 5) and unpleasant, which may lead to nuisance and complaints depending on the sensitivity of the locality and nature of the odor (i.e., frequency, duration, and offensiveness). The odor strength was occasionally distinct (D/T > 10) and revolting at Milmont Drive, Tramway Drive, and Marylinn Drive, which makes the likelihood of odor nuisance and complaints highly likely.

Table. The Odor Intensity of the Odors Observed at Discrete Locations within the Milpitas Community.

Survey Location Odor Intensity1
average maximum
Downwind ZWED 5.8 Extremely Strong/Very Strong 6 Extremely Strong Downwind RWF 4.1 Strong 6 Extremely Strong
Downwind NIRRP 3.8 Strong/Distinct 6 Extremely Strong
Downwind Lift Station 3.0 Distinct 5 Very Strong
Wilson Way 2.2 Weak/Distinct 3 Distinct
Milmont Drive 2.1 Weak 4 Strong
Tramway Drive 1.8 Weak/Very Weak 3 Distinct
Marylinn Drive 1.7 Weak/Very Weak 3 Distinct
Murphy Ranch Road 1.6 Weak/Very Weak 4 Strong
Mt Shasta Avenue 1.4 Very Weak/Weak 1 Very Weak
Alvarez Court 1.3 Very Weak/Weak 2 Weak
Los Coches Street 1.1 Very Weak 2 Weak
1) Scale: Not Detectable (0), Very Weak (1), Weak (2), Distinct (3), Strong (4), Very Strong (5), Extremely Strong (6). 522
Item # 3.
4 Table. The Degree to Which Observed Odors were Perceived as Pleasant or Unpleasant (Hedonic Tone).

Survey Location Hedonic Tone1
average maximum
Downwind ZWED -2.7 Nauseating/Revolting -3 Nauseating
Downwind NIRRP -1.7 Revolting/Unpleasant -3 Nauseating
Downwind RWF -1.7 Revolting/Unpleasant -3 Nauseating
Downwind Lift Station -1.2 Unpleasant/Revolting -2 Revolting Milmont Drive -1.1 Unpleasant -2 Revolting
Tramway Drive -1.0 Unpleasant -1 Unpleasant
Marylinn Drive -1.0 Unpleasant -1 Unpleasant
Los Coches Street -1.0 Unpleasant -1 Unpleasant
Wilson Way -1.0 Unpleasant -1 Unpleasant
Murphy Ranch Road -0.8 Unpleasant/Neutral -1 Unpleasant Alvarez Court -0.7 Unpleasant/Neutral -1 Unpleasant
Mt Shasta Avenue -0.3 Neutral/Unpleasant -1 Unpleasant
1) Scale: Pleasant (1), Neutral (0), unpleasant (-1), revolting (-2), nauseating (-3).

Noticeable odors were consistently observed directly downwind of the following facilities:
• Newby Island Resource Recovery Park (NIRRP), comprised of Newby Island Landfill (NISL), Material Recovery Facility (MRF), and NIRRP composting facility; • San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF); • Zero Waste Energy Development (ZWED) facility which is a dry anaerobic organic waste processing facility; and
• Milpitas’ Main Sewer Lift Station, which is the main collection point of the sewage that is transferred to the RWF.

These odors were always strong in odor intensity or often extremely strong. The odor strength downwind of the odor emitting facilities was on average greater than 50 D/T and described as ‘revolting’, which makes the likelihood of odor nuisance and complaints almost certain in these locations.

Odors were observed during each season and no significant differences were observed between the odor strength and odor character emitted in the Winter-Spring 2019/2020 period (before COVID-19 restrictions) and in the Winter-Spring 2020/2021 period (during COVID-19 restrictions).

The odor character downwind of the odor-emitting facilities are relatively unique and have mostly been described by different field assessors as follows:
• RWF facility and Main Lift Station: Sewage, Septic, Fecal or Urine • Newby facility: Garbage, Sweet or Rotten Vegetables
• ZWED facility: Rancid, Putrid, Manure, Rotten Vegetables or Pungent These relatively unique odor descriptors have been used to assess the origin of the odors that are experienced in the community. A high-level visual representation BLOB map has been created to illustrate where the odors observed in the community during the odor study most likely originated from. All three main odor-emitting facilities contribute to odors frequently observed in the community. Although the odors emitted from ZWED are by far the most intense and the most unpleasant, their reach is mostly limited to only the first locations west and south-west of the community in the City of Milpitas. Odors emitted from the NIRRP facility contribute to a large extent to the odors observed at most of the discrete survey locations, while odors emitted from the RWF contribute to a lesser extent at most of the discrete survey locations and more to the further away location in the east and south-east of the community (Mt Shasta Avenue). 523
Item # 3.
5 Figure: High-level Visual Representation (BLOB map) that Illustrates Most Likely Origination of Odors Observed in the Community, with the Size of the Circles a Measure of the Average Odor Intensity Observed.

Odor Characteristic Analysis
Bag samples were also taken downwind of the facilities for lab odor analyses at University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) by a panel of trained panelists to identify the multiple dominant odor characters in a single sample and their respective intensities at different dilutions (aka Odor Profile Method). Persistency curves were developed to understand how odor impacts the communities when traveling from the odor sources into the community. The results were consistent with the observations in the community during the field assessments.

Recommended Next Steps
An ongoing odor monitoring system may assist stakeholders to understand the extent of the odor impact. A public complaint is considered unconfirmed until and unless an inspector can confirm it by smelling it with the complainant and then tracing its source. Confirming an odor complaint is often difficult because the time for an inspector to arrive at the complainant site is typically too long to properly assess the odor complaint and trace its source. This is due to the transient nature of odors, with changes in wind direction and speed or process changes at the odor source. A real-time odor monitoring system would be required that uses multiple sensors to provide a generic response from the different odorous compounds emitted in the community. Instrumental odor monitoring systems (IOMS) are intelligent electronic multi-sensing tools for which the primary application is the generation of indicators of odor as perceived by human observers.

Jacobs recommends installing an IOMS with auto air bag samplers at specific locations within the community. 524
Item # 3.
6 An IOMS can alert stakeholders including BAAQMD and City of Milpitas staff or can initiate an air bag sampler, enabling the fast collection of air within the community and preventing the ineffectiveness associated with time delays when an inspector arrives at the complainant site. Auto samplers can also be initiated remotely on-demand by staff of the City of Milpitas or BAAQMD at any moment after receiving odor complaints. The auto air bag sampler takes a sample of the air and stores it in a bag and enables specific detailed analyses.

Jacobs also recommends the introduction of a mobile app for the community to provide improved feedback on the odors observed in the community and to support public outreach efforts. This information could help regulatory agency BAAQMD to better understand the areas suffering from odor nuisance, which may help to optimize the regulatory framework and may help to enforce remedial actions to address the nuisance more effectively. Online submission of odor complaints would aid in tracking complaints more quickly and provide more detailed information for improved response. This could also allow complaints to be forwarded to plant operators/supervisors at the main odor emitting facilities immediately for interpretation and response.

The continuous odor monitoring stations (using an IOMS) together with an improved public engagement (through a mobile app) would assist stakeholders such as the odor emitting facilities and the BAAQMD to understand the odor impacts, would better inform future actions to reduce odors and would establish a method to measure progress on future odor reduction actions.

It is recommended that BAAQMD as the enforcement agency would take the lead in implementing these recommendations in close cooperation with the City of Milpitas.

525
Item # 3.
7 Acronyms and Abbreviations
oF degrees Fahrenheit
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
City City of Milpitas
D/T dilutions to threshold
EN European norm
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FPA Flavor Profile Analysis
Hedonic Tone
IOMS
Degree to which an odor was perceived as pleasant or unpleasant Industrial odor monitoring system
Jacobs Jacobs Engineering Group
MRF Material Recovery Facility
MSW municipal solid waste
NIRRP Newby Island Resource Recovery Park
NISL Newby Island Landfill
OPM odor profile method
PTR-MS proton transfer reaction – mass spectrometer
QA quality assurance
QC quality control
RWF San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility
SM100 Scentroid SM100 field olfactometer
Study City of Milpitas Phase 1 Community Odor Study
UCLA University of California at Los Angeles
VOC volatile organic compound
ZWED Zero Waste Energy Development facility
526
Item # 3.
8 1. Introduction

1.1 Background
Odor has been an issue in Milpitas for decades. Over the years, various odor mitigation approaches have been undertaken with varying degrees of success. While the number of odor complaints from residents has decreased in recent years from a peak of 3,500 in 2015, the high number of complaints (1,500) reported for 2018 indicates a persistent and ongoing odor issue (BAAQMD, 2019; San Jose Mercury News, 2019).

It is understood that the odors originate primarily from multiple potential sources located outside of the city (Figure 1-1), including:
• Newby Island Resource Recovery Park (NIRRP), operated by Republic Services • San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF), operated by the City of San Jose • Zero Waste Energy Development (ZWED)’s anaerobic digestion facility, operated by Zanker Recycling • Main Lift Station, operated by the City of Milpitas
• San Francisco Bay Estuary
The City of Milpitas has contracted with Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (Jacobs) to conduct an Odor Study (Study) to gather data about the sources of the odors impacting their community to assist them in understanding better how these odors are affecting the City’s residents. Based on data collected, recommendations were made for continuous odor monitoring stations that could be strategically installed at odor-sensitive locations in Milpitas.

1.2 Study Objectives and Scope
The objectives of the Study are to:
• quantify ambient odor impacts and validate odor complaints • identify and confirm the main sources that are a concern regarding odor • train City staff on odor sampling best practices
• recommend an ambient odor monitoring strategy.

The scope of work was to develop a Sample Plan for field odor assessments and to train the City’s staff on odor sampling best practices, while providing ongoing support during the field sampling campaigns which were undertaken by the City.

The field sampling assessed all significant sources that may impact the residents of City of Milpitas. Odor data was gathered regularly at different locations in the community by City staff using field olfactometers.

The survey locations were primarily based on historical odor complaint data and safe access considerations.

These field odor assessments characterized and quantified odors affecting the City. Also, vacuum chambers were used to collect bag samples three times downwind of the facilities for lab odor analysis to understand how odors from the key facilities change in odor intensity and odor character as the odors travels into the community.

Based on the field assessment results, recommendations have been made herein on the type of sensors and strategic locations for continuous ambient air odor monitoring stations targeting the specific odors of concern for Milpitas.

527
Item # 3.
9 Figure 1-1. A Map of the Study Area
528
Item # 3.
10 1.3 Description of Receptor Areas
The community of the City of Milpitas has been adversely affected by fugitive odors in the area due to its position southeast and generally downwind of key potential odor sources. Figure 2-2 illustrates a summary of complaints plotted by approximate location within the Milpitas area. These initial odor complaint records were recorded from September 2012 to September 2015 when 3,412 complaints were logged by BAAQMD. Complaint data is based on block data and no real addresses or names are reflected in the data.

Figure 2-2. Milpitas Historical Complaint Locations (2012 to 2015) To provide context on how this compares to other communities: between December 2014 and March 2016, 4,810 odor complaints were received from the greater Milpitas area. This number represents approximately 65 percent of the total 7,394 odor complaints received by the BAAQMD within its nine-county jurisdiction during that same period. Table 2-1 shows complaints were as high as 3,306 in 2015 and dropped as low as 827 in 2019. Similar trends can be seen in the cities of Fremont and San José.

