Milpitas City Council
May 21, 2024

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 60 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Impact BIO-6: The project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. (No Impact) The project site is not located within an area covered by an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any such plans.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 61 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024

CULTURAL RESOURCES
The following discussion is based in part on an Archeological Resources Assessment prepared by PaleoWest, LLC on July 28, 2021. A copy of the Archaeological Resources Assessment is on file at the City of Milpitas Public Works Department, Engineering Division. .

4.5.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
National Historic Preservation Act
Federal protection is legislated by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and the Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979. These laws maintain processes for determination of the effects on historical properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Section 106 of the NHPA and related regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800) constitute the primary federal regulatory framework guiding cultural resources investigations and require consideration of effects on properties that are listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP. Impacts to properties listed in the NRHP must be evaluated under CEQA.

California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is administered by the State Office of Historic Preservation and encourages protection of resources of architectural, historical, archeological, and cultural significance. The CRHR identifies historic resources for state and local planning purposes and affords protections under CEQA. Under Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c), a resource may be eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets any of the NRHP criteria.32 Historical resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet the significance criteria described previously and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the CRHR if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.

The concept of integrity is essential to identifying the important physical characteristics of historical resources and, therefore, in evaluating adverse changes to them. Integrity is defined as “the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance.” The processes of determining integrity are similar for both the CRHR and NRHP and use the same seven variables or aspects to define integrity that are used to evaluate a resource's eligibility for listing. These seven characteristics include 1) location, 2) design, 3) setting, 4) materials, 5) workmanship, 6) feeling, and 7) association. 32 California Office of Historic Preservation. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3) and California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6. January 9, 2024.https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/technical%20assistance%20bulletin%206%202011%20update.pdf

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 62 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act The California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act applies to both state and private lands. The act requires that upon discovery of human remains, construction or excavation activity must cease, and the county coroner be notified.

Public Resources Code Sections 5097 and 5097.98
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines specifies procedures to be used in the event of an unexpected discovery of Native American human remains on non-federal land. These procedures are outlined in Public Resources Code Sections 5097 and 5097.98. These codes protect such remains from disturbance, vandalism, and inadvertent destruction, establish procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, and establish the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as the authority to resolve disputes regarding disposition of such remains.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, in the event of human remains discovery, no further disturbance is allowed until the county coroner has made the necessary findings regarding the origin and disposition of the remains. If the remains are of a Native American, the county coroner must notify the NAHC. The NAHC then notifies those persons most likely to be related to the Native American remains. The code section also stipulates the procedures that the descendants may follow for treating or disposing of the remains and associated grave goods.

Local
City of Milpitas General Plan 2040
The following policies in the City’s General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of reducing or avoiding impacts related to cultural resources and are applicable to the proposed project.

Policies Description
Policy CON 4-1 Review proposed developments and work in conjunction with the California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, to determine whether project areas contain known archaeological resources, either prehistoric and/or historic-era, or have the potential for such resources.

Policy CON 4-2 If found during construction, ensure that human remains are treated with sensitivity and dignity, and ensure compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

Policy CON 4-3 Work with Native American representatives to identify and appropriately address, through avoidance or mitigation, impacts to Native American cultural resources and sacred sites during the development review process Policy CON 4-4 Consistent with State, local, and tribal intergovernmental consultation requirements such as SB 18 and AB 52, the City shall consult as necessary with

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 63 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Policies Description
Native American tribes that may be interested in proposed new development and land use policy changes.

Policy CON 5-1 Protect significant historic resources and use these resources to promote a sense of place and history in Milpitas through implementation of the Milpitas Cultural Resources Preservation Program (Municipal Code, Title XI, Chapter 4), the Conceptual Historic Resources Master Plan, the conservation and preservation of the City’s historical collection at the Milpitas Community Museum, and other applicable codes, regulations, and area plans.

City of Milpitas Metro Area Specific Plan
The MMSP adopted the following policies for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating cultural resource impacts resulting from planned development within the MMSP area, including the following:

Policies Description
SC 7 Any future ground-disturbing activities, including grading, in the Metro Plan Area shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist to ensure that the accidental discovery of significant archaeological materials and/or human remains is handled according to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 regarding discovery of archaeological sites and burial sites, and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b) identifying mitigation measures for impacts on historic and cultural resources (reference CEQA Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1). A Native American monitor will also be present during future ground disturbing activities due to the high potential for inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and/or human remains. Prior to commencement of grounddisturbing activities, the City shall ensure that the general contractor and those conducting ground-disturbing activities are given cultural sensitivity training. Cultural sensitivity training will ensure that any cultural material encountered during grounddisturbing activities due to the high potential for inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and/or human remains. Prior to commencement of grounddisturbing activities, the City shall ensure that the general contractor and those conducting ground-disturbing activities are given cultural sensitivity training. Cultural sensitivity training will ensure that any cultural material encountered during grounddisturbing activities is protected and treated with culturally appropriate dignity. This training will be administered by a Native American monitor and a qualified archaeologist. In the event that buried cultural materials are encountered, construction will be temporarily halted until a mitigation plan can be developed. In the event that human remains are encountered, the developer shall halt work in the immediate area and contact the Santa Clara County coroner and the City of Milpitas. The coroner will then contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will in turn contact the appropriate Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD will then have the opportunity to make a recommendation for the respectful treatment of the Native American remains and related burial goods.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 64 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Existing Conditions
Prehistoric Subsurface Resources
Native Americans occupied Santa Clara Valley and the greater Bay Area for more than 5,000 years.

The exact time period of the Ohlone (originally referred to as Costanoan) migration into the Bay Area is debated by scholars. Dates of the migration range between 3,000 B.C. and 500 A.D.

Regardless of the actual time frame of their initial occupation of the Bay Area and, in particular, Santa Clara Valley, it is known that the Ohlone had a well-established population of approximately 7,000 to 11,000 people with a territory that ranged from the San Francisco Peninsula and the East Bay south through the Santa Clara Valley and down to Monterey and San Juan Bautista.

Mission Period
Spanish explorers began coming to Santa Clara Valley in 1769. From 1769 to 1776 several expeditions were made to the area during which time the explorers encountered the Native American tribes who had occupied the area since prehistoric times. Expeditions in the Bay Area and throughout California lead to the establishment of the California Missions and, in 1777, the Pueblo de San José de Guadalupe was established.

Post-Mission Period to Mid-20th Century
The town of Milpitas was founded in the mid-1800’s. Prior to 1856, the lands were used for agricultural purposes. By the 1880s, the town of Milpitas’ population had increased to 200 people and a railroad line was extended through the region in 1869. By 1922, the town’s population increased to 800 and the Western Pacific rail line was also completed. By 1953, Ford Motor Company purchased a 160-acre tract in the City which was used for automobile assembly. Due to the increase in jobs, the town of Milpitas was incorporated in 1954.

Historically, the project site was located in an undeveloped portion of Rancho Milpitas and was surrounded by farms of cultivated crops and orchards. Farms ranged in size from approximately 40 to 250 acres and included a rural residence. The project site remained undeveloped until it was used for agricultural production as row crops between 1931 and 1968. Between 1975 and 1982, north and south of Penitencia East Channel developed with light industrial commercial buildings. In 2018, a warehouse was demolished north of the project site to accommodate construction of multi-family residential buildings.

Historical and Archaeological Resources
Areas within the City may contain known historical or unknown historical and archaeological resources which have not yet identified. The existing office building planned for demolition was built in 1980 and is not considered a historic resource under CEQA. No other known previously recorded cultural resources have been identified on the project site or in the immediate vicinity.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 65 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024

4.5.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5?
3) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Impact CUL-1: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (No Impact)
There are no historical resources present on the project site pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect historic resources.

Impact CUL-2: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) An archaeological literature search at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) database was completed for the project site and surrounding area. Based on the results of the literature search and the site’s proximity to Penitencia East Channel, the project site has a moderate to high sensitivity for buried archaeological resources because Native American populations occupied areas around waterways. Project construction would require approximately 280 cubic yards of soil to be excavated to a maximum depth of 60 feet and exported off-site. Grading and other excavation activities on the site could potentially damage unrecorded subsurface resources.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the following mitigation measures would ensure that potential impacts to subsurface archaeological resources are less than significant.

MM CUL-2.1: Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist and engage a Native American monitor approved by Tamien Nation to be present at the site during all ground disturbing activities.

Submit a copy of the agreement to the Director of Engineering or the Director’s designee.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 66 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
MM CUL-2.2: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 (f), if potentially significant cultural resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities associated with project preparation, construction, or completion, work shall halt in that area until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find, and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with Santa Clara County, Tamien Nation, and other appropriate agencies and interested parties. If such resources are found to be Native American, the treatment measures shall obtain approval from Tamien Nation. A qualified archaeologist shall follow accepted professional standards in recording any find including submittal of the standard Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Primary Record forms (Form DPR 523) and locational information to the California Historical Resources Information Center office (Northwest Information Center). The consulting archaeologist shall also evaluate such resources for significance per California Register of Historical Resources eligibility criteria (Public Resources Code Section 5024.1; Title 14 CCR Section 4852). If the archaeologist determines that the find does not meet the CEQA standards of significance, construction shall proceed. In the event the archaeologist determines that further information is needed to evaluate significance, the Engineering Department staff shall be notified and a data recovery plan shall be prepared. If such resources are found to be Native American, a Tamien Nation Tribal representative shall be engaged for evaluation and the data recovery plan shall be prepared in consultation with Tamien Nation..

With implementation of MM CUL-2.1 and 2.2, any unknown culturally significant archaeological resources encountered during construction would be identified, evaluated and appropriately treated in accordance with the recommendations of a qualified archaeologist. Accordingly, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significant of an archaeological resource.

Impact CUL-3: The project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Human graves are most often associated with prehistoric occupation sites. Although unlikely, it is possible that project construction activities, such as excavation and grading, could disturb as-yet undiscovered human remains at the project sites. If human remains were unearthed during project construction, damage to or destruction of culturally significant human remains would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure: Implementation of the following mitigation measures would ensure that potential impacts to undiscovered human remains is at a less than significant level.

MM CUL-3.1: In the event that human remains are encountered, the City shall halt work in the immediate area and contact the Santa Clara County coroner. The coroner will make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the remains are believed to be Native American, the coroner will contact the

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 67 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) which will designate the Most Likely Descendants (MLD). The MLD will inspect the remains and make a recommendation for the respectful treatment of the remains and related burial goods.

Implementation of MM CUL-3.1 would ensure that any human remains encountered during grounddisturbing activities are appropriately identified and treated and the impact reduced to a less than significant level.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 68 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
ENERGY
The following discussion is based, in part, on an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment prepared for the project by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. The report, dated November 10, 2021, is attached to this Initial Study as Appendix A.

4.6.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
Energy Star and Fuel Efficiency
At the federal level, energy standards set by the EPA apply to numerous consumer products and appliances (e.g., the EnergyStar™ program). The EPA also sets fuel efficiency standards for automobiles and other modes of transportation.

Renewables Portfolio Standard Program
In 2002, California established its Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, with the goal of increasing the percentage of renewable energy in the state's electricity mix to 20 percent of retail sales by 2010. Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, requiring statewide emissions reductions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In 2008, EO S-14-08 was signed into law, requiring retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. In October 2015, Governor Brown signed SB 350 to codify California’s climate and clean energy goals. A key provision of SB 350 requires retail sellers and publicly owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2030. SB 100, passed in 2018, requires 100 percent of electricity in California to be provided by 100 percent renewable and carbon-free sources by 2045.

Executive Order B-55-18 To Achieve Carbon Neutrality
In September 2018, Governor Brown issued an executive order, EO-B-55-18 To Achieve Carbon Neutrality, setting a statewide goal “to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter.” The executive order requires CARB to “ensure future Scoping Plans identify and recommend measures to achieve the carbon neutrality goal.” EO-B-55-18 supplements EO S-3-05 by requiring not only emissions reductions, but also that, by no later than 2045, the remaining emissions be offset by equivalent net removals of CO2 from the atmosphere through sequestration.

California Building Standards Code
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, as specified in Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (Title 24), was established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Title 24 is updated approximately

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 69 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
every three years.33 Compliance with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new building permits are issued by city and county governments.34
California Green Building Standards Code
CALGreen establishes mandatory green building standards for buildings in California. CALGreen was developed to reduce GHG emissions from buildings, promote environmentally responsible and healthier places to live and work, reduce energy and water consumption, and respond to state environmental directives. CALGreen covers five categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material and resource efficiency, and indoor environmental quality.

Advanced Clean Cars Program
CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Cars program in 2012 in coordination with the EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The program combines the control of smogcausing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated set of requirements for vehicle model years 2015 through 2025. The program promotes development of environmentally superior passenger cars and other vehicles, as well as saving the consumer money through fuel savings.35 Local
City of Milpitas General Plan 2040
The following policies in the City’s General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating impacts to energy supplies resulting from planned development within the City, including the following:

Policies Description
Policy CIR 2.1 Promote multimodal transportation options by developing an interconnected system of streets, roads, bridges, and highways that provides continuous, efficient, safe and convenient travel for all users regardless of mode, age or ability and encourage users to walk, ride a bicycle, or use transit for shorter, local trips.

Policy PROS 1-15 Design and maintain park and recreation facilities to minimize water, energy and chemical (e.g., pesticides and fertilizer) use. Incorporate the use of recycled water, native and/ or drought-resistant vegetation and ground cover where appropriate. Pursue opportunities for multi-beneficial park developments that incorporate flood control facilities, stormwater management and groundwater recharge areas.
33 California Building Standards Commission. “California Building Standards Code.” Accessed January 9, 2024. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes#@ViewBag.JumpTo. 34 California Energy Commission (CEC). “2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” Accessed January 9, 2024. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2019-buildingenergy-efficiency. 35 California Air Resources Board. “The Advanced Clean Cars Program.” Accessed January 9, 2024. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 70 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Policies Description
Policy CON 1-2 Ensure all development projects comply with the mandatory energy efficiency requirements of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).

Policy CON 1-3 Support innovative green building best management practices including, but not limited to, LEED certification, and encourage project applicants to exceed the most current “green” development standards in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, as feasible.

Policy CON 1-9 Encourage site planning and building techniques that promote energy conservation. Where feasible, encourage projects to take advantage of shade, prevailing winds, landscaping, sunscreens, building orientations, and material choices that reduce energy use.

Policy UCS 5-3 Reduce municipal waste generation by increasing recycling, on‐site composting, and mulching, where feasible, at municipal facilities, as well as using resource efficient landscaping techniques in new or renovated medians and parks.

City of Milpitas Climate Action Plan
The City of Milpitas’ adopted the Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update in2022. It is designed to streamline environmental review of future development projects in the City of Milpitas consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) and the BAAQMD Air Quality Guidelines. The CAP identifies a strategy, GHG reduction measures, and implementation strategies to comply with AB 32 and SB 375. To that end, the CAP includes the following policies which are intended to conserve energy and promote alternative modes of transportation:

Measures Description
TR-1.1 Reduce VMT from new development in compliance with SB 743.

TR-3.2 Increase transit ridership.

Existing Conditions
Total energy usage in California was approximately 6,279 trillion British thermal units (Btu) in the year 2021, the most recent year for which this data was available.36 Out of the 50 states, California is ranked second in total energy consumption and 49h
in energy consumption per capita. The
breakdown by sector was approximately 18 percent (1,229 trillion Btu) for residential uses, 17 percent (1,157 trillion Btu) for commercial uses, 24 percent (1,596 trillion Btu) for industrial uses, and 41 percent (2,784 trillion Btu) for transportation.37 This energy is primarily supplied in the form of natural gas, petroleum, nuclear electric power, and hydroelectric power. 36 United States Energy Information Administration. “State Profile and Energy Estimates, 2021.” Accessed January 9, 2024. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2. 37 Ibid.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 71 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Electricity
Electricity in Santa Clara County in 2022 was consumed primarily by the commercial sector (75 percent), followed by the residential sector consuming 25 percent. In 2022, a total of approximately 17,102 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity was consumed in Santa Clara County.38 The community-owned Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) is the electricity provider for the City of Milpitas.
39 SVCE sources the electricity and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) delivers it to customers over their existing utility lines. PG&E generates or buys electricity from hydroelectric, nuclear, renewable, natural gas, and coal facilities.

Natural Gas
PG&E also provides natural gas services within Milpitas. In 2018, approximately one percent of California’s natural gas supply came from in-state production, while the remaining supply was imported from other western states and Canada.40 In 2021, natural gas facilities provided seven percent of PG&E’s electricity delivered to retail customers; nuclear plants provided 39 percent; hydroelectric operations provided four percent; renewable energy facilities including solar, geothermal, and biomass provided 50 percent.41 Transportation accounted for one percent of natural gas use in California.

Fuel for Motor Vehicles
In 2022, California produced 124 million barrels of crude oil and in 2019, 11.7 billion gallons of gasoline were sold in California. 42, 43 The average fuel economy for light-duty vehicles (autos, pickups, vans, and sport utility vehicles) in the United States has steadily increased from about 13.1 miles per gallon (mpg) in the mid-1970s to 25.4 mpg in 2021.44 Federal fuel economy standards have changed substantially since the Energy Independence and Security Act was passed in 2007. That standard, which originally mandated a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by the 38 California Energy Commission. Energy Consumption Data Management System. “Electricity Consumption by County.” January 9, 2024. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. 39 Silicon Valley Clean Energy. “Frequently Asked Questions.” January 9, 2024. https://www.svcleanenergy.org/faqs. 40 California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2019 California Gas Report. January 9, 2024. https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/documents/cgr/2019_CGR_Supplement_7-1-19.pdf. 41 Pacific Gas and Electric Company. “Exploring Clean Energy Solutions.” Accessed January 10, 2024. https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/environment/what-we-are-doing/clean-energy-solutions/clean-energysolutions.page?WT.mc_id=Vanity_cleanenergy. 42 U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Petroleum & Other Liquids, California Field Production of Crude Oil.” January 10, 2024. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpca1&f=a 43 California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. “Net Taxable Gasoline Gallons.” Accessed January 10, 2024. https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/dataportal/dataset.htm?url=VehicleTaxableFuelDist. 44 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “The 2022 EPA Automotive Trends Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975.” December 2022.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 72 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
year 2020, was updated in April 2022 to require all cars and light duty trucks achieve an overall industry average fuel economy of 49 mpg by model year 2026. 45,46 Energy Use of Existing Development
The project site is currently developed with an approximately 41,307 square foot office building and associated surface parking lot. Energy (in the form of electricity and natural gas) is used by the existing development primarily for heating and cooling, lighting, and water heating. The existing development uses approximately 669,173 kilo British thermal units (kBtu)47 of natural gas per year and 758,539 kilowatt-hours (kWh)48 of electricity per year.49 Traffic associated with the existing development generates 727,801 vehicle miles traveled annually. Assuming an annual fuel economy of 24.9 miles per gallon (mpg), the existing development uses approximately 29,230 gallons of gasoline per year.

4.6.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project construction
or operation?
2) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Impact EN-1: The project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. (Less than Significant Impact) Energy would be consumed during the construction and operational phases of the project, as discussed below.
45 United States Department of Energy. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed January 10, 2024. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/eisa. 46 United States Department of Transportation. “USDOT Announces New Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards for Model Year 2024-2026.” Accessed January 10, 2024. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/usdot-announces-newvehicle-fuel-economy-standards-model-year-2024-2026 47 The Btu is a unit of heat defined as the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit. 48 The kilowatt-hour is a unit of energy equal to 3600 kilojoules. 49 Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. S. Milpitas Boulevard Vehicular Bridge Air Quality Assessment. November 10, 2021.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 73 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Energy Use During Construction
Construction equipment would consume energy during the demolition of the existing office building and associated surface parking lot and during construction of the proposed bridge and roadway connection. Petroleum-based fuels such as diesel fuel and gasoline would be the primary sources of energy for these tasks except as described below.

Construction of the project would require demolition, site preparation, grading, excavation, trenching, paving, and bridge assembly. The overall construction schedule and process is designed to be efficient in order to avoid excess monetary costs. That is, equipment and fuel would not be used wastefully on the project site because of the added expense associated with renting the equipment, maintaining it, and fueling it. Further, construction of the project would occur in an urbanized area in proximity to roadways, construction supplies, and workers, making it more efficient than construction occurring in outlying, undeveloped areas. For these reasons, the construction process for the project is efficient. Additionally, energy would not be wasted or used inefficiently by construction equipment as the proposed project shall implement BAAQMD’s basic control measures (MM AIR-3.1), which would reduce vehicle idling times and ensure equipment is operating properly, and MM AIR-3.2, which would require the project to select construction equipment that would minimize emissions by 86 percent. For these reasons, project construction would not use energy in a wasteful manner and would have a less than significant impact.

Energy Use During Project Operation
Vehicle trips associated with operation of the proposed bridge and roadway connection would consume gasoline, and illumination of the bridge would consume electricity. No natural gas would be utilized by the proposed project. As documented in Section 4.17 Transportation under Impact TRN2, the project would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and, therefore, would reduce the amount of gasoline consumed in comparison with existing conditions. Further, illumination of the bridge would consume less electricity than the existing office building and associated surface parking lot, which requires electricity for building heating and cooling, lighting, appliance use, and parking lot illumination. Therefore, since the proposed project would result in a decrease in gasoline, electricity, and natural gas consumption compared to the existing development, operation of the project would have no impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.

Impact EN-2: The project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (Less than Significant Impact) As discussed under Impact EN-1, the project would result in decreased consfumption of electricity, gasoline, and natural gas in comparison with existing conditions. Further, as required by General Plan Policy CON 1-2, the project would comply with Title 24 and CALGreen requirements. All project landscaping would be required by General Plan policies PROS 1-15 and UCS 5-3 to be resource efficient by minimizing water and chemical (e.g., pesticides and fertilizer) use, and by incorporating the use of recycled water, native and/ or drought-resistant vegetation and ground cover where appropriate. Lastly, the proposed bridge and roadway connection would improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and would reduce VMT (refer to the discussion under Section 4.17 Transportation under Impact TRN-2). For these reasons, the project would not conflict with or

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 74 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and would have a less than significant impact.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 75 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The following discussion is based in part on a Bridge Design Geotechnical report prepared by ENGEO. The report, dated January 5, 2017, is included in this Initial Study as Appendix C.