Table 2-1. BAAQMD Received Odor Complaints, South Bay (2015 to 2019) City 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Fremont 546 255 152 83 53
Milpitas 3,306 2,782 1,756 1,707 827
San José 70 43 22 15 9
Based on complaint information provided by BAAQMD, the top complaint areas between 2017 and 2019 in Fremont, Milpitas, and San José are summarized in Table 2-2. These locations account for the majority of the complaints received in the respective year, in comparison to other locations within that city. 529
Item # 3.
11 Table 2-2. Locations of Highest Number of Complaints (2017 to 2019) City 2017 2018 2019
Fremont 5500 Simm Ct
Fremont Blvd
200 Mayten Way
500 Pistache Terrace
48900 Rusty Leaf Terrace
42400 Osgood Rd
48800 Sauvignon Ct
48900 Air Fern Common
3600 Main Street
Milpitas 1300 Elkwood Dr
1400 Platt Ave
200 Ontario Rd
Aspen Ridge Dr
0 Butero Ln
200 Tram Wy
500 maple Ave
0 Berylwood Ln
100 Beaumere Wy
1300 Elkwood Dr
1300 Beaumere Wy
1500 Platt Ave
1900 Baderwood Ln
1300 Elkwood Dr
1500 Hidden creek Ln
1100 California Cir
100 Beaumere Wy
800 N Abbott Ave
100 Sudbury Dr
San José 100 Descanso Dr
4200 Sophia Wy
400 Mill River Ln
400 Camille Cir
4000 Biscotti Pl
4000 Biscotti Pl
300 River Oaks Pkwy
Note: Complaint data is based on block data and no real addresses or names are reflected in the data.

1.4 Climate and Prevailing Wind Direction
The climate can be categorized as Mediterranean, with mostly sunny weather and devoid of extreme temperature changes. Winter months are cooler ranging from 31 degrees Fahrenheit (oF) to 59 oF. Rainfall occurs periodically with an average of 15 inches (in) falling annually in the City. The transition to spring brings warmer weather and sparse rain. Summer months are dry and warm with temperatures averaging in the mid to high 80s OF. While it is typically infrequent, temperatures can exceed 100 oF. Autumn brings cooler temperatures; however, it tends to remain dry and sunny into late October.

Wind speeds vary in the area. Typically, during winter, winds are calm (remaining between 5 and 10 miles per hour). During summer, winds are calm during the morning hours and increase gradually during the day to greater than 10 miles per hour along the San Francisco Bay. Wind direction is predominantly from the west between February and October and from the north between November and January. Even so, wind direction can shift between morning hours and afternoon hours in the summer months. The prevailing wind directions in 2019 are shown in the wind rose shown below (Figure 2-2) with wind typically coming from the south-east in the early mornings and coming from the north-west in the late afternoons and in the diurnal wind graphic below (Figure 2-3). The circular format of the wind rose shows the direction the winds typically blow from and the length of each "spoke" around the circle shows how often the wind blew from that direction. 530
Item # 3.
12 Figure 2-2: Prevailing Wind Direction and Speed as Measured about 6 Miles South of the Study Area (San Jose Airport).

Figure 2-3: Typical Diurnal Wind Direction as Measured about 6 Miles South of the Study Area (San Jose Airport).

1.5 Description of Odor-Emitting Facilities of Focus
Three facilities have been identified as the primary odor emitters of concern based on reviews of the BAAQMD and South Bay community’s odor complaint logs and historical records: the NIRRP, the RWF, and the ZWED facility. They are in close proximity to one another (see Figure 1-1), typically upwind of the impacted communities during seasonal and/or operational periods that have the highest potential for odor impacts, and their odor emission plumes are often mixed together before reaching the receptors. In addition to off-site wastes, the three facilities also receive, process, and discharge waste streams to and from each other. For example, 531
Item # 3.
13 stabilized and dried biosolids from the RWF is transported in late summer or early fall and stockpiled at the Newby Island Landfill (NISL) for use as alternate daily cover for landfill operations. NISL leachate is delivered to the RWF for treatment. Green waste and food waste are delivered to the NIRRP composting area. The nonbiodegradable wastes, or “overs”, from the ZWED operation are transported to NISL.

Besides these three facilities, two other potential odor-emitting sources have been identified:
• A lift station collects wastewater streams and pumps it to the RWF for treatment. This main lift station is located east of the lagoons of the RWF and has been identified as one of the primary odor emitters. • Bay mud may potentially be considered a significant non-facility odor source, creating background odors that can either mask or worsen odor impacts from odor emitting facilities. Furthermore, tidal variation can impact bay mud odor emissions. During low tide, decaying organics may be exposed and can produce odor.

The subsequent sections provide a general description of the three primary odor emitting facilities.

1.5.1 Newby Island Resource Recovery Park
The NIRRP is operated by Republic Services, Inc. The facility consists of the NISL, the Material Recovery Facility (MRF), and a covered aerated static pile (ASP) organic composting facility. It is located on the northern boundary of the City of San José, with Milpitas generally located to the east (Figure 1-1). The Fremont industrial area lies immediately north and northeast of the facility boundary, with Fremont residential areas located further to the north and east. The main residential areas of San José and Santa Clara are to the south and southwest of the facility, respectively.

The facility accepts and processes a wide variety of municipal, recyclable, and industrial waste from the surrounding communities. These wastes can include green waste, limited food waste (such as spoiled milk solids and other food waste comingled with green waste delivered to the composting facility), commercial waste, residential waste, and biosolids material. According to Newby Island staff (BAAQMD, 2021), overall, the amount of waste initially received is 13.9 percent lower than pre-COVID-19 (prior to business closures and travel restrictions resulting from local shelter-in-place orders that went into effect in mid-March 2020). Late summer the profiled waste such as sludge and soils returned to pre-COVID-19 levels. Municipal solid waste (MSW) was down 9 percent while other types also remain slightly down from pre-COVID-19 levels.

There are six process areas for processing the wastes entering the facility: MRF, working face of the landfill, green waste receiving and grinding area, composting area, biosolids stockpiling area, and the landfill gas collection area (Figure 2-4). Typically, the wastes enter the facility from the east via trucks and are dumped at various locations throughout the site for further processing, depending upon the types of waste.

The NIRRP has eight odor neutralizing systems placed strategically onsite. Each system consists of multiple nozzles. The system serving the fence line is approximately 1,300 feet in length. When biosolids are delivered in October, the NIRRP rents a large misting system. Misting is operated until 11:00 pm at landfill locations. All others are operated 24 hours.
532
Item # 3.
14 Gas systems and liquids systems are operated 24 hours per day, seven days per week while the working face is open until 11:00 pm. Leachate from the landfill is temporarily stored in a leachate storage system before being pumped to the RWF for treatment.

Figure 2-4. Newby Island Resource Recovery Park Facility Map, Milpitas, California (source: Google Earth)

1.5.2 San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility The RWF is located in the City of San José at 700 Los Esteros Road. It is a tertiary publicly owned wastewater treatment plant, which includes pretreatment, primary treatment, sludge digestion, secondary treatment, and tertiary treatment. Built in 1956 and expanded several times since, the RWF treats an average of 110 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater and has the design capacity to treat 167 mgd. It is jointly owned by the cities of San José and Santa Clara and is managed and operated by the City of San José’s Environmental Services Department. The RWF also serves several tributary cities or agencies including Milpitas and Fremont. Figure 2-5 illustrates the overall RWF site plan excluding lagoons and sludge drying beds. 533
Item # 3.
15 Figure 2-5. San José-Santa Clara RWF Overview (CH2M Hill 2012) The RWF is located on 2,600 acres along the southern shoreline of the San Francisco Bay and includes a 175-acre wastewater processing area, a 750-acre sludge-drying area, and an 850-acre former salt production pond that has been restored to a tidal marsh. The remaining acreage is open land that buffers adjacent communities from RWF operations. The RWF 10-year $1.4 billion capital improvements project began in 2014.

Key upgrades include sludge digestion process, piping, structural improvements, a new flare, construction of a third headworks facility, dissolved air flotation thickener (DAFT) improvements, new cogeneration facilities, and a sludge dewatering facility.

Based on feedback from RWF staff (BAAQMD, 2021), there have been minimal impacts on total volume of wastewater received at the RWF during the Study period compared to pre-COVID-19 levels. While the influent flow hasn't changed significantly since the shelter-in-place order was implemented in mid-March 2020, the daily peak flow occurs a bit later in the day. These changes have not affected operations.

Wastewater entering the RWF is divided into two key treatment processes: liquid treatment and solid treatment, each having unique odor characteristics.

1.5.3 Zero Waste Energy Development Facility
The Zero Waste Energy Development Facility (ZWED) is a dry fermentation anerobic digestion (AD) facility located in the City of San José at 685 Los Esteros Road (Figure 2-6) that produces clean, green renewable energy, while simultaneously producing a feedstock for composting. At approximately 41 acres in area, it is the first large-scale commercial dry fermentation AD technology in the United States and is the largest facility of its kind in the world. The facility processes an estimated 90,000 tons per year of “wet” organic waste material that is collected primarily from commercial industries and includes food waste and residential waste (mainly yard trimmings), that would otherwise go to landfill. The facility is primarily contained within a single building where sorting, digestion and in-vessel composting occur.

ZWED sources organic waste (feedstock) from the City of San José and surrounding communities and converts it into biogas through controlled anaerobic conversion of organic materials in large airtight containers (digesters). 534
Item # 3.
16 The biogas is stored onsite and used to power two on-site combined heat and power (CHP) engines. As of May 2020, material is delivered directly to ZWED instead of first being sorted at the Newby Island MRF. At the beginning of the shelter-in-place orders implemented in mid-March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 global pandemic, incoming feedstock slowed to almost nothing. Late summer 2020, the incoming feedstock was approximately 50 percent of normal (BAAQMD, 2021).

Figure 2-6. ZWED Facility Overview
Approximate feedstock source and percent breakdown is as follows (BAAQMD, 2021):
▪ San José; 60 percent by volume. Mostly commercial (Safeway, restaurants). ▪ Sunnyvale: 10 percent by volume.
▪ Palo Alto: 10 percent by volume. Residential/commercial (residential is mostly green waste). ▪ Mountain View: 10 percent by volume.
▪ Other: 10 percent by volume.

The facility exhibits seasonal variations due to changes in feedstock. For example, ZWED receives more fruit in the summer and more pumpkins in October. Methane generation is greatest in the summer and slows down in the winter.

Approximately 20 to 25 trucks deliver feedstock to the facility daily. Approximately nine to ten trucks leave with finished product daily. Trucks are covered to contain odors. Only three to four trucks deliver on Saturdays, while there are no deliveries on Sundays. Material is delivered to the facility between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. daily, but most deliveries are in the morning between 6:00 a.m. and noon. Facility doors are only opened when trucks deliver or leave.
535
Item # 3.
17 2. Community Odor Assessment Methodology
Sample collection methodology and analyses conforms to industry best practice and approved U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protocol, as described below.

2.1 Field Odor Assessments
Field odor assessments were undertaken with a field olfactometer, the Scentroid SM100, which measures the odor strength in dilution to threshold (D/T). The dilution to threshold is a measure of the odor strength and is defined the number of times a sample has to be diluted to reach the odor detection threshold as measured by a trained assessor. The field olfactometer draws in sample air and dilutes the air with odorless air from a compressed air tank (scuba dive air). The field sampler begins at a low sample dose (high dilution), and slowly adjusts the sliding valve (dial) to incrementally increase the sample dose (lower dilution). The operator increases the sample dose until the odor is detected. The sampler then records the dial setting and uses the instrument specific calibration certificate to determine the odor strength (D/T).

When using the Scentroid SM100 field olfactometer, a portable weather station, a descriptor guide and a field log sheet were used during the field odor assessments. All field observations were recorded on the Field Log Sheet (Appendix A) including the measured weather conditions and description of the odors observed directly after the measurement with the field olfactometer. The subjective description of odor sources was undertaken, including the following information:
• The odor character, e.g., earthy, musty, rotten egg, urine, ammonia, sweet, chemical, fishy, burnt, and others. The odor descriptor guide (Odor Characterization Wheel) shown in Appendix B was used as reference.
• The perceived intensity of odor sensation was described as Not Detectable (0), Very Weak (1), Weak (2), Distinct (3), Strong (4), Very Strong (5), Extremely Strong (6). • The hedonic tone, or degree to which an odor was perceived as pleasant or unpleasant, is described as Pleasant (1), Neutral (0), Unpleasant (-1), Revolting (-2), Nauseating (-3).

Figure 3-1. Field Olfactometer (left) and Weather Station (right) used for the Field Odor Assessments.

Field-olfactometry surveys were conducted in the Milpitas community at discrete locations including downwind of the primary odor sources to quantify and characterize odors (see Figure 3-2). The survey locations were primarily based on historical odor complaint data and safe access considerations.

In total, fifty field odor assessments were undertaken at eleven locations over a period of twenty-one months.

The first assessments were made on October 31, 2019, and the last assessment was completed on July 30, 2021.

This equals an average odor assessment frequency of two assessments every three weeks, except for the initial months of the global Covid-19 pandemic (middle of March 2020 till the end of June 2020) when no assessments were undertaken.
536
Item # 3.
18 Meteorological conditions (i.e., dry/wet conditions, wind speed, and wind direction) during each survey were recorded in detail on a field log sheet. Prior to surveying, wind direction was confirmed to ensure the location of each primary odor source was downwind from the odor-generating facilities. Surveys were undertaken randomly at different times of the day and on different days of the week.

Figure 3-3. Survey Locations in the Milpitas Community for Field-Olfactometric Assessments.

On the day of the field assessments, no perfumes or deodorants were used by the field assessors and no coffee was consumed in the hours before a field odor assessment.

The field odor assessors were tested for their sensitivity to odor. Each field assessor had their olfactory acuity quantified using St. Croix’s Odor Sensitivity Test Kit to test their noses. The n-butanol odorant pen dilution series provides a standard measure of sensitivity typically used in the industry to qualify odor assessors (see also EN13725). The results of the tests are shown in Table 3-1 below and confirm that the sensitivity to odor of three field assessors were comparable and typical for humans.

Table 3-1. Results Quality Control Testing of the Field Odor Assessors.

Assessor Pen Kit Serial Number Result Round 1 Result Round 2 Odor Sensitivity Score1 #1 51548 5 7 6.0
#2 51548 6 5 5.5
#3 51548 6 5 5.5
average 5.7
1 Score can range from 2 to 15 with typical human nose sensitivity threshold level being between 5 to 8.

2.2 Laboratory Odor Analysis
Bag samples were taken on October 22 2020, March 4 2021 and May 20 2021and laboratory odor analyses for the Odor Profile Method (OPM) were completed at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) by a panel of four or more trained panelists. OPM is a modification of Standard Method 2170: the Flavor Profile Analysis Method (FPA). The panelists identified multiple odor characters in a single sample based upon Odor Wheels and their respective intensities based upon the seven-point Weber-Fechner scale. The Weber-Fechner scale including 0 (no odor), 1, (threshold) 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 was used for intensity. The OPM panelists associated the intensity of 537
Item # 3.
19 each odor using a surrogate sugar-solution scale used for the FPA Method (Burlingame et al, 1999; Burlingame et al., 2009).

Odor plumes consist of an array of odorants each exhibiting a unique persistency; meaning that each odorant intensity diminishes at a different rate as it becomes diluted. Because of this, coupled with masking effects, a predominant odor may be observed close to the source but as one moves further away that odorant may dilute and diminish in intensity, leaving previously masked odors as most distinguishable. For this reason, persistency curves are believed to be key to understanding how odor impacts the community when traveling from odor sources into the community. Figure 3-3 illustrates a persistency curve in which a sample has been diluted to different dilution ratios and intensities recorded and graphed. As illustrated in Figure 3-2, fecal and sulfur compounds are most dominant with minor dilution while musty odorants become most dominant with most dilution. The persistent curve method is also referred to as “peeling of the onion” method.

Figure 3-3. Example of a Persistency Curve to Understand Potential Off-site Odor Impacts from a Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Air samples for OPM analysis were collected using a vacuum chamber conforming to EPA-approved design parameters and sampling methodologies. Odorous air samples were collected and shipped via overnight express for next-day laboratory analysis to UCLA.
538
Item # 3.
20 Ambient air samples were taken downwind of each of the primary odor sources and closest to the sources (fenceline). Once in the field, wind direction was confirmed using a portable weather station to ensure samples were collected at a true downwind location.

Ambient air samples were collected using 10-liter (L)
Teflon bags and a vacuum chamber. Teflon bag samples
were collected by connecting the bag to the vacuum
chamber (shown in Figure 3-4) using flexible fittings and 1/4-inch (outside diameter) Teflon tubing, and filling the 10-L bag completely. All sample bags were preconditioned by partially filling, then expelling, the bag contents with the sample prior to taking the final sample.

Following collection, samples were labeled with an
appropriate location description, and the date and the
time of collection. This information is important for
distinguishing sample results and ensuring proper hold
times are not exceeded.

Ambient air samples contained in the 10-L Teflon bags
were handled with care and kept away from excessive
heat that could weaken the material or objects that may impale the bags. Following sample collection Teflon bags were stored in a container (for example a cardboard box) to be kept away from other objects including field equipment and direct sun light.

Ambient air samples were recorded using a chain-of-custody sheet. A copy of the chain-of-custody was kept with the field samplers, and a copy was shipped to UCLA along with the samples. The UCLA staff reviewed the chainof-custody, made any necessary annotations, and returned a copy of the chain-of-custody with the reporting of the lab results.

The following is a list of key field quality control items that were followed in the field when collecting bag samples for odor lab analyses:
• Prior to sample collection, inspect each Teflon bag and ensure there are no rips in the bag that may allow the sample to leak out or non-sample air to leak in.
• Prior to sample collection, prime the sample bag by running sample air through the sample line into the sample bag for pre-conditioning by partially filling, then expelling, the bag contents with the sample prior to taking the final sample., and allowing any non-sample air to be removed from the sample line. • Clean sample lines were used specifically for each odor source and each sample line were cleaned after each sampling event. Sampling lines were cleaned by running warm water (no soap to be used) through the sample line for a few minutes and dry the sample line with odor-free air. • Following sample collection, the Teflon bag cap were screwed on tightly to ensure the sample air does not leak out of the bag.
• Prior to shipping the samples, the filled Teflon bag was examined to ensure that the bag was at least half full but not more than ¾ full. The bags will expand in the air when delivered via aircraft due to pressure changes. A bag that is more ¾ full is at risk of popping from over-expansion. • Field log forms were filled out while collecting samples or conducting field-olfactometry surveys, to ensure the proper information is noted. All fields were completed, and where applicable, additional notes were made.
539
Item # 3.
21 3. Results and Discussion
Field odor assessments were conducted using the field olfactometer, portable weather station, odor descriptor guide and a field log sheet. Field measurements were recorded including the measured weather conditions and description of the odors observed directly after the measurement with the field olfactometer. The results of these surveys are included in Appendix C and summarized here in this section.

3.1 Frequency of Odors Observed
Table 4-1 shows the frequency of odors observed at the eleven assessment locations, which included the locations downwind of the primary odor-emitting facilities. Directly downwind of the primary odor-emitting facilities, noticeable odors were consistently observed. Odors were observed frequently within the community with most frequent observation at Milmont Drive (50% of all field assessments) and least frequent at Mount Shasta Avenue (9% of all field assessments).

Table 4-1. Results Field Odor Assessments_Frequency of Odors Observed.

Survey Location
Odor Present
(% of the time)
1 Downwind NIRRP 100
Downwind ZWED 100
Downwind RWF 98
Downwind Lift Station 98
Milmont Drive 50
Tramway Drive 50
Marylinn Drive 30
Alvarez Court 25
Murphy Ranch Road 20
Los Coches Street 16
Mt Shasta Avenue 9
Wilson Way 5
1) The percentage of the fifty field odor assessments in which odors were observed by at least one assessor.

A discrete location at the northern city boundary (Wilson Way) was also assessed between December 21, 2020, and July 30, 2021. Nineteen surveys were undertaken during that period and odors were observed only one time and were characterized as unpleasant but weak.

3.2 Odor Intensity
When odors were observed at the different survey locations, the odor intensity varied from being very weak to extremely strong as illustrated in Table 4-2. Directly downwind of the key odor-emitting facilities, strong odors were noticed consistently and were often extremely strong, with the ZWED downwind location consistently having the strongest odor intensity (average 5.8 on a scale from 0 to 6). The odor intensity at the discrete locations within the community was typically weak while occasionally strong at Milmont Drive and Murphy Ranch.
540
Item # 3.
22 Table 4-2. Results Field Odor Assessments_The Odor Intensity of the Odors Observed during the 50 Surveys.

Survey Location Odor Intensity1
average2 maximum2
Downwind ZWED 5.8 Extremely Strong/Very Strong 6 Extremely Strong Downwind RWF 4.1 Strong 6 Extremely Strong
Downwind NIRRP 3.8 Strong/Distinct 6 Extremely Strong
Downwind Lift Station 3.0 Distinct 5 Very Strong
Wilson Way 2.2 Weak/Distinct 3 Distinct
Milmont Drive 2.1 Weak 4 Strong
Tramway Drive 1.8 Weak/Very Weak 3 Distinct
Marylinn Drive 1.7 Weak/Very Weak 3 Distinct
Murphy Ranch Road 1.6 Weak/Very Weak 4 Strong
Mt Shasta Avenue 1.4 Very Weak/Weak 1 Very Weak
Alvarez Court 1.3 Very Weak/Weak 2 Weak
Los Coches Street 1.1 Very Weak 2 Weak
1) Odor Intensity scale: Not Detectable (0), Very Weak (1), Weak (2), Distinct (3), Strong (4), Very Strong (5), Extremely Strong (6)
2) Fifty field odor assessments undertaken between October 31, 2019 and July 30, 2021. This equals an average odor assessment frequency of two assessments every three weeks, except for the initial months of the global Covid-19 pandemic (middle of March 2020 till the end of June 2020) when no assessments were undertaken. Wilson Bay was added later and assessed only between December 21, 2020, and July 30, 2021 with nineteen surveys undertaken during that period.

3.3 Hedonic Tone
The (un)pleasantness of the odors (hedonic tone) varied greatly when odors were observed at the different survey locations but was never pleasant, as illustrated in Table 4-3. Directly downwind of the four key odoremitting facilities, hedonic tone was consistently unpleasant/ revolting, with the ZWED downwind location consistently observed as the most unpleasant (average -2.7 on a scale from -3 to 1). The odor intensity at the discrete locations inside the community was typically unpleasant while occasionally revolting at Milmont Drive.

Table 4-3. Results Field Odor Assessments_ Hedonic Tone of the Odors Observed.