4.7.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed following the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. The act regulates development in California near known active faults due to hazards associated with surface fault ruptures. Alquist-Priolo maps are distributed to affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning and controlling new construction. Areas within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone require special studies to evaluate the potential for surface rupture to ensure that no structures intended for human occupancy are constructed across an active fault.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) was passed in 1990 following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The SHMA directs the California Geological Survey (CGS) to identify and map areas prone to liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides, and amplified ground shaking. CGS has completed seismic hazard mapping for the portions of California most susceptible to liquefaction, landslides, and ground shaking, including the central San Francisco Bay Area. The SHMA requires that agencies only approve projects in seismic hazard zones following site-specific geotechnical investigations to determine if the seismic hazard is present and identify measures to reduce earthquake-related hazards.

California Building Standards Code
The CBC prescribes standards for constructing safe buildings. The CBC contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, soil and rock profile, ground strength, and distance to seismic sources. The CBC requires that a site-specific geotechnical investigation report be prepared for most development projects to evaluate seismic and geologic conditions such as surface fault ruptures, ground shaking, liquefaction, differential settlement, lateral spreading, expansive soils, and slope stability. The CBC is updated every three years; the 2022 CBC went into effect on January 1, 2023.

Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has Seismic Design Criteria (SDC) which describes new and currently practiced seismic design and analysis methodologies for the design of new bridges in California. The SDC adopts a performance-based approach specifying minimum levels of structural system performance, component performance, analysis, and design practices for ordinary standard bridges. The SDC has been developed with input from the Caltrans Offices of

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 76 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Structure Design, Earthquake Engineering and Design Support, and Materials and Foundations.

Memo 20-1 Seismic Design Methodology (Caltrans 1999) outlines the bridge category and classification, seismic performance criteria, seismic design philosophy and approach, seismic demands and capacities on structural components, and seismic design practices that collectively make up Caltrans’ seismic design.

California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Regulations Excavation, shoring, and trenching activities during construction are subject to occupational safety standards for stabilization by the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) under Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Excavation Rules. These regulations minimize the potential for instability and collapse that could injure construction workers on the site.

Public Resources Code Section 5097.5
Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in geologic strata. They range from mammoth and dinosaur bones to impressions of ancient animals and plants, trace remains, and microfossils. These materials are valued for the information they yield about the history of the earth and its past ecological settings. California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 specifies that unauthorized removal of a paleontological resource is a misdemeanor. Under the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact on paleontological resources if it would disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Local
City of Milpitas General Plan 2040
The following policies in the City’s General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of reducing or avoiding impacts related to geologic and seismic hazards and are applicable to the project.

Policies/Actions Description
Policy SA 1-1 Require development to reduce risks to life and property associated with earthquakes, liquefaction, erosion, landslides, and unstable soil conditions.

Policy SA 1-2 Ensure that all new development and construction is in conformance with all applicable building standards related to geologic and seismic safety.

Policy SA 1-3 Require geotechnical investigations to be completed prior to approval of any public safety or other critical facilities, in order to ensure that these facilities are constructed in a way that mitigates site-specific seismic and/or geologic hazards.

Policy SA 1-4 Development in areas subject to unstable soil and/or geologic conditions shall be reviewed by qualified engineers and or geologists prior to development in order to ensure the safety and stability of all new construction.

Policy SA 1-5 Require an erosion and sediment control plan prepared by a civil engineer, or other professional who is qualified to prepare such a plan, as part of any grading permit application for new development. The erosion and sediment control plan shall

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 77 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
delineate measures to appropriately and effectively minimize soil erosion and sedimentation.

Policy SA 1-6 All structures and building foundations requiring a building permit located within areas containing expansive soils, or other soils conditions which, if not corrected, would lead to structural defects, or unsafe conditions, shall be reviewed by a qualified engineer, who shall recommend corrective actions as appropriate to remedy onsite soil conditions.

Policy SA 1-7 All structures and additions requiring a building permit shall be designed and engineered to comply with the most current version of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24.

Action CON 4b Require all development, infrastructure, and other ground-disturbing projects to comply with the following conditions in the event of an inadvertent discovery of cultural resources or human remains:
• If construction or grading activities result in the discovery of significant historic or prehistoric archaeological artifacts or unique paleontological resources, all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease, the Planning Department shall be notified, the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian for appropriate protection and preservation measures; and work may only resume when appropriate protections are in place and have been approved by the Planning Department.

City of Milpitas Municipal Code
Title II, Chapter 13 of the Milpitas Municipal Code sets forth rules, regulations and controls on grading, excavation, paving, and earth work construction to ensure that that the design, scope and location of grading and related activities cause minimum disturbance to terrain and natural features, to provide erosion control and to prevent sedimentation or damage to off-site property.

Existing Conditions
Regional Geologic Conditions
The City of Milpitas is located within the northeastern Santa Clara Valley, a broad alluvial basin underlain by sedimentary and metamorphic rocks of the Franciscan Complex. The Santa Clara Valley is bounded by the Diablo Range to the east and the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west. The Valley was formed when sediments derived from both mountain ranges were exposed by tectonic uplift and regression of the inland sea which previously inundated this area.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 78 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
On-Site Geologic Conditions
Soils
Based on the test bores drilled as part of a geotechnical report (Appendix C) , subsurface soils on the project site are categorized as younger Holocene-era alluvial fan deposits. The predominant soils underlying the project site consist of a surficial layer of stiff to very stiff lean clay and fat clay deposits that extend to the maximum depth of 61.5 feet bgs. Soils encountered during these borings had a Plasticity Index (PI) greater than 15 and were characterized as having a moderate to high expansion potential.

Seismicity
The project site is located within the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area. The San Francisco Bay Area contains several faults that are capable of generating earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or higher. Active faults closest to the project site are listed below in Table 4.7-1.

Table 4.7-1 Faults Nearest to Project Site
Fault Name Approximate Distance (mi) Orientation from Site Silver Creek 1.9 Southwest
Hayward – Southeast Extension 2.4 Northeast
Hayward Fault – Main Trace 5.5 South/Southwest
Calaveras 5.9 East
Source: United States Geologic Survey. “Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States.” Accessed January 10, 2024. https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake-hazards/faults?qtscience_support_page_related_con=4#qt-science_support_page_related_con The project site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Map.50
Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading
Soil liquefaction occurs when a cohesionless saturated or partially saturated soil substantially loses strength and stiffness in response to an applied stress, such as shaking during an earthquake or other sudden change in stress conditions, in which soil material that is ordinarily a solid behaves like a liquid. It is associated with loose, low-plasticity soils and near-surface groundwater levels. Soil qualities highly prone to liquefaction include clean, loose, saturated, uniformly graded, fine-grained sands. Soil characteristics moderately prone to liquefaction are loose to medium dense gravels, silty sands, low-plasticity silts, and some low-plasticity clays. The project site is in a Liquefaction Hazard Zone according to the State Hazard Zones map.51 However, based upon the boring samples collected 50 California Geological Survey. “Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation”. Map. January 9, 2024. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/App/. 51 Ibid.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 79 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
which exhibited moderately to highly expansive stiff to very stiff cohesive materials, the risk of liquefaction is low.

Lateral spreading typically occurs as a form of horizontal displacement of relatively flat-lying soil toward an open or “free” face such as an open body of water, channel, or excavation. This movement is often associated with liquefaction and commonly occurs on gentle slopes in seismically active regions. Lateral spread presents a significant hazard to the integrity of buildings and other structures.

The project site crosses over the Penitencia East Channel, which exhibits a steep slope on either side of the stream bank that may act as a free face for lateral spreading should subsurface soils liquefy during a seismic event.

Landslides
Landslides occur when slopes become unstable, and masses of earth material move downslope.

Landslides are generally considered to be rapid events, often triggered during periods of rainfall or by earthquakes. Hilly or slope areas have a tendency to fail and result in landslides. The project site is not located in Landslide Hazard Zone.
52 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in the test bores on-site at 11 feet bgs (Appendix C). Groundwater levels can fluctuate for a variety of factors, including seasonal precipitation, extraction from wells, and recharge due to irrigation or other methods.

Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources are the mineralized (fossilized) remains of organisms, exclusive of human remains or artifacts, from prehistoric environments. The project site is situated on younger alluvial fan deposits of Holocene age that are considered sensitive for vertebrate fossils, which are considered a significant paleontological resource. There are no unique geologic features (i.e. bedrock, rock outcroppings) or known paleontological resources present on-site, and the nearest fossil recovery site is located 2.5 miles to the east.53
52 California Geological Survey. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Accessed January 10, 2024. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/eqzapp/app/. 53 Macrostrat. Geologic Map. January 9, 2024. https://macrostrat.org/map/#/z=14.0/x=- 121.8809/y=37.4069/bedrock/lines/satellite/fossils/columns/

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 80 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024

4.7.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
- Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault (refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42)?
- Strong seismic ground shaking?
- Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
- Landslides?
2) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
4) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the
current California Building Code, creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or
property?
5) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of wastewater?
6) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature?

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 81 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Impact GEO-1: The project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or landslides. (Less than Significant Impact)
Fault Rupture
The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone; accordingly, the probability of fault rupture at the site is low. Therefore, the risk of a known earthquake fault rupture causing substantial adverse effects, including loss, injury, or death as a result of the project would be less than significant.

Seismic Ground Shaking
The project site is located within the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area. The faults in this region are capable of generating earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or higher. During an earthquake, very strong ground shaking could occur at the project site. The proposed bridge would be constructed in compliance with the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Bridge Design Specifications, the soil investigation requirements of the City of Milpitas Municipal Code and Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, and applicable General Plan policies (Policies SA 1-1 through 1.7). The bridge abutments supporting the bridge span would be constructed to resist lateral pressures from the ground and from vehicles above.

Additionally, back drains would be installed behind the bridge abutments to relieve hydrostatic pressure pushing against the abutments. Consistent with General Plan Policy SA 1-3, the project has completed a geotechnical investigation to ensure the project is constructed to mitigate seismic hazards. Adherence to the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria, AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications, City’s General Plan and Municipal Code, and the recommendations of a design-level geotechnical report would ensure that the proposed structures would not result in seismic hazards. As such, the existing seismic hazards on the project site would not be exacerbated, and therefore the risk of seismic ground shaking causing substantial adverse effects, including loss, injury, or death as a result of the project would be less than significant.

Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading
As discussed under Section 4.7.1.2, the proposed project site is located within a Liquefaction Hazard Zone, however the geotechnical investigation determined that there is low risk of liquefaction due to the stiff to very stiff cohesive soil material present. The proposed bridge foundations would be built above and outside of the creek’s upper banks and would not interfere with the stream channel and existing floodway design.

The steep slopes on either side of the East Penitencia Channel are potentially at risk of lateral spreading, should liquefaction of soils located upslope occur. However, as previously noted, soils within the project site are stiff to very stiff, and therefore not at risk of liquefaction. Accordingly, the likelihood of lateral spreading occurring on either side of the East Penitencia Channel is low.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 82 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Furthermore, adherence to the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria, AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications, City’s General Plan and Municipal Code, and the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation would ensure that the risk of liquefaction and associated lateral spreading causing substantial adverse effects, including loss, injury, or death as a result of the project would be less than significant.

Landslides
The project is not located in a Landslide Hazard Zone.54 The project would not change the topography of the site and surrounding area such that the likelihood of landslides occurring would increase. Accordingly, the risk of landslides causing substantial adverse effects, including loss, injury, or death as a result of the project would be less than significant.

Impact GEO-2: The project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. (Less than Significant Impact)
Construction activities (e.g., grading and excavation) could temporarily increase sedimentation and erosion by exposing on-site soils to wind and runoff. The project would be required to comply with General Plan Policy SA 1-5, which requires preparation of an erosion and sediment control plan. The report must address site soil conditions, including measures to effectively minimize soil erosion and sedimentation. Additionally, the project would be required to comply with General Plan Policies UCS 4-2, UCS 4-4, AND UCS-4.14, which would require the project to comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit requirements, including preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of best management practices to minimize pollutant discharge during construction. By implementing standard grading and best management practices as required by Title II, Chapter 13 of the Milpitas Municipal Code and the recommendations of the erosion and sediment control plan, erosion and sedimentation impacts would be less than significant.

Impact GEO-3: The project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. (Less than Significant Impact)
As discussed under Section 4.7.1.2 and Impact GEO-1, the project site is located within a statedesignated Liquefaction Hazard Zone; however, there is low risk of liquefaction due to the stiff to very still cohesive soil material present. By conforming with applicable regulations and the recommendations of a design-level geotechnical report, the project would not result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse and would have a less than significant impact.
54 California Geological Survey. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Accessed January 10, 2024. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/eqzapp/app/

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 83 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Impact GEO-4: The project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in the current California Building Code, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. (Less than Significant Impact)
Pursuant to the CBC, soils with a plasticity index (PI) of 15 or less are not considered expansive. As documented in Section 4.7.1.2 Existing Conditions, soils on-site have a PI in excess of 15 and are moderately to highly expansive. Although expansive soils can be a hazard, it is generally mitigated through adherence with standard engineering and building practices as well as the applicable elements of City building and fire codes. As discussed in Impact GEO-1, the project would be constructed in conformance with the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria, AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications, City’s General Plan and Municipal Code, and the recommendations of a design-level geotechnical report, which would reduce impacts related to expansive soils to less than significant.

Impact GEO-5: The project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. (No Impact)
The project site is located within an urbanized area of Milpitas where sewers are available to dispose wastewater. The proposed bridge and roadway connections would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.

Impact GEO-6: The project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
There are no known paleontological resources and no unique geologic features on the project site.

However, construction of the project would require excavations up to 60 feet bgs for each of the bridge piers. Additionally, the project site is underlain by younger Holocene-era alluvial fan deposits where the potential to discover vertebrate fossils exists. Therefore, construction-related ground disturbing activities could significantly impact unknown subsurface paleontological resources, if encountered.

Mitigation Measure: Implementation of the following mitigation would ensure impacts to paleontological resources or geologic features are less than significant:

MM GEO-6.1: A qualified paleontologist shall attend a preconstruction meeting to ensure construction workers are able to identify potential paleontological resources.

In the event fossils are encountered, construction shall be temporarily halted.

The City’s Engineering Department shall be notified immediately, a qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the fossils, and steps needed to photo document and recover the fossils shall be taken.

With implementation of MM GEO-6.1, the project would identify and preserve any undiscovered paleontological resources encountered during construction and ensure that impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 84 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The following discussion is based, in part, on an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment and an Update to the Air Quality Impact Analysis Memo prepared for the project by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. The reports, dated November 10, 2021 and November 20, 2023, are attached to this Initial Study as Appendix A.

4.8.1 Environmental Setting
Background Information
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, GHGs, regulate the earth’s temperature. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. In GHG emission inventories, the weight of each gas is multiplied by its global warming potential (GWP) and is measured in units of CO2 equivalents (CO2e). The most common GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor but there are also several others, most importantly methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These are released into the earth’s atmosphere through a variety of natural processes and human activities.

Sources of GHGs are generally as follows:
• CO2 and N2O are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. • N2O is associated with agricultural operations such as fertilization of crops. • CH4 is commonly created by off-gassing from agricultural practices (e.g., keeping livestock) and landfill operations.
• Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were widely used as refrigerants, propellants, and cleaning solvents, but their production has been stopped by international treaty. • HFCs are now used as a substitute for CFCs in refrigeration and cooling. • PFCs and SF6 emissions are commonly created by industries such as aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing.

An expanding body of scientific research supports the theory that global climate change is currently causing changes in weather patterns, average sea level, ocean acidification, chemical reaction rates, and precipitation rates, and that it will increasingly do so in the future. The climate and several naturally occurring resources within California are adversely affected by the global warming trend.

Increased precipitation and sea level rise will increase coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion, and degradation of wetlands. Mass migration and/or loss of plant and animal species could also occur.

Potential effects of global climate change that could adversely affect human health include more extreme heat waves and heat-related stress; an increase in climate-sensitive diseases; more frequent and intense natural disasters such as flooding, hurricanes and drought; and increased levels of air pollution.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 85 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Regulatory Framework
Federal
Clean Air Act
The EPA is the federal agency responsible for implementing the Clean Air Act. The U.S. Supreme Court in its 2007 decision in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., ruled that CO2 is an air pollutant as defined under the Clean Air Act, and that EPA has the authority to regulate emissions of GHGs. Following the court decision, EPA has taken actions to regulate, monitor, and potentially reduce GHG emissions (primarily mobile emissions).

State
Assembly Bill 32
Under the California Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as Assembly Bill (AB) 32, CARB established a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020, adopted mandatory reporting rules for significant sources of GHGs, and adopted a comprehensive plan, known as the Climate Change Scoping Plan, identifying how emission reductions would be achieved from significant GHG sources.

In 2016, Senate Bill (SB) 32 was signed into law, amending the California Global Warming Solution Act. SB 32, and accompanying Executive Order B-30-15, require CARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030. CARB updated its Climate Change Scoping Plan in December of 2017 to express the 2030 statewide target in terms of million metric tons of CO2e (MMTCO2e). Based on the emissions reductions directed by SB 32, the annual 2030 statewide target emissions level for California is 260 MMTCO2e.

Senate Bill 375
SB 375, known as the Sustainable Communities Strategy and Climate Protection Act, was signed into law in September 2008. SB 375 builds upon AB 32 by requiring CARB to develop regional GHG reduction targets for automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035. The per capita GHG emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles in the San Francisco Bay Area include a seven percent reduction by 2020 and a 15 percent reduction by 2035.

Consistent with the requirements of SB 375, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) partnered with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), BAAQMD, and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission to prepare the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of the Regional Transportation Plan process. The SCS is referred to as Plan Bay Area 2040. Plan Bay Area 2040 establishes a course for reducing per capita GHG emissions through the promotion of compact, high-density, mixed-use neighborhoods near transit, particularly within identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs).

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 86 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Regional
2017 Clean Air Plan
To protect the climate, the 2017 CAP (prepared by BAAQMD) includes control measures designed to reduce emissions of methane and other super-GHGs that are potent climate pollutants in the nearterm, and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion.

BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
In April 2022, the BAAQMD Board of Directors adopted the Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans. The report includes BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance for use in determining whether a proposed project or plan will have a significant impact on climate change and provides substantial evidence to support these thresholds. The April 2022 GHG thresholds replace the GHG thresholds set forth in the May 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and represent what is required of new land use development projects and plans to achieve California’s long-term climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045.

Local
City of Milpitas General Plan 2040
The following policies and actions in the City’s General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating greenhouse gas emission impacts resulting from planned development within the City, including the following:

Policies/Actions Description
Policy CIR 1-3 Promote interconnectivity of the transportation network in existing and new developments and actively measure the quality of conditions in neighborhoods to better understand what barriers exist in order to support use of and access to the network.

Policy CIR 1-4 Coordinate development of safe, inclusive, and health-promoting transportation infrastructure with local, county, regional, and state agencies to optimize efficiency of the transportation network for all users and increase opportunities for physical activity for all types of users.

Policy CIR 6-2 Support development of healthier communities through the use of lower- or non-polluting modes of transportation to reduce GHG vehicle emissions and local air pollution levels.

Action CIR-1j Seek opportunities to eliminate close walking and bicycling network gaps across barriers to mobility, including I-680, I-880, SR 237, and the Union Pacific and BART tracks.

Action CIR-4q Make improvements to roads, signs, and traffic signals as needed to improve accessible, safe, and convenient bicycle and pedestrian travel.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 87 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Policies/Actions Description
Policy CON 7-1 Ensure that land use and transportation plans support air quality goals through a logical development pattern that focuses growth in and around existing urbanized areas, locates new housing near places of employment, encourages alternative modes of transportation, supports efficient parking strategies, reduces vehicle miles traveled, and requires projects to mitigate significant air quality impacts.

Policy CON 7-4 Require projects to adhere to the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).

Policy CON 7-5 Use the City’s development review process and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate and mitigate the local and cumulative effects of new development on air quality.

Policy CON 7-7 Comply with regional, state, and federal standards and programs for control of all airborne pollutants and noxious odors, regardless of source.

Policy CON 7-11 Encourage improvements and design features that reduce vehicle delay such as bus turnouts, and synchronized traffic signals for new development to reduce excessive vehicle emissions caused by idling.

Policy CON 7-12 Encourage and prioritize infrastructure investments and improvements that promote safe walking, bicycling and increased transit ridership.

Action CON-7f Use the BAAQMD “Air Quality Guidelines”, as amended, or replaced, in identifying thresholds, evaluating the potential project and cumulative impacts, and determining appropriate mitigation measures. Review development, infrastructure, and planning projects for consistency with BAAQMD requirements during the CEQA review process. Require project applicants to prepare air quality analyses to address BAAQMD, and General Plan requirements, which includes analysis and identification of:
• Air pollutant emissions associated with the project during construction, project operation, and cumulative conditions;
• Potential exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants; • Significant air quality impacts associated with the project for construction, project operation, and cumulative conditions; and • Mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to less than significant or the maximum extent feasible where impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant.