Survey Location Hedonic Tone1
average2 maximum2
Downwind ZWED -2.7 Nauseating/Revolting -3 Nauseating
Downwind NIRRP -1.7 Revolting/Unpleasant -3 Nauseating
Downwind RWF -1.7 Revolting/Unpleasant -3 Nauseating
Downwind Lift Station -1.2 Unpleasant/Revolting -2 Revolting Milmont Drive -1.1 Unpleasant -2 Revolting
Tramway Drive -1.0 Unpleasant -1 Unpleasant
Marylinn Drive -1.0 Unpleasant -1 Unpleasant
Los Coches Street -1.0 Unpleasant -1 Unpleasant
Wilson Way -1.0 Unpleasant -1 Unpleasant
Murphy Ranch Road -0.8 Unpleasant/Neutral -1 Unpleasant Alvarez Court -0.7 Unpleasant/Neutral -1 Unpleasant
Mt Shasta Avenue -0.3 Neutral/Unpleasant -1 Unpleasant
1) Hedonic Tone scale: Pleasant (1), Neutral (0), unpleasant (-1), revolting (-2), nauseating (-3) 541
Item # 3.
23 2) Fifty field odor assessments undertaken between October 31, 2019 and July 30, 2021. This equals an average odor assessment frequency of two assessments every three weeks, except for the initial months of the global Covid pandemic (middle of March 2020 till the end of June 2020) when no assessments were undertaken. Wilson Bay was added later and assessed only between December 21, 2020, and July 30, 2021 with nineteen surveys undertaken during that period.

3.4 Odor Strength (D/T)
When odors were observed at the different survey locations, the odor strength (D/T) varied from weak to distinct as illustrated in Table 4-4. Directly downwind of the key odor-emitting facilities, distinct odors were consistently observed with average values greater than 50 for the three largest facilities (NEWBY, ZWED, and RWF). The odor strength at all discrete locations within the community were faint (D/T around 5) while usually distinct (D/T > 10) at Milmont Drive, Tramway Drive, and Marylinn Drive. This was consistent with the measured odor intensity at the locations.

Table 4-4. Results Field Odor Assessments_ Odor Strength of the Odors Observed.

Survey Location Odor Strength1
average2 maximum2
Downwind ZWED 936 2260
Downwind NIRRP 68 720
Downwind RWF 57 411
Downwind Lift Station 27 259
Milmont Drive 7 39
Marylinn Drive 7 20
Tramway Drive 6 28
Alvarez Court 4 11
Murphy Ranch Road 3 6
Los Coches Street 3 8
Mt Shasta Avenue 3 5
Wilson Way < 2 < 2
1) The odor strength in dilution to threshold (D/T) as measured with the SM100 field olfactometer. 2) Fifty field odor assessments undertaken between October 31, 2019 and July 30, 2021. This equals an average odor assessment frequency of two assessments every three weeks, except for the initial months of the global Covid pandemic (middle of March 2020 till the end of June 2020) when no assessments were undertaken. Wilson Bay was added later and assessed only between December 21, 2020, and July 30, 2021 with nineteen surveys undertaken during that period.

3.5 Likelihood of Odor Complaints
Human responses to odors at varying odor concentrations are dependent upon the sensitivity of the individual person (receptor) and the level of background odor levels. The general correlation between numerical odor concentrations and qualitative odor descriptors (how it smells to people) can generally be described as follows (United Utilities, 2015):
• 1 D/T: A weak odor strength that is not normally detectable outside the controlled environment of an odor laboratory by the majority of the population.
• 5 D/T: A faint odor.
• 10 D/T: A distinct odor.

Annoyance with respect to odor, also called the odor nuisance, is a set of complex reactions that takes place when repeated or continued exposure to that odor takes place. Ultimately, annoyance may lead to a complaint, although the absence of complaints does not necessarily indicate the absence of an odor problem. The annoyance process can be summarized by an odor emission that leads to an exposure at a receptor (person). The receptor detects the odor and experiences a reaction to the odorous substances, potentially creating an impact 542
Item # 3.
24 sufficient to lead to a complaint. The frequency, intensity, duration, offensiveness, and location (or FIDOL factors) of the odors are usually used to evaluate the likelihood of odor nuisance.

The correlation between reported odor complaints and modelled odor impacts in relation to wastewater treatment works with ongoing odor complaints is shown in Table 4-5. This general correlation may be different for foul air from other processes, but the likelihood of odor complaints when exposed to an odor with an odor strength greater than 10 D/T is highly likely and may represent a nuisance that requires action (action level).

Based on this empirical correlation between odor strength at the impacted location and the likelihood of odor complaints, it can be expected that odor complaints occur at Murphy Ranch Road, Los Coches Street, and Mt Shasta Avenue and that odor complaints are highly likely at Milmont Drive, Tramway Drive, Marylinn Drive, and Alvarez Court.

Table 4-5. Empirical Correlation Between the Odor Impact (D/T) and the Likelihood of Complaints (CIWEM, 2012).

Odor Impact Criteria1 Likelihood of Complaints
>10 D/T Complaints are highly likely, and odor exposure at these levels represents an actionable nuisance.
>5 D/T Complaints may occur and, depending on the sensitivity of the locality and nature of the odor, this may constitute a nuisance. <3 D/T Complaints are unlikely to occur, and exposure below this level is unlikely to constitute significant detriment to amenity unless the locality is highly sensitive or the odor highly unpleasant in nature. 1) Based on a 1-hour averaging period and 98 percentile compliances.

3.6 Seasonal Influences on Odors Observed
The results of the field odor assessments during different periods are summarized in Table 4-6. On average, between 50 and 60% of the time odors were observed during the fifty field surveys at the eleven sample locations: 100% of the time downwind of the facilities and about 30% of the time in the community. Odors were observed in all seasons, with the average odor intensity ranging from Distinct to Strong (3.1 to 3.6 on a scale from 0 to 6) and hedonic tone ranging from Unpleasant to Revolting (-1.3 to -1.7 on a scale from -3 to 1).

No significant differences were observed between the odors emitted in the Winter-Spring 2019/20 period (before COVID-19 restrictions) and in the same period a year later Winter-Spring 2020/21 period (during COVID-19 restrictions).

Table 4-6. Results Field Odor Assessments_ Odors Observed during Different Periods of the Odor Study.

Period Bay Water1
Temperature
average (ºF)
Field
Observations
(#)
Odor Present
(% of the
time)
Odor
Intensity2
average
Hedonic
Tone3
average
WINTER-SPRING 2019/20 65 185 54 3.1 -1.3
SUMMER-AUTUMN 2020 77 124 55 3.6 -1.6
WINTER-SPRING 2020/21 60 107 59 3.6 -1.7
SPRING - SUMMER 2021 73 144 52 3.2 -1.6
560
1) Average water temperature of the Bay
2) Intensity Scale: Not Detectable (0), Very Weak (1), Weak (2), Distinct (3), Strong (4), Very Strong (5), Extremely Strong (6) 3) Hedonic Tone scale: Pleasant (1), Neutral (0), unpleasant (-1), revolting (-2), nauseating (-3) 543
Item # 3.
25 3.7 Odor Character Downwind of Facilities
The odor character as observed directly downwind of the main odor-emitting facilities has been described by different field assessors independently a total of fifty times at different times of the days and different days of the week throughout the study. In more than 75% of these assessments, the odor character downwind of the RWF and Lift Station was described as either Sewage, Septic, Fecal or Urine. These odor descriptors can be considered unique for the RWF and Lift Station as they were not used when describing the odor downwind of the Newby facility and rarely used when describing the odor downwind of the ZWED facility (see Figure 4-1).

Similarly, in nearly 70% of these assessments the odor character downwind of the NIRRP facility was described as either Garbage, Sweet, or Rotten Vegetables. These odor descriptors are also unique for the NIRRP facility as they were not used when describing the odor downwind of the RWF and Lift Station and only Rotten Vegetables was used when describing the odor downwind of the ZWED facility (see Figure 4-1).

Also, in nearly 70% of these assessments the odor character downwind of the ZWED facility was described as either Putrid, Rancid, Manure, Pungent, or Rotten Vegetables. These odor descriptors are unique for the ZWED facility as they were rarely used when describing the odor downwind of the RWF and Lift Station or the NIRRP facility (see Figure 4-1).

In summary, the odor character downwind of the three main odor-emitting facilities are relatively unique and were mostly described as follows:
• RWF facility: Sewage, Septic, Fecal, or Urine
• Newby facility: Garbage, Sweet, or Rotten Vegetables
• ZWED facility: Rancid, Putrid, Manure, Rotten Vegetables, or Pungent These relatively unique odor descriptors may be used when assessing the origin of the odors that are experienced in the community. The frequency of odor descriptors used to describe the odor character at the discrete survey locations are shown in Appendix D.
544
Item # 3.
26 Figure 4-1: Frequency an Odor Descriptor is used to Describe Odor Character of Odor Observed Directly Downwind of the Three Main Odor-Emitting Facilities.

3.8 Odor Character in the Community
The relatively unique odor descriptors used to describe the odors emitted from the three main facilities can be used to provide a global estimation of the origin of the odor experienced in the community. This estimation has been illustrated using a BLOB (acronym for binary large object) map. A BLOB map is a visual representation of a vague amount of grouped data that lacks definite shape. BLOB is a block of data stored in a database that cannot read the BLOB's structure and only references it by its size and location. Figure 4-3 illustrates the BLOB map which depicts the estimated source of odor emissions pertaining to the odors observed in the community.

All three main odor-emitting facilities contribute to odors frequently observed in the community. Although the odors emitted from ZWED are by far the most intense and the most unpleasant, their reach is mostly limited to only the first locations west and south-west of the community in the City of Milpitas (see Figure 4-3). Odors emitted from the NIRRP facility contribute to a large extent to the odors observed at most of the discrete survey locations, while odors emitted from the RWF contribute to a lesser extent at most of the discrete survey locations and more to the further away location in the east and south-east of the community (Mt Shasta Avenue).

Although this BLOB map is only a high-level visual representation, it can be used as a fairly accurate indication of where impacted odors originate from. This is because the observations have been made over a long period of time (21 months) on multiple individual field assessments (in total 50 assessment on random days of the week and random times of the day) by several assessors (three assessors that showed to have a representative sensitivity for smell as shown; see section 3.2.1).
545
Item # 3.
27 Figure 4-2: Summary of Odor Assessments Results.
546
Item # 3.

City of Milpitas Phase 1 Community Odor Study
28 Figure 4-3: High-level Visual Representation (BLOB map) that Illustrates Most Likely Origination of Odors Observed in the Community, with the Size of the Circles a Measure of the Average Odor Intensity Observed.

3.9 Odor Profile Method Results
Lab odor analyses for OPM were completed at UCLA to create persistency curves which helps to understanding how odor impacts in the communities occur from odor sources because they simulate dilution that occurs as one moves further away from a source.

Of the multiple bag samples collected, only certain samples showed high enough odor intensity to generate a persistency curve. The results of the analyses of three samples are illustrated in Figure 4-4 through Figure 4-6.
547
Item # 3.
29 Figure 4-4: Odor Persistency
Curve for ZWED.

Figure 4-5: Odor Persistency
Curve for NISL at NIIRP.

Figure 4-6: Odor Persistency
Curve for Primaries at RWF.

The figures illustrate how dominant odorant intensities diminish at a different rate as they become diluted and how the odor character changes as the plume travels into the community. The figures also show the 548
Item # 3.
30 required dilution rate of the specific samples for reducing the intensity to a level that the odor cannot be smelled anymore (the threshold level, which equals an intensity level 1 on the Weber-Fechner scale). This dilution would be from the location where the odor samples were collected which is just downwind and typically about 100 feet away from the sources. Note that an intensity level of 3 is synonymous with the recognition threshold, which is equal to the concentration by which the sample is detectable, and the odor character is able to be identified (e.g.; “smells like rotten eggs”). As such, an intensity level of 3 at a receptor location is typically the action level in which some type of mitigation is required to be implemented.

For the odor just downwind of the ZWED facility the required dilution level is about a log 2.5 (about 300 times). Similarly, for the odor just downwind of the landfill working face the required dilution level is about log 2.5 to 3 (about 600 times) while for the odor just downwind of the Primary Settlement Tanks the required dilution level is about log 3 to 3.5 (about 1800). This is consistent with the observations in the community during the field odor assessments where the location furthest away (Mt Shasta Avenue) observed an odor character predominately described with the odor descriptor Sewage. This is the typical odor descriptor used to describe odors emitted from the RWF (see the BLOB map Figure 4-3). 549
Item # 3.
31 4. Conclusions
Field odor assessments were conducted using a field olfactometer to measure the odor strength and describe the odors observed (character, intensity and hedonic tone). A total of fifty field odor assessments were undertaken at eleven discrete locations in the community of the City of Milpitas by multiple trained field assessors between November 2019 and July 2021. On average, two field assessments were undertaken every three weeks on random days of the week and a random time of the day, resulting in a total of 580 field observations.

The frequency of odors present, the odor intensity, the odor strength (D/T) and the hedonic tone of the odors observed at the discrete locations in the community have been established. The odor strength at the discrete locations inside the community were typically faint (D/T around 5) and unpleasant, which may lead to nuisance and complaints depending on the sensitivity of the locality and nature of the odor (i.e., frequency, duration, and offensiveness). The odor strength was occasionally distinct (D/T > 10) and revolting at Milmont Drive, Tramway Drive, and Marylinn Drive, which makes the likelihood of odor nuisance and complaints highly likely.

Noticeable odors were consistently observed directly downwind of the following facilities:
• Newby Island Resource Recovery Park (NIRRP), comprised of Newby Island Landfill (NISL), Material Recovery Facility (MRF), and NIRRP composting facility; • San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF); • Zero Waste Energy Development (ZWED) facility which is a dry anaerobic organic waste processing facility; and
• Main Lift Station, which is the main collection point of the sewage that is transferred to the RWF.

These odors were always strong and often extremely strong. The odor strength downwind of the NIRRP, RWF and ZWED facilities was on average greater than 50 D/T and described as ‘revolting’, which makes the likelihood of odor nuisance and complaints almost certain in these locations.

The odor character downwind of the three main odor-emitting facilities are relatively unique and have mostly been described by different field assessors as follows:
• RWF facility: Sewage, Septic, Fecal or Urine
• Newby facility: Garbage, Sweet or Rotten Vegetables
• ZWED facility: Rancid, Putrid, Manure, Rotten Vegetables or Pungent These relatively unique odor descriptors have been used to assess the origin of the odors that are experienced in the community. A high-level visual representation BLOB map has been created to illustrate where the odors observed in the community during the odor study most likely originated from. All three main odor-emitting facilities contribute to odors frequently observed in the community. Although the odors emitted from ZWED are by far the most intense and the most unpleasant, their reach is mostly limited to only the first locations west and south-west of the community in the City of Milpitas. Odors emitted from the NIRRP facility contribute to a large extent to the odors observed at most of the discrete survey locations, while odors emitted from the RWF contribute to a lesser extent at most of the discrete survey locations and more to the further away location in the east and south-east of the community (Mt Shasta Avenue).

Bag samples were taken three times and taken for lab odor analyses at University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) by a panel of trained panelists to identify the multiple dominant odor characters in a single sample and their respective intensities at different dilutions. The obtained results were consistent with the observations in the community during the field assessments. 550
Item # 3.
32 5. Recommendations for Ongoing Odor Monitoring
This section discusses recommendations for continuous odor monitoring stations. Continuous odor monitoring stations need to inform future actions to reduce odors, improve understanding of odor transient impacts, and to establish methods to measure progress on future odor reduction actions. It is recommended that BAAQMD as the enforcement agency would take the lead in implementing the recommendations in close cooperation with the City of Milpitas.

5.1 Recommendation #1
Install an IOMS with auto air bag samplers at specific locations within the community.

An ongoing odor monitoring system can assist inspectors in confirming public odor complaints. A public complaint is considered unconfirmed until and unless an inspector can confirm it by smelling it with the complainant and then tracing its source. Confirming an odor complaint is often difficult because the time for an inspector to arrive at the complainant site is typically too long to properly assess the odor complaint and trace its source due to changes in wind direction or process changes at the odor source. Jacobs therefore recommends installation of an instrumental odor monitoring system (IOMS) with auto air bag samplers at specific locations within the community.

An IOMS is a computationally sophisticated multi-sensor device(s) for odor monitoring and consists of nonspecific sensor arrays. This means that they do not measure specific odorants but the aggregate of chemical compounds including odorants in the air responding to a series of electronic sensors. IOMS devices are specifically developed and used to detect concentrations and qualities of odors. Although any IOMS are not very specific to individual compounds, they can classify “unhealthy” or sub-optimum conditions. They continuously log responses and can alert City of Milpitas staff or can initiate an air bag sampler for fast collection of air samples within the community for a more enhanced assessment of any odor impact. The auto bag samplers can also be initiated remotely on-demand by staff of the BAAQMD and the City of Milpitas at any moment after receiving odor complaints. The auto air bag sampler takes a sample of the air and stores it in a bag ready for a technician to collect it for shipping to a laboratory in case a detailed analysis is warranted.

The number of IOMS units should be further detailed and is dependent on several factors including historical odor complaints, safe access, costs, and resources available. Jacobs recommends installing an IOMS with auto air bag sampler at the following locations as a minimum: Milmont Drive, Tramway Drive, Marylinn Drive, and Murphy Ranch. The IOMS units with auto bag samplers should be installed in partnership with BAAQMD to provide broader understanding of odor impacts and to measure progress on future odor reduction actions.

An example of an IOMS and a bag sampler system is illustrated in Appendix E and F, respectively. The estimated cost for the bag sampler systems with IOMS is $176,256. - (see further detail in Appendix G). The bag samples can be used by Montrose to fingerprint the odor and determine the main odor source using PTR-TOF MS Analysis with the Principal Component Analysis (PCA). This would require about $2,672. - for the analyses of four bags each time.

5.2 Recommendation #2
Introduce a mobile app for the community to provide improved feedback on the odors observed.

Unique software applications have been developed specifically for the public to provide information on odors observed in the community. These public consultation software applications are commercially available as mobile apps (and websites). A mobile app specifically for the application at Milpitas and 551
Item # 3.
33 surrounding communities is recommended to be used in the future as part of public outreach efforts.

Prompt online submission of odor complaints would aid in tracking complaints more quickly and with more detailed information for improved response. It can also allow complaints to be forwarded to plant operators/supervisors of the main odor-emitting facilities immediately for interpretation and response.

Some examples of community odor reporting apps are:
• WBEA Community Odour Monitoring Program
• Ortelium_odour complaint management
• Total Odour Management_TOMS
• D-NOSES_Odour Observatory
Some of these examples also include odor monitoring, odor dispersion modelling and automated reporting.

Community odor reporting could also be included in an already existing general community engagement mobile app.

The app should as a minimum collect the following information:
• Confirmation that odors are present
• Location of the odor observed1
• Time of the odor observed
• Duration of the odor observed
• Odor Character2
• Odor Intensity3
• Hedonic Tone4
• Wind direction
1 Mobile phone location using GPS may be used automatically. 2 The character of odor, e.g., earthy, musty, rotten egg, urine, ammonia, sweet, chemical, fishy, burnt, and others. The odor descriptor guide (Odor Characterization Wheel) may be used as reference. 3The perceived intensity of odor sensation may be described as Not Detectable (0), Very Weak (1), Weak (2), Distinct (3), Strong (4), Very Strong (5), Extremely Strong (6). 4The degree to which an odor was perceived as pleasant or unpleasant may be described as Pleasant (1), Neutral (0), Unpleasant (-1), Revolting (-2), Nauseating (-3).

The cost of a mobile app will have to be investigated further as it would include programming efforts to make the app case specific and to include the collection of the above-mentioned information. BAAQMD may probably be best the owner of this system as an improvement to the BAAQMDs existing complaint reporting system.

The continuous odor monitoring stations together with an improved public engagement (through a mobile community odor reporting app) would better inform future actions to reduce odors, provide improved understanding of offsite odor diurnal and seasonal dynamics, and establish a method to measure progress on future odor reduction actions.

It is recommended that BAAQMD as the enforcement agency would take the lead in implementing both recommendations in close cooperation with the City of Milpitas. 552
Item # 3.
34 References:

American Public Health Association (APHA). 2012. “2170 Flavor Profile Analysis.” Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.
https://www.standardmethods.org/doi/abs/10.2105/SMWW.2882.021.

BAAQMD, 2019. Odor Complaint Data.

BAAQMD, 2021. South Bay Odor Attribution Study_draft report, December 2021.

Burlingame, G.A, 1999. Odor profiling of environmental odors. Water Science and Technology, 40(6), 31-

38. Burlingame, G.A, 2009. A practical framework using odor survey data to prioritize nuisance odors. Water Science & Technology, 59(3).

CIWEM, 2012. Policy Position Statement – Control of Odour. https://www.ciwem.org/assets/pdf/Policy/Policy%20Position%20Statement/Control-of-odour.pdf accessed on September 9th, 2021.

European Committee for Standardization, 2003. Air quality – Determination of odour concentration by dynamic olfactometry, EN 13725. Brussels, Belgium.

San Jose Mercury News, 2019. https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/17/sleuths-are-on-the-case-ofmilpitas-stinking-problem/. Accessed on October 5, 2021.

United Utilities (2015). Odour Control and Removal Asset Standard, United Utilities UK, 2015. 553
Item # 3.
35 Appendix A. Field Log Sheet
554
Item # 3.

City of Milpitas Phase 1 Community Odor Study
5-1
555
Item # 3.
2 Appendix B. Odor Characterization Wheel
556
Item # 3.
3557
Item # 3.
4 Appendix C. Data Base Results Field Odor Assessments
558
Item # 3.
5595
Item # 3.
5606
Item # 3.
5617
Item # 3.
5628
Item # 3.
5639
Item # 3.
56410
Item # 3.
56511
Item # 3.
12 Appendix D. Odor Descriptors Used at the Community Locations 566
Item # 3.
13567
Item # 3.
14568
Item # 3.
15569
Item # 3.
16570
Item # 3.
17571
Item # 3.
18572
Item # 3.
19573
Item # 3.
20574
Item # 3.
21575
Item # 3.
22576
Item # 3.
23577
Item # 3.
24 Appendix E. Example of an Instrumental Odor Monitoring System 578
Item # 3.
25579
Item # 3.
26580
Item # 3.
27581
Item # 3.
28582
Item # 3.
29 Appendix F. Example of Auto-Bag Sampler
583
Item # 3.
30584
Item # 3.
31585
Item # 3.
32586
Item # 3.
33587
Item # 3.
34588
Item # 3.
35589
Item # 3.
36590
Item # 3.
37 Appendix G. Example of Community Engagement App
591
Item # 3.
38592
Item # 3.
39593
Item # 3.
40 Appendix H. Indicative Costs of Recommendations
594
Item # 3.
59541
Item # 3.
42596
Item # 3.
43597
Item # 3.
44598
Item # 3.
45599
Item # 3.