City of Milpitas Climate Action Plan
The City of Milpitas’ Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update was adopted in 2022. It is designed to streamline environmental review of future development projects in the City of Milpitas consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) and the BAAQMD Air Quality Guidelines. The CAP identifies a strategy, reduction measures, and implementation strategies to comply with AB 32 and SB 375. The CAP establishes a local GHG reduction target of 36 percent below 2019 levels by 2030; 79 percent below 2019 levels by 2040; and carbon neutrality by 2045. The city’s 2030 target requires GHG emissions to be reduced to 283,817 MTCO2e in 2030. The 2040 target, which the City has set based upon the trajectory necessary to meet the 2045 goal, requires community emissions to be

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 88 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
reduced to 94,606 MTCO2e in 2040. The 2040 goal is intended to align with the General Plan 2040 horizon year. To that end, the CAP includes the following policies which are intended to conserve energy and promote alternative modes of transportation:

Measures Description
TR-1.1 Reduce VMT from new development in compliance with SB 743.

TR-3.2 Increase transit ridership.

City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
The MMSP adopted the following policies for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating greenhouse gas emissions impacts resulting from planned development within the MMSP area, including the following:

Policies Description
M 8 Establish and implement a travel demand management (TDM) program with the noncompulsory goal of reducing VMT by 15 percent or more below the regional baseline per employee or resident and efficiently provides parking that meet the needs of residents, employees, and visitors. TDM measures should be incorporated into all new development and may be implemented by individual uses or through Transportation Management Association (TMA) oversight.

M 8.1 The TMA is responsible for monitoring trip reduction, VMT targets, and services within the planning area. Participation in the TMA is required of all new development and optional for existing uses.

M 5.1 Create a complete pedestrian and bicycle network that connects trails and pathways and includes continuous sidewalks and safe bike travel routes throughout the entire Milpitas Metro Area.

Existing Conditions
Unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants, which have regional and local impacts, emissions of GHGs have a broader, global impact. Global warming is a process whereby GHGs accumulating in the upper atmosphere contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth and changes in the weather patterns.

The project site is currently developed with an approximately 41,307 square foot vacant office building and associated surface parking lot. The existing development generates GHGs through building heating and cooling, electricity use, solid waste disposal, and vehicle travel to and from the site, including freight deliveries.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 89 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024

4.8.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
2) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of GHGs?
Thresholds of Significance
Pursuant with BAAQMD, for land use projects to result in a less than significant GHG emissions impact, the land use project would need to comply with threshold A or B below.

A. Projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements:

1. Buildings
a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development).
b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

2. Transportation
c. Achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA:
i. Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita ii. Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee iii. Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT
iv. Achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.

B. Be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)
At the time the Air Quality and GH Assessment was prepared, the City did not have a qualified CAP and BAAQMD was still using quantified emissions thresholds. Therefore, the Air Quality and GHG Assessment uses a bright-line threshold of 660 MT CO2e/year based on the GHG reduction goals of EO B-30-15. The 2030 bright-line threshold of 660 MT CO2e/year is a 40 percent reduction of the 2020 1,100 MT CO2e/year threshold, which coincides with the 40 percent reduction in 1990 GHG emissions by 2030 per SB 32.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 90 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Impact GHG-1: The project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. (Less than Significant Impact)
Construction Emissions
Short-term GHG emissions from the construction phase of the project would consist primarily of heavy equipment exhaust, worker travel, materials delivery, and solid waste disposal. Neither the City of Milpitas nor BAAQMD have an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions; however, BAAQMD recommends disclosing that GHG emissions would occur during construction. BAAQMD also encourages the incorporation of best management practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction where feasible and applicable. Because construction would be temporary (approximately 18 months) and would not result in a permanent increase in emissions, the project would not interfere with the implementation of AB 32 or SB 32.

Operational Emissions
The project would generate GHG emissions in the form of vehicle exhaust associated with projectgenerated traffic. GHG emissions generated by the project were estimated using a combination of RCEM and CalEEMod in accordance with the guidance provided in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The GHG emissions associated with the existing office development were estimated using CalEEMod and subtracted from GHG emissions associated with the project to calculate the net increase in GHG emissions. The modeling assumptions and methodology, data inputs, and results are described further in Appendix A of this Initial Study. Table 4.8-1 below shows the annual GHG emissions resulting from operation of the proposed project.

Table 4.8-1: Calculated GHG Emissions of Existing Development and Proposed Project Source Category Existing Use Proposed Project
Area 0.0 N/A
Energy Consumption 106.8 N/A
Mobile 227.5 10.3
Solid Waste Generation 19.3 N/A
Water Usage 9.7 N/A
Total GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/yr) 363.3 10.3
Net GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/yr) -353.1
Bright-Line Significance Threshold 660 MT CO2e/yr.

Exceed Threshold? No
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. S. Milpitas Boulevard Vehicular Bridge Air Quality Assessment. November 10, 2021.

As shown in Table 4.8-1, the proposed project would result in a net reduction in GHG emissions of 353.1 MT CO2e per year, which would not exceed the bright-line threshold of 660 MT CO2e/yr.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 91 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Therefore, the project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

In addition, the City’s Climate Action Plan Update is a qualified GHG reduction strategy that is designed to meet statewide GHG reduction targets for 2030 set by SB 32. Projects that comply with the policies and strategies outlined in the City’s CAP would have less than significant GHG impacts under CEQA. The proposed bridge and roadway connection would improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and would reduce VMT (refer to the discussion under Section 4.17 Transportation under Impact TRN-2). For these reasons, the project would be consistent with the City’s CAP and would result in less than significant GHG impacts.

Impact GHG-2: The project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. (No Impact) As discussed under Impact GHG-1, the project would result in a net reduction in GHG emissions in comparison with the existing development. Accordingly, the project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, and would not conflict with AB 32, SB 32, the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, or the 2022 City of Milpitas Climate Action Plan Update.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 92 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.9.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Overview
The storage, use, generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste are highly regulated under federal and state laws. In California, the EPA has granted most enforcement authority over federal hazardous materials regulations to the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). In turn, local agencies have been granted responsibility for implementation and enforcement of many hazardous materials regulations under the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) program.

Worker health and safety and public safety are key issues when dealing with hazardous materials.

Proper handling and disposal of hazardous material is vital if it is disturbed during project construction. Cal/OSHA enforces state worker health and safety regulations related to construction activities. Regulations include exposure limits, requirements for protective clothing, and training requirements to prevent exposure to hazardous materials. Cal/OSHA also enforces occupational health and safety regulations specific to lead and asbestos investigations and abatement.

Federal and State
Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77
Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77 Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace (FAR Part 77) sets forth standards and review requirements for protecting the airspace for safe aircraft operation, particularly by restricting the height of potential structures and minimizing other potential hazards (such as reflective surfaces, flashing lights, and electronic interference) to aircraft in flight. These regulations require that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) be notified of certain proposed construction projects located within an extended zone defined by an imaginary slope radiating outward for several miles from an airport’s runways, or which would otherwise stand at least 200 feet in height above the ground.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. This law created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and provided broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. Over five years, $1.6 billion was collected and the tax went to a trust fund for cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. CERCLA accomplished the following objectives:
• Established prohibitions and requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites;

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 93 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
• Provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and
• Established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified.

The law authorizes two kinds of response actions:
• Short-term removals, where actions may be taken to address releases or threatened releases requiring prompt response; and
• Long-term remedial response actions that permanently and significantly reduce the dangers associated with releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances that are serious, but not immediately life-threatening. These actions can be completed only at sites listed on the EPA’s National Priorities List.

CERCLA also enabled the revision of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP provided the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The NCP also established the National Priorities List.

CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act on October 17, 1986.55
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted in 1976, is the principal federal law in the United States governing the disposal of solid waste and hazardous waste. RCRA gives the EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the "cradle to the grave." This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also sets forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes.

The Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) are the 1984 amendments to RCRA that focused on waste minimization, phasing out land disposal of hazardous waste, and corrective action for releases. Some of the other mandates of this law include increased enforcement authority for the EPA, more stringent hazardous waste management standards, and a comprehensive underground storage tank program.56
Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List)
Section 65962.5 of the Government Code requires CalEPA to develop and update a list of hazardous waste and substances sites, known as the Cortese List. The Cortese List is used by state and local agencies and developers to comply with CEQA requirements. The Cortese List includes hazardous substance release sites identified by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).57
55 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Superfund: CERCLA Overview.” Accessed January 9, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cercla-overview. 56 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Summary of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.” Accessed January 9, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-resource-conservation-and-recovery-act. 57 California Environmental Protection Agency. “Cortese List Data Resources.” Accessed January 9, 2024. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 94 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 provides the EPA with authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. Certain substances are generally excluded from TSCA, including, among others, food, drugs, cosmetics, and pesticides. The TSCA addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, radon, and leadbased paint.

Asbestos-Containing Materials
Friable asbestos is any asbestos containing material (ACM) that, when dry, can easily be crumbled or pulverized to a powder by hand, allowing the asbestos particles to become airborne. Common examples of products that have been found to contain friable asbestos include acoustical ceilings, plaster, wallboard, and thermal insulation for water heaters and pipes. Common examples of nonfriable ACMs are asphalt roofing shingles, vinyl floor tiles, and transite siding made with cement.

The EPA phased out use of friable asbestos products between 1973 and 1978. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants guidelines require that potentially friable ACMs be removed prior to building demolition or remodeling that may disturb the ACMs.

Lead Based Paint
In 1978, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission lowered the permissible levels of lead contained in paints and banned consumer uses of lead-based paint. Lead paint is still present in millions of buildings, sometimes under layers of newer paint. If the paint is in good shape, the lead paint is usually not a problem. Deteriorating lead-based paint (peeling, chipping, chalking, cracking, damaged, or damp) is a hazard and needs immediate attention. Exposure to lead can result in deleterious effects to adults, including cardiovascular effects, increased blood pressure and incidence of hypertension, decreased kidney function, and reproductive problems (in both men and women), as well as developmental issues in children.58
California Accidental Release Prevention Program
The California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program aims to prevent accidental releases of regulated hazardous materials that represent a potential hazard beyond the boundaries of a property. Facilities that are required to participate in the CalARP Program use or store specified quantities of toxic and flammable substances (hazardous materials) that can have off-site consequences if accidentally released. The Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health reviews CalARP risk management plans as the CUPA.

Regional and Local
Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.12.f
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were produced in the United States between 1955 and 1978 and used in hundreds of industrial and commercial applications, including building and structure 58 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Learn about Lead”. Accessed January 9, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/lead/learn-about-lead.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 95 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
materials such as plasticizers, paints, sealants, caulk, and wood floor finishes. In 1979, the EPA banned the production and use of PCBs due to their potential harmful health effects and persistence in the environment. PCBs can still be released to the environment today during demolition of buildings that contain legacy caulks, sealants, or other PCB-containing materials.

With the adoption of the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (MRP) by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board on November 19, 2015, Provision C.12.f requires that permittees develop an assessment methodology for applicable structures planned for demolition to ensure PCBs do not enter municipal storm drain systems.59 Municipalities throughout the Bay Area are currently modifying demolition permit processes and implementing PCB screening protocols to comply with Provision C.12.f. Buildings constructed between 1950 and 1980 that are proposed for demolition must be screened for the presence of PCBs prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. Single family homes and wood-frame structures are exempt from these requirements.

City of Milpitas General Plan 2040
The following policies in the City’s General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of reducing or avoiding impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials and are applicable to the project.

Policies Description
Policy SA 5.1 Require hazardous waste generated within Milpitas to be disposed of in a safe manner, consistent with all applicable local, state, and federal laws.

Policy SA 5.2 Hazardous materials shall be stored in a safe manner, consistent with all applicable local, state, and federal laws.

Policy SA 5.4 Use the environmental review process to comment on Hazardous Waste Transportation, Storage and Disposal (TSD) Facilities proposed in the Milpitas Planning Area and throughout the County to request a risk assessment and ensure that potentially significant, widespread, and long-term impacts on public health and safety of these facilities are identified and mitigated, as such impacts do not respect jurisdictional boundaries.

Policy SA 5.5 As feasible, minimize the use of toxic cleaning supplies and products in civic facilities, and minimize the City’s use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers during landscaping and outdoor municipal operations.

Existing Conditions
Site History
Historically, the project site was located in an undeveloped portion of Rancho Milpitas and was surrounded by farms of cultivated crops and orchards.60 Farms ranged in size from approximately 40 to 250 acres and included a rural residence. The project site remained undeveloped until it was used for agricultural production as row crops between 1931 and 1968. Based on historic aerials of the 59 California Regional Water Quality Control Board. San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. November 2015. 60 PaleoWest, LLC. Archaeological Resources Assessment. July 28, 2021.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 96 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
project site, the existing office development on-site was constructed by 1980, when the areas to the north and south of Penitencia East Channel were developed with light industrial commercial buildings.

On-Site Sources of Contamination
The project site is on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List). According to GeoTracker, the parcel at 1831-1841 Tarob Court, Milpitas, CA 95035 has been identified as an Open Cleanup Site as a result of soil and groundwater contamination from past activities associated with circuit board manufacturing from 1979 to 2015.61 These activities included the use of a clarifier that is the probable source of the primary volatile organic compounds (VOC) release, trichloroethylene (TCE) and dichloroethane (DCE).

In 2019, approximately 75.0 cubic yards of contaminated soil was excavated at the project site along a storm drain line where secondary source TCE risk-based thresholds were exceeded. An additional

64.8 cubic yards were removed with an associated sump pump.62 In 2020, a Risk Management Plan was established identifying contamination locations, soil and groundwater management requirements for future earthwork, and requirements for future development projects. A deed restriction was applied to the property to limit uses as a roadway or open-air park due to the presence of contaminated soil, soil vapors, and groundwater. The RWQCB concluded that with the completed remediation activities and limitation of future land uses, the subject parcel does not require further active remediation.63 However, the parcel’s status remains open.64 Off-Site Sources of Contamination
Based on soil vapor testing conducted between 2017 and 2020, the project site has not been contaminated by any hazardous materials (including those that can be attributed to off-site sources) beyond those described above under On-Site Sources of Contamination.65 Airport Hazards
The nearest airport is the Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport, which is located approximately three miles southwest of the City of Milpitas. According to the Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the City of Milpitas is not located within an airport safety zone.
61 California State Water Resources Control Board. “GeoTracker, 1841 Tarob Court.” January 9, 2024. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/case_summary?global_id=T10000008880. 62 Montgomery, Michael. Executive Officer, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Personal Communication. March 26, 2020.
63 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. No Further Remedial Action Required – former Dynamic Circuits Sites, 1831 Tarob Court, Milpitas, Santa Clara County. August 10, 2020. 64 West, Kimberlee. Engineer, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Personal Communication.

August 13, 2020.
65 McCloskey Consultants. Site Plan-Soil Vapor Sampling Results for 355 Sango Court including 1831 Tarob Court.

Attachment to Kimberlee West Personal Communication. August 18, 2020

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 97 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Wildfire Hazards
The project site is not located in a designated Wildland Fire Hazard or Wildland/Urban Interface Hazard Area.
66 4.9.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
3) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
4) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as
a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
5) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, result in a safety hazard
or excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?
6) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
7) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires?
66 CAL FIRE. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Accessed January 9, 2024. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 98 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Impact HAZ-1: The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. (Less than Significant Impact)
Construction of the project would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials, including vehicle fuels, oils, and fluids. All hazardous materials would be transported, contained, stored, used, and disposed of in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and would be handled in compliance with all applicable standards and regulations. Construction-related hazardous materials use would be temporary, and would not constitute routine transport, use, or disposal.

The proposed project would demolish the existing office building at 1831-1841 Tarob Court, Milpitas, CA 95035. According to the Milpitas Building & Safety E-Permit Center, the office building was constructed in 1980 and may include materials that contain PCBs. PCBs in building materials could be released and thereby exposed to stormwater runoff from the project site during rain events. To address this risk, the City must submit a PCB Screening Assessment Form to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.67 The form is designed to ascertain whether or not the building targeted for demolition is subject to the PCB Screening Assessment. If the on-site building does contain PCBs that exceed threshold limits, the City must follow applicable federal and state laws, including complying with the reporting requirements of the EPA, RWQCB, and DTSC, and additional sampling and abatement of PCBs if determined necessary by the oversight agency.

Adherence to this process would result in a less than significant impact related to PCBs.

Small quantities of maintenance chemicals and herbicides and pesticides used in landscaping would be used in operation of the proposed project. No hazardous materials would be stored on-site. These materials would be managed in accordance with existing laws and regulations that ensure that the routine transport, storage, use, and disposal of these materials would not result in a significant hazard to the public or environment. As a result, the project would have a less than significant impact.

Impact HAZ-2: The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Soil and Groundwater Contamination
As described in Section 4.9.1.2 Existing Conditions, the project site has been the subject of remediation activities due to soil and groundwater contamination (VOC, TCE, and DCE). A deed restriction was applied to the property to limit uses as a roadway or open-air park due the presence of contaminated soil, soil vapors, and groundwater. When soil disturbance occurs, these contaminants can become airborne and pose a health hazard to construction workers, nearby sensitive receptors, and the environment.
67 City of Milpitas. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Screening Assessment Application Package. May 2019.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 99 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Mitigation Measures: Consistent with General Plan Action SA-5a, the following mitigation measure would be required to reduce risks to construction workers, nearby sensitive receptors, and the environment.

MM HAZ-2.1: Prior to demolition and grading, a Risk Management Plan (RMP) shall be prepared to protect the health and safety of construction workers and site users adjacent to construction activities. The RMP shall be implemented during all phases of construction and shall include engineering controls, monitoring, and security measures to prevent unauthorized entry to the construction site and to reduce hazards outside of the construction site. The RMP shall address the possibility of encountering subsurface hazards and include procedures to protect workers and the public. The RMP shall also include procedures for managing soils and groundwater removed from the site to ensure that any excavated soils and/or dewatered groundwater with contaminants are stored, managed, and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations and permits. Protocols for the handling, transport, and disposal of both known and previously unidentified hazardous materials that may be encountered during project development shall be specified. If prescribed exposure levels are exceeded, personal protective equipment shall be required for workers in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. Finally, the RMP shall also include procedures for the use, storage, disposal, of hazardous materials used during construction activities to prevent the accidental release of these materials into the environment during construction.

With implementation of mitigation measure MM HAZ-2.1 above, contaminated soils on-site would be properly identified, characterized, removed and disposed of prior to ground-disturbing activities, thus preventing exposure of construction workers, nearby sensitive receptors, and the environment to soil contaminants from construction of the project.

Asbestos-Containing Materials and Lead Based Paint
The project proposes to demolish the existing office building and associated surface parking lot located at 1831-1841 Tarob Court, Milpitas, CA 95035, which was constructed by 1980 and may contain ACMs and surfaces coated with lead based paint. Demolition of the existing office development could result in the release of ACMs and lead-based paint to the environment, if appropriate control measures are not implemented.

Mitigation Measures: Consistent with General Plan Action SA-5a, the following mitigation measure would be required to reduce risks to construction workers, nearby sensitive receptors, and the environment.

MM HAZ-2.2: To reduce the potential for construction workers and nearby sensitive receptor to be exposed to hazardous materials (asbestos containing materials [ACMs] and lead-based paint), the following measures shall be incorporated at all times during the construction of the project.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 100 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
• In conformance with state and local laws, a visual inspection/predemolition survey, and possible sampling, shall be conducted prior to the demolition of on-site building(s) to determine the presence of asbestoscontaining materials and/or lead-based paints. • Prior to demolition, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed in accordance with the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Lead in Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the type of lead being disposed.
• All potentially friable asbestos-containing materials shall be removed in accordance with National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants guidelines prior to demolition or renovation activities that may disturb asbestos-containing materials. All demolition activities shall be undertaken in accordance with the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health standards contained in Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Section 1529, to protect workers from asbestos exposure. • A registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of asbestos-containing materials identified in the asbestos survey performed for the site in accordance with the standards stated above.
• Materials containing more than one-percent asbestos are also subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulations. Removal of materials containing more than one-percent asbestos shall be completed in accordance with Bay Area Air Quality Management District requirements and notifications.
• Based on California Division of Occupational Safety and Health rules and regulations, the following conditions are required to limit impacts to construction workers.
o Prior to commencement of demolition activities, a building survey, including sampling and testing, shall be completed to identify and quantify building materials containing lead-based paint. o During demolition activities, all building materials containing leadbased paint shall be removed in accordance with the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring and dust control.
o Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the type of waste being disposed.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 101 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Implementation of MM HAZ-2.2 would result in all ACMs and lead-based paint being properly identified and removed prior to demolition, thus preventing the exposure of these materials to construction workers, nearby sensitive receptors, and the environment. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Impact HAZ-3: The project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
There is one existing school, Stratford Elementary School, within one-quarter mile of the project site.

Hazardous materials used in construction and operation of the proposed project would be managed in accordance with existing laws and regulations that ensure these materials do not pose a significant hazard to the public or environment. Hazardous emissions related to airborne contaminated soil particulates would be reduced to less than significant levels through the mitigation measures outlined under Impact HAZ-2.

Impact HAZ-4: The project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) As discussed above in Section 4.9.1.2 Existing Conditions, the project site is listed as an Open Cleanup Program Site on the Cortese List. A deed restriction was applied to the property to limit uses as a roadway or open-air park due the presence of contaminated soil, soil vapors, and groundwater.

The RWQCB concluded that with the completed remediation activities and limitation of future land uses, the subject parcel does not require further active remediation.68 As discussed under Impact HAZ-2, with implementation of MM HAZ-2.1, the contaminated soil on-site would not pose a substantial hazard to construction workers or nearby sensitive receptors. For these reasons, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment.

Impact HAZ-5: The project would not be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. (No Impact) The project site is located approximately three miles northeast of the Mineta San José International Airport and is not located within the Airport Influence Area as defined by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
69 Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.
68 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. No Further Remedial Action Required – former Dynamic Circuits Sites, 1831 Tarob Court, Milpitas, Santa Clara County. August 10, 2020. 69 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Norman Y. Mineta San JOSE International Airport. November 2016. Figure 8.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 102 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Impact HAZ-6: The project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Less than Significant Impact)
Development of the proposed project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The project would improve access across the Penitencia East Channel to and from the Milpitas BART Station/Milpitas Transit Station and surrounding neighborhoods. The project does not contain characteristics that would impair the performance of the 2021 City’s Emergency Management Program Assessment and Implementation Plan. For these reasons, the proposed project would not impair implementation or physically interfere with emergency plans and would have a less than significant impact.