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE

MILPITAS CITY COUNCIL
April 19, 2022 Milpitas City Council Agenda Page 1

MINUTES
TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 2022
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 455 E CALAVERAS BLVD, MILPITAS, CA 5:00 PM
The City Council of the City of Milpitas convened for a Special City Council meeting on April 19, 2022, at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 455 E. Calaveras Blvd., Milpitas, and via teleconference/Zoom webinar.

CALL MEETING TO ORDER by Mayor and ROLL CALL by City Clerk Mayor Tran called the regular City Council meeting to order at 5:00 PM. Roll Call was taken by City Clerk Wood.

PRESENT: Mayor Tran, Vice Mayor Montano, Councilmembers Chua, Dominguez, and Phan (arrived at approximately 5:02 PM)
ABSENT: None

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Tran.

PRESENTATIONS
Mayor Tran proclaimed the April 29, 2022, as Arbor Day and the month of April as National Autism Acceptance Month and Parkinson’s Awareness Month.

PUBLIC FORUM
Those in the audience and via Zoom are invited to address City Council on any subject not on tonight’s agenda. In-person speakers wishing to address the Council are requested, but not required to complete a Speaker Card and submit it to the Mayor. In-person speakers will then be asked to come up to the podium and state their name for the record. Those interested in speaking via Zoom may do so by following the instructions on page one (1) of the agenda. Comments may be limited to three (3) minutes or less at the Mayor’s discretion. As an item not listed on the agenda, no response is required from City staff or the Council and no action can be taken. The City Council may instruct the City Manager to place the item on a future meeting agenda.

ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no announcements.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
City Attorney Diaz asked the Mayor and City Councilmembers if they had any personal conflicts of interest. By roll call, there were no conflicts of interest.

READING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CODE OF CONDUCT
City Attorney Diaz read aloud the City Council Code of Conduct.

April 19, 2022 Milpitas City Council Agenda Page 2

APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Motion: to approve the April 19, 2022, Special meeting agenda.

Motion/Second: Mayor Tran / Councilmember Dominguez
Motion carried by the following:

AYES: Councilmembers Chua, Dominguez, Phan, Vice Mayor Montano, Mayor Tran NOES: None

AGENDA ITEMS

1. Receive a Presentation on the Draft Milpitas Metro Specific Plan (Update of 2008 Transit Area Specific Plan) and Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), Receive Public Comment, and Provide Direction to Staff Regarding the Draft Documents and Timeline for Adoption (Staff Contact: Ned Thomas, Planning Director, 408-586-3273; and Kevin Riley, TASP (Metro) Manager, 408-586-3292)
Planning Director Thomas introduced the item and consultants Christina Paul, Jane Lin, and Leo Mena presented the Draft Milpitas Metro Specific Plan and Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report.

The following people spoke during public comment:

1. Voltaire Montemayor

2. Rob Means
Mayor Tran requested a reduction in zoning density in the McCandless District on South Main Street to 30-40 units/acre. He is open to residential/retail high density mixed-use in the Great Mall Area, with maintaining commercial square footage on the ground floor and permanent open space. He expressed no support for anything over four-stories in residential and mixed use residential, except in the business park areas. He does not support the 275-foot maximum height recommendation in the Boulevard Very High Mixed-Use area and proposed a four-story maximum height limit for residential and mixed use residential, with the option for higher maximum heights in the business park areas.

Vice Mayor Montano expressed concerns about units built without park space in the Great Mall District.

She asked to see a higher percentage of homes for sale and requested a convention center in the innovation district. She requested increased Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on Main Street. She commented on concerns with increased building height blocking existing views of the hillside and stated she could not vote on the Mayor’s proposal because it would depend on the building location.

Councilmember Phan requested an increase of the FAR. He would like to see how the City could incentivize owners to fill vacant businesses and referred to a vacancy tax. He would also like to explore opportunities to use local builders and local contractors. He opposed the Mayor’s proposal and commented on the need to alleviate the housing crisis and increase capacity and commented on the recent community survey that found living and working in Milpitas is becoming unaffordable and asked the Council to prioritize housing.

Councilmember Dominguez is not supportive of increasing building heights. However, she stated residents are supportive of increasing building heights for affordable housing, commented on Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers and potential fines. She clarified that she did not support increased building heights for businesses and real estate. She asked that the Mayor’s proposal return April 19, 2022 Milpitas City Council Agenda Page 3
after staff has reviewed the issues and prepared a report with information regarding potential legal issues of reduced zoning.

Councilmember Chua requested staff return to Council with analysis and evaluation of density, building heights, mitigation issues, and RHNA compliance.

City Manager McHarris indicated that staff would look into no net loss of units and any legal ramifications with down-zoning existing properties that are zoned for certain heights and densities.

2. Adopt the Innovation District Action Plan (Staff Contact: Alex Andrade, Director of Economic Development, 408-586-3046 and Daniel Degu, Sr., Economic Development Coordinator, 408-586- 3054)
Economic Development Director Andrade introduced the item, and Sr. Economic Development Coordinator Degu presented the staff report.

The following people spoke during public comment:

1. Voltaire Montemayor

2. Murali Chirala

3. JP Vejendla
After discussion, motion: to adopt the Innovation District Action Plan.

Motion/Second: Mayor Tran / Councilmember Chua
Motion carried as follows:

AYES: Councilmembers Chua, Dominguez, Phan, Vice Mayor Montano, Mayor Tran NOES: None

3. Receive a Report on Community Odor Monitoring Pilot Program Results (Staff Contact: Tony Ndah, Public Works Director, 408-586-2602)
Public Works Director Ndah, Environmental Compliance Specialist Matt Lambert presented the staff report.

The consultant from Jacobs Engineering Group, Scott Cowden, provided additional information about the compounds found in the air.

Councilmember Chua requested a decision on the consultant’s recommendations for funding be deferred until after the May 17 presentation from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

Mayor Tran supported Councilmember Chua’s request.

The following people spoke during public comment:

1. Voltaire Montemayor

2. Ling Kong

3. Mark Iskrra

ADJOURNMENT
April 19, 2022 Milpitas City Council Agenda Page 4
Mayor Tran adjourned the Special meeting at 7:31 PM and stated they would be taking a brief break before the start of the regular meeting.

The foregoing minutes were approved by the Milpitas City Council on May 3, 2022.
_________________________________________
Wendy Wood
City Clerk
April 19, 2022
Special City Council Meeting
Presentations
Item # 1: Milpitas Metro Specific Plan and Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
Item #2: Innovation District Action Plan
Item #3: Receive Report on Community Odor Monitoring Pilot Program Results Milpitas City Council
Special Meeting
Item # 1:

Milpitas Metro Specific Plan and Draft
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
April 19, 2022
City of Milpitas
455 E. Calaveras Blvd., Milpitas, CA 95035
www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov 408-586-3000
4/19/2022
Milpitas Metro
Specific Plan
Final Draft and Draft Subsequent EIR
Presentation Outline
3 • Planning Process and Schedule Update
• Project Summary
• Plan Updates
• Subsequent EIR (SEIR)
• Public Review (Plan and SEIR)
• Questions and Comments
Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
4 MMSP Planning Process
and Schedule
Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
Phase 1 Kickoff
March 2020
Phase 2
Existing
Conditions
June 2020
Draft Milpitas
Metro Specific
Plan
Supplemental EIR
(SEIR)
NOP Review Period
9/15-10/18/2021
Scoping Meeting
9/30/2021
Draft Milpitas
Metro Specific
Plan
October 12, 2021
Online Open
House
October 25 through
November 8, 2021
We are here!
Plan Framework
Study Sessions
with City Council
and Planning
Commission
January-June 2021
Final Milpitas
Metro Specific
Plan and SEIR
Public Draft Review
April 15, 2022
through May 30th
Project Completion
Summer 2022
Process Update
5 Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
Plans are Ready for Public Review
Final Draft and SEIR are both available for Public Review through May 30, 2022 https://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/metro
6 Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
7 MMSP Project
Summary
Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
To create a complete
and unique urban
neighborhood
To provide a
variety of shared
public spaces
To provide safer and
more attractive
multimodal connections
for walking and biking
To enhance the sense
of place in the Metro
Area with visually
memorable structures
and buildings
To foster
neighborhood
services and a variety
of retail
To create and
expand space for
jobs near transit
To provide both
affordable and
market rate housing
Milpitas Metro Plan Vision
8 Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
9 Renamed Milpitas Metro
Specific Plan will replace the
Milpitas Transit Area Specific
Plan (TASP)
Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Land Use and Public
Space

3. Site and Building
Design Standards
and Guidelines

4. Mobility and
Circulation

5. Infrastructure

6. Implementation
9 Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
10 MMSP Plan
Updates
Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
11 MMSP addresses
the Great Mall
more, which TASP
left alone
MMSP completes
and connects the
Tango District
Adds adjacent
properties on Main
Street
Expansion
preserves
commercial uses
near the Milpitas
Transit Center
437 acres to 510 acres increases
need for new infrastructure
11 Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
12 Great Mall District
• Increased density on part of the Great
Mall site
• Park locations changed to “Proposed”
• Park development will be triggered
after a 1,000 unit threshold is met on
the Great Mall site
12 13
Innovation District
• 2 land uses to support office/R&D,
one with limited residential
• Park location changed to “Proposed”
and moved to the west side of
Berryessa Creek
• Bridge over Berryessa now ped/bike
only
13 14
Innovation District Incentives
• Milpitas Metro’s Innovation
District geographic area
• Programmatic Milpitas Innovation
District
14 15
Tango District
• Reduced housing densities on
Sango Court
15 McCandless District
• Reduced housing density on South
Main Street
• Reduced housing density on
Montague near Trade Zone
• Park location changed to “Proposed”
16 Piper District
• Boundary slightly modified to highlight
Innovation District uses
17 Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
Relationship to other Plans
Citywide
Objective
Design
Standards
(to be adopted)
Update Under Way Update Under Way
18 Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
Infrastructure and Implementation
● Fiber optic will be added for
all areas of the Metro and
Innovation District
● Water and sewer
infrastructure upgrades
19 Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
20 MMSP Subsequent EIR
Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
Overview of CEQA
● Inform the community and decision-makers about
potential environmental impacts of a project.
● Engage the community in environmental review
process.
● Disclose potential projects impacts on the
environment.
● Avoid or reduce potential project impacts with
alternatives and mitigation measures.

Environmental impacts are one of the factors considered by decision-makers in project review and approval.
21 Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
Subsequent EIR Overview
● An SEIR is an informational document describing the
anticipated environmental effects of implementing a
project, as required by CEQA.
● An SEIR provides a forum for public participation in the environmental review process.
● An SEIR includes mitigation measures (as needed) to
reduce potential adverse environmental impacts.
● An SEIR does not advocate or promote the project.
● Certification of the SEIR does not determine whether or not the project will be approved.
22 Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
Subsequent EIR Overview
● An SEIR is required to :
○ Evaluate only the changes in a previously approved project (i.e., TASP)
○ Changes in circumstances
○ New information that led to the preparation of the SEIR. ● An SEIR does not reopen the previous analysis in the Certified EIR. ● The approved project (TASP) is the baseline for subsequent environmental analysis. Subsequent EIR
is subsequent to
the TASP EIR
23 Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
Project Analyzed in the SEIR
The Metro Plan updates the TASP in
four ways. These changes are the
focus of the SEIR

1. Geographic Expansion

2. Updates to Land Use
Classifications and Policies

3. Metro Plan Buildout: Population
Growth and Employment

4. Update of horizon year from 2030
to 2040
24 Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
Metro Plan Buildout
25 Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
CEQA Topics in the SEIR
Initial Study
Aesthetics, Agricultural and Forestry
Resources, Biological Resources,
Cultural and Tribal Cultural
Resources, Energy, Geology and
Soils, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, Hydrology and Water
Quality, Mineral Resources, Wildfire
SEIR
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Land Use and Planning,
Noise, Population and Housing,
Public Services and Recreation,
Transportation, Utilities and Service
System
26 Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
CEQA Terminology
Significant impact.
● A substantial, or
potentially
substantial, adverse
change in the
environment.
● No impact
● Less than significant
● Less than significant
with mitigation
● Significant and
unavoidable
Mitigation.
● Avoid impacts
● Minimize impacts
● Repair
● Rehabilitate
● Restore
● Preserve
● Compensate
Program EIR Streamlines
Future Development
● An EIR which may be
prepared on a series of
actions that can be
characterized as one large
project
● The City can make a finding
of consistency for future
Projects.

SEIR Conclusions
● Transportation (reductions in VMT)
● Land Use (consistency with Plans)
● Air Quality
● Noise and vibration
● Greenhouse Gas Emissions
28 Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
Alternatives Analyzed in the SEIR
(As Required by CEQA)
Project
7,000 additional
units
Alternative 1:

No Project
0 additional units
Alternative 2:

Reduced Height
6,000 additional
units
Alternative 3:

Removal of Western
Expansion Area
6,500 additional units
29 Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
30 Public Review and Next
Steps
Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
Approval Process
Public Review of the
Milpitas Metro Specific
Plan and SEIR
(45 days)
Public Draft SEIR with the
State CEQA Clearinghouse
April 15, 2022
through May 30th
Planning Commission
Public Hearing
Providing a
Recommendation
June/August 2022
Timing pending extent of
comments received.

City Council
Public Hearing for
Adoption of the
Final MMSP and SEIR
August/September
2022
Revision
31 Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
32 Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
Written comments on the Draft Milpitas Metro
Specific Plan SEIR can be provided to:
○ Email: [email protected]
Please include “Metro Plan Draft SEIR” in the
email subject heading.
○ Mail: City of Milpitas Planning Department
Attn: Kevin Riley, Metro Plan Project Manager
455 East Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, CA 95035
Public Review of Milpitas Metro SEIR
45-day Public Comment
period started
April 15, 2022
and closes on
May 30, 2022 at 5:00 PM
33 Next Steps for Milpitas
Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
• Revise Zoning Code
• Update General Plan
• Update the TADIF
• Citywide Objective Design Standards
• 2023-2035 Housing Element
• Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan
• Future project proposals and review
34 Questions
and
Comments
Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
City of Milpitas
455 E. Calaveras Blvd., Milpitas, CA 95035
www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov 408-586-3000
April 19, 2022
City of Milpitas
455 E. Calaveras Blvd., Milpitas, CA 95035
www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov 408-586-3000
Milpitas City Council
Special Meeting
Item #2:

Innovation District Action Plan
2 Presentation Outline
Innovation District Action Plan
Background
• Importance of Study
• Milpitas Innovation District
• Recap Phase I Results
Review Phase II Findings
• Case Studies
• Innovation District Action Plan
Next Step and Recommendation
Metro Area
Milpitas, CA
3 Phase I:
• Fiscal Impact Analysis
• Occupation & Wage Analysis
• Innovation District Development Scenarios Analysis
• Residual Land Value Analysis
Phase II:
• Milpitas Innovation District Assessment
• Innovation District Case Studies
• Innovation District Action Plan
Fiscal Benefits of Employment Lands
Study
Innovation District Action Plan
4 Milpitas Innovation District Vision
Innovation District Action Plan
5 Strengthen City’s Long-Term Fiscal Sustainability
Growing Milpitas Economy
Business Attraction & Business Retention
Employment and Upskilling Opportunities for Residents
A Sense of Place for the District
Connectivity to the Milpitas Transit Center
Milpitas Innovation District Benefits
Innovation District Action Plan
6 Phase I Results: Key Findings
Innovation District Action Plan
Employment lands provide substantial net positive revenues to General Fund.

Development economics do not “pencil out” for new Office and R&D (midrise) buildings making it challenging to attract new technology businesses.

Supportive City policies can help spur Office and R&D development and business attraction within the Innovation District.

City policy adjustments (i.e., reduce TADIF and ease parking requirements) and improved market conditions make real estate projects more feasible.

Full buildout of the Innovation District may result in future General Fund revenues in the range of $6.5M to $9.9M annually, create approximately 2,000 to 14,000 new high-quality jobs.
7 Protect, preserve employment lands through land use.

Flexibility in density, height to support development economics.

Consider reduced parking requirements in Metro Area.

Consider reduced development impact fees on Office and R&D.

Expedite entitlement and permit processes
 Development Agreements
 Public/Private Partnerships (P3s)
 Pre-Development Meetings
Oct 12, 2021 – City Council Study
Session
Innovation District Action Plan
8 Innovation District Case Studies
Innovation District Action Plan
9 Mission Bay (San Francisco)
Innovation District Action Plan
Key Conclusions
• Strong P3 between government
and primary developer.
• Large and reputable anchor of
UCSF pivotal to growth (42 Ac).
• Public financing tools critical to
investments.
• Central location, developable land
and market factors supported new
development.

Mission Bay
San Francisco, CA
10 Seaport District (Boston)
Innovation District Action Plan
Key Conclusions
• City leadership important in
championing district and
attracting anchor tenants.
• City and state funding and
incentives helped bring anchor
tenants and fund infrastructure.
• Incubator-accelerator presence
helped Seaport grow its
innovation identity.

Seaport District
Boston, MA
11 Peery Park (Sunnyvale)
Innovation District Action Plan
Key Conclusions
• Strong development economics
allows developers to integrate
community benefits.
• Development impact fee costs
don’t affect development
economics.
• Major Developer, the Irvine
Company, pivotal to growth and
business attraction.

Peery Park
Sunnyvale, CA
12 Warm Springs (Fremont)
Innovation District Action Plan
Key Conclusions
• Market cycles, opportunities at
other locations in Silicon Valley,
and decisions by private
landowners' effect new
development.
• Grant funding is critical for
infrastructure investments.
• Existing assets can play a role in
defining the first wave of
developments.

Warm Springs
Fremont, CA
13 Summary of Findings
Innovation District Action Plan
Four Case Study Jurisdictions:
• Mission Bay, San Francisco; Seaport District, Boston; South Fremont, Fremont; and Peery Park, Sunnyvale.

City leadership plays multiple roles to influence ID growth (i.e., P3, Negotiator, Promoter, Policymaker).

Mixture of City policies and financing mechanisms encourage diverse uses and new development (i.e., Zoning, Master Planning, Streamlined Permitting, EIFDs and CFDs).

Innovation placemaking: physical spaces marketed towards innovation-minded firms (i.e., Innovation Anchor Tenants, IncubatorAccelerators, Public Gathering Spaces) 14 Innovation District Action Plan
Innovation District Action Plan
5 Year Roadmap.

Action adoption to occur at various
times over next 5-years.

Actual execution of actions may
extend over several years.

Adopting the Action Plan does not
have a fiscal impact.

City staff will implement action items
w/in existing resources.

Any additional funding needs will be
brought for Council consideration.
15 Innovation District Action Plan Timeline
Innovation District Action Plan
Theme No. Recommended Action(s) Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5
Incentivizing
New
Development
1 Develop an Internal Working Group to Support the Implementation of Action Plan 2 Develop and Implement Flexible Permitting Processes for Innovation District Developments 3 Temporarily Reduce or Defer Building Permit, Plan Check, and Other Processing Fees 4 Temporarily Defer Impact Fees for Innovation District Developments 5 Removal of Parking Minimums for Innovation District Developments 6 Develop DA and CBA Templates for Innovation District Developments 7 Performing Technical Due Diligence for Innovation District Developments Funding and
Investing
8 Exploration of Tax Financing Tools (i.e., EIFDs, CFDs) for the Innovation District 9 Funding for a Strategic Property Acquisition Revenue (SPAR) Fund 10 Pursue Planning Grants for Innovation District Evolution City
Leadership,
Outreach,
and
Partnerships
11 Develop a Branding Initiative for Innovation District 12 Promotion of Innovation District by City Leadership
13 Directed Outreach to Businesses, Developers, and Landowners 14 Cultivation of Partnership with Educational and Other Innovation-oriented Institutions 16 Incentivizing New Development
Innovation District Action Plan
Theme No. Recommended Action(s) Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5
Incentivizing
New
Development
1 Develop an Internal Working Group to Support the Implementation of Action Plan 2 Develop and Implement Flexible Permitting Processes for Innovation District Developments 3 Temporarily Reduce or Defer Building Permit, Plan Check, and Other Processing Fees 4 Temporarily Defer Impact Fees for Innovation District Developments 5 Removal of Parking Minimums for Innovation District Developments 6 Develop DA and CBA Templates for Innovation District Developments 7 Performing Technical Due Diligence for Innovation District Developments Funding and
Investing
8 Exploration of Tax Financing Tools (i.e., EIFDs, CFDs) for the Innovation District 9 Funding for a Strategic Property Acquisition Revenue (SPAR) Fund 10 Pursue Planning Grants for Innovation District Evolution City
Leadership,
Outreach,
and
Partnerships
11 Develop a Branding Initiative for Innovation District 12 Promotion of Innovation District by City Leadership
13 Directed Outreach to Businesses, Developers, and Landowners 14 Cultivation of Partnership with Educational and Other Innovation-oriented Institutions 17 Incentivizing New Development
Innovation District Action Plan
Summary of Category/Theme:
• Seven (7) recommended action items.
• Action items to take place in Year 1 and Year 3.
• Action items focus on improving development economics so that Office and R&D developments “pencil out” better and get built. 18 Incentivizing New Development
Innovation District Action Plan
Summary of Category/Theme (cont.):
• Action #3 and Action #4 creates a fee reduction/deferral program on permits and impact fees.
• Program only available on a temporary basis and not in perpetuity. • Incentive targeted for early investors in the Innovation District. 19 Funding and Investing
Innovation District Action Plan
Theme No. Recommended Action(s) Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5
Incentivizing
New
Development
1 Develop an Internal Working Group to Support the Implementation of Action Plan 2 Develop and Implement Flexible Permitting Processes for Innovation District Developments 3 Temporarily Reduce or Defer Building Permit, Plan Check, and Other Processing Fees 4 Temporarily Defer Impact Fees for Innovation District Developments 5 Removal of Parking Minimums for Innovation District Developments 6 Develop DA and CBA Templates for Innovation District Developments 7 Performing Technical Due Diligence for Innovation District Developments Funding and
Investing
8 Exploration of Tax Financing Tools (i.e., EIFDs, CFDs) for the Innovation District 9 Funding for a Strategic Property Acquisition Revenue (SPAR) Fund 10 Pursue Planning Grants for Innovation District Evolution City
Leadership,
Outreach,
and
Partnerships
11 Develop a Branding Initiative for Innovation District 12 Promotion of Innovation District by City Leadership
13 Directed Outreach to Businesses, Developers, and Landowners 14 Cultivation of Partnership with Educational and Other Innovation-oriented Institutions 20 Funding and Investing
Innovation District Action Plan
Summary of Category/Theme:
• Three (3) recommended action items.
• Action items to take place in Year 1 and Year 2.
• Action items focus on spurring new development via tax increment financing for public infrastructure and land acquisition for site assembly and revenue generation.
21 City Leadership, Outreach, and
Partnerships
Innovation District Action Plan
Theme No. Recommended Action(s) Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5
Incentivizing
New
Development
1 Develop an Internal Working Group to Support the Implementation of Action Plan 2 Develop and Implement Flexible Permitting Processes for Innovation District Developments 3 Temporarily Reduce or Defer Building Permit, Plan Check, and Other Processing Fees 4 Temporarily Defer Impact Fees for Innovation District Developments 5 Removal of Parking Minimums for Innovation District Developments 6 Develop DA and CBA Templates for Innovation District Developments 7 Performing Technical Due Diligence for Innovation District Developments Funding and
Investing
8 Exploration of Tax Financing Tools (i.e., EIFDs, CFDs) for the Innovation District 9 Funding for a Strategic Property Acquisition Revenue (SPAR) Fund 10 Pursue Planning Grants for Innovation District Evolution City
Leadership,
Outreach,
and
Partnerships
11 Develop a Branding Initiative for Innovation District 12 Promotion of Innovation District by City Leadership
13 Directed Outreach to Businesses, Developers, and Landowners 14 Cultivation of Partnership with Educational and Other Innovation-oriented Institutions 22 City Leadership, Outreach, and
Partnerships
Innovation District Action Plan
Summary of Category/Theme:
• Four (4) recommended action items.
• Action items to take place in Year 2 and Year 4.
• Action items focus on creating strong partnerships to bringing major investors, businesses and partners to the Innovation District. 23 Next Step and Recommendation
Innovation District Action Plan
Next Step
• Commence implementation of the Innovation District Action Plan.