Impact HAZ-7: The project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. (No Impact)
As discussed under Section 4.9.1.2 Existing Conditions, the project site is not within a Wildland Fire Hazard or Wildland/Urban Interface Area; therefore, the project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to an increased significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 103 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The following discussion is based, in part, on an East Penitencia Creek Bridge Crossing Hydraulic Analysis prepared by Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers on September 4, 2020. The report is included in this Initial Study as Appendix E.

4.10.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act are the primary laws related to water quality in California. The Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 303, establishes water quality standards and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) programs. The 303(d) list is a list of impaired water bodies.

Regulations set forth by the EPA and the SWRCB have been developed to fulfill the requirements of this legislation. EPA regulations include the NPDES permit program, which controls sources that discharge pollutants into the waters of the U.S. (e.g., streams, lakes, bays, etc.). These regulations are implemented at the regional level by the RWQCBs. The project site is within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB.

National Flood Insurance Program
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to reduce impacts of flooding on private and public properties. The program provides subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations protecting development in floodplains. As part of the program, FEMA publishes Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that identify Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). An SFHA is an area that would be inundated by the one-percent annual chance flood, which is also referred to as the base flood or 100- year flood.

Statewide Construction General Permit
The SWRCB has implemented an NPDES General Construction Permit for the State of California (Construction General Permit). For projects disturbing one acre or more of soil, a Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed with the RWQCB by the project sponsor, and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared by a qualified professional prior to commencement of construction and filed with the RWQCB by the project sponsor. The Construction General Permit includes requirements for training, inspections, record keeping, and, for projects of certain risk levels, monitoring. The general purpose of the requirements is to minimize the discharge of pollutants and to protect beneficial uses and receiving waters from the adverse effects of construction-related storm water discharges.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 104 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Regional
San Francisco Bay Basin Plan
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulates water quality in accordance with the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan lists the beneficial uses that the San Francisco Bay RWQCB has identified for local aquifers, streams, marshes, rivers, and the San Francisco Bay, as well as the water quality objectives and criteria that must be met to protect these uses. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB implements the Basin Plan by issuing and enforcing waste discharge requirements, including permits for nonpoint sources such as the urban runoff discharged by a City’s stormwater drainage system. The Basin Plan also describes watershed management programs and water quality attainment strategies.

Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.3
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB re-issued the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) in 2015 to regulate stormwater discharges from municipalities and local agencies (copermittees) in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, and the cities of Fairfield, Suisun City, and Vallejo.70 Under Provision C.3 of the MRP, new and redevelopment projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area are required to implement site design, source control, and Low Impact Development (LID)-based stormwater treatment controls to treat post-construction stormwater runoff. LID-based treatment controls are intended to maintain or restore the site’s natural hydrologic functions, maximizing opportunities for infiltration and evapotranspiration, and using stormwater as a resource (e.g. rainwater harvesting for non-potable uses). The MRP also requires that stormwater treatment measures are properly installed, operated, and maintained.

In addition to water quality controls, the MRP requires new development and redevelopment projects that create or replace one acre or more of impervious surface to manage development-related increases in peak runoff flow, volume, and duration, where such hydromodification is likely to cause increased erosion, silt pollutant generation, or other impacts to local rivers, streams, and creeks.

Projects may be deemed exempt from these requirements if they do not meet the minimized size threshold, drain into tidally influenced areas or directly into the Bay, or drain into hardened channels, or if they are infill projects in sub-watersheds or catchment areas that are greater than or equal to 65 percent impervious.

Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.12.f
Provision C.12.f of the MRP requires co-permittee agencies to implement a control program for PCBs that reduces PCB loads by a specified amount during the term of the permit, thereby making substantial progress toward achieving the urban runoff PCBs wasteload allocation in the Basin Plan by March 2030.71 Programs must include focused implementation of PCB control measures, such as source control, treatment control, and pollution prevention strategies. Municipalities throughout the Bay Area are updating their demolition permit processes to incorporate the management of PCBs in 70 MRP Number CAS612008 71 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, Provision C.12. November 19, 2015.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 105 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
demolition building materials to ensure PCBs are not discharged to storm drains during demolition.

Buildings constructed between 1955 and 1978 that are proposed for demolition must be screened for the presence of PCBs prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.

Water Resources Protection Ordinance and District Well Ordinance Valley Water operates as the flood control agency for Santa Clara County. Their stewardship also includes creek restoration, pollution prevention efforts, and groundwater recharge. Permits for well construction and destruction work, most exploratory boring for groundwater exploration, and projects within Valley Water property or easements are required under Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance and District Well Ordinance.
2021Groundwater Management Plan
The 2021 Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) describes the Valley Water’s comprehensive groundwater management framework, including existing and potential actions to achieve basin sustainability goals and ensure continued sustainable groundwater management. The GWMP covers the Santa Clara and Llagas subbasins, which are located entirely in Santa Clara County. Valley Water manages a diverse water supply portfolio, with sources including groundwater, local surface water, imported water, and recycled water. About half of the county’s water supply comes from local sources and the other half comes from imported sources. Imported water includes the District’s State Water Project and Central Valley contract supplies and supplies delivered by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to cities in northern Santa Clara County. Local sources include natural groundwater recharge and surface water supplies. A small portion of the county’s water supply is recycled water.

Local groundwater resources make up the foundation of the county’s water supply, but they need to be augmented by the District’s comprehensive water supply management activities to reliably meet the county’s needs. These include the managed recharge of imported and local surface water and in‐ lieu recharge through the provision of treated surface water, acquisition of supplemental water supplies, and water conservation and recycling.72
Construction Dewatering Waste Discharge Requirements
Each of the RWQCBs regulate construction dewatering discharges to storm drains or surface waters within its Region under the NPDES program and Waste Discharge Requirements.

Local
City of Milpitas General Plan 2040
The following policies in the City’s General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of reducing or avoiding impacts related to hydrology and water quality and are applicable to the project. 72 Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2021 Groundwater Management Plan for the Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins. November 2021.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 106 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Policies Description
Policy SA 2-3 Require all development projects to demonstrate how storm water runoff will be detained or retained on-site, treated, and/or conveyed to the nearest drainage facility as part of the development review process. Project applicants shall demonstrate that project implementation would not result in increases in the peak flow runoff to adjacent lands or drainage facilities that would exceed the design capacity of the drainage facility or result in an increased potential for offsite flooding.

Policy SA 2-5 Unless otherwise mitigated, require new structures to be located outside of the 100- year floodplain. All new development within an identified Flood Hazard Area shall be built according to Federal Emergency Management Agency standards and comply with the provisions for flood hazard reduction criteria (Milpitas Municipal Code Section XI-15-5).

Policy UCS 1-2 Require development and long-term planning projects to be consistent with all applicable City infrastructure plans, including the Water Master Plan, Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the Sewer Master Plan, the Sewer System Management Plan, the Green Infrastructure Plan, and the Capital Improvement Program.

Policy UCS 1-3 Require all future development projects to analyze their infrastructure and service impacts and either demonstrate that the City’s existing infrastructure, public services, and utilities can accommodate the increased demand for services, and that service levels for existing users will not be diminished or impaired, or make the necessary improvements to mitigate all potential impacts.

Policy UCS 4-2 Require all development projects to demonstrate how storm water runoff will be detained or retained on-site and/or conveyed to the nearest drainage facility as part of the development review process and as required by the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.

Policy UCS 4-3 Require all future development projects to analyze their drainage and stormwater conveyance impacts and either demonstrate that the City’s existing infrastructure can accommodate increased stormwater flows, or make the necessary improvements to mitigate all potential impact
Policy UCS 4-4 Applicable projects shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Low Impact Development measures (LID) to treat stormwater before discharge from the site. The facilities shall be sized to meet regulatory requirements.

Policy UCS 4-6 Applicable projects shall minimize directly connected impervious areas by limiting the overall coverage of paving and roofs, directing runoff from impervious areas to adjacent pervious areas, and selecting permeable pavements and surface treatments.

Policy UCS 4-14 Construction sites shall incorporate measures to control erosion, sedimentation, and the generation of runoff pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. The design, scope and location of grading and related activities shall be designed to cause minimum disturbance to terrain and natural features. (Title II, Chapter 13 of the Municipal Code).

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 107 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Policies Description
Policy UCS 4-15 Minimize the use of pesticides that may affect water quality.

City of Milpitas Stormwater Regulations
To comply with Provision C.3 of the MRP, projects are required to submit a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) with building plans, to be reviewed and approved by the City of Milpitas’s Engineering Department. The SWMP must be prepared under the direction of and certified by a licensed and qualified professional, which includes civil engineers, architects, or landscape architects. Conditions of approval for development projects include the installation and maintenance of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for site design and stormwater treatment, which must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria.

City of Milpitas Municipal Code
Chapter 15 of the City’s Municipal Code includes regulations to minimize public and private losses due to flood hazard areas of the City being subject to inundation. Chapter 16 of the City’s Municipal Code ensures consistency with federal and state law requirements related to stormwater and urban runoff pollution control.

City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
The MMSP adopted the following policies for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating hydrology and water quality impacts resulting from planned development within the MMSP area, including the following:

Policies Description
ICS 1.2 Ensure that runoff in storm drains does not lower water quality within or outside of the Plan Area by implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) in new developments within the Metro Area.

ICS 2.1 Minimize damage associated with flooding events and comply with regulations stipulated by FEMA and the National Flood Insurance Program.

ICS 2.2 New development within a FEMA-designated flood hazard zone must follow the City’s construction standards for such areas, as currently laid out in Section XI-15 ‘Floodplain Management Regulations’ of the Milpitas Municipal Code.

Existing Conditions
Hydrology and Drainage
The project site is located in the Lower Penitencia Creek-Frontal San Francisco Bay Estuaries watershed. This watershed is a 30.5-square mile area that drains Penitencia Creek, Berryessa Creek Arroyo De Los Coches, and Calera Creek from the City’s eastern foothills to the valley floor. The project is located on the Penitencia East Channel, which originates as an open creek channel approximately 715 feet to the east. Valley Water owns and manages the project site’s creek channel

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 108 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
for flood protection. Penitencia East Channel flows west and north where it joins Lower Penitencia Creek and then Coyote Creek which flows into the San Francisco Bay.

Stormwater runoff from the City is collected in a system of storm drains ranging from 3- to 96-inches in diameter that drain into the City’s waterways and ultimately to the San Francisco Bay.

Water Quality
As discussed above under Hydrology and Drainage, surface runoff from the project site is collected by storm drains and discharged to Lower Penitencia Creek which joins Coyote Creek, where it later flows into the San Francisco Bay. The runoff often contains contaminants such as oil and grease, plant and animal debris (e.g., leaves, dust, and animal feces), pesticides, litter, and heavy metals. In sufficient concentrations, these pollutants can adversely affect the aquatic habitats to which they drain. Within Milpitas, Coyote Creek is the only water body listed on the Section 303(d) list of impaired water.73
Groundwater
The project site lies within the Santa Clara Groundwater Basin which extends from the southern edge of San Francisco Bay through the Coyote Valley.74 According to the geotechnical report completed for the project(refer to Appendix C), groundwater was encountered in the test bores on-site at 11 feet bgs. Historical high groundwater was estimated between five and ten feet bgs, based on measurements published by the California Geological Survey in 2002. Groundwater levels can fluctuate for a variety of factors, including seasonal precipitation, extraction from wells, and recharge due to irrigation or other methods.

Flooding
According to the City’s General Plan, areas prone to flooding include Calera Creek, Los Coches Creek, Lower Penitencia Creek, Berryessa Creek, Wrigley Creek, Ford Creek, and Coyote Creek.

The project site is located in the 100-year floodplain. According to FEMA, the creek and a small portion of the southern embankment is designated as Zone A, with the remaining portion designated as Zone AO.
75 Zone A is defined as areas with a one percent annual chance of flooding where no base flood elevation has been measured. Zone AO is defined as river or stream flood hazard areas and areas with a one percent annual chance of shallow flooding each year, with an average depth of one to three feet.

Dam Failure
The City is located within the Anderson Dam, Coyote Dam, and Sandy Wool Lake Dam failure inundation hazard zones, which are the areas that may be flooded in the event of a complete dam 73 California State Water Resources Control Board. 2020-2022 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List and 305(b) Report). May 11, 2022. Accessed February 6, 2023. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_assessment/2020_2022_integrated_report.ht ml. 74 City of Milpitas. Milpitas General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. January 2020. SCH 2020070348.

06085C0067J. February 19, 2014.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 109 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
failure. According to the Milpitas General Plan FEIR, the project site is not located in a dam failure inundation area.76
Seiches and Tsunamis
A seiche is defined as a standing wave generated by rapid displacement of water within an enclosed body of water (such as a lake or the San Francisco Bay) due to an earthquake that triggers land movement within the water body or landslides into or beneath the water body. There are no large bodies of water within the vicinity of the project sites; therefore, the project sites are not subject to seiches.77
A tsunami is a large tidal wave caused by an underwater earthquake or volcanic eruption. Tsunamis affecting the Bay Area can result from offshore earthquakes within the Bay Area. The project site is not within a tsunami inundation area.78

4.10.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water
quality?
2) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
3) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river
or through the addition of impervious surfaces,
in a manner which would:
- result in substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site; - substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site;
76 City of Milpitas. Milpitas General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. January 2020. SCH 2020070348.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 110 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
- create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
- impede or redirect flood flows?
4) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
5) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Impact HYD-1: The project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. (Less than Significant Impact)
The water quality of streams, creeks, ponds, and other surface water bodies can be greatly affected by pollution carried in contaminated surface runoff. Pollutants from unidentified sources, known as nonpoint source pollutants, are washed from streets, construction sites, parking lots, and other exposed surfaces into storm drains. Urban stormwater runoff often contains contaminants such as oil and grease, plant and animal debris (e.g., leaves, dust, animal feces, etc.), pesticides, litter, and heavy metals. In sufficient concentration, these pollutants have been found to adversely affect the aquatic habitats to which they drain.

Construction
Construction activities (e.g., grading and excavation) on the site may result in temporary impacts to surface water quality. When disturbance to underlying soils occurs, the surface runoff that flows across the site may contain sediments that are ultimately discharged into the storm drainage system.

The proposed project would be required to obtain a NPDES Construction General Permit. As such, a Notice of Intent must be submitted to the RWQCB and a SWPPP must be developed to establish methods for controlling discharge associated with construction activities.

In addition to the Construction General Permit, the project would be required to comply with General Plan Policies UCS 4-4, UCS 4-6, and UCS-4.14 , which would require the project to implement best management practices that minimizes pollutant discharge during construction. Compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and standard grading and best management practices as required by Title II, Chapter 13 of the Milpitas Municipal Code would ensure that soil and construction byproducts do not substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Therefore, construction of the project would have a less than significant impact on water quality.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 111 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Post-Construction
The project would replace more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces at the project site; therefore, it would be subject to Provision C.3 of the MRP. Therefore, the project would be required to incorporate site design, source control and runoff treatment controls to reduce the rates, volumes and pollutant loads of runoff from the project. The project would install bioswale basins to treat stormwater associated with the roads behind the flow line of the gutter. In addition to the requirements of Provision C.3, the project would be required to comply with General Plan Policies UCS 4-2, UCS 4-3, UCS 4-4, and UCS 4-6 to further reduce and treat surface runoff in accordance with state and local standards, thus preventing substantial degradation of surface or ground water quality. Therefore, construction of the proposed project in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan policies would not result in significant construction-related water quality impacts.

Impact HYD-2: The project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. (Less than Significant Impact)
The project site is located in an urban area and is not within a designated groundwater recharge zone for the groundwater basin. The proposed project would demolish an existing office building in order to develop a new public right-of-way that includes the construction of a bridge over Penitencia East Channel and development of a new roadway on an existing impervious surface. The proposed bridge would be constructed completely outside the channel and overbank areas. The operation of the proposed bridge and roadway would not require the use of water and, therefore, not require the extraction of groundwater resources. Therefore, the project would have less than significant impact on groundwater resources.

Impact HYD-3: The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows. (Less than Significant Impact)
Runoff from the project site currently flows overland and either drains directly into the creek or enters the storm drainage system untreated and unimpeded. The project proposes to demolish the existing office building and associated surface parking lot, and construct 7-foot wide bioswale basins on either side of the proposed roadways, which would decrease the amount of impervious surface by approximately 9 percent, thereby decreasing the amount of surface runoff. Because the project would result in reduced runoff volumes compared to the existing conditions, the project would not negatively impact the capacity of the existing storm drain system or cause off-site flooding.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 112 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
The proposed bridge would be clear-span, meaning that no permanent structures or fill would be placed within the Penitencia East Channel; therefore, the bridge would not impede flood flows and would avoid impacts within the bank or channel. While ground-disturbing activities during project construction could release sediment into the channel, any erosion associated with construction of the project would be managed in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan Policies (refer to Impact GEO-2 and HYD-1).

As discussed above under Impact HYD-1, the project would be required to adhere to the requirements of Provision C.3 of the MRP, Construction General Permit, and General Plan Policies UCS 4-2, UCS 4-3, UCS 4-4 and UCS 4-14; therefore, the project would improve the quality of stormwater runoff leaving the site and entering the City’s storm drainage system. Finally, the project would be required to manage erosion and sedimentation during construction in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code and the Construction General Permit. For these reasons, the project would not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in on or offsite erosion, flooding, or runoff impacts.

Impact HYD-4: The project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. (Less than Significant Impact) The project site and surrounding areas are within a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area Zone AO and Zone A.
79 A site-specific floodplain analysis (Appendix E) indicated base flood elevations in the vicinity of the project site range from 39.73 feet to 45 feet NAVD. 80 The proposed project would increase the base flood elevation by a maximum of 0.34 feet, downstream of the proposed bridge. Penitencia East Channel meets the NFIP definition of a regulatory floodway, which is the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height. This designated height is one foot for most NFIP communities, including Milpitas. Accordingly, the proposed project would result in less than onefoot of cumulative impact in the floodplain. Further, the proposed bridge deck would be 2.29 feet above the 100-year water surface elevation, consistent with MMSP Policies ISC 2.1 and ICS 2.2, and therefore would not be at risk of inundation.

As discussed above in Section 4.10.1.2, the project site has low susceptibility to tsunami, seiches, and mudflow events. According to the Association of Bay Area Government’s interactive tsunami mapping, areas near the bay are not considered susceptible to tsunami inundation. There are no inland water bodies in the project vicinity that are susceptible to seiches, thereby precluding the possibility of a seiche inundating the project site. The surrounding vicinity does not contain any steep slopes that would produce a mudflow.

Consistent with MMSP Policies ICS 2.1 and ICS 2.2 and for the reasons stated above, the project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones.
79 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map Santa Clara County, California. Map No. 06085C0067J. February 19, 2014. 80 North American Vertical Datum of 1988.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 113 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Impact HYD-5: The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. (Less than Significant Impact)
As stated under Impact HYD-2, the project site is located in an urban area and is not within a designated groundwater recharge zone for the groundwater basin. Thus, the project would not conflict with a sustainable groundwater management plan. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB implements the Basin Plan by issuing and enforcing waste discharge requirements, including permits for nonpoint sources such as the urban runoff discharged by a City’s stormwater drainage system. As discussed above, the project would be required to comply with General Plan Policy UCS 4-2 and would implement Best Management Practices to ensure that construction water quality impacts are minimized during project construction. The project would comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit and the MRP to ensure compliance with all applicable water quality regulations. By adhering to these policies and regulations the proposed project would not prevent the RWQCB from attaining the water quality objectives set forth in the Basin Plan and would have a less than significant impact.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 114 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024

LAND USE AND PLANNING

4.11.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Regional
Plan Bay Area 2050
Plan Bay Area 2050 is a long-range transportation, land-use, and housing plan intended to support a growing economy, provide more housing and transportation choices, and reduce transportationrelated pollution and GHG emissions in the Bay Area. Plan Bay Area 2040 promotes compact, mixed-use residential and commercial neighborhoods near transit, particularly within identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs). Plan Bay Area is coordinated and led by the Metropolitan Planning Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The project site is recognized by the MTC and ABAG as within the City-designated PDA called Transit Area Specific Plan.81
Local
City of Milpitas General Plan 2040
The following policies in the City’s General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of reducing or avoiding impacts related to land use and are applicable to the project.

Policies Description
Policy LU 1-8 Maintain equitable land use patterns to ensure that all residents in neighborhoods have access to community amenities and transportation choices, and have safe places to walk and bike.

Policy LU 2-1 Utilize Specific Plans to guide development within Milpitas’s special planning areas. Properties located within Specific Plan areas shall conform to the underlying Specific Plan’s land uses, zoning, and development standards.

Policy LU 3-1 Support regional efforts that promote higher densities near major transit and travel facilities, and reduce regional vehicle miles traveled by supporting active modes of transportation including walking, biking, and public transit. Support local and regional land use decisions that promote safe access to and the use of alternatives to auto transit.

Policy LU 4-2 Emphasize efforts to reduce regional vehicle miles traveled by supporting land use patterns and site designs that promote active modes of transportation, including walking, biking, and public transit.
81 MTC GIS Data Catalog. Priority Development Areas (Plan Bay Area 2050). Accessed January 9, 2024. https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/4df9cb38d77346a289252ced4ffa0ca0/explore.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 115 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
City of Milpitas Zoning Ordinance
The Zoning Ordinance serves as an implementing tool for the General Plan by establishing detailed, parcel-specific development regulations and standards. The Zoning Ordinance divides the City of Milpitas into zoning districts to guide future land uses.

Existing Conditions
The project site is located south of East Capitol Avenue at the convergence of South Milpitas Boulevard and the Penitencia East Channel. The project site includes an open stream channel and developed offices uses. Surrounding land uses include residential uses to the northeast, northwest, and southeast; office, residential (currently under construction), and light industrial uses are located to the south and southwest.

The project site has a General Plan designation of MMSP - Milpitas Metro Specific Plan. In the area of the proposed bridge, Penitencia East Channel (APN: 086-37-018) is zoned Park Open Space; the two parcels (APNs 086-37-039 and 086-37-040) north of the channel are zoned R5 (Urban Residential) and the parcels (APNs 086-36-030 and 086-36-041) south of the channel are respectively zoned R4 (Multi-Family-Very High Density) and R3 (Multi-Family).

4.11.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Physically divide an established community?
2) Cause a significant environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?
Impact LU-1: The project would not physically divide an established community. (No Impact)
Impacts to an established community can occur if the project physically divides a community.

Examples of projects that could physically divide an established community include the construction of a physical feature (such as freeway, railway, or aqueducts) or the removal of a means of access (such as a local roadway or bridge). The project site is located in central Milpitas in an area developed with residential, light industrial, and commercial uses, and open space. The layout and design of the proposed project does not include any features that would physically divide the surrounding community. The proposed bridge across Penitencia East Channel and roadways connecting Sango Court and Tarob Court would enhance connectivity within the project area and provide direct access to the new Milpitas Transit Center for pedestrians and bicyclists in the existing and emerging residential neighborhoods located south of Penitencia East Channel. For these reasons, the project would not physically divide an established community.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 116 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Impact LU-2: The project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (Less than Significant Impact)
The project proposes to construct a bridge and roadway connections consistent with the planned street network identified in the MMSP. The project would extend South Milpitas Boulevard across the Penitencia East Channel, thereby connecting the neighborhoods north and south of the channel.

The proposed project would improve vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian connectivity consistent with the goals and policies identified in the MMSP. For these reasons, the proposed project would not conflict with land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and would result in a less than significant impact.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 117 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024

MINERAL RESOURCES

4.12.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) was enacted by the California legislature in 1975 to address the need for a continuing supply of mineral resources, and to prevent or minimize the negative impacts of surface mining to public health, property, and the environment. As mandated under SMARA, the State Geologist has designated mineral land classifications in order to help identify and protect mineral resources in areas within the state subject to urban expansion or other irreversible land uses which would preclude mineral extraction. SMARA also allowed the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB), after receiving classification information from the State Geologist, to designate lands containing mineral deposits of regional or statewide significance.

Existing Conditions
There are no designated mineral resource areas within the City of Milpitas.82

4.12.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
2) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?
Impact MIN-1: The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state. (No Impact)
The project site is located in central Milpitas in an area developed with residential, light industrial, and commercial uses. There are no known mineral resources within the project area; therefore, project implementation would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state and no impact would occur. 82 City of Milpitas. Milpitas General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. January 2020. SCH 2020070348.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 118 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Impact MIN-2: The project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. (No Impact)
The project site is located in central Milpitas in an area developed with residential, light industrial, and commercial uses. The project area is not delineated in the General Plan, any Specific Plan, or other land use plan as a mineral resource recovery site. For these reasons, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a mineral resource recovery site and no impact would occur.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 119 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
NOISE
The following discussion is based, in part, on a Noise & Vibration Assessment prepared for the project by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. The report, dated November 5, 2021, is attached to this Initial Study as Appendix E.

4.13.1 Environmental Setting
Background Information
Noise
Factors that influence sound as it is perceived by the human ear, include the actual level of sound, period of exposure, frequencies involved, and fluctuation in the noise level during exposure. Noise is measured on a decibel scale, which serves as an index of loudness. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness. Because the human ear cannot hear all pitches or frequencies, sound levels are frequently adjusted or weighted to correspond to human hearing. This adjusted unit is known as the A-weighted decibel, or dBA.

Since excessive noise levels can adversely affect human activities and human health, federal, state, and local governmental agencies have set forth criteria or planning goals to minimize or avoid these effects. Noise guidelines are generally expressed using one of several noise averaging methods, including Leq, Ldn, or CNEL.83 These descriptors are used to measure a location’s overall noise exposure, given that there are times when noise levels are higher (e.g., when a jet is taking off from an airport or when a leaf blower is operating) and times when noise levels are lower (e.g., during lulls in traffic flows on freeways or in the middle of the night). Lmax is the maximum A-weighted noise level during a measurement period.

Vibration
Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero.

Vibration amplitude can be quantified using Peak Particle Velocity (PPV), which is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. PPV has been routinely used to measure and assess ground-borne construction vibration. Studies have shown that the threshold of perception for average persons is in the range of 0.008 to 0.012 inches/second (in/sec) PPV.
83 Leq is a measurement of average energy level intensity of noise over a given period of time. Day-Night Level (Ldn) is a 24-hour average of noise levels, with a 10 dB penalty applied to noise occurring between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) includes an additional five dB applied to noise occurring between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Where traffic noise predominates, the CNEL and Ldn are typically within two dBA of the peak-hour Leq.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 120 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Regulatory Framework
Federal
Federal Transit Administration Vibration Limits
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has developed vibration impact assessment criteria for evaluating vibration impacts associated with transit projects. The FTA has proposed vibration impact criteria based on maximum overall levels for a single event. The impact criteria for groundborne vibration are shown in Table 4.13-1 below. These criteria can be applied to development projects in jurisdictions that lack vibration impact standards.

Table 4.13-1: Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria
Land Use Category
Groundborne Vibration Impact Levels
(VdB1 inch/sec)
Frequent
Event
Occasional
Events
Infrequent
Events
Category 1: Buildings where vibration would interfere
with interior operations 65 65 65
Category 2: Residences and buildings where people
normally sleep 72 75 80
Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily
daytime use 75 78 83
Source: Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual. September 2018. 1 Vibration Velocity Decibels Local
City of Milpitas General Plan 2040
The following policies and actions in the City’s General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating noise and vibration impacts resulting from planned development within the City, including the following:

Policies/Actions Description
Policy N 1-1 Consider the noise compatibility of existing and future development when making land use planning decisions. Require development and infrastructure projects to be consistent with the land use compatibility standards contained in Tables N-1 and N-2 to ensure acceptable noise exposure levels for existing and future development.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 121 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Policies/Actions Description
Policy N 1-2 Require new development to mitigate excessive noise to the standards indicated in Tables N-1 and N-2 through best practices, including building location and orientation, building design features, placement of noise-generating equipment away from sensitive receptors, shielding of noise-generating equipment, placement of noise-tolerant features between noise sources and sensitive receptors, and use of noise-minimizing materials.

Policy N 1-3 Use sound walls for sound attenuation only when other measures are not practical, or when recommended by an acoustical expert as part of a mitigation measure. Sound walls shall be designed to be aesthetically pleasing, and should incorporate features such as vegetation, variations in color and texture, artwork, and other features deemed appropriate by the City.

Policy N 1-5 Require acoustical studies for new discretionary developments and transportation improvements that have the potential to affect existing noise-sensitive uses such as schools, hospitals, libraries, care facilities, and residential areas; and for projects that would introduce new noise-sensitive uses into an area where existing noise levels may exceed the thresholds identified in this element.

Policy N 1-6 For projects that are required to prepare an acoustical study to analyze noise impacts, the following criteria shall be used to determine the significance of those impacts:
• Where existing traffic noise levels are 60 dB Ldn or less at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +5 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant;
• Where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 60 dB Ldn and up to 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +3 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant; and • Where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a + 1.5 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant.

Policy N 1-8 Require construction activities to comply with standard best practices to reduce noise exposure to adjacent sensitive receptors (see Action N-1d).

Policy N 1-9 Implement a range of traffic control measures, including but not limited to, light timing, asphalt alternatives (such as rubberized asphalt), and speed reduction measures to reduce roadway noise.

Action N-1a Require that new development projects are reviewed for compliance with the noise requirements established in this element, including the standards established in Tables N-1 and N-2, prior to project approval.

Action N-1b Require acoustical studies for new development projects which have the potential to generate noise impacts which exceed the standards identified in this element.

The studies shall include representative noise measurements, estimates of existing and projected noise levels, and mitigation measures necessary to ensure compliance with the noise standards included in this element. Studies shall be conducted by a qualified acoustical professional.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 122 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Policies/Actions Description
Action N-1c Require developers to prepare a construction management/noise mitigation plan that defines best management practices to reduce construction noise, and includes proposed truck routes (that comply with Section 12 V-100-12.05 - Truck Routes of the Milpitas Municipal Code) as part of the entitlement process.

Action N-1d During the environmental review process, determine if proposed construction will constitute a significant impact on nearby sensitive receptors and, if necessary, require mitigation measures in addition to the standard best practice controls. Suggested best practices for control of construction noise include:
• Noise-generating construction activities, including truck traffic coming to and from the construction site for any purpose, shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. No construction shall occur on National holidays.
• All equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
• The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. • At all times during project grading and construction, stationary noisegenerating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from residences.
• Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited for a duration of longer than five minutes.
• Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that will create the greatest distance between the construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction activities, to the extent feasible.
• Neighbors located adjacent to the construction site shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing.
• The construction contractor shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall be responsible for determining the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, poor muffler, etc.) and instituting reasonable measures as warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.

Action N-1f Petition State and Regional agencies to install “quiet pavement” materials during roadway improvement and resurfacing activities. Utilize quiet pavement materials on City-owned streets to the greatest extent feasible.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 123 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Table 4.13-2: Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Community Noise Land Use Category
Exterior Noise Exposure (Ldn)
55 60 65 70 75 80
Single-Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential, Hotels, and
Motels
Outdoor Sports and Recreation,
Neighborhood Parks and Playgrounds
Schools, Libraries, Museums, Hospitals,
Personal Care, Public Assembly
Office Buildings, Business Commercial,
and Professional Offices
Industrial
Note: Residential components of Mixed-Use developments are subject to the Multi-Family Residential Noise Standards unless otherwise allowed in conjunction with Policy N 2-2.

Normally Acceptable:

Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special insulation requirements.

Conditionally Acceptable:

Specified land use may be permitted only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

Unacceptable:

New construction or development should generally not be undertaken because mitigation was found to be infeasible to comply with noise element policies.

City of Milpitas Municipal Code
Chapter 213 of the City’s Municipal Code includes a Noise Abatement Section that limits noise levels at adjacent properties. Code Section V-213-3 limits construction operations to between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm on weekdays and weekends. Construction activities are not permitted on holidays.

Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan The Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) is intended to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and aircraft occupants. The CLUP establishes an airport land use planning area, referred to as the AIA.

The AIA is a composite of areas surrounding the airport that are affected by noise, height, and safety considerations. The CLUP includes land use compatibility guidelines, with topics such as noise and building height, to ensure that surrounding land uses and development do not interfere with the airport’s continuing operations.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 124 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Existing Conditions
The project site, which is located in south Milpitas, extends from the southern termination point of South Milpitas Boulevard across the Penitencia East Channel and the commercial property south of the channel before branching west and east to the termination points of Sango Court and Tarob Court, respectively. As shown in Figure 2.4-3, existing residential uses are present immediately north and east of the project site, with additional residences located further to the southwest.84 The nearest sensitive receptors are located immediately west of the project site on Sango Court (Sango Apartments) and east of the project site (Parkside at Tarob Court).85 Office uses are present at the site and to the south, and office, auto service, and commercial uses are located to the west. The nearest existing commercial receptor is located approximately 180 feet to the west.86 Additionally, there is a church located approximately 400 west of the project site’s western termination point (end of Sango Court).

The Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport is located approximately three miles southwest of the project site.

Existing and Future Noise Levels
The primary noise sources at the project site are from vehicular traffic along Sango Court, Tarob Court, South Milpitas Boulevard, East Capitol Avenue, and Montague Expressway, and from commercial-related activities at businesses located along Sango Court and Tarob Court. The existing noise environment was quantified through two short-term (ST-1 and ST-2) and two long-term noise measurements (LT-1 and LT-2) conducted between Tuesday, October 12, 2021, and Thursday, October 14, 2021. The location of the noise measurement locations is shown on Figure 4.13-1. Based on these noise measurements, the typical hourly average noise level ranges between 42 to 60 dBA, with a day-night average noise level between 56 to 65 dBA Ldn. 87 84 Residences are also planned immediately south of the project site on Tarob Court. 85 Ibid. 86 Ibid. 87 The day-night average noise level is higher than the typical hourly average noise level because a 10 dBA penalty is applied to noise that occurs between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.

North Capitol Avenue
East Capitol Avenue
Trade Zone Boulevard
McCandless Drive
Montague Expressway
Tr mi b el R oad
North Capitol Avenue
East Capitol Avenue
Trade Zone Boulevard
McCandless Drive
M
ontague Expressway
Tr mi
b el
Road
VTA Light Rail
VTA Light Rail
U.P.R.R.

U.P.R.R.

VTA Light Rail
VTA Light Rail
U.P.R.R.

U.P.R.R.

Penitencia Creek
ST-1
ST-2
LT-2 LT-1
NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS FIGURE 4.13-1
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Jun. 1, 2021. Photo Date: Sep. 2020 0 150 600 900 1,500 Feet
Proposed Bridge
Proposed Valley Water Maintenance Road
Future Sango Ct. and Tarob Ct. Roadway
Connection
Long-Term Noise Measurement Location LT-#
Short-Term Noise Measurement Location ST-#
South Milpitas Boulevard BridgeCity of Milpitas
125 Initial Study
February 2024

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 126 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024

4.13.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project result in:
1) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
2) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
3) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Thresholds of Significance
The CEQA Guidelines state that a project would normally be considered to have a significant impact if noise levels conflict with adopted environmental standards or plans, or if noise levels generated by the project will substantially increase existing noise levels at noise-sensitive receivers on a permanent or temporary basis. CEQA does not define what noise level increase would be substantial. As discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b), the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for judgment on the part of the lead agency and must be based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. For the purposes of this analysis, the City of Milpitas relies on the following as CEQA thresholds of significance:
• Construction Noise – Temporary construction-related noise would only be considered significant if it occurred outside of the permitted hours identified in the City’s Municipal Code (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) or on a holiday.
• Operational Noise: Permanent noise increases associated with operation of the project would only be considered significant if:
o Project-generated traffic would result in a noise level increase of more than 5 dBA Ldn where existing traffic noise levels are 60 dBA Ldn or less. o Project-generated traffic would result in a noise level increase of more than 3 dBA Ldn where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 60 dBA Ldn and up to 65 dBA Ldn.
o Project-generated traffic would result in a noise level increase of more than 1.5 dBA Ldn where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dBA Ldn.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 127 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
o Operation of the project would expose persons to or generate noise levels that would exceed applicable noise standards presented in the General Plan or Municipal Code (refer to Table 4.13-2 above).
• Construction Vibration: Vibration associated with project construction would only be considered significant if it would generate groundborne vibration levels in excess of 0.3 in/sec PPV.

Impact NOI-1: The project would not result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. (Less than Significant Impact) Construction Noise
Noise impacts resulting from construction depend upon the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise-sensitive areas. Construction noise impacts primarily result when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (e.g., early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses, or when construction lasts over extended periods of time.

Construction activities would generate considerable amounts of noise, especially during earthmoving activities when heavy equipment is used. During each stage of construction, there would be a different mix of equipment operating, and noise levels would vary by stage and vary within stages, based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location at which the equipment is operating.

As described in Section 3.3.4, construction of the project is expected to occur over a period of 18 months between 2023 and 2024. Consistent with Section V-213-3(b) of the City’s Municipal Code, construction activities would occur between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday, excluding holidays. Equipment used during construction activities is expected to include, but is not limited to, graders, scrapers, dozers, backhoes, excavators, lo-drills, haul trucks, concrete pump trucks, concrete mixing trucks, telehandlers, cranes, manlifts, and pickup trucks.

The Federal Highway Administration’s Roadway Construction Noise Model was used to calculate the hourly average noise levels for each stage of construction, assuming every piece of equipment would operate simultaneously, which would represent the worst-case scenario. Table 4.13-3 below shows the calculated construction noise levels at the surrounding land uses shown in Figure 2.4-3.

Additional information on the methodology and assumptions used to estimate the project’s construction noise levels is available in Appendix E.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 128 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Table 4.13-3: Calculated Construction Noise Levels at Surrounding Land Uses1 Stage of
Construction
Hourly Average Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Future MultiFamily
Residential2
(180 feet west)
Multi-Family
Residential
(200 feet north)
Single-Family Residential
(300 feet east and south)
Demolition 75 74 70
Site Preparation 74 73 69
Grading/Excavation 75 74 70
Paving 73 72 68
Bridge Construction 74 73 69
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Noise and Vibration Assessment.

November 5, 2021.

Notes:
1 Since surrounding land uses would be subject to the collective noise generated by all equipment operating onsite, distances and noise levels are calculated from the geometrical center of the project site. 2 At the time the Noise and Vibration Assessment was prepared, commercial uses were located 180 feet west.

Multi-family residential is currently under construction.

As shown in Table 4.13-3, noise levels generated during construction would not exceed 77.5 dBA Leq at the nearest existing commercial use, 75 dBA Ldn at the nearest existing and future multifamily residential uses, or 70 dBA Leq at the nearest single-family residential use; therefore, project construction would not generate noise in excess of community noise compatibility guidelines (refer to Table 4.13-2). As noted above, project construction would comply with the restrictions placed on construction by Municipal Code Section V-213-3(b).88 Additionally, noise generated by project construction would be further reduced through implementation of the following best practices for construction noise control required by General Plan Policy N 1-8. • Noise-generating construction activities, including truck traffic coming to and from the construction site for any purpose, shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. No construction shall occur on National holidays.
• All equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. • The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
• At all times during project grading and construction, stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from residences.
• Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited for a duration of longer than five minutes.
88 Municipal Code Section V-213-3(b) restricts construction activities to the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Sunday. No construction activities are permitted on holidays.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 129 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
• Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that will create the greatest distance between the construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction activities, to the extent feasible. • Neighbors located adjacent to the construction site shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing.
• The construction contractor shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall be responsible for determining the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, poor muffler, etc.) and instituting reasonable measures as warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.

Implementation of the above construction noise controls required by General Plan Policy N 1-8 would further reduce noise generated by project construction activities below the exterior noise exposure thresholds identified in Table 4.13-2; accordingly, project construction would not generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity in excess of standards established by the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. As a result, the project would have a less than significant construction noise impact.

Operational Noise
As documented in Existing and Future Noise Levels, the existing noise level within the project vicinity ranges between 56 to 65 dBA Ldn; therefore, a significant operational noise impact would occur if the project would permanently increase ambient noise levels by up to three dBA (refer to

4.13.2.1 ). The project, which proposes to construct a bridge and roadway connection between Sango Court and Tarob Court, could increase ambient noise levels in the project vicinity from increased traffic volumes along roadway segments adjacent to nearby sensitive receptors (i.e. residences).

Based on a review of the Transportation Analysis prepared for the project (refer to Appendix F), the project would not double existing traffic volumes (which is the threshold where traffic would result in a three dBA noise increase), and would result in a noise level increase of one dBA Ldn along roadway segments within the project vicinity. Since operation of the project would not result in a permanent three dBA Ldn increase in ambient noise levels, the project would not generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity in excess of standards established by the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. As a result, the project would have a less than significant operational noise impact.

Impact NOI-2: The project would not result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. (Less than Significant Impact) Construction of the project may generate perceptible vibration when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g. jackhammers, hoe rams) are used in the vicinity of nearby sensitive land uses. As discussed under Impact NOI-1, construction activities would include building demolition, site preparation work, foundation work, and bridge construction. Impact pile driving (which generates substantial vibration) is not proposed as a method of construction.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 130 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
According to the NRHP89, CRHP90, and City of Milpitas Cultural Resources Register, there are no historic buildings within the vicinity of the project site.91 There would be no risk of damage to any historic buildings resulting from project construction.

Based on typical vibration levels generated by construction equipment, the vibration levels from project construction were estimated from the boundary of the project site, which would represent the nearest location for use of vibration generating equipment, at the nearest building facades (refer to Appendix E for more information on the methodology used to calculate vibration levels). The 0.5 in/sec PPV threshold would apply to the recently constructed Anton Apartments to the north and the Tarob Court Apartments to the east, which are located approximately 25 to 50 feet from the boundary of the project site. The 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold would apply to the commercial and industrial buildings to the south and west, which are located between 25 and 50 feet from the boundary of the project site. Table 4.13-4 below summarizes the vibration levels from construction levels at distances representing buildings in the project vicinity.

Table 4.13-4: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment at Representative Distances Equipment
PPV at
25 feet
(in/sec)
PPV at 50
feet
(in/sec)
PPV at 75
feet
(in/sec)
PPV at
100 feet
(in/sec)
PPV at
125 feet
(in/sec)
Clam shovel drop 0.202 0.094 0.060 0.044 0.034
Hydromill
(slurry
wall)
In soil 0.008 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.001
In rock 0.017 0.008 0.005 0.004 0.003
Vibratory Roller 0.210 0.098 0.063 0.046 0.036
Hoe Ram 0.089 0.042 0.027 0.019 0.015
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.042 0.027 0.019 0.015
Caisson drilling 0.089 0.042 0.027 0.019 0.015
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.035 0.023 0.017 0.013
Jackhammer 0.035 0.016 0.010 0.008 0.006
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Noise and Vibration Assessment. November 5, 2021.