Recommendation
• Adopt the Innovation District Action Plan.

City of Milpitas
455 E. Calaveras Blvd., Milpitas, CA 95035
www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov 408-586-3000
25 Phase I Results: Key Findings
Innovation District Action Plan
The City’s current employment lands make substantial and positive net fiscal contributions to the City’s budget.
26 Phase I Results: Key Findings
Innovation District Action Plan
On average, all types of new development in the City are expected to provide positive fiscal contributions to the City, though to varying degrees. 27 Phase I Results: Key Findings
Innovation District Action Plan
Full build-out of the Innovation District may result in tremendous economic achievement to the Milpitas community.
28 Phase I Results: Key Findings
Innovation District Action Plan
Development economics do not “pencil out” for new Office and R&D (midrise) buildings making it challenging to attract new technology businesses.

Supportive City policies can help spur Office and R&D development and business attraction within the Innovation District.
29 Phase I Results: Key Findings
Innovation District Action Plan
City policy adjustments (i.e., reduce TADIF and ease parking requirements) and improved market conditions make real estate projects more feasible. 30 Innovation District Action Plan
31 Innovation District Action Plan
Milpitas City Council
Special Meeting
Item #3: Receive Report on Community
Odor Monitoring Pilot Program Results
April 19, 2022
City of Milpitas
455 E. Calaveras Blvd., Milpitas, CA 95035
www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov 408-586-3000
2 Agenda
• Background
• Community Odor Study
• Data Collection Methodology
• Findings
• Next Steps
• Recommendation
3 Background
Odor has been a Long-Standing Concern for the Community February 26, 2019 – Council approved funding for the implementation of a Community Odor Monitoring Pilot Program
June 2019 – Staff entered into a Consultant Agreement with Jacobs Engineering Group for technical support on the Pilot
November 2019 – Staff began weekly field odor monitoring activities November 20, 2019 – Odor Attribution Study approved by BAAQMD Board July 2021 – Staff concluded weekly field odor monitoring activities 4 Two Studies Underway
Community Odor Monitoring vs. Odor Attribution Study
• Both studies are expected to provide recommendations monitoring methodology and equipment to measure odor and potential future odor reduction actions.

Milpitas’ Community Odor
Monitoring Pilot Program
Collected objective data on
odors experienced (i.e., odor
characteristics) in the
community.

Bay Area Air Quality
Management District’s
(BAAQMD) South Bay Odor
Attribution Study
Odor attribution study to link
experienced odors to main
odor sources.
5 Objectives of Community Odor Study
Obtain data on odor conditions in the Milpitas community Share data with stakeholders, regulators, and community members to improve coordination and advocacy
Collaborate with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) South Bay Odor Attribution Study, which is occurring at generally the same time
6 Data Collection Methodology
6 Selection of Assessment Locations
Data Collected at Assessment Locations
Data Collection Method
• Field odor assessment
• Bag sampling
prevailing wind direction
7 Data Collection Methodology (cont.)
Fifty field odor assessments were undertaken at 11 discrete locations, by multiple field assessors over 18 months
• Extended from 12 months due to pandemic
• No significant difference noted between pre- and during pandemic in terms of odor impact in the community
On average, two assessments taken every three weeks, for a total of 580 field observations
8 Data Collection Methodology (cont.)
8 Field Instruments
• Field olfactometer (Scentroid SM100)
• Portable weather station (Vantage
Pro)
• Trained Odor Surveyors
Odor Sensitivity
Test Kit (© St.

Croix Sensory Inc.)
portable weather
station
Compressed (clean) air from
a high-pressure carbon-fiber
tank
• to dilute sample air prior, and
• to present it to the sampler
Odor sample concentration is
steadily increased to the
sampler
bag sampling
vacuum
chamber
9 Field Data Collection
9 Odor
Character
Odor
Intensity
Hedonic
Tone
Odor Strength
Measurement
Not
Detectable Very Weak Weak Distinct Strong Very Strong
Extremely
Strong
0-2260
Pleasant, Neutral, Unpleasant, Revolting, Nauseating
Sewage, Garbage, Swampy, Rancid, etc. (Odor Wheel )
Weather Condition Temp Wind Velocity,
Direction, & Gusts
Data Collection Methodology (cont.)
10 Odor Wheel
Odor Character
11 Odor Intensity Observed
Survey Location Odor Intensity
Average Values1
Odor Intensity
Maximum Values1
Downwind ZWED 5.8 – Extremely Strong/Very Strong 6 – Extremely Strong Downwind RWF 4.1 – Strong 6 – Extremely Strong
Downwind NIRRP 3.8 – Strong/Distinct 6 – Extremely Strong Downwind Lift Station 3.0 – Distinct 5 – Very Strong
Wilson Way 2.2 – Weak/Distinct 3 – Distinct
Milmont Drive 2.1 – Weak 4 – Strong
Tramway Drive 1.8 – Weak/Very Weak 3 – Distinct
Marylinn Drive 1.7 – Weak/Very Weak 3 – Distinct
Murphy Ranch Road 1.6 – Weak/Very Weak 4 – Strong
Mt Shasta Avenue 1.4 – Very Weak/Weak 1 – Very Weak
Alvarez Court 1.3 – Very Weak/Weak 2 – Weak
Los Coches Street 1.1 Very Weak 2 – Weak
Notes:

1. Scale: Not Detectable (0), Very Weak (1), Weak (2), Distinct (3), Strong (4), Very Strong (5), Extremely Strong (6). 12 Hedonic Tone
Degree of Odor Perception as Pleasant or Unpleasant
Survey Location Hedonic Tone
Average Values1
Hedonic Tone
Maximum Values1
Downwind ZWED -2.7 – Nauseating/Revolting -3 – Nauseating Downwind NIRRP -1.7 – Revolting/Unpleasant -3 – Nauseating Downwind RWF -1.7 – Revolting/Unpleasant -3 – Nauseating Downwind Lift Station -1.2 – Unpleasant/Revolting -2 – Revolting Milmont Drive -1.1 – Unpleasant -2 – Revolting
Tramway Drive -1.0 – Unpleasant -1 – Unpleasant
Marylinn Drive -1.0 – Unpleasant -1 – Unpleasant
Los Coches Street -1.0 – Unpleasant -1 – Unpleasant
Wilson Way -1.0 – Unpleasant -1 – Unpleasant
Murphy Ranch Road -0.8 – Unpleasant/Neutral -1 – Unpleasant Alvarez Court -0.7 – Unpleasant/Neutral -1 – Unpleasant Mt Shasta Avenue -0.3 – Neutral/Unpleasant -1 – Unpleasant Notes:

1. Scale: Pleasant (1), Neutral (0), Unpleasant (-1), Revolting (-2), Nauseating (-3). 13 Frequency and Strength of Odors
Observed 1 OU: weak odor
5 OU: faint odor
10 OU: distinct odor
Survey Location Odor Present
(% of the time)1
Odor Strength2
Average (OU)
Odor Strength2
Maximum (OU)
Downwind ZWED 100 936 2260
Downwind NIRRP 100 68 720
Downwind RWF 98 57 411
Downwind Lift Station 98 27 259
Milmont Drive 50 7 39
Tramway Drive 50 6 28
Marylinn Drive 30 7 20
Alvarez Court 25 4 11
Murphy Ranch Road 20 3 6
Los Coches Street 16 3 8
Mt Shasta Avenue 9 3 5
Wilson Way 5 <2 <2
Notes:

1. The percentage of the fifty field odor assessments in which odors were observed by at least one assessor.

2. The odor strength in dilution to threshold (D/T) as measured with the SM100 field olfactometer.

Survey Location Odor Present
(% of the time)1
Downwind ZWED 100
Downwind NIRRP 100
Downwind RWF 98
Downwind Lift Station 98
Milmont Drive 50
Tramway Drive 50
Marylinn Drive 30
Alvarez Court 25
Murphy Ranch Road 20
Los Coches Street 16
Mt Shasta Avenue 9
Wilson Way 5
14 Summary of Key Findings
Study confirms with objective data that there is an odor problem in the community based on the following:
• the Character of the odors
• the Odor Intensity
• the Hedonic Tone of the odors
• the Odor Strength
• the frequency of odors present
No single predominant odor experienced by residents in the community • Depends on location, wind direction, and time of day
• All four main odor-emitting facilities contribute to the odors that are frequently observed.

The results of lab odor analyses at UCLA by a panel of trained panelists were consistent with the observations in the community during the field assessments.

Council approved a construction contract for the Main Lift Station Emissions Control in June 2021.
• Construction is expected to be completed in December 2022. 15 Consultant Recommendations
Recommendation #1: Purchase four Instrumental Odor Monitoring Systems (IOMS) with automatic air samplers
• Install an instrumental odor monitor system (IOMS) with auto bag samplers at specific locations within the community.
• Estimated one-time cost of $176k and annual costs of $60k.

Recommendation #2: Develop a dedicated mobile app or enable mobile odor complaint reporting in an existing app
• Introduce a mobile app for the community to provide improved feedback 16 Next Steps
Consultant Recommendations
• BAAQMD is able to use such data to better regulate odor emitting facilities, measure progress, and implement enforcement.
• Based on Council feedback, recommendations could be championed with BAAQMD by Council and/or staff.

BAAQMD will present the results of the odor attribution study to Council on May 17, 2022.
17 Recommendation
Receive a report on the Community Odor
Monitoring Pilot Program Results and
provide direction to Staff.

City of Milpitas
455 E. Calaveras Blvd., Milpitas, CA 95035
www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov 408-586-3000