As shown in Table 4.13-4, vibration levels at 25 feet, which represents the distance between the boundary of the project site and the nearest buildings in all directions, would not exceed 0.3 PPV in/sec. Accordingly, the project would have a less than significant impact from generation of groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
89 National Register of Historic Places. “National Register Database and Research.” Accessed January 9, 2024. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm 90 California Register of Historic Places. “California Historical Resources.” Accessed January 9, 2024. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/listedresources/ 91 City of Milpitas. Cultural Resources Register.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 131 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Impact NOI-3: The project would not be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. (Less than Significant Impact)
The project site is outside of the AIA of the nearest airport, the Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport, which is a public use airport located approximately to the three miles southwest. The project, which proposes to construct a bridge and roadway connection between Sango Court and Tarob Court, would not introduce any new residents to the project area. The project site is outside of the 60 dBA CNEL contour92 delineated in the San José Airport CLUP, therefore, construction workers would not be exposed to excessive noise levels associated with aircraft operations.
92 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. San José International Airport 2022 Aircraft Noise Contours.

Figure 5.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 132 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024

POPULATION AND HOUSING

4.14.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Housing-Element Law
State requirements mandating that housing be included as an element of each jurisdiction’s general plan is known as housing-element law. The Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) is the statemandated process to identify the total number of housing units (by affordability level) that each jurisdiction must accommodate in its housing element. California housing-element law requires cities to: 1) zone adequate lands to accommodate its RHNA; 2) produce an inventory of sites, known as Housing Opportunity Sites, that can accommodate its share of the RHNA; 3) identify governmental and non-governmental constraints to residential development; 4) develop strategies and a work plan to mitigate or eliminate those constraints; and 5) adopt a housing element and update it on a regular basis.93 The City of Milpitas Housing Element and related land use policies were last updated in 2023 with the Housing Element remaining in effect through 2031.94 Regional
Plan Bay Area 2050
As discussed in 4.11.1.1, Plan Bay Area 2050 provides a regional growth strategy that integrates housing development into other key issue areas including transportation, land-use, economic growth, and climate change. The growth strategy focuses new housing and commercial development within Priority Development Areas that provide access to existing transit choices to new residents, workers, and visitors in the area.95
ABAG allocates regional housing needs to each city and county within the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, based on statewide goals. ABAG also develops forecasts for population, households, and economic activity in the Bay Area. ABAG, MTC, and local jurisdiction planning staff created the Regional Forecast of Jobs, Population, and Housing, which is an integrated land use and transportation plan through the year 2050 (upon which Plan Bay Area 2050 is based). 93 California Department of Housing and Community Development. “Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Elements.” Accessed January 9, 2024. http://hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/index.shtml. 94 City of Milpitas. “Housing Policy & Plans”. Accessed January 9, 2024. https://www.milpitas.gov/487/HousingPolicy-Plans. 95 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “Priority Development Areas (PDAs)” Accessed January 9, 2024. https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/land-use/priority-development-areas-pdas.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 133 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Existing Conditions
The total population of Milpitas was estimated to be approximately 81,067 people and 25,769 housing units in January 202396. Milpitas is expected to increase its population to 103,970 people and 30,430 housing units by 2040.97
The project site includes an open stream channel and developed offices uses. The project site does not provide any housing.

4.14.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
2) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Impact POP-1: The project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). (Less than Significant Impact)
The proposed project would not involve the construction of new housing, nor would it generate any long-term employment opportunities that would cause substantial population growth. The construction workers needed for the project would be relatively few and these jobs would likely be filled by the local work force.

The project site is located with an area designated by the City to accommodate new housing and commercial development around the Milpitas Transit Center. The project would support the City’s goal of developing housing in close proximity to existing transit by creating a new access point to the Milpitas Transit Center. The project would not induce unplanned population growth; therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact.
96 State of California, Department of Finance. “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2021-2023, with 2020 Benchmark.” Accessed January 10, 2024. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-countiesand-the-state-2020-2023/. 97 Association Of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “Projections 2040:

Forecasts for Population, Household and Employment for the Nine County San Francisco Bay Area Region.” 2017.

Accessed January 10, 2024. http://projections.planbayarea.org/data.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 134 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Impact POP-2: The project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. (No Impact)
The project site is currently developed with office uses and does not contain housing. Therefore, project implementation would not result in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing people or housing and no impact would occur.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 135 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024

PUBLIC SERVICES

4.15.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Government Code Section 66477
The Quimby Act (included within Government Code Section 66477) requires local governments to set aside parkland and open space for recreational purposes. It provides provisions for the dedication of parkland and/or payment of fees in lieu of parkland dedication to help mitigate the impacts from new residential developments. The Quimby Act authorizes local governments to establish ordinances requiring developers of new residential subdivisions to dedicate parks, pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication, or perform a combination of the two.

Government Code Section 65995 through 65998
California Government Code Section 65996 specifies that an acceptable method of offsetting a project’s effect on the adequacy of school facilities is the payment of a school impact fee prior to the issuance of a building permit. Government Code Sections 65995 through 65998 set forth provisions for the payment of school impact fees by new development by “mitigating impacts on school facilities that occur (as a result of the planning, use, or development of real property” (Section 65996[a]). The legislation states that the payment of school impact fees “are hereby deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation” under CEQA (Section 65996[b]).

Developers are required to pay a school impact fee to the school district to offset the increased demands on school facilities caused by the proposed residential development project. The school district is responsible for implementing the specific methods for mitigating school impacts under the Government Code.

Local
City of Milpitas General Plan 2040
The following policies in the City’s General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of reducing or avoiding impacts related to public services.

Policies Description
Policy SA 4-9 Ensure that fire and emergency medical services meet existing and future demand by maintaining a response time of four minutes or less for all urban service areas.

Measure K
Measure K, passed in November 2016, prevents areas in the City designated as parks and open space from being developed as residential, commercial, or industrial unless first approved by a two-thirds vote of residents.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 136 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
The MMSP adopted the following policies for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating public service related impacts resulting from planned development within the MMSP area, including the following:

Policies Description
Policy M 5.1 Create a complete pedestrian and bicycle network that connects trails and pathways and includes continuous sidewalks and safe bike travel routes throughout the entire Milpitas Metro Area.

Policy PPS 3.1 Use the Recreational Value System to guide existing and future park improvements to ensure all parks provide a diversity of active, contemplative, and social gathering experiences.

Policy PPS 2.3 If a public utility easement (such as the one existing between Capitol Avenue and Penitencia Creek East Channel) is developed as a publicly-accessible pathway or linear park that connects two public streets, it can be counted toward a development’s park dedication requirement
Policy ICS 8.1 Conduct a “standards of cover” analysis to determine the Metro Plan’s precise impact on the Fire Department’s staffing and equipment, and any required facility needs.

Identify and evaluate potential sites for an expanded or new fire station near the Plan Area if the standards of cover analysis determines it is warranted.

Policy ICS 8.6 Update the City’s emergency and disaster response plans to take the location and type of new development, and future traffic levels, into account.

Policy ICS 9.1 Hire additional police staff and purchase equipment provide an adequate level of service—as determined by City Council—for the residents, workers, and visitors of the Metro Area as well as surrounding areas. New equipment shall be funded by the Community Facilities District fee and new staff paid from the City’s General Fund.

Existing Conditions
Fire Protection
The City of Milpitas Fire Department (MFD) provides fire protection services, medical emergency services, and public safety services. The MFD has four fire stations. The closest fire station to the project is Station 1, located at 777 South Main Street, approximately one mile northwest of the project site.

Police Services
Police services are provided by the City of Milpitas Police Department (MPD). Police protection services are operated from one central station located at 1275 North Milpitas Boulevard, which is approximately three miles north of the project site.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 137 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Schools
The project site is located within the Milpitas Unified School District (MUSD), Berryessa Union School District (BUSD), and East Side Union High School District (ESUHSD). The nearest schools to the project site include Stratford Elementary School (located 0.25 miles to the northwest) and Mabel Mattos Elementary School (located 0.3 miles to the west).

Parks
The City of Milpitas manages approximately 177 acres of developed city parkland and recreation facilities. In addition, Ed Levin County Park is partially within the City boundary and provides 1,544 acres of regional parkland.98 The nearest park to the project site is Augustus Rathbone Park, located approximately 250 feet south of the project site. A publicly accessible privately owned linear park extends from the project’s northwest corner on the northern side of Penitencia East Channel and extends southwest along the channel to the BART right-of-way.

Libraries
The Santa Clara County Library System operates nine libraries and one bookmobile. The Milpitas Library provides book lending services, offers a community room and meeting rooms, and is located approximately 1.9 miles northwest of the project site at 160 North Main Street.

4.15.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times,
or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
1) Fire Protection?
2) Police Protection?
3) Schools?
4) Parks?
5) Other Public Facilities?
98 City of Milpitas. Milpitas General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. January 2020. SCH 2020070348

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 138 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Impact PS-1: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection services. (Less than Significant Impact) The project would construct a bridge over Penitencia East Channel, connecting South Milpitas Boulevard on the north side of the channel with Tarob Court and Sango Court on the south side of the channel. Construction of the proposed bridge would increase access to the surrounding area and would not result in an increase in the demand for fire protection services as the project does not introduce new residential units that would increase demand on fire protection services. The Metro Specific Plan SEIR concluded that there is the potential for additional fire protection staffing, equipment, and facilities to be needed to meet the demands of the additional buildout from the Metro Plan. New public facilities, including those for fire protection services, are subject to CEQA; thus, CEQA review would be conducted if and when such new facilities are advanced. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact associated with new or physically altered government facilities and would improve the ability of fire services to maintain acceptable service ratios and response times.

Impact PS-2: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection services. (Less than Significant Impact) As discussed under Impact PS-1, the project would construct a bridge over Penitencia East Channel, connecting South Milpitas Boulevard on the north side of the channel with Tarob Court and Sango Court on the south side of the channel, thereby increasing access to the surrounding area. The proposed bridge and roadway connections would not increase demand on police protection services as the project does not introduce new residential units that would increase demand on police protection services. The Metro Specific Plan SEIR concluded that implementation of the Plan may require the construction of new police facilities. New public facilities, including those for police protection services, are subject to CEQA; thus, CEQA review would be conducted if and when such new facilities are advanced. Further, police protection services would be maintained at acceptable levels of service consistent with MMSP Policy ICS 9.1, which requires adequate hiring of police staff and equipment purchasing. Therefore, the project would not necessitate the construction or expansion of police protection facilities and would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the construction of new or expanded police protection services.

Impact PS-3: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 139 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools. (No Impact)
The proposed bridge and roadway connections would not generate new students as it does not propose new residential units to generate additional student demand to school facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the demand for new school facilities, nor would it require the construction or expansion of new school facilities and no impact would occur.

Impact PS-4: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks. (No Impact)
The proposed project would construct a bridge and roadway connections and would not increase demand on local park facilities. The project proposes 6-foot-wide Class II bicycle lanes along the proposed bridge. Additionally, the proposed roadway connections would include Class III shared lane bikeways. Consistent with MMSP Policy PPS 2.3, the proposed project would count towards the MMSP park dedication requirement and would facilitate the MMSP goal of developing public park space (MMSP Policy PPS 3.1). In addition, the project would not construct any land uses which would directly increase the resident population of the City. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on demand for local parks.

Impact PS-5: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for other public facilities. (No Impact)
As discussed above under Impact PS-1 through PS-4, the proposed project would construct a bridge and roadway connections and would not generate any new residents as no residential component is included. Therefore, the project would not increase demand for other public facilities such as libraries or community centers and no impact would occur.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 140 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024

RECREATION

4.16.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Government Code Section 66477
The Quimby Act (included within Government Code Section 66477) requires local governments to set aside parkland and open space for recreational purposes. It provides provisions for the dedication of parkland and/or payment of fees in lieu of parkland dedication to help mitigate the impacts from new residential developments. The Quimby Act authorizes local governments to establish ordinances requiring developers of new residential subdivisions to dedicate parks, pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication, or perform a combination of the two.

Regional
Countywide Trails Master Plan
The Santa Clara County Trails Master Plan Update is a regional trails plan approved by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. It provides a framework for implementing the County’s vision of providing a contiguous trail network that connects cities to one another, cities to the county’s regional open space resources, County parks to other County parks, and the northern and southern urbanized regions of the County. The plan identifies regional trail routes, sub-regional trail routes, connector trail routes, and historic trails.

Local
City of Milpitas General Plan 2040
The following policies in the City’s General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of reducing or avoiding impacts related to recreation.

Policies Description
Policy PROS 1-1 Provide a park and recreation system that is equitably distributed, safe, accessible, and designed to serve the needs of all residents of the community.

Policy PROS 1-2 Develop and maintain a high-quality system of parks, trails, and recreation facilities to create diverse opportunities for passive and organized recreation.

Policy PROS 1-8 Expand, renovate, and maintain high quality recreation facilities, programs, and services to accommodate existing and future needs; encourage traditional and non-traditional recreation; and support active and passive recreation, wellness, historic assets, cultural arts, environmental education, conservation, accessibility, inclusion, diversity, safety, and new technology that equitably serves the most vulnerable populations of the community.

Policy PROS 1-13 Require new development to provide direct pedestrian connections, such as sidewalks, trails, wayfinding measures and other rights-of-way and infrastructure

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 141 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Policies Description
improvements to the existing and planned network of parks and trails wherever feasible.

Policy PROS 1-15 Design and maintain park and recreation facilities to minimize water, energy and chemical (e.g., pesticides and fertilizer) use. Incorporate the use of recycled water, native and/or drought-resistant vegetation and ground cover where appropriate. Pursue opportunities for multi-beneficial park developments that incorporate flood control facilities, stormwater management and groundwater recharge areas.
2022 Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
The Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan provides a vision and action plan for the City to create a complete and connected network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities to support residents and visitors of all ages and abilities. The 2022 Plan serves as an update to the previously adopted Trail Master Plan (1997) and Bikeway Master Plan Update (2009) and focuses on supporting safer travel in and around Milpitas while maintaining and expanding connections with neighboring jurisdictions.

The plan was adopted by the City in May 2022 and specifically acknowledges that the planned extension of Milpitas Boulevard to Tarob Court (i.e., the proposed project) would improve connections to the BART station/Milpitas Transit Station for all travel modes.

Existing Conditions
Parks, trails, and recreational facilities in the City are managed by the Recreation and Community Services Department and maintained by the Public Works Department. The City park system currently consists of over 30 parks, and five community service buildings including the Milpitas Community Center, Barbara Lee Senior Center, Milpitas Sports Center, Sal Cracolice Recreation Building, and Jose Higuera Adobe Building .99,100 The nearest park to the project site is the Augustus Rathbone Park which includes a two playground structures, swings and, benches, located 225 feet south of the project site.

4.16.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
1) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
99 City of Milpitas. “Parks & Facilities.” Accessed January 10, 2024. https://ca-milpitas.civicplus.com/503/ParksFacilities. 100 City of Milpitas. “Parks.” Accessed January 10, 2024. https://ca-milpitas.civicplus.com/831/Parks.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 142 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
2) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Impact REC-1: The project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. (Less than Significant Impact)
As discussed under Impact PS-4 in Section 4.15 Public Services, the project would not increase the demand on local park or recreational facilities. The project would construct a bridge to improve access across the Penitencia East Channel to and from the Milpitas BART Station/Milpitas Transit Station and surrounding neighborhoods.

The proposed project would increase accessibility to nearby parks. The project would not increase the service population as no new residential units are proposed, which otherwise could increase demand on parks and recreational facilities. Therefore, a less than significant impact to parks or recreational facilities would occur as a result of the proposed project.

Impact REC-2: The project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. (No Impact)
The proposed project does not propose or require the construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities that could have an adverse effect on the physical environment. Therefore, no impact would occur.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 143 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024

TRANSPORTATION
The following discussion is based, in part, on a Transportation Analysis prepared for the project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. The report, dated October 1, 2021, is attached to this Initial Study as Appendix G.

4.17.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Regional Transportation Plan
MTC is the transportation planning, coordinating, and financing agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, including Santa Clara County. MTC is charged with regularly updating the Regional Transportation Plan, a comprehensive blueprint for the development of mass transit, highway, airport, seaport, railroad, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in the region. MTC and ABAG adopted Plan Bay Area 2040 in July 2017, which includes a Regional Transportation Plan to guide regional transportation investment for revenues from federal, state, regional and local sources through 2040.

Senate Bill 743
SB 743 establishes criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts using a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) metric intended to promote the reduction of GHG emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. Specifically, SB 743 requires analysis of VMT in determining the significance of transportation impacts. Local jurisdictions were required by Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to implement a VMT policy by July 1, 2020.

SB 743 did not authorize OPR to set specific VMT impact thresholds, but it did direct OPR to develop guidelines for jurisdictions to utilize. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(2) provides that projects that reduce VMT, such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit projects, would have a less than significant impact. This section further provides that lead agencies have discretion to evaluate roadway capacity projects (including highways), provided that any such analysis is consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Recognizing that roadway capacity projects may be analyzed at a programmatic level, subdivision (b)(2) states that lead agencies may be able to tier from a programmatic analysis that adequately addresses the effects of roadway capacity projects.

Regional and Local
Congestion Management Program
VTA oversees the Congestion Management Program (CMP), which is aimed at reducing regional traffic congestion. The relevant state legislation requires that urbanized counties in California prepare a CMP in order to obtain each county’s share of gas tax revenues. State legislation requires that each CMP define traffic level of service (LOS) standards, transit service standards, a trip reduction and transportation demand management plan, a land use impact analysis program, and a capital

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 144 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
improvement element. VTA has review responsibility for proposed development projects that are expected to affect CMP-designated intersections.

City Milpitas General Plan 2040
The following policies in the City’s General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of reducing or avoiding impacts related to transportation and are applicable to the project.

Policies Description
Policy CIR 2-1 Promote multimodal transportation options by developing an interconnected system of streets, roads, bridges, and highways that provides continuous, efficient, safe and convenient travel for all users regardless of mode, age or ability and encourage users to walk, ride a bicycle, or use transit for shorter, local trips.

Policy CIR 2-7 Provide inclusive and diverse wayfinding measures to provide directional guidance for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders.

Policy CIR 4-2 Link and expand City pedestrian and bicycle circulation facilities to existing and planned local and regional networks, with an emphasis on expanding infrastructure options near transit.

Policy CIR 4-3 Encourage walking, biking and transit use by prioritizing and implementing “firstmile/last mile” improvements, wayfinding and educational efforts in the vicinity of the Great Mall transit center, light rail stations, the BART station/Milpitas Transit Station, and heavily used bus stops.

Policy CIR 4-5 Support building bridges or under-crossings across creek channels, railroad lines and roadways in a manner that will enhance safety, improve network connectivity, and facilitate bicycling and walking between high density residential developments, retail centers, civic buildings, and recreational centers.

Policy CIR 4-7 Work collaboratively with the community to discover and develop connections between the multi-use paths and the on-street bicycle system to support development of a comprehensive network, with an emphasis on areas with limited access and/or higher health disparities.

Transportation Analysis Policy (City Council Resolution No. 9070) As established in City Council Resolution No. 9070, the City of Milpitas uses vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the metric to assess transportation impacts from new development. According to the policy, projects are presumed to have a less than significant impact if they generate 110 daily trips or less, are local serving retail projects under 100,000 sf or less, city facilities, or certain types of affordable housing, are projects meeting the transit screening requirements, or are transportation project that maintain or reduce VMT. If a project’s VMT does not meet the established thresholds, mitigation measures would be required, where feasible. The policy also requires preparation of a Transportation Operational Analysis to analyze other potentially adverse project impacts including LOS impacts, Santa Clara County CMP conformance, multimodal analysis of pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities, traffic signal warrant, site access and circulation, neighborhood traffic issues, and other transportation related analysis as deemed necessary by the “City Engineer”.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 145 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
The VMT thresholds of significance are established based on the countywide average VMT. Project impacts would be considered significant for both residential and employment projects if they fall below 15 percent of the countywide average.

City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
The MMSP adopted the following policies for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating transportation impacts resulting from planned development within the MMSP area, including the following:

Policies Description
M 1.5 Review individual development applications to ensure that adequate street right-of-way, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities and landscaping are provided and are consistent with the policies and standards in Chapter 3: Site and Building Design Standards and Guidelines [of the Metro Plan].

M 5.1 Create a complete pedestrian and bicycle network that connects trails and pathways and includes continuous sidewalks and safe bike travel routes throughout the entire Milpitas Metro Area.
2022 Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
The Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan provides a vision and action plan for the City to create a complete and connected network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities to support residents and visitors of all ages and abilities. The Plan serves as an update to the previously adopted Trail Master Plan (1997) and Bikeway Master Plan Update (2009) and focuses on supporting safer travel in and around Milpitas while maintaining and expanding connections with neighboring jurisdictions.

The plan was adopted by the City in May 2022 and specifically acknowledges that the planned extension of Milpitas Boulevard to Tarob Court (i.e., the proposed project) would improve connections to the BART Station/Milpitas Transit Station for all travel modes.

Existing Conditions
Roadway Network
Regional access to the project site is provided by I-880 and I-680. Local access to the project site is provided via Montague Expressway, Capitol Avenue, and Trade Zone Boulevard. Within the project vicinity, primary public streets include Sango Court, Tarob Court, South Milpitas Boulevard, and East Capitol Avenue. The freeways and local roadways are described below.

I-880 connects from the highway interchange I-280 and State Route (SR) 17 in San Jose to I-580 in Oakland. It is generally an eight-lane freeway through Milpitas. The section of I-880 at the Montague Expressway overcrossing has eight mixed-flow lanes. Access to the project site is provided via a full interchange at Montague Expressway.

I-680 connects from US 101 in San Jose to I-80 in Fairfield. It is generally an eight-lane freeway through Milpitas. The section of I-680 at the Montague Expressway overcrossing has eight mixedflow lanes. Access to the project site is provided via a full interchange at Montague Expressway and North Capitol Avenue.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 146 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Montague Expressway is an east-west roadway that starts at the intersection of Scott Boulevard and San Tomas Expressway in the west and ends at the intersection of South Park Victoria Drive/Morrill Avenue and Landess Avenue in the east. It is primarily a six to eight lane expressway and connects to the following freeways: US 101, I-880, and I-680.

Capitol Avenue is a north-south, six-lane divided arterial roadway in the project vicinity extending from Montague Expressway in the north, where it becomes Great Mall Parkway, to San José in the south. It provides direct access to the project area and the Milpitas Transit Center via its intersection with Milpitas Boulevard.

Trade Zone Boulevard is an east-west, four-lane roadway, extending from Montague Expressway in the west to Capitol Avenue in the east. It provides access to the project vicinity via Lundy Place and several local residential streets within the MMSP.

Milpitas Boulevard is a two-lane, north-south roadway south of Capitol Avenue, and a four lane eastwest, roadway serving the Milpitas Transit Center north of Capitol Avenue. South of Capitol Avenue, it currently terminates at Penitencia Creek.

Tarob Court is a two-lane roadway extending west from Lundy Place. It provides access to the office/industrial buildings located to the west of Lundy Place and terminates in a cul-de-sac approximately 800 feet west of Lundy Place. Tarob Court provides direct access to the project site via a single driveway.

Sango Court is a two-lane roadway extending east from Montague Expressway. It provides access to existing office/industrial buildings and terminates in a cul-de-sac approximately 500 feet east of Montague Expressway.

Lundy Place is a north-south, two-lane roadway extending from the Union Pacific Railroad tracks in the north to Trade Zone Boulevard in the south, where it becomes Lundy Avenue. Lundy Place terminates in a cul-de-sac approximately 650 feet north of Tarob Court.

Bicycle Facilities
Existing bicycle access to the project vicinity is provided primarily via a network of Class II bike lanes and Class III bike routes which are shared with vehicular traffic. Class I bicycle facilities (offstreet paths) are provided along Penitencia East Channel, from Montague Expressway to Lower Penitencia Creek. Buffered Class II bike lanes are provided along Trade Zone Boulevard.

Conventional Class II bike lanes are present on Lundy Avenue south of Trade Zone Boulevard, McCandless Drive, and Capitol Avenue. Existing Class III bike routes are present on Montague Expressway.

An existing approximately 12-foot-wide multi-use trail runs from the project site at South Milpitas Boulevard to the southeast along the Penitencia East Channel and ends at the BART right-of-way.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 147 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Pedestrian Facilities
The signalized intersections serving the project vicinity generally provide crosswalks and the majority of streets in the project vicinity provide sidewalks, with the exception of Trade Zone Boulevard, the west side of Lundy Avenue north of Trade Zone Boulevard, both sides of Sango Court, and the west side of Tarob Court.

Transit Facilities
Existing transit services in the project vicinity are provided by AC Transit and VTA buses, VTA light rail (LRT), and BART at the Milpitas Transit Center and surrounding roadways including Montague Expressway, East Capitol Avenue, and Trade Zone Boulevard. The Milpitas Transit Center services include the Milpitas BART station/Milpitas Transit Station, VTA’s Montague LRT station, several bus routes at a bus transfer facility, and a park-and-ride lot. BART provides regional service to the East Bay and San Francisco and AC Transit serves western Alameda County, while VTA bus and light rail serve Santa Clara County which include connections to Caltrain and Downtown San José.

Bus Service
The project site is primarily served by six local bus lines and three frequent bus lines. All bus lines are accessible at the Milpitas Transit Center’s bus transfer facility approximately 800 feet north of the project site. VTA buses service the Milpitas BART Station/Milpitas Transit Station which include:
• Frequent Route 60 providing service between Milpitas BART and Winchester LRT Station via San José International Airport;
• Frequent Route 66 providing service between Milpitas BART and Kaiser San José; • Frequent Route 77 providing service between Milpitas BART and Eastridge via King Road; • Local Route 20 providing service between Milpitas BART and Sunnyvale Transit Center; • Local Route 44 providing service between Milpitas BART and McCarthy Ranch via East Tasman Drive and Alder Drive;
• Local Route 47 providing service between Milpitas BART and McCarthy Ranch via Park Victoria;
• Local Route 70 providing service between Milpitas BART and Eastridge via North Jackson Avenue;
• Local Route 71 providing service between Milpitas BART and Capitol LRT Station.

AC Transit Line 217 provides service between Milpitas BART and Fremont BART.

VTA Light Rail Transit Service
The project is located in close proximity to the Milpitas Transit Center and is served by the Mountain View–Alum Rock LRT line.

BART Service
The project site is located approximately 800 feet south of the Milpitas Transit Center, which includes regional BART service. The two lines run service between North San José and Daly City

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 148 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
and North San José and Daly City separately with connections to San Francisco International Airport and Oakland International Airport.

4.17.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes, and
pedestrian facilities?
2) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
3) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
4) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Impact TRN-1: The project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian facilities. (Less than Significant Impact) Pedestrian Facilities
The project would install 6-foot wide sidewalks on each side of the proposed bridge and 5-foot wide sidewalks on both sides of Sango Court and Tarob Court. The proposed changes would improve pedestrian connectivity and safe routes to the surrounding destinations consistent with General Plan Policy CIR 4-5. The sidewalk width is based upon MMSP standards for new local neighborhood streets (Figure 4-13 of the MMSP). The 2022 Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan specifically acknowledges that the proposed project would improve connections to the BART station/Milpitas Transit Station for all travel modes. Therefore, the project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy regarding pedestrian facilities and impacts would be less than significant.

Bicycle Facilities
The project proposes 6-foot-wide Class II bicycle lanes along the proposed bridge. Additionally, the proposed roadway connections would include Class III shared lane bikeways. The 2022 Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan specifically acknowledges that the proposed project would improve connections to the BART station/Milpitas Transit Station for all travel modes. The proposed bikeways would improve bicycle facilities in the project area; therefore, the project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy regarding bicycle facilities and impacts would be less than significant.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 149 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Transit Facilities
The project site is adequately served by the Milpitas Transit Center. The project would improve vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian connectivity in the project vicinity consistent with the goals and policies identified in the MMSP. The project would not preclude, modify, or otherwise affect existing or proposed transit projects or policies identified by the VTA. The project would not increase transit delay but could reduce bus delays on surrounding streets by shortening the length of roadway trips in the project vicinity (refer to discussion under Impact TRN-2). Overall, the project would increase transit accessibility by providing a more convenient bike and pedestrian link to the surrounding transit uses. Therefore, the project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy regarding transit facilities and impacts would be less than significant.

Roadway Facilities
The project would create a roadway network that establishes alternative routes via South Milpitas Boulevard for travelers both north and south of the Penitencia East Channel to access community resources, including the Milpitas Transit Center and industrial areas south of Trade Zone Boulevard.

The current route across Penitencia East Channel follows through the intersections of Montague Expressway/Capitol Avenue and Trade Zone Boulevard/Montague Expressway, which are congested intersections during peak commute periods (see Table 4.17-2 below). Therefore, the project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy regarding roadway facilities and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact TRN-2: The project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). (Less than Significant Impact) This question pertains specifically to VMT as the means of analyzing the transportation impacts of a project. As described in Section 4.17.1.1 Regulatory Framework, the City’s adopted Transportation Analysis Policy (City Council Resolution No. 9070) sets forth the thresholds of significance and methodology for analyzing the VMT impacts of development projects.

The City’s Transportation Analysis Policy establishes screening criteria to determine which projects require a detailed VMT analysis. If a project meets the relevant screening criteria, it is considered to a have a less than significant VMT impact. The City’s guidelines state that several types of roadway projects are exempt from quantitative VMT analysis, including projects that result in the:
• Addition of roadway capacity on local or collector streets provided the project also substantially improves conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, and, if applicable, transit.

The project proposes to construct a bridge across Penitencia East Channel. The proposed bridge would serve vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists and would connect South Milpitas Boulevard on the north side of the channel with Tarob Court and Sango Court on the south side of the channel. The proposed bridge would include 11-foot vehicle lanes, six-foot bicycle lanes, and six-foot sidewalks in each direction. The connecting roadways (Tarob Court to Sango Court) would include 11-foot-wide travel lanes for both vehicles and bicycles in each direction and five-foot wide sidewalks on both

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 150 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
sides of the street. The project would link land uses within the MMSP area to the surrounding roadway network, resulting in the overall shortening of trips through the area. Based on the project’s design and proximity to the Milpitas Transit Center, the project’s VMT impacts would be considered less than significant, according to the City’s Transportation Analysis Policy.

The Milpitas Travel Demand Forecast (TDF) Model was utilized to determine if the project would reduce VMT.
101 The results are shown in Table 4.17-1.

Table 4.17-1: VMT Within the Project Vicinity
Scenario
Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Daily Vehicle Hours Traveled No
Bridge w/ Bridge Difference No
Bridge w/ Bridge Difference
Near-Term 83,658 83,373 -285 2,087 2,078 -9.8
2040 83,042 82,697 -345 2,272 2,261 -11.0
Note: The 2040 VMT is slightly less in year 2040 compared to the near-term, even though there is more development assumed in the TSAP area in year 2040. The reduction in VMT is caused by:
(1) higher development densities in the TSAP area which increases nonmotorized travel and transit use; (2) increased congestion of the roadway system making transit more attractive; and (3) Phase II BART extension to San Jose and Santa Clara, which includes four new BART stations and BART trains running on more frequent headways.

As shown in Table 4.17-1, the project would reduce the daily VMT in the area by 285 in the near term and by 345 by year 2040. Similarly, daily vehicle-hours of travel would also decrease, by 9.8 hours and 11.0 hours in the near-term and year 2040, respectively. The reduction in VMT is due to higher development densities in the TSAP area which increases nonmotorized travel and transit use; increased congestion of the roadway system making transit more attractive; and the Phase II BART extension to San José and Santa Clara, which includes four new BART stations and BART trains running on more frequent headways. For these reasons, the project would result in a less than significant VMT impact.

Impact TRN-3: The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). (Less than Significant Impact) The project proposes to construct a bridge extending South Milpitas Boulevard across Penitencia East Channel connecting to Tarob Court and Sango Court on the south side of the channel. The proposed bridge and roadway connections would comply with the design guidelines specified in the MMSP.

Adequate sight distance is required at the project intersections in accordance with the AASHTO standards to avoid collisions and provide drivers with the ability to turn safely. Posted speed limits for new local streets would be 25 to 35 miles per hour. The AASHTO stopping sight distance for a 101 The Milpitas TDF model is an approved tool for estimating VMT within the City of Milpitas. The tool was updated and refined during General Plan update (2021) and is based upon the VTA countywide TDF model.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 151 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 mph is 200 feet midblock and 125 feet from a corner.

Following the demolition of the office building, post-construction conditions would not include buildings or vegetation (i.e., trees with wide trunks and low canopies) that would impede the sight distance for turning drivers at the sign-controlled intersection of Tarob Court, Sango Court, and South Milpitas Boulevard. Based on the above discussion, the project would have less than significant impacts related to hazards due to geometric design.

The project does not propose a use that is incompatible with the existing mix of uses in the project area or propose a use that would bring unusual equipment on the roadways (e.g., farm equipment).

Thus, the project would not result in a significant impact due to incompatible uses.

Impact TRN-4: The project would not result in inadequate emergency access. (Less than Significant Impact)
The proposed project would improve access across the Penitencia East Channel to and from the Milpitas BART Station/Milpitas Transit Station and surrounding neighborhoods. The bridge would be designed to accommodate emergency vehicle access. The design of the bridge and roadway connections would be reviewed for consistency with applicable Milpitas Fire Department standards.

The project does not contain inadequate emergency access characteristics that would impair the performance of the 2021 City’s Emergency Management Program Assessment and Implementation Plan. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access and would comply with City guidelines for emergency access and impacts would be less than significant.

4.17.3 Non-CEQA Effects
While the evaluation of project CEQA impacts on the transportation system is based on VMT, in accordance with the City of Milpitas Transportation Analysis Policy (City Council Resolution No. 9070), the following discussion is included for informational purposes because Resolution No. 9070 requires preparation of a Transportation Operational Analysis to analyze non-CEQA transportation issues, including local transportation operations, intersection level of service, CMP conformance, site access and circulation, and neighborhood transportation issues such as pedestrian and bicycle access, and transportation improvements.

Intersection Level of Service
A level of service (LOS) analysis was conducted to determine the effects of the project on intersection delays. The analysis evaluated LOS at the following major intersections:

1. East Capitol Avenue and Milpitas Boulevard

2. Trade Zone Boulevard and Lundy Avenue

3. Montague Expressway and Trade Zone Boulevard

4. Montague Expressway and Great Mall Parkway

5. Montague Expressway and Sango Court
The five intersections were evaluated under near-term conditions (existing conditions plus approved projects) and year 2040 conditions during the AM (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) and PM (4:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.) peak commuting periods. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 4.17-2.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 152 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
The results of the LOS analysis show the project would increase the amount of traffic and delays at the intersection of Capitol Avenue and Milpitas Boulevard, as residents south of the proposed bridge access Capitol Avenue. In addition, the proposed bridge would decrease or maintain the delays along Montague Expressway, with the largest delay decreases occurring at the intersection of Montague Expressway and Trade Zone Boulevard.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 153 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Table 4.17-2: Study Intersections Level of Service Summary No. Intersection
(Traffic Control)
Peak
Hour
Existing Near Term Year 2040
Avg.

Delay1 LOS
No Project With Project No Project With Project
Avg.

Delay1 LOS Avg.

Delay1 LOS Change in Delay
Avg.

Delay1 LOS Avg. Delay1 LOS Change in Delay
1 Capitol Avenue and
Milpitas Boulevard
(Signal)
AM
PM

19.7 15.5
B
B

26.5 18.7
C
B

26.8 20.6
C
C

0.3 1.9
114.3
135.7
F
F
114.3
139.1
F
F

0.0 3.4
2 Lundy Avenue and
Trade Zone
Boulevard (Signal)
AM
PM

30.3 41.8
C
D

31.9 49.7
C
D

31.9 49.8
C
D

0.0 0.1

87.1 77.8
F
E

87.9 77.7
F
E

0.8 -0.1
3 Montague
Expressway and
Trade Zone
Boulevard (Signal)
AM
PM

97.5 65.9
F
E
135.3

83.4 F
F
134.3

79.9 F
E
-1.0
-3.5
230.9

90.5 F
F
225.9

89.4 F
F
-5.0
-1.1
4 Montague
Expressway and
Capitol Avenue
(Signal)
AM
PM

42.4 69.6
D
E

45.1 72.7
D
E

45.1 73.8
D
E

0.0 1.1

56.8 187.3
E
F

56.7 187.3
E
F
-0.1

1.1 5
Montague
Expressway and
Sango Court
(SSSC)2
AM
PM

0.2/9.9

0.2/14.5
A/A
A/B

0.9/10.7

0.5/17.3
A/B
A/C

0.9/10.7

0.5/17.1
A/B
A/B

0.0/0.0

0.0/-0.2

0.8/14.8

0.9/36.5
A/B
A/E

0.9/14.9

0.8/34.9
A/B
A/D

0.1/1.0
-0.1/1.6
1 Signalized intersection level of service is based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology, using average control delay f or the entire intersection. For unsignalized intersection at Montague/Sango, average intersection delay/approach with highest delay based on HCM methodology are shown. 2 SSSC = Side street stop control

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 154 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.18.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Assembly Bill 52
AB 52, effective July 2015, established a new category of resources for consideration by public agencies called Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs). AB 52 requires lead agencies to provide notice of projects to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area if they have requested to be notified. Where a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, consultation is required until the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect on a tribal cultural resource or until it is concluded that mutual agreement cannot be reached.

Under AB 52, TCRs are defined as follows:
• Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are also either:
o Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources, or
o Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k).
• A resource determined by the lead agency to be a TCR.

Local
City of Milpitas General Plan 2040
The following policies in the City’s General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of reducing or avoiding impacts related to tribal cultural resources and are applicable to the proposed project.

Policies Description
Policy CON 4-1 Review proposed developments and work in conjunction with the California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, to determine whether project areas contain known archaeological resources, either prehistoric and/or historic-era, or have the potential for such resources.

Policy CON 4-2 If found during construction, ensure that human remains are treated with sensitivity and dignity, and ensure compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 155 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Policies Description
Policy CON 4-3 Work with Native American representatives to identify and appropriately address, through avoidance or mitigation, impacts to Native American cultural resources and sacred sites during the development review process
Policy CON 4-4 Consistent with State, local, and tribal intergovernmental consultation requirements such as SB 18 and AB 52, the City shall consult as necessary with Native American tribes that may be interested in proposed new development and land use policy changes.

Policy CON 5-1 Protect significant historic resources and use these resources to promote a sense of place and history in Milpitas through implementation of the Milpitas Cultural Resources Preservation Program (Municipal Code, Title XI, Chapter 4), the Conceptual Historic Resources Master Plan, the conservation and preservation of the City’s historical collection at the Milpitas Community Museum, and other applicable codes, regulations, and area plans.

Existing Conditions
According to the General Plan, no specific resources have been identified through consultation with affiliated Native American tribes. Unknown tribal cultural resources, however, could be present within the City.

On June 14, 2021, Tamien Nation sent a written request for notification of projects citywide to the City of Milpitas. The City of Milpitas notified Tamien Nation of the project on March 1, 2022 per the representative’s request. On May 4, 2022, the City met with Tamien Nation Chairwoman Quirina Geary and concluded consultation on September 13, 2022.102

4.18.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code
Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in
terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that is:
1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
102 City of Milpitas. Leon Taing, PE to Tamien Nation, Chairwomen Quirina Luna Geary. September 13, 2022.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 156 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.

Impact TCR-1: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Assembly Bill 52 requires lead agencies to complete formal consultations with California Native American tribes during the CEQA process to identify tribal cultural resources that may be subject to significant impacts by a project. Where a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency’s environmental document must discuss the impact and whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures could avoid or substantially lessen the impact. This consultation requirement applies only if the tribes have sent written requests for notification of projects to the Lead Agency. On June 14, 2021, Tamien Nation sent a written request for notification of projects citywide to the City of Milpitas. The City of Milpitas notified Tamien Nation of the project on March 1, 2022, per the representative’s request. On May 4, 2022, the City met with Tamien Nation Chairwoman Quirina Geary and concluded consultation on September 13, 2022. The project site is considered to have a high sensitivity for unknown tribal cultural resources. Therefore, as described in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources, the project will be required to have a Tribal Monitor present during ground disturbing activities (MM CUL-2.1). In addition, the project would implement MM CUL-2.2 and MM CUL-3.1 under Impact CUL-2 and Impact CUL-3 in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources to reduce the potential for adverse impacts to buried cultural resources (including TCRs) to a less than significant level.

Impact TCR-2: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) Refer to the discussion above under Impact TCR-1. As described in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources, the project will be required to have a Tribal Monitor present during ground disturbing activities (MM CUL-2.1). In addition, the project would implement MM CUL-2.2 and MM CUL-3.1 under Impact CUL-2 and Impact CUL-3 in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources to reduce the potential for adverse impacts to buried cultural resources (including TCRs) to a less than significant level.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 157 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

4.19.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
State Water Code
Pursuant to the State Water Code, water suppliers providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet (approximately 980 million gallons) of water annually must prepare and adopt an urban water management plan (UWMP) and update it every five years. As part of a UWMP, water agencies are required to evaluate and describe their water resource supplies and projected needs over a 20-year planning horizon, water conservation, water service reliability, water recycling, opportunities for water transfers, and contingency plans for drought events. The City of Milpitas adopted its most recent UWMP in June 2021.

Assembly Bill 939
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, or AB 939, established the Integrated Waste Management Board, required the implementation of integrated waste management plans, and mandated that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of solid waste generated (from 1990 levels), beginning January 1, 2000, and divert at least 75 percent by 2010. Projects that would have an adverse effect on waste diversion goals are required to include waste diversion mitigation measures.

Assembly Bill 341
AB 341 sets forth the requirements of the statewide mandatory commercial recycling program.

Businesses that generate four or more cubic yards of garbage per week and multi-family dwellings with five or more units in California are required to recycle. AB 341 sets a statewide goal for 75 percent disposal reduction by the year 2020.

Senate Bill 1383
SB 1383 establishes targets to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. The bill grants CalRecycle the regulatory authority required to achieve the organic waste disposal reduction targets and establishes an additional target that at least 20 percent of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human consumption by 2025.

California Green Building Standards Code
CalGreen establishes mandatory green building standards for all buildings in California. The code is updated every three years.103 CalGreen covers five categories: planning and design, energy 103 California Building Standards Commission. “California Building Standards Code.” Accessed February 6, 2024. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes#@ViewBag.JumpTo.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 158 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resources efficiency, and indoor environmental quality. These standards include the following mandatory set of measures, as well as more rigorous voluntary guidelines, for new construction projects to achieve specific green building performance levels:
• Reducing indoor water use by 20 percent;
• Reducing wastewater by 20 percent;
• Recycling and/or salvaging 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition debris; and
• Providing readily accessible areas for recycling by occupants.

Local
City of Milpitas General Plan 2040
The following policies in the City’s General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of reducing or avoiding impacts related to utilities and service systems and are applicable to the project.

Policies Description
Policy UCS 4-2 Require all development projects to demonstrate how storm water runoff will be detained or retained on‐site and/or conveyed to the nearest drainage facility as part of the development review process and as required by the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.

Policy UCS 4-3 Require all future development projects to analyze their drainage and stormwater conveyance impacts and either demonstrate that the City’s existing infrastructure can accommodate increased stormwater flows, or make the necessary improvements to mitigate all potential impacts.

Policy UCS 4-4 Applicable projects shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Low Impact Development measures (LID) to treat stormwater before discharge from the site. The facilities shall be sized to meet regulatory requirements.

Policy UCS 4-5 Applicable projects shall control peak flows and duration of runoff to prevent accelerated erosion of downstream watercourses.

Policy UCS 4-8 Coordinate directly with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to incorporate recreational trails and parkway vegetation design into open stormwater facilities and creek corridors to the greatest extent feasible.

Policy UCS 4-10 Where feasible, conform developments to natural landforms, avoid excessive grading and disturbance of vegetation and soils, retain native vegetation and trees, and maintain natural drainage patterns
Policy UCS 4-12 Projects accommodating outdoor activities, including work areas, storage areas or other areas that are potential sources of stormwater pollutants, shall incorporate measures to control those pollutant sources to the maximum extent practicable.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 159 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Policies Description
Policy UCS 4-14 Construction sites shall incorporate measures to control erosion, sedimentation, and the generation of runoff pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. The design, scope and location of grading and related activities shall be designed to cause minimum disturbance to terrain and natural features. (Title II, Chapter 13 of the Municipal Code).

Policy UCS 4-15 Minimize the use of pesticides that may affect water quality.

Policy UCS 5-2 Implement and enforce the provisions of the City’s Source Reduction and Recycling Program and update the program as necessary to meet or exceed the State waste diversion requirements.

Policy UCS 5-3 Reduce municipal waste generation by increasing recycling, on‐site composting, and mulching, where feasible, at municipal facilities, as well as using resource efficient landscaping techniques in new or renovated medians and parks.

City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
The MMSP adopted the following policies for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating impacts to utilities and service systems resulting from planned development within the MMSP area, including the following:

Policies Description
Policy ICS 3.1 Provide water supply for the Milpitas Metro Area from the City’s portfolio of water supplies, including potable water from Valley Water District and San Francisco Public Utilities and groundwater and recycled water from South Bay Water Recycling, per the Water Master Plan. No development is entitled to municipal water until a building permit is issued by the City. Policy ICS 3.10.

Policy ICS 3.6 Require that recycled water be used for all irrigation, including parks, plazas, community facilities, linear parks, landscaped front yards, buffer zones, vegetated setbacks, and private common areas. Policy ICS 3.7. Require, where reasonable and feasible, that commercial uses, schools, and non-residential mixed-use developments include dual plumbing to enable indoor recycled water use for nonpotable uses to the extent feasible.

Policy ICS 3.7 Require, where reasonable and feasible, that commercial uses, schools, and nonresidential mixed-use developments include dual plumbing to enable indoor recycled water use for nonpotable uses to the extent feasible.

Policy ICS 3.10 Recycled water mains shall be installed up to and across the frontage of parcels that do not have access to recycled water. The cost of extending recycled water mains, excluding the length across the frontage, shall be funded through the TADIF.

Policy CB 7.6 Building construction and operations shall incorporate measures to screen waste areas from view, reduce waste generation and maximize waste diversion from landfills and reuse.

Policy CB 7.6.2 All construction and demolition projects shall achieve a 75 percent diversion waste rate.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 160 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Policies Description
Policy CB 7.6.3 Organic Waste Collection for Residential. All multifamily residential buildings shall provide organic waste collection services for tenants and employees.

Policy CB 7.6.4 All nonresidential buildings shall provide collection containers for organic waste and recyclables in all areas where disposal containers are provided, except in restrooms.

City of Milpitas Storm Drain Master Plan
The City’s 2021 Storm Drain Master Plan identifies the capital improvements needed to maintain recommended levels of protection against storm water runoff, and the need for a revenue stream that would allow the necessary capital improvements to be made, and the storm drain system kept in working order into the future. The Master Plan contains drainage standards, summarizes the major drainage facilities in the area, evaluates the storm drain collection system and pump stations, analyzes storm drain impacts from new development, identifies capital improvements, outlines the operations, maintenance, and replacement methods, and identifies funding requirements.

Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan
The City adopted the Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan (GSI Plan) on November 3, 2019 per the requirements of MRP Order R2-2015-0049 to create a long range plan for integrating LID measures into private development and City capital projects. The GSI Plan would be coordinated with the implementation of the Milpitas General Plan.104
Existing Conditions
Water Service and Supply
Water service is provided by the City of Milpitas through its municipal water system. The City purchases domestic water from two water suppliers, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and Valley Water. In 2019, approximately 60 percent of the City’s total water was from SFPUC and 30 percent from Valley Water. The remaining 10 percent of water was from recycled water supplies discussed below. The City’s agreement with SFPUC provides the City with the right to purchase up to 9.23 million gallons per day (mgd) of treated potable water unless SFPUC has a water shortage. In 2019, the SFPUC supplied 6,146 acre-feet of water to the City of Milpitas.105 The City has a three-year contracted delivery schedule with Valley Water. In 2019, the City water supplies totaled 3,182 acre-feet water delivery. The City’s monthly “supply guarantee” is at least 15 percent of the annual schedule for that year, meaning that in any month, the City can purchase up to 15 percent of the year’s total delivery schedule water.

Using the water demand rate for a “General Office Building”, the water demand of the 41,307 square foot existing office development is approximately 11,841,396 gallons of water per year.106 104 City of Milpitas. Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan. November 2019. 105 City of Milpitas. The City of Milpitas 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. July 1, 2021. 106 California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Table 9.1 Water Use Rates. Version 2020.4.0.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 161 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Recycled Water
Recycled Water services are provided to the City by South Bay Water Recycling Program. Recycled water is produced at the San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (Facility) and delivered to the City via SWBR’s recycled water system. In 2019, the City used approximately 1,049 acre-feet of recycled water for irrigation and industrial uses.107 This represents approximately 10 percent of the City’s total water use in 2019.

Sanitary Sewer/Wastewater Treatment
The City of Milpitas collects, but does not treat, wastewater within the service area. Wastewater from the City is treated at the Facility. The Facility treats an average of 110 mgd. The City’s total contracted peak week flow capacity at the plant is 14.25 mgd.108 Storm Drainage
Stormwater runoff is collected in a system of storm drain pipelines ranging from three‐inches to 96‐ inches in diameter with outfalls and pumping stations along the City’s major waterways that ultimately drain to the San Francisco Bay. Milpitas owns and operates 13 storm water pumping stations, but Valley Water manages most of the natural and urbanized waterways into which the City discharges stormwater.109
Solid Waste
Republic Services (formerly Allied Waste) provides solid waste and recycling collection services for the City of Milpitas. Waste from the City is hauled to the Newby Island Sanitary Landfill (NISL).

The estimated closure date for NISL is 2041.110 The City has an annual disposal allocation for 395,000 tons per year. As of April 2021, NISL had approximately 13.7 million cubic yards of capacity remaining.111

4.19.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction
or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
107 City of Milpitas. The City of Milpitas 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. July 1, 2021. 108 City of Milpitas. Milpitas General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. January 2020. SCH 2020070348. 109 Ibid. 110 Ibid. 111 North, Daniel. General Manager, Republic Services. Personal Communication. April 9, 2021.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 162 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
2) Have insufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
3) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it does not have adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
4) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
5) Be noncompliant with federal, state, or local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Impact UTL-1: The project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. (Less than Significant Impact)
Water
Operation of the bridge and roadway connections would have no demand for potable water. The project would extend new utility lines to improve the interconnectivity of the City’s water network, including potable water and recycled water lines, across Penitencia East Channel. The potable water and recycled water utility pipes would be constructed on the downstream side or western face of the bridge across the Penitencia East Channel to minimize potential utility pipe impacts as a result of flood debris during a flooding event. Therefore, the project would not result in significant environmental effects due to construction or relocation of water utilities.

Sanitary Sewer/Wastewater Treatment
The project does not include a component that would generate wastewater. Therefore, the project would have no impact on wastewater treatment facilities.

Storm Drainage Facilities
The project would replace more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface at the project site; therefore, it would be subject to Provision C.3 of the MRP. This requires the project to incorporate

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 163 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
site design, source control and runoff treatment controls to reduce the rate, volume, and pollutant load of runoff from the project site. The project would install bioswale basins to treat stormwater associated with the roads behind the flow line of the gutter. The project’s stormwater treatment system would reduce the rate of stormwater runoff entering the City’s storm drainage system. As discussed in Section 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality, compliance with Provision C.3 of the MRP, Construction General Permit, and General Plan Policies UCS 4-2, UCS 4-3, and UCS 4-4, the project would improve the quality of stormwater runoff leaving the sites and entering the City’s storm drainage system. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the City’s storm drainage system such that no new or expanded facilities would be required.

Electric Power, Natural Gas, & Telecommunication Facilities The construction and operation of the bridge would not require the construction or expansion of electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. Future utility openings would be built into the bridge platform to provide future connections for dry utility services. Construction of the future connections would occur at the time future projects would be constructed and would be assessed by the project-level environmental review completed for each project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not, by itself cause a significant environmental impact.

As discussed above, the project would not result in significant impacts from construction or relocation of new or expanded utilities.

Impact UTL-2: The project would not have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. (No Impact)
The project would construct a bridge over Penitencia East Channel, connecting South Milpitas Boulevard on the north side of the channel with Tarob Court and Sango Court on the south side of the channel. The project would not require the provision of water supplies. As discussed above in Impact UTL-1, the new utility lines would increase the service area of the recycled water network and improve the redundancy and resilience of the water network for continued service delivery in case of water line disruptions. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact water supplies and no impact would occur.

Impact UTL-3: The project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. (No Impact)
The project would construct a bridge and roadway connections. The project would not require the treatment of wastewater and there would be no impact on wastewater treatment facilities.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 164 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Impact UTL-4: The project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. (Less than Significant Impact)
Demolition of the existing office building and construction of the project would generate waste during construction activities. Construction waste would be recycled in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 200 and Demolition Recycling Report Process.112 As discussed in Section

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site has been the subject of remediation activities due to soil and groundwater contamination (VOC, TCE, and DCE). In the event that contaminated soils are encountered during ground disturbing activities, MM HAZ-2.1 would require that contaminated soils be removed and disposed of properly at a landfill that meets acceptance criteria for the type of waste being disposed.

For these reasons, the project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact UTL-5: The project would not be noncompliant with federal, state, or local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. (Less than Significant Impact)
As described in UTL-4, the construction waste would be recycled in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 200 and Demolition Recycling Report Process ensuring that at least 65 percent of the waste is recovered and diverted from landfills. During operation, the project would not generate solid waste. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on solid waste reduction regulations.
112 City of Milpitas. Demolition Recycling Report Process. August 29, 2022. Accessed January 10, 2024. https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/232/Demolition-Recycling-Report-Process-PDF?bidId=.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 165 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024

WILDFIRE

4.20.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
CAL FIRE is required by law to map areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors. Referred to as Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs), these maps influence how people construct buildings and protect property to reduce risk associated with wildland fires.

FHSZs are divided into areas where the state has financial responsibility for wildland fire protection, known as state responsibility areas (SRAs), and areas where local governments have financial responsibility for wildland fire protection, known as local responsibility areas (LRAs). Homeowners living in an SRA are responsible for ensuring that their property is in compliance with California’s building and fire codes. Only lands zoned for very high fire hazard are identified within LRAs.

Local
City of Milpitas Municipal Code
Chapter 300 of the City’s Municipal Code includes the adoption of the 2022 California Fire Code and the adoption of additional amendments. Chapter 300 requires compliance with the California Fire Code. The California Fire Code regulates and governs the safeguarding of life and property from fire and explosion hazards arising from the storage, handling and use of hazardous substances, materials and devices, and from conditions hazardous to life or property in the occupancy of buildings and premises in the City of Milpitas.

Existing Conditions
The project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones.113

4.20.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
1) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
113 City of Milpitas. Milpitas General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. January 2020. SCH 2020070348.

Figure 3.8-1.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 166 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
2) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
3) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines,
or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk
or that may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
4) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
The project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones; therefore, the project would not result in wildfire impacts.114 (No Impact) 114 City of Milpitas. Milpitas General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. January 2020. SCH 2020070348.

Figure 3.8-1.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 167 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024

MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
1) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
2) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
3) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Impact MFS-1: The project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) As discussed in prior sections of this Initial Study, the proposed project would not significantly degrade the quality of the environment, substantially affect biological resources, or eliminate important examples of California history or prehistory with implementation of the mitigation measures identified throughout this document.

As discussed in Section 4.3 Air Quality, implementation of MM AIR-3.1 and MM AIR-3.2 would reduce potentially significant impacts from fugitive dust and toxic air contaminants to a less than significant level.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 168 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Implementation of MM BIO-1.4 through MM BIO-1.5 (refer to Section 4.3 Biological Resources) would reduce the potentially significant impacts of bridge illumination on fish and wildlife species to a less than significant level. Implementation of MM BIO-1.6 would ensure that no taking of nesting birds and raptors, including fertile bird eggs, occurs during construction. Implementation of MM BIO-2.1 through MM BIO-2.4 would reduce potentially significant effects from construction on the existing riparian habitat to a less than significant level by ensuring that construction work within the stream banks would be confined to the period of April 15 to October 15; work areas would be delineated and flagged during construction activities; and temporary impact areas would be revegetated and restored to preconstruction conditions and monitored for a period of three years.

As discussed in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources, implementation of MM CUL-2.1, MM CUL-2.2, and MM CUL-3.1 would reduce potentially significant impacts on undiscovered subsurface archaeological resources (Impact CUL-2), tribal cultural resources (Impact TCR-1 and -2), and human remains (Impact CUL-3) (if encountered during construction) to a less than significant level.

Similarly, implementation of MM GEO-1.1 (refer to Section 4.7 Geology and Soils) would reduce potentially significant impacts on undiscovered subsurface paleontological resources (if encountered during construction) to a less than significant level. Implementation of MM HAZ-2.1 (refer to Section 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials) would reduce potentially significant impacts from soil and groundwater contamination to a less than significant level.

Based on the above, with the implementation of mitigation measures, the project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. All significant project-level impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Impact MFS-2: The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Under Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has potential environmental effects “that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.” As defined in Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, cumulatively considerable means “that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” In addition, under Section 15152(f) of the CEQA Guidelines, where a lead agency has determined that a cumulative effect has been adequately addressed in a prior EIR, the effect is not treated as significant for purposes of later environmental review and need not be discussed in detail.

The project would not impact agricultural, forestry, or mineral resources; therefore, the project would have no contribution to cumulative impacts to these resources. Nor would the project contribute to

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 169 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
any cumulative impacts associated with wildfire risk, as the project site is not located in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones.

The project would result in less than significant impacts to aesthetics, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise and vibration, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems. As noted in Section 4.17 Transportation, the project would reduce both daily VMT and daily vehicle hours traveled and, therefore, would not contribute to cumulative VMT impacts. Furthermore, potential impacts associated with these resource areas are accounted for in the EIRs prepared for the Milpitas General Plan 2040, TASP and MMSP.

The proposed project would result in highly localized and temporary air quality, biological, cultural, geology and soils, and hazards and hazardous material impacts during construction. As discussed under Impact MFS-1, these impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Furthermore, the area surrounding the project is fully developed, and no other projects are anticipated to be constructed within the project vicinity at the same time as the proposed project that in combination with the proposed project would result in a cumulative impact. Additionally, future projects would undergo environmental review in accordance with CEQA, and held to the same state and federal standards protecting the exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs and PM2.5 (BAAQMD 2017 CAP, CEQA Guidelines) or contaminated soil (Toxic Substances Control Act, CalARP); fish, wildlife, nesting birds, and associated habitats including riparian (California Fish and Game Code, CDFW and USACE regulations, Migratory Bird Treaty Act); undiscovered subsurface archaeological and tribal cultural resources (National Historic Preservation Act, California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act, Assembly Bill 52) fossils (Public Resources Code Section 5097.5), and human remains (Public Resources Code Sections 5097 and 5097.98).

Future projects would also be subject to the policies and actions identified in the City’s General Plan, Municipal Code, and MMSP designed to protect the environment as relates to air quality, biological, cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology and soils, and hazards and hazardous materials. For these reasons, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study, construction-level impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level and would not be considered cumulatively considerable.

Lastly, illumination of the proposed bridge would have a less than significant impact on fish and wildlife present in the vicinity of the bridge location with implementation of the shielding and spillover light reduction measures outlined in MM BIO-1.4 and MM BIO-1.5. As previously noted, the surrounding area is fully developed, and future redevelopment occurring in the project vicinity is not anticipated to substantially increase the exposure of fish and wildlife species to nighttime lighting in comparison with existing conditions. Further, any future redevelopment would be subject to CDFW and USACE regulations protecting these species from nighttime light exposure. Accordingly, with implementation of MM BIO-1.4 and MM BIO-1.5 identified in this Initial Study, operationlevel impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level and would not be considered cumulatively considerable.

Because criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions would contribute to regional and global emissions of such pollutants, the identified thresholds developed by BAAQMD and used by the City of Milpitas were developed such that a project-level impact would also be a cumulative impact. As discussed in Section 4.3 Air Quality and Section 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the project would

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 170 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
not result in significant criteria air pollutants or GHG emissions; therefore, the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative air quality or GHG emissions impacts.

The discussion of project criteria pollutant impacts presented in Section 4.3 also reflects cumulative conditions, and the project would not contribute to significant cumulative impacts. The project’s contribution to cumulative climate change impacts was presented in Section 4.8 as less than cumulatively considerable. The discussion of the project’s energy impact also reflects cumulative conditions, since the project’s consumption of electricity, natural gas, and gasoline would decrease in comparison with the existing development, and therefore the availability of energy supplies at the state and county level would be unaffected. For these reasons, the proposed project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative air quality, energy, or GHG emissions impacts.

The project’s cumulative community health risk impacts are a combination of project constructionrelated emissions, operation-related emissions associated with vehicles traveling along the new roadway connection, and all substantial sources of TACs that can affect sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project site. Figure 4.21-1 shows the existing TAC sources with the potential to affect the off-site MEI.115
115 After completion of the project air quality impact analysis, residences were constructed immediately west of the project site (i.e., Sango Apartments) and are also planned to the south. At the time the dispersion modeling was completed, these receptors were not known. However, these new existing and planned receptors would not be expected to experience more exposure than was identified at the MEI due to the prevailing wind direction in the project area. Source: Reyff, James. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Personal Communication. December 19, 2023.

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., November 10, 2021.

PROJECT SITE AND NEARBY TAC AND PM2.5 SOURCES FIGURE 4.21-1 South Milpitas Boulevard BridgeCity of Milpitas
171 Initial Study
February 2024

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 172 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Modeling was completed to calculate the community health risk from the cumulative sources at the project MEI. Refer to Appendix A for details about the cumulative health risk modeling, including the models used (CT-EMFAC2017, EMFAC, and U.S. EPA AERMOD models), model inputs, and assumptions. Table 4.21-1 reports the cumulative community risk impacts from project construction and operation and other cumulative sources at the MEI.

Table 4.21-1: Cumulative Community Risk Impacts at Off-Site MEI Source
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Annual PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Hazard
Index
Project (Construction
and Operation) 8.30 (infant) 0.24 <0.01
Montague Expressway 0.61 0.03 <0.01
E. Capitol Avenue 0.13 <0.01 <0.01
Facility #17576 (Auto Body Coating
Operation) N/A N/A <0.01
Cumulative Totals 9.04 0.28 <0.04
BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold 100 0.8 10.0
Exceed Cumulative
Source Threshold? No No No
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. S. Milpitas Boulevard Vehicular Bridge Air Quality Assessment. November 10, 2021.

Notes:

Numbers in excess of BAAQMD cumulative source thresholds identified in bold. * Mitigation Measures AIR-3.1 and AIR-3.2 include BAAQMD recommended fugitive dust and construction equipment controls, use of Tier 4 equipment or equipment with CARB-certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters or equivalent.

As shown in Table 4.21-1 above, with implementation of MM AIR-3.1 and MM AIR-3.2, the project would not exceed either the single-source cancer risk or annual PM2.5 concentration thresholds or the cumulative source annual PM2.5 threshold. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the project and offsite TAC sources would not be cumulatively considerable.

Given the above discussion, the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable contributions to significant cumulative impacts with mitigation incorporated.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 173 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Impact MFS-3: The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Consistent with Section 15065(a)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Under this standard, a change to the physical environment that might otherwise be minor must be treated as significant if people would be significantly affected. This factor relates to adverse changes to the environment of human beings generally, and not to effects on particular individuals. While changes to the environment that could indirectly affect human beings would be represented by all of the designated CEQA issue areas, those that could directly affect human beings include construction air quality and noise. Implementation of the proposed project’s mitigation measures identified in this document and adherence to the City’s General Plan, Municipal Code, and MMSP and state and federal regulations described in this Initial Study, would avoid significant and unavoidable impacts.

No other direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings have been identified.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 174 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES
The analysis in this Initial Study is based on the professional judgement and expertise of the environmental specialists preparing this document, based upon review of the site, surrounding conditions, site plans, and the following references:

Association Of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “Projections 2040: Forecasts for Population, Household and Employment for the Nine County San Francisco Bay Area Region.” 2017. Accessed January 10, 2024. http://projections.planbayarea.org/data.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2022 California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. April 2023.

California Air Resources Board. “Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health.” Accessed January 9, 2024. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health.

California Air Resources Board. “The Advanced Clean Cars Program.” Accessed January 9, 2024. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program.

California Building Standards Commission. “California Building Standards Code.” Accessed January 9, 2024. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes#@ViewBag.JumpTo.

California Department of Transportation. ”Scenic Highways.” Accessed January 9, 2024. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lapliv-i-scenic-highways California Department of Transportation. California State Scenic Highway Systems Map. Accessed January 9, 2024.
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805 7116f1aacaa.

California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed January 9, 2024. DLRP Important Farmland Finder (ca.gov)
California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2016 Map.

Accessed January 9, 2024. https://santaclaralafco.org/sites/default/files/scl16.pdf.

California Department of Conservation. “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.” Accessed January 9, 2024. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Index.aspx.

California Department of Conservation. “Williamson Act.” http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca.