Milpitas City Council
May 21, 2024

TOG Evap
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Evaporative Emisssions ‐  XXX from The New Crossing Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 8 0.000007 8 0.0643577 45 3.87608E‐05 16 0.05801478 41 3.49407E‐05 1 0.00740349 5 4.459E‐06 9 0.0598818 42 3.60651E‐05 17 0.05628001 39 3.38959E‐05 2 0.00719554 5 4.334E‐06 10 0.0540699 38 3.25648E‐05 18 0.05397567 38 3.2508E‐05 3 0.0090397 6 5.444E‐06 11 0.0511832 36 3.08262E‐05 19 0.04834712 34 2.91181E‐05 4 0.01740988 12 1.049E‐05 12 0.0526533 37 3.17116E‐05 20 0.03893556 27 2.34498E‐05 5 0.03764755 26 2.267E‐05 13 0.0561328 39 3.38072E‐05 21 0.03342021 23 2.01281E‐05 6 0.05280664 37 3.18E‐05 14 0.061969 43 3.73222E‐05 22 0.02602722 18 1.56755E‐05 7 0.06314643 44 3.803E‐05 15 0.0606367 42 3.65198E‐05 23 0.0186155 13 1.12116E‐05 700
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Evaporative Emisssions ‐  XXX from the new roadway west of the Crossing Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 4 0.000003 8 0.0643577 23 1.85594E‐05 16 0.05801478 20 1.67302E‐05 1 0.00740349 3 2.135E‐06 9 0.0598818 21 1.72686E‐05 17 0.05628001 20 1.623E‐05 2 0.00719554 3 2.075E‐06 10 0.0540699 19 1.55926E‐05 18 0.05397567 19 1.55654E‐05 3 0.0090397 3 2.607E‐06 11 0.0511832 18 1.47601E‐05 19 0.04834712 17 1.39423E‐05 4 0.01740988 6 5.021E‐06 12 0.0526533 18 1.51841E‐05 20 0.03893556 14 1.12282E‐05 5 0.03764755 13 1.086E‐05 13 0.0561328 20 1.61875E‐05 21 0.03342021 12 9.63768E‐06 6 0.05280664 18 1.523E‐05 14 0.061969 22 1.78705E‐05 22 0.02602722 9 7.5057E‐06 7 0.06314643 22 1.821E‐05 15 0.0606367 21 1.74863E‐05 23 0.0186155 7 5.36831E‐06 350
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Evaporative Emisssions ‐  XXX from the new roadway east of the Crossing Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 4 0.000002 8 0.0643577 23 9.10444E‐06 16 0.05801478 20 8.20713E‐06 1 0.00740349 3 1.047E‐06 9 0.0598818 21 8.47125E‐06 17 0.05628001 20 7.96172E‐06 2 0.00719554 3 1.018E‐06 10 0.0540699 19 7.64907E‐06 18 0.05397567 19 7.63574E‐06 3 0.0090397 3 1.279E‐06 11 0.0511832 18 7.2407E‐06 19 0.04834712 17 6.83949E‐06 4 0.01740988 6 2.463E‐06 12 0.0526533 18 7.44866E‐06 20 0.03893556 14 5.50807E‐06 5 0.03764755 13 5.326E‐06 13 0.0561328 20 7.94089E‐06 21 0.03342021 12 4.72783E‐06 6 0.05280664 18 7.47E‐06 14 0.061969 22 8.76652E‐06 22 0.02602722 9 3.68197E‐06 7 0.06314643 22 8.933E‐06 15 0.0606367 21 8.57804E‐06 23 0.0186155 7 2.63346E‐06 350

TOTALTOTALTOTAL
Local_Roadway_Emissions_2024.xlsx

TOG Ex
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Exhaust EmisssioXXX from The New Crossing Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 8 0.000005 8 0.0643577 45 2.76806E‐05 16 0.05801478 41 2.49525E‐05 1 0.00740349 5 3.184E‐06 9 0.0598818 42 2.57555E‐05 17 0.05628001 39 2.42063E‐05 2 0.00719554 5 3.095E‐06 10 0.0540699 38 2.32558E‐05 18 0.05397567 38 2.32152E‐05 3 0.0090397 6 3.888E‐06 11 0.0511832 36 2.20142E‐05 19 0.04834712 34 2.07944E‐05 4 0.01740988 12 7.488E‐06 12 0.0526533 37 2.26465E‐05 20 0.03893556 27 1.67464E‐05 5 0.03764755 26 1.619E‐05 13 0.0561328 39 2.4143E‐05 21 0.03342021 23 1.43742E‐05 6 0.05280664 37 2.271E‐05 14 0.061969 43 2.66532E‐05 22 0.02602722 18 1.11945E‐05 7 0.06314643 44 2.716E‐05 15 0.0606367 42 2.60802E‐05 23 0.0186155 13 8.00663E‐06 700
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Exhaust EmisssioXXX from the new roadway west of the Crossing Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 4 0.000002 8 0.0643577 23 1.3254E‐05 16 0.05801478 20 1.19477E‐05 1 0.00740349 3 1.525E‐06 9 0.0598818 21 1.23322E‐05 17 0.05628001 20 1.15904E‐05 2 0.00719554 3 1.482E‐06 10 0.0540699 19 1.11353E‐05 18 0.05397567 19 1.11159E‐05 3 0.0090397 3 1.862E‐06 11 0.0511832 18 1.05408E‐05 19 0.04834712 17 9.95672E‐06 4 0.01740988 6 3.585E‐06 12 0.0526533 18 1.08435E‐05 20 0.03893556 14 8.01848E‐06 5 0.03764755 13 7.753E‐06 13 0.0561328 20 1.15601E‐05 21 0.03342021 12 6.88264E‐06 6 0.05280664 18 1.088E‐05 14 0.061969 22 1.2762E‐05 22 0.02602722 9 5.36011E‐06 7 0.06314643 22 1.3E‐05 15 0.0606367 21 1.24877E‐05 23 0.0186155 7 3.83372E‐06 350
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Exhaust EmisssioXXX from the new roadway east of the Crossing Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 4 0.000001 8 0.0643577 23 6.50183E‐06 16 0.05801478 20 5.86103E‐06 1 0.00740349 3 7.479E‐07 9 0.0598818 21 6.04965E‐06 17 0.05628001 20 5.68577E‐06 2 0.00719554 3 7.269E‐07 10 0.0540699 19 5.46249E‐06 18 0.05397567 19 5.45297E‐06 3 0.0090397 3 9.132E‐07 11 0.0511832 18 5.17086E‐06 19 0.04834712 17 4.88434E‐06 4 0.01740988 6 1.759E‐06 12 0.0526533 18 5.31938E‐06 20 0.03893556 14 3.93352E‐06 5 0.03764755 13 3.803E‐06 13 0.0561328 20 5.6709E‐06 21 0.03342021 12 3.37633E‐06 6 0.05280664 18 5.335E‐06 14 0.061969 22 6.26051E‐06 22 0.02602722 9 2.62944E‐06 7 0.06314643 22 6.379E‐06 15 0.0606367 21 6.12591E‐06 23 0.0186155 7 1.88066E‐06 350

TOTALTOTALTOTAL
Local_Roadway_Emissions_2024.xlsx

Attachment 4: Health Risk Calculations for Construction and Operations

Emissions & Areas
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge and Roadway Extension Project Milpitas Blvd. Bridge and Roadway Extension Project DPM Emissions and Modeling Emission Rates - Without Controls PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Emissions for Modeling - Without Controls DPM PM2.5
Number Emission Modeled Emission
Construction Area of Rate Construction Area PM2.5 Emissions Area Rate Year Activity Source (ton/year) (lb/yr) (lb/hr) (g/s) Sources (g/s/m2) Year Activity Source (ton/year) (lb/yr) (lb/hr) (g/s) (m2) g/s/m2 2023 Construction DPM_CONST 0.0454 90.8 0.02865 3.61E-03 169 2.13582E-05 2023 Construction PM25_CONST 0.0447 89.4 0.02823 3.56E-03 14663.5 2.43E-072024 Construction DPM_CONST 0.0638 127.6 0.0403 0.00508 169.0 3.004E-05 2024 Construction PM25_CONST 0.0686 137.3 0.0433 0.005460 14663.5 3.72E-07 Construction Hours Construction Hours
hr/day = 12 (7am - 7pm) hr/day = 12 (7am - 7pm)
days/yr = Varies days/yr = Varies
hours/year = Varies hours/year = Varies
DPM Emissions and Modeling Emission Rates - With AQ-1 & AQ-2 PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Emissions for Modeling - With AQ-1 & AQ-2 DPM PM2.5
Number Emission Modeled Emission
Construction Area of Rate Construction Area PM2.5 Emissions Area Rate Year Activity Source (ton/year) (lb/yr) (lb/hr) (g/s) Sources (g/s/m2) Year Activity Source (ton/year) (lb/yr) (lb/hr) (g/s) (m2) g/s/m2 2023 Construction DPM_CONST 0.0045 9.1 0.00286 3.61E-04 169 2.14E-06 2023 Construction PM25_CONST 0.0139 27.8 0.00878 1.11E-03 14663.5 7.55E-082024 Construction DPM_CONST 0.0064 12.8 0.0040 0.000508 169.0 3.004E-06 2024 Construction PM25_CONST 0.0214 42.7 0.0135 0.001699 14663.5 1.16E-07 Construction Hours Construction Hours
hr/day = 12 (7am - 7pm) hr/day = 12 (7am - 7pm)
days/yr = Varies days/yr = Varies
hours/year = Varies hours/year = Varies
DPM EmissionsDPM Emissions
21-084 Mipitas Blvd OEHHA Cancer Risks & PM2.5 Calcs - Constructionv2.xlsx

Homes - Unmitigated 1.5m
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge Project , Milpitas - Construction Impacts - Without Mitigation Maximum DPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations From Construction Impacts at Off-Site Multi-Family Homes - 1.5 meter receptor height Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
Infant/Child Adult
Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
Parameter
ASF = 10 10 3 1
CPF = 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00
DBR* = 361 1090 572 261
A = 1 1 1 1
EF = 350 350 350 350
AT = 70 70 70 70
FAH = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location Exposure Information Infant/Child Adult Adult
Exposure Age Cancer Modeled Age Cancer
Exposure Duration DPM Conc (ug/m3) Sensitivity Risk DPM Conc (ug/m3) Sensitivity Risk Maximum Year (years) Age Year Annual Factor (per million) Year Annual Factor (per million) Fugitive Total 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 2023 0.0856 10 1.16 HI PM2.5 PM2.5
1 1 0 - 1 2023 0.0856 10 14.06 2023 0.0856 1 0.25 0.017 0.4876 0.573 2 1 1 - 2 2024 0.1204 10 19.77 2024 0.1204 1 0.35 0.024 0.7479 0.868 3 1 2 - 3 2025 0.0000 3 0.00 2025 0.0000 1 0.00
4 1 3 - 4 2026 0.0000 3 0.00 2026 0.0000 1 0.00
5 1 4 - 5 2027 0.0000 3 0.00 2027 0.0000 1 0.00
6 1 5 - 6 2028 0.0000 3 0.00 2028 0.0000 1 0.00
7 1 6 - 7 2029 0.0000 3 0.00 2029 0.0000 1 0.00
8 1 7 - 8 2030 0.0000 3 0.00 2030 0.0000 1 0.00
9 1 8 - 9 2031 0.0000 3 0.00 2031 0.0000 1 0.00
10 1 9 - 10 2032 0.0000 3 0.00 2032 0.0000 1 0.00
11 1 10 - 11 2033 0.0000 3 0.00 2033 0.0000 1 0.00
12 1 11 - 12 2034 0.0000 3 0.00 2034 0.0000 1 0.00
13 1 12 - 13 2035 0.0000 3 0.00 2035 0.0000 1 0.00
14 1 13 - 14 2036 0.0000 3 0.00 2036 0.0000 1 0.00
15 1 14 - 15 2037 0.0000 3 0.00 2037 0.0000 1 0.00
16 1 15 - 16 2038 0.0000 3 0.00 2038 0.0000 1 0.00
17 1 16-17 2039 0.0000 1 0.00 2039 0.0000 1 0.00
18 1 17-18 2040 0.0000 1 0.00 2040 0.0000 1 0.00
19 1 18-19 2041 0.0000 1 0.00 2041 0.0000 1 0.00
20 1 19-20 2042 0.0000 1 0.00 2042 0.0000 1 0.00
21 1 20-21 2043 0.0000 1 0.00 2043 0.0000 1 0.00
22 1 21-22 2044 0.0000 1 0.00 2044 0.0000 1 0.00
23 1 22-23 2045 0.0000 1 0.00 2045 0.0000 1 0.00
24 1 23-24 2046 0.0000 1 0.00 2046 0.0000 1 0.00
25 1 24-25 2047 0.0000 1 0.00 2047 0.0000 1 0.00
26 1 25-26 2048 0.0000 1 0.00 2048 0.0000 1 0.00
27 1 26-27 2049 0.0000 1 0.00 2049 0.0000 1 0.00
28 1 27-28 2050 0.0000 1 0.00 2050 0.0000 1 0.00
29 1 28-29 2051 0.0000 1 0.00 2051 0.0000 1 0.00
30 1 29-30 2052 0.0000 1 0.00 2052 0.0000 1 0.00
Total Increased Cancer Risk 34.99 0.59
* Third trimester of pregnancy
21-084 Mipitas Blvd OEHHA Cancer Risks & PM2.5 Calcs - Constructionv2.xlsx

Milpitas Blvd. Bridge Project , Milpitas - Construction Impacts - With AQ-1 and AQ-2 Mitigation Maximum DPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations From Construction Impacts at Off-Site Multi-Family Homes - 1.5 meter receptor height Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
Infant/Child Adult
Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
Parameter
ASF = 10 10 3 1
CPF = 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00
DBR* = 361 1090 572 261
A = 1 1 1 1
EF = 350 350 350 350
AT = 70 70 70 70
FAH = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location Exposure Information Infant/Child Adult Adult
Exposure Age Cancer Modeled Age Cancer
Exposure Duration DPM Conc (ug/m3) Sensitivity Risk DPM Conc (ug/m3) Sensitivity Risk Maximum Year (years) Age Year Annual Factor (per million) Year Annual Factor (per million) Fugitive Total 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 2023 0.0086 10 0.12 HI PM2.5 PM2.5
1 1 0 - 1 2023 0.0086 10 1.41 2023 0.0086 1 0.02 0.002 0.1517 0.160 2 1 1 - 2 2024 0.0120 10 1.98 2024 0.0120 1 0.03 0.002 0.2327 0.245 3 1 2 - 3 2025 0.0000 3 0.00 2025 0.0000 1 0.00
4 1 3 - 4 2026 0.0000 3 0.00 2026 0.0000 1 0.00
5 1 4 - 5 2027 0.0000 3 0.00 2027 0.0000 1 0.00
6 1 5 - 6 2028 0.0000 3 0.00 2028 0.0000 1 0.00
7 1 6 - 7 2029 0.0000 3 0.00 2029 0.0000 1 0.00
8 1 7 - 8 2030 0.0000 3 0.00 2030 0.0000 1 0.00
9 1 8 - 9 2031 0.0000 3 0.00 2031 0.0000 1 0.00
10 1 9 - 10 2032 0.0000 3 0.00 2032 0.0000 1 0.00
11 1 10 - 11 2033 0.0000 3 0.00 2033 0.0000 1 0.00
12 1 11 - 12 2034 0.0000 3 0.00 2034 0.0000 1 0.00
13 1 12 - 13 2035 0.0000 3 0.00 2035 0.0000 1 0.00
14 1 13 - 14 2036 0.0000 3 0.00 2036 0.0000 1 0.00
15 1 14 - 15 2037 0.0000 3 0.00 2037 0.0000 1 0.00
16 1 15 - 16 2038 0.0000 3 0.00 2038 0.0000 1 0.00
17 1 16-17 2039 0.0000 1 0.00 2039 0.0000 1 0.00
18 1 17-18 2040 0.0000 1 0.00 2040 0.0000 1 0.00
19 1 18-19 2041 0.0000 1 0.00 2041 0.0000 1 0.00
20 1 19-20 2042 0.0000 1 0.00 2042 0.0000 1 0.00
21 1 20-21 2043 0.0000 1 0.00 2043 0.0000 1 0.00
22 1 21-22 2044 0.0000 1 0.00 2044 0.0000 1 0.00
23 1 22-23 2045 0.0000 1 0.00 2045 0.0000 1 0.00
24 1 23-24 2046 0.0000 1 0.00 2046 0.0000 1 0.00
25 1 24-25 2047 0.0000 1 0.00 2047 0.0000 1 0.00
26 1 25-26 2048 0.0000 1 0.00 2048 0.0000 1 0.00
27 1 26-27 2049 0.0000 1 0.00 2049 0.0000 1 0.00
28 1 27-28 2050 0.0000 1 0.00 2050 0.0000 1 0.00
29 1 28-29 2051 0.0000 1 0.00 2051 0.0000 1 0.00
30 1 29-30 2052 0.0000 1 0.00 2052 0.0000 1 0.00
Total Increased Cancer Risk 3.50 0.06
* Third trimester of pregnancy

Milpitas Blvd. Bridge Project , Milpitas - Construction Impacts - Without Mitigation Maximum DPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations From Construction Impacts at Off-Site Multi-Family Homes - 4.6 meter receptor height Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
Infant/Child Adult
Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
Parameter
ASF = 10 10 3 1
CPF = 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00
DBR* = 361 1090 572 261
A = 1 1 1 1
EF = 350 350 350 350
AT = 70 70 70 70
FAH = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location Exposure Information Infant/Child Adult Adult
Exposure Age Cancer Modeled Age Cancer
Exposure Duration DPM Conc (ug/m3) Sensitivity Risk DPM Conc (ug/m3) Sensitivity Risk Maximum Year (years) Age Year Annual Factor (per million) Year Annual Factor (per million) Fugitive Total 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 2023 0.2024 10 2.75 HI PM2.5 PM2.5
1 1 0 - 1 2023 0.2024 10 33.25 2023 0.2024 1 0.58 0.040 0.2536 0.456 2 1 1 - 2 2024 0.2847 10 46.76 2024 0.2847 1 0.82 0.057 0.3890 0.674 3 1 2 - 3 2025 0.0000 3 0.00 2025 0.0000 1 0.00
4 1 3 - 4 2026 0.0000 3 0.00 2026 0.0000 1 0.00
5 1 4 - 5 2027 0.0000 3 0.00 2027 0.0000 1 0.00
6 1 5 - 6 2028 0.0000 3 0.00 2028 0.0000 1 0.00
7 1 6 - 7 2029 0.0000 3 0.00 2029 0.0000 1 0.00
8 1 7 - 8 2030 0.0000 3 0.00 2030 0.0000 1 0.00
9 1 8 - 9 2031 0.0000 3 0.00 2031 0.0000 1 0.00
10 1 9 - 10 2032 0.0000 3 0.00 2032 0.0000 1 0.00
11 1 10 - 11 2033 0.0000 3 0.00 2033 0.0000 1 0.00
12 1 11 - 12 2034 0.0000 3 0.00 2034 0.0000 1 0.00
13 1 12 - 13 2035 0.0000 3 0.00 2035 0.0000 1 0.00
14 1 13 - 14 2036 0.0000 3 0.00 2036 0.0000 1 0.00
15 1 14 - 15 2037 0.0000 3 0.00 2037 0.0000 1 0.00
16 1 15 - 16 2038 0.0000 3 0.00 2038 0.0000 1 0.00
17 1 16-17 2039 0.0000 1 0.00 2039 0.0000 1 0.00
18 1 17-18 2040 0.0000 1 0.00 2040 0.0000 1 0.00
19 1 18-19 2041 0.0000 1 0.00 2041 0.0000 1 0.00
20 1 19-20 2042 0.0000 1 0.00 2042 0.0000 1 0.00
21 1 20-21 2043 0.0000 1 0.00 2043 0.0000 1 0.00
22 1 21-22 2044 0.0000 1 0.00 2044 0.0000 1 0.00
23 1 22-23 2045 0.0000 1 0.00 2045 0.0000 1 0.00
24 1 23-24 2046 0.0000 1 0.00 2046 0.0000 1 0.00
25 1 24-25 2047 0.0000 1 0.00 2047 0.0000 1 0.00
26 1 25-26 2048 0.0000 1 0.00 2048 0.0000 1 0.00
27 1 26-27 2049 0.0000 1 0.00 2049 0.0000 1 0.00
28 1 27-28 2050 0.0000 1 0.00 2050 0.0000 1 0.00
29 1 28-29 2051 0.0000 1 0.00 2051 0.0000 1 0.00
30 1 29-30 2052 0.0000 1 0.00 2052 0.0000 1 0.00
Total Increased Cancer Risk 82.77 1.40
* Third trimester of pregnancy

Milpitas Blvd. Bridge Project , Milpitas - Construction Impacts - With AQ-1 and AQ-2 Mitigation Maximum DPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations From Construction Impacts at Off-Site Multi-Family Homes - 4.6 meter receptor height Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
Infant/Child Adult
Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
Parameter
ASF = 10 10 3 1
CPF = 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00
DBR* = 361 1090 572 261
A = 1 1 1 1
EF = 350 350 350 350
AT = 70 70 70 70
FAH = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location Exposure Information Infant/Child Adult Adult
Exposure Age Cancer Modeled Age Cancer
Exposure Duration DPM Conc (ug/m3) Sensitivity Risk DPM Conc (ug/m3) Sensitivity Risk Maximum Year (years) Age Year Annual Factor (per million) Year Annual Factor (per million) Fugitive Total 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 2023 0.0202 10 0.28 HI PM2.5 PM2.5
1 1 0 - 1 2023 0.0202 10 3.32 2023 0.0202 1 0.06 0.004 0.0789 0.099 2 1 1 - 2 2024 0.0285 10 4.68 2024 0.0285 1 0.08 0.006 0.1210 0.149 3 1 2 - 3 2025 0.0000 3 0.00 2025 0.0000 1 0.00
4 1 3 - 4 2026 0.0000 3 0.00 2026 0.0000 1 0.00
5 1 4 - 5 2027 0.0000 3 0.00 2027 0.0000 1 0.00
6 1 5 - 6 2028 0.0000 3 0.00 2028 0.0000 1 0.00
7 1 6 - 7 2029 0.0000 3 0.00 2029 0.0000 1 0.00
8 1 7 - 8 2030 0.0000 3 0.00 2030 0.0000 1 0.00
9 1 8 - 9 2031 0.0000 3 0.00 2031 0.0000 1 0.00
10 1 9 - 10 2032 0.0000 3 0.00 2032 0.0000 1 0.00
11 1 10 - 11 2033 0.0000 3 0.00 2033 0.0000 1 0.00
12 1 11 - 12 2034 0.0000 3 0.00 2034 0.0000 1 0.00
13 1 12 - 13 2035 0.0000 3 0.00 2035 0.0000 1 0.00
14 1 13 - 14 2036 0.0000 3 0.00 2036 0.0000 1 0.00
15 1 14 - 15 2037 0.0000 3 0.00 2037 0.0000 1 0.00
16 1 15 - 16 2038 0.0000 3 0.00 2038 0.0000 1 0.00
17 1 16-17 2039 0.0000 1 0.00 2039 0.0000 1 0.00
18 1 17-18 2040 0.0000 1 0.00 2040 0.0000 1 0.00
19 1 18-19 2041 0.0000 1 0.00 2041 0.0000 1 0.00
20 1 19-20 2042 0.0000 1 0.00 2042 0.0000 1 0.00
21 1 20-21 2043 0.0000 1 0.00 2043 0.0000 1 0.00
22 1 21-22 2044 0.0000 1 0.00 2044 0.0000 1 0.00
23 1 22-23 2045 0.0000 1 0.00 2045 0.0000 1 0.00
24 1 23-24 2046 0.0000 1 0.00 2046 0.0000 1 0.00
25 1 24-25 2047 0.0000 1 0.00 2047 0.0000 1 0.00
26 1 25-26 2048 0.0000 1 0.00 2048 0.0000 1 0.00
27 1 26-27 2049 0.0000 1 0.00 2049 0.0000 1 0.00
28 1 27-28 2050 0.0000 1 0.00 2050 0.0000 1 0.00
29 1 28-29 2051 0.0000 1 0.00 2051 0.0000 1 0.00
30 1 29-30 2052 0.0000 1 0.00 2052 0.0000 1 0.00
Total Increased Cancer Risk 8.28 0.14
* Third trimester of pregnancy

Milpitas Blvd. Bridge Project , Milpitas - Construction Impacts - Without Mitigation Maximum DPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations From Construction Impacts at Off-Site Multi-Family Homes - 7.6 meter receptor height Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
Infant/Child Adult
Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
Parameter
ASF = 10 10 3 1
CPF = 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00
DBR* = 361 1090 572 261
A = 1 1 1 1
EF = 350 350 350 350
AT = 70 70 70 70
FAH = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location Exposure Information Infant/Child Adult Adult
Exposure Age Cancer Modeled Age Cancer
Exposure Duration DPM Conc (ug/m3) Sensitivity Risk DPM Conc (ug/m3) Sensitivity Risk Maximum Year (years) Age Year Annual Factor (per million) Year Annual Factor (per million) Fugitive Total 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 2023 0.1717 10 2.34 HI PM2.5 PM2.5
1 1 0 - 1 2023 0.1717 10 28.21 2023 0.1717 1 0.49 0.034 0.1274 0.299 2 1 1 - 2 2024 0.2416 10 39.67 2024 0.2416 1 0.69 0.048 0.1954 0.437 3 1 2 - 3 2025 0.0000 3 0.00 2025 0.0000 1 0.00
4 1 3 - 4 2026 0.0000 3 0.00 2026 0.0000 1 0.00
5 1 4 - 5 2027 0.0000 3 0.00 2027 0.0000 1 0.00
6 1 5 - 6 2028 0.0000 3 0.00 2028 0.0000 1 0.00
7 1 6 - 7 2029 0.0000 3 0.00 2029 0.0000 1 0.00
8 1 7 - 8 2030 0.0000 3 0.00 2030 0.0000 1 0.00
9 1 8 - 9 2031 0.0000 3 0.00 2031 0.0000 1 0.00
10 1 9 - 10 2032 0.0000 3 0.00 2032 0.0000 1 0.00
11 1 10 - 11 2033 0.0000 3 0.00 2033 0.0000 1 0.00
12 1 11 - 12 2034 0.0000 3 0.00 2034 0.0000 1 0.00
13 1 12 - 13 2035 0.0000 3 0.00 2035 0.0000 1 0.00
14 1 13 - 14 2036 0.0000 3 0.00 2036 0.0000 1 0.00
15 1 14 - 15 2037 0.0000 3 0.00 2037 0.0000 1 0.00
16 1 15 - 16 2038 0.0000 3 0.00 2038 0.0000 1 0.00
17 1 16-17 2039 0.0000 1 0.00 2039 0.0000 1 0.00
18 1 17-18 2040 0.0000 1 0.00 2040 0.0000 1 0.00
19 1 18-19 2041 0.0000 1 0.00 2041 0.0000 1 0.00
20 1 19-20 2042 0.0000 1 0.00 2042 0.0000 1 0.00
21 1 20-21 2043 0.0000 1 0.00 2043 0.0000 1 0.00
22 1 21-22 2044 0.0000 1 0.00 2044 0.0000 1 0.00
23 1 22-23 2045 0.0000 1 0.00 2045 0.0000 1 0.00
24 1 23-24 2046 0.0000 1 0.00 2046 0.0000 1 0.00
25 1 24-25 2047 0.0000 1 0.00 2047 0.0000 1 0.00
26 1 25-26 2048 0.0000 1 0.00 2048 0.0000 1 0.00
27 1 26-27 2049 0.0000 1 0.00 2049 0.0000 1 0.00
28 1 27-28 2050 0.0000 1 0.00 2050 0.0000 1 0.00
29 1 28-29 2051 0.0000 1 0.00 2051 0.0000 1 0.00
30 1 29-30 2052 0.0000 1 0.00 2052 0.0000 1 0.00
Total Increased Cancer Risk 70.22 1.19
* Third trimester of pregnancy

Milpitas Blvd. Bridge Project , Milpitas - Construction Impacts - With AQ-1 and AQ-2 Mitigation Maximum DPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations From Construction Impacts at Off-Site Multi-Family Homes - 7.6 meter receptor height Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
Infant/Child Adult
Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
Parameter
ASF = 10 10 3 1
CPF = 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00
DBR* = 361 1090 572 261
A = 1 1 1 1
EF = 350 350 350 350
AT = 70 70 70 70
FAH = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location Exposure Information Infant/Child Adult Adult
Exposure Age Cancer Modeled Age Cancer
Exposure Duration DPM Conc (ug/m3) Sensitivity Risk DPM Conc (ug/m3) Sensitivity Risk Maximum Year (years) Age Year Annual Factor (per million) Year Annual Factor (per million) Fugitive Total 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 2023 0.0172 10 0.23 HI PM2.5 PM2.5
1 1 0 - 1 2023 0.0172 10 2.82 2023 0.0172 1 0.05 0.003 0.0396 0.057 2 1 1 - 2 2024 0.0242 10 3.97 2024 0.0242 1 0.07 0.005 0.0608 0.085 3 1 2 - 3 2025 0.0000 3 0.00 2025 0.0000 1 0.00
4 1 3 - 4 2026 0.0000 3 0.00 2026 0.0000 1 0.00
5 1 4 - 5 2027 0.0000 3 0.00 2027 0.0000 1 0.00
6 1 5 - 6 2028 0.0000 3 0.00 2028 0.0000 1 0.00
7 1 6 - 7 2029 0.0000 3 0.00 2029 0.0000 1 0.00
8 1 7 - 8 2030 0.0000 3 0.00 2030 0.0000 1 0.00
9 1 8 - 9 2031 0.0000 3 0.00 2031 0.0000 1 0.00
10 1 9 - 10 2032 0.0000 3 0.00 2032 0.0000 1 0.00
11 1 10 - 11 2033 0.0000 3 0.00 2033 0.0000 1 0.00
12 1 11 - 12 2034 0.0000 3 0.00 2034 0.0000 1 0.00
13 1 12 - 13 2035 0.0000 3 0.00 2035 0.0000 1 0.00
14 1 13 - 14 2036 0.0000 3 0.00 2036 0.0000 1 0.00
15 1 14 - 15 2037 0.0000 3 0.00 2037 0.0000 1 0.00
16 1 15 - 16 2038 0.0000 3 0.00 2038 0.0000 1 0.00
17 1 16-17 2039 0.0000 1 0.00 2039 0.0000 1 0.00
18 1 17-18 2040 0.0000 1 0.00 2040 0.0000 1 0.00
19 1 18-19 2041 0.0000 1 0.00 2041 0.0000 1 0.00
20 1 19-20 2042 0.0000 1 0.00 2042 0.0000 1 0.00
21 1 20-21 2043 0.0000 1 0.00 2043 0.0000 1 0.00
22 1 21-22 2044 0.0000 1 0.00 2044 0.0000 1 0.00
23 1 22-23 2045 0.0000 1 0.00 2045 0.0000 1 0.00
24 1 23-24 2046 0.0000 1 0.00 2046 0.0000 1 0.00
25 1 24-25 2047 0.0000 1 0.00 2047 0.0000 1 0.00
26 1 25-26 2048 0.0000 1 0.00 2048 0.0000 1 0.00
27 1 26-27 2049 0.0000 1 0.00 2049 0.0000 1 0.00
28 1 27-28 2050 0.0000 1 0.00 2050 0.0000 1 0.00
29 1 28-29 2051 0.0000 1 0.00 2051 0.0000 1 0.00
30 1 29-30 2052 0.0000 1 0.00 2052 0.0000 1 0.00
Total Increased Cancer Risk 7.02 0.12
* Third trimester of pregnancy

Homes - Unmitigated 1.5m
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge Project , Milpitas - Operations Impacts DPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations at MEIImpacts at Off-Site Multi-Family Homes - 1.5 meter receptor height Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age groupED = Exposure duration (years)AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless) Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)A = Inhalation absorption factorEF = Exposure frequency (days/year)10-6 = Conversion factor Values
Infant/Child Adult
3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
10 10 3 1

1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00

6.28E-03 6.28E-03 6.28E-03 6.28E-033.70E-04 3.70E-04 3.70E-04 3.70E-04 361 1090 572 261
1 11 1
350 350 350 350
70 70 70 70

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Project Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG TOTAL
Exposure Age Cancer Cancer Cancer Cancer Age DPM Cancer Exhaust TOG
Cancer
Evaporative
TOG Cancer TOTAL Cancer
Exposure Duration Sensitivity Risk Risk Risk Risk Exposure Sensitivity Risk Risk Risk Risk Maximum Year (years) Age Factor (per million) (per million) (per million) (per million) Year Factor (per million) (per million) (per million) (per million) Fugitive Exhaust Total 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 2024 10 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.0003 0.0000 0.0010 0 HI PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.51 1 0 - 1 2024 10 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.01 0.0036 0.0003 0.0121 1 1 0.00014 0.00006 0.00001 0.00021 0.000 0.0147 0.0003 0.022 1 1 - 2 2025 10 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.01 0.0036 0.0003 0.0121 2 1 0.00014 0.00006 0.00001 0.00021 0.000 0.0147 0.0003 0.023 1 2 - 3 2026 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 3 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.0003 0.024 1 3 - 4 2027 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 4 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.0003 0.025 1 4 - 5 2028 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 5 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.026 1 5 - 6 2029 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 6 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.027 1 6 - 7 2030 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 7 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.028 1 7 - 8 2031 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 8 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.029 1 8 - 9 2032 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 9 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02 10 1 9 - 10 2033 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 10 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0211 1 10 - 11 2034 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 11 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0212 1 11 - 12 2035 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 12 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0213 1 12 - 13 2036 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 13 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0214 1 13 - 14 2037 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 14 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0215 1 14 - 15 2038 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 15 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0216 1 15 - 16 2039 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 16 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0217 1 16-17 2040 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 17 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0218 1 17-18 2041 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 18 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0219 1 18-19 2042 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 19 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0220 1 19-20 2043 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 20 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0221 1 20-21 2044 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 21 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0222 1 21-22 2045 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 22 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0223 1 22-23 2046 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 23 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0224 1 23-24 2047 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 24 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0225 1 24-25 2048 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 25 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0226 1 25-26 2049 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 26 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0227 1 26-27 2050 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 27 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0228 1 27-28 2051 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 28 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0229 1 28-29 2052 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 29 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0230 1 29-30 2053 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 30 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02

0.04 0.02 0.001 0.055 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.01
* Third trimester of pregnancy
Adult Exposure Only
Total Increased Cancer Risk Total Increased Adult Risk
DBR* =
A =
EF =
AT =
FAH =
Infant/Child Exposure Information
Age -->
Parameter
ASF =
DPM CPF =
TOG Exhaust CPF =
TOG Evaporative CPF =
Year DPM Exhaust TOG
Evaporative
TOG
TAC Concentrations (ug/m3)
21-084 Mipitas Blvd OEHHA Cancer Risks & PM2.5 Calcs - Ops.xlsx

Homes - Unmitigated 4.6m
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge Project, Milpitas - Operations ImpactsDPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations Impacts at Off-Site Multi-Family Homes - 4.6 meter receptor height Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age groupED = Exposure duration (years)AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless) Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)A = Inhalation absorption factorEF = Exposure frequency (days/year)10-6 = Conversion factor Values
Infant/Child Adult
3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
10 10 3 1

1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00

6.28E-03 6.28E-03 6.28E-03 6.28E-033.70E-04 3.70E-04 3.70E-04 3.70E-04 361 1090 572 261
1 11 1
350 350 350 350
70 70 70 70

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Project Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG TOTAL
Exposure Age Cancer Cancer Cancer Cancer Age DPM Cancer Exhaust TOG
Cancer
Evaporative
TOG Cancer TOTAL Cancer
Exposure Duration Sensitivity Risk Risk Risk Risk Exposure Sensitivity Risk Risk Risk Risk Maximum Year (years) Age Factor (per million) (per million) (per million) (per million) Year Factor (per million) (per million) (per million) (per million) Fugitive Exhaust Total 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 2024 10 0.0000 0.00315 0.00442 0.001 0.0002 0.00002 0.001 0 HI PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.51 1 0 - 1 2024 10 0.00004 0.00315 0.00442 0.007 0.003 0.0002 0.010 1 1 0.0001 0.000052 0.000004 0.000171 0.00001 0.0120 0.0002 0.012 1 1 - 2 2025 10 0.00004 0.00315 0.00442 0.007 0.003 0.0002 0.010 2 1 0.0001 0.000052 0.000004 0.000171 0.00001 0.0120 0.0002 0.013 1 2 - 3 2026 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.000 0.00004 0.002 3 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.014 1 3 - 4 2027 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.000 0.00004 0.002 4 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.015 1 4 - 5 2028 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.000 0.00004 0.002 5 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 6 1 5 - 6 2029 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.000 0.00004 0.002 6 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 7 1 6 - 7 2030 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.000 0.00004 0.002 7 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 8 1 7 - 8 2031 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.000 0.00004 0.002 8 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 9 1 8 - 9 2032 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.000 0.00004 0.002 9 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 10 1 9 - 10 2033 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.000 0.00004 0.002 10 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 11 1 10 - 11 2034 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.000 0.00004 0.002 11 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 12 1 11 - 12 2035 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.000 0.00004 0.002 12 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 13 1 12 - 13 2036 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.000 0.00004 0.002 13 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 14 1 13 - 14 2037 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.000 0.00004 0.002 14 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 15 1 14 - 15 2038 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.000 0.00004 0.002 15 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 16 1 15 - 16 2039 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.000 0.00004 0.002 16 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 17 1 16-17 2040 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 17 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 18 1 17-18 2041 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 18 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 19 1 18-19 2042 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 19 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 20 1 19-20 2043 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 20 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 21 1 20-21 2044 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 21 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 22 1 21-22 2045 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 22 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 23 1 22-23 2046 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 23 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 24 1 23-24 2047 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 24 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 25 1 24-25 2048 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 25 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 26 1 25-26 2049 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 26 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 27 1 26-27 2050 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 27 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 28 1 27-28 2051 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 28 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 29 1 28-29 2052 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 29 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 30 1 29-30 2053 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 30 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01

0.030 0.01 0.001 0.044 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01
* Third trimester of pregnancy
Total Increased Cancer Risk Total Increased Adult Risk
TAC Concentrations (ug/m3) Adult Exposure Only
Year DPM Exhaust TOG
Evaporative
TOG
Infant/Child Exposure Information
DBR* =
A =
EF =
AT =
FAH =
TOG Evaporative CPF =
Age -->
Parameter
ASF =
DPM CPF =
TOG Exhaust CPF =
21-084 Mipitas Blvd OEHHA Cancer Risks & PM2.5 Calcs - Ops.xlsx

Homes - Unmitigated 7.6m
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge Project, Milpitas - Total Project Impacts DPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations Impacts at Off-Site Multi-Family Homes - 7.6 meter receptor height Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age groupED = Exposure duration (years)AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless) Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)A = Inhalation absorption factorEF = Exposure frequency (days/year)10-6 = Conversion factor Values
Infant/Child Adult
3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
10 10 3 1

1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00

6.28E-03 6.28E-03 6.28E-03 6.28E-033.70E-04 3.70E-04 3.70E-04 3.70E-04 361 1090 572 261
1 11 1
350 350 350 350
70 70 70 70

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Project Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG TOTAL
Exposure Age Cancer Cancer Cancer Cancer Age DPM Cancer Exhaust TOG
Cancer
Evaporative
TOG Cancer TOTAL Cancer
Exposure Duration Sensitivity Risk Risk Risk Risk Exposure Sensitivity Risk Risk Risk Risk Maximum Year (years) Age Factor (per million) (per million) (per million) (per million) Year Factor (per million) (per million) (per million) (per million) Fugitive Exhaust Total 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 2024 10 0.00003 0.0020 0.00 0.0004 0.0002 0.0000 0.00 0 HI PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.51 1 0 - 1 2024 10 0.00003 0.0020 0.00 0.0049 0.0019 0.0002 0.01 1 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000 0.008 0.0002 0.012 1 1 - 2 2025 10 0.00003 0.0020 0.00 0.0049 0.0019 0.0002 0.01 2 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000 0.008 0.0002 0.013 1 2 - 3 2026 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 3 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.0002 0.014 1 3 - 4 2027 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 4 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.0002 0.015 1 4 - 5 2028 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 5 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 6 1 5 - 6 2029 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 6 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 7 1 6 - 7 2030 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 7 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 8 1 7 - 8 2031 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 8 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 9 1 8 - 9 2032 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 9 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 10 1 9 - 10 2033 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 10 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 11 1 10 - 11 2034 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 11 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 12 1 11 - 12 2035 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 12 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 13 1 12 - 13 2036 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 13 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 14 1 13 - 14 2037 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 14 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 15 1 14 - 15 2038 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 15 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 16 1 15 - 16 2039 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 16 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 17 1 16-17 2040 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.0000 0.000003 0.0001 17 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 18 1 17-18 2041 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.0000 0.000003 0.0001 18 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 19 1 18-19 2042 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.0000 0.000003 0.0001 19 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 20 1 19-20 2043 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.0000 0.000003 0.0001 20 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 21 1 20-21 2044 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.0000 0.000003 0.0001 21 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 22 1 21-22 2045 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.0000 0.000003 0.0001 22 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 23 1 22-23 2046 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.0000 0.000003 0.0001 23 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 24 1 23-24 2047 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.0000 0.000003 0.0001 24 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 25 1 24-25 2048 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.0000 0.000003 0.0001 25 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 26 1 25-26 2049 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.0000 0.000003 0.0001 26 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 27 1 26-27 2050 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.0000 0.000003 0.0001 27 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 28 1 27-28 2051 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.0000 0.000003 0.0001 28 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 29 1 28-29 2052 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.0000 0.000003 0.0001 29 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 30 1 29-30 2053 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.0000 0.000003 0.0001 30 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01

0.02 0.01 0.001 0.03 0.003 0.001 0.0001 0.004
* Third trimester of pregnancy
Total Increased Cancer Risk Total Increased Adult Risk
TAC Concentrations (ug/m3) Adult Exposure Only
Year DPM Exhaust TOG
Evaporative
TOG
Infant/Child Exposure Information
DBR* =
A =
EF =
AT =
FAH =
TOG Evaporative CPF =
Age -->
Parameter
ASF =
DPM CPF =
TOG Exhaust CPF =
21-084 Mipitas Blvd OEHHA Cancer Risks & PM2.5 Calcs - Ops.xlsx

Homes - Unmitigated 1.5m
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge Project , Milpitas - Total Project Impacts - Without MitigationDPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations Impacts at Off-Site Multi-Family Homes - 1.5 meter receptor height Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age groupED = Exposure duration (years)AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless) Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)A = Inhalation absorption factorEF = Exposure frequency (days/year)10-6 = Conversion factor Values
Infant/Child Adult
3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
10 10 3 1

1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00

6.28E-03 6.28E-03 6.28E-03 6.28E-033.70E-04 3.70E-04 3.70E-04 3.70E-04 361 1090 572 261
1 11 1
350 350 350 350
70 70 70 70

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Project Cancer Risk by Year - MEI Receptor Location
DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG TOTAL
Exposure Age Cancer Cancer Cancer Cancer Age DPM Cancer Exhaust TOG
Cancer
Evaporative
TOG Cancer TOTAL Cancer
Exposure Duration Sensitivity Risk Risk Risk Risk Exposure Sensitivity Risk Risk Risk Risk Maximum Year (years) Age Factor (per million) (per million) (per million) (per million) Year Factor (per million) (per million) (per million) (per million) Fugitive Exhaust Total 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 2023 10 0.0856 0.00 0.00 1.16 0.00 0.00 1.16 0 HI PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.51 1 0 - 1 2023 10 0.0856 0.00 0.00 14.06 0.00 0.00 14.06 1 1 0.2457 0.0000 0.0000 0.25 0.017 0.4876 0.0000 0.572 1 1 - 2 2024 10 0.1204 0.00 0.00 19.77 0.00 0.00 19.77 2 1 0.3456 0.0000 0.0000 0.35 0.024 0.7479 0.0000 0.873 1 2 - 3 2025 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 3 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.0003 0.024 1 3 - 4 2026 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 4 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.0003 0.025 1 4 - 5 2027 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 5 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.026 1 5 - 6 2028 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 6 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.027 1 6 - 7 2029 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 7 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.028 1 7 - 8 2030 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 8 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.029 1 8 - 9 2031 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 9 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02 10 1 9 - 10 2032 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 10 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0211 1 10 - 11 2033 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 11 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0212 1 11 - 12 2034 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 12 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0213 1 12 - 13 2035 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 13 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0214 1 13 - 14 2036 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 14 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0215 1 14 - 15 2037 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 15 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0216 1 15 - 16 2038 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 16 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0217 1 16-17 2039 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 17 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0218 1 17-18 2040 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 18 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0219 1 18-19 2041 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 19 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0220 1 19-20 2042 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 20 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0221 1 20-21 2043 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 21 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0222 1 21-22 2044 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 22 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0223 1 22-23 2045 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 23 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0224 1 23-24 2046 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 24 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0225 1 24-25 2047 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 25 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0226 1 25-26 2048 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 26 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0227 1 26-27 2049 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 27 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0228 1 27-28 2050 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 28 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0229 1 28-29 2051 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 29 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.0230 1 29-30 2052 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 30 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02

35.01 0.01 0.001 35.02 0.60 0.002 0.0001 0.60
* Third trimester of pregnancy
TOG Evaporative CPF =
Year DPM Exhaust TOG
Evaporative
TOG
TAC Concentrations (ug/m3)
Age -->
Parameter
ASF =
DPM CPF =
TOG Exhaust CPF =
Adult Exposure Only
Total Increased Cancer Risk Total Increased Adult Risk
DBR* =
A =
EF =
AT =
FAH =
Infant/Child Exposure Information
21-084 Mipitas Blvd OEHHA Cancer Risks & PM2.5 Calcs - Project.xlsx

Homes - Mitigated 1.5m
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge Project , Milpitas - Total Project Impacts - With AQ-1 and AQ-2 MitigationDPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations Impacts at Off-Site Multi-Family Homes - 1.5 meter receptor height Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age groupED = Exposure duration (years)AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless) Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)A = Inhalation absorption factorEF = Exposure frequency (days/year)10-6 = Conversion factor Values
Infant/Child Adult
3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
10 10 3 1

1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00

6.28E-03 6.28E-03 6.28E-03 6.28E-033.70E-04 3.70E-04 3.70E-04 3.70E-04 361 1090 572 261
1 11 1
350 350 350 350
70 70 70 70

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Project Cancer Risk by Year - MEI Receptor Location
DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG TOTAL
Exposure Age Cancer Cancer Cancer Cancer Age DPM Cancer Exhaust TOG
Cancer
Evaporative
TOG Cancer TOTAL Cancer
Exposure Duration Sensitivity Risk Risk Risk Risk Exposure Sensitivity Risk Risk Risk Risk Maximum Year (years) Age Factor (per million) (per million) (per million) (per million) Year Factor (per million) (per million) (per million) (per million) Fugitive Exhaust Total 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 2023 10 0.0086 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.12 0 HI PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.51 1 0 - 1 2023 10 0.0086 0.00 0.00 1.41 0.00 0.00 1.41 1 1 0.0246 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.002 0.1517 0.0000 0.162 1 1 - 2 2024 10 0.0120 0.00 0.00 1.98 0.00 0.00 1.98 2 1 0.0346 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.002 0.2327 0.0000 0.243 1 2 - 3 2025 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 3 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.0003 0.024 1 3 - 4 2026 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 4 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.0003 0.025 1 4 - 5 2027 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 5 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02 6 1 5 - 6 2028 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 6 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02 7 1 6 - 7 2029 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 7 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02 8 1 7 - 8 2030 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 8 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02 9 1 8 - 9 2031 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 9 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02 10 1 9 - 10 2032 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 10 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02 11 1 10 - 11 2033 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 11 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02 12 1 11 - 12 2034 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 12 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02 13 1 12 - 13 2035 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 13 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02 14 1 13 - 14 2036 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 14 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02 15 1 14 - 15 2037 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 15 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02 16 1 15 - 16 2038 3 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.002 16 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02 17 1 16-17 2039 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 17 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02 18 1 17-18 2040 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 18 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02 19 1 18-19 2041 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 19 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02 20 1 19-20 2042 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 20 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02 21 1 20-21 2043 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 21 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02 22 1 21-22 2044 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 22 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02 23 1 22-23 2045 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 23 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02 24 1 23-24 2046 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 24 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02 25 1 24-25 2047 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 25 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02 26 1 25-26 2048 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 26 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02 27 1 26-27 2049 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 27 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02 28 1 27-28 2050 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 28 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02 29 1 28-29 2051 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 29 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02 30 1 29-30 2052 1 0.0001 0.0039 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 30 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002 0.00001 0.015 0.000 0.02

3.519 0.01 0.001 3.529 0.06 0.002 0.0001 0.07
* Third trimester of pregnancy
TOG Evaporative CPF =
Age -->
Parameter
ASF =
DPM CPF =
TOG Exhaust CPF =
DBR* =
A =
EF =
AT =
FAH =
Total Increased Cancer Risk Total Increased Adult Risk
TAC Concentrations (ug/m3) Adult Exposure Only
Year DPM Exhaust TOG
Evaporative
TOG
Infant/Child Exposure Information
21-084 Mipitas Blvd OEHHA Cancer Risks & PM2.5 Calcs - Project.xlsx

Homes - Unmitigated 4.6m
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge Project, Milpitas - Total Project Impacts - Without MitigationDPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations Impacts at Off-Site Multi-Family Homes - 4.6 meter receptor height Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age groupED = Exposure duration (years)AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless) Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)A = Inhalation absorption factorEF = Exposure frequency (days/year)10-6 = Conversion factor Values
Infant/Child Adult
3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
10 10 3 1

1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00

6.28E-03 6.28E-03 6.28E-03 6.28E-033.70E-04 3.70E-04 3.70E-04 3.70E-04 361 1090 572 261
1 11 1
350 350 350 350
70 70 70 70

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Project Cancer Risk by Year - MEI Receptor Location
DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG TOTAL
Exposure Age Cancer Cancer Cancer Cancer Age DPM Cancer Exhaust TOG
Cancer
Evaporative
TOG Cancer TOTAL Cancer
Exposure Duration Sensitivity Risk Risk Risk Risk Exposure Sensitivity Risk Risk Risk Risk Maximum Year (years) Age Factor (per million) (per million) (per million) (per million) Year Factor (per million) (per million) (per million) (per million) Fugitive Exhaust Total 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 2023 10 0.2024 0.00 0.00 2.75 0.00 0.00 2.75 0 HI PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.51 1 0 - 1 2023 10 0.2024 0.00 0.00 33.25 0.00 0.00 33.25 1 1 0.5812 0.00 0.000000 0.58 0.040 0.2536 0.0000 0.462 1 1 - 2 2024 10 0.2847 0.00 0.00 46.76 0.00 0.00 46.76 2 1 0.8174 0.00 0.000000 0.82 0.057 0.3890 0.0000 0.673 1 2 - 3 2025 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.000 0.00004 0.002 3 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.014 1 3 - 4 2026 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.000 0.00004 0.002 4 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.015 1 4 - 5 2027 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.000 0.00004 0.002 5 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 6 1 5 - 6 2028 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.000 0.00004 0.002 6 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 7 1 6 - 7 2029 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.000 0.00004 0.002 7 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 8 1 7 - 8 2030 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.000 0.00004 0.002 8 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 9 1 8 - 9 2031 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.000 0.00004 0.002 9 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 10 1 9 - 10 2032 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.000 0.00004 0.002 10 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 11 1 10 - 11 2033 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.000 0.00004 0.002 11 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 12 1 11 - 12 2034 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.000 0.00004 0.002 12 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 13 1 12 - 13 2035 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.000 0.00004 0.002 13 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 14 1 13 - 14 2036 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.000 0.00004 0.002 14 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 15 1 14 - 15 2037 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.000 0.00004 0.002 15 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 16 1 15 - 16 2038 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.000 0.00004 0.002 16 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 17 1 16-17 2039 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 17 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 18 1 17-18 2040 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 18 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 19 1 18-19 2041 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 19 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 20 1 19-20 2042 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 20 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 21 1 20-21 2043 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 21 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 22 1 21-22 2044 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 22 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 23 1 22-23 2045 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 23 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 24 1 23-24 2046 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 24 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 25 1 24-25 2047 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 25 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 26 1 25-26 2048 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 26 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 27 1 26-27 2049 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 27 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 28 1 27-28 2050 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 28 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 29 1 28-29 2051 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 29 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01 30 1 29-30 2052 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 30 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.000 0.01

82.782 0.01 0.001 82.790 1.40 0.001 0.0001 1.40
* Third trimester of pregnancy
TOG Evaporative CPF =
Age -->
Parameter
ASF =
DPM CPF =
TOG Exhaust CPF =
DBR* =
A =
EF =
AT =
FAH =
Total Increased Cancer Risk Total Increased Adult Risk
TAC Concentrations (ug/m3) Adult Exposure Only
Year DPM Exhaust TOG
Evaporative
TOG
Infant/Child Exposure Information
21-084 Mipitas Blvd OEHHA Cancer Risks & PM2.5 Calcs - Project.xlsx

Homes - Mitigated 4.6m
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge Project, Milpitas - Total Project Impacts - With AQ-1 and AQ-2 MitigationDPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations Impacts at Off-Site Multi-Family Homes - 4.6 meter receptor height Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age groupED = Exposure duration (years)AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless) Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)A = Inhalation absorption factorEF = Exposure frequency (days/year)10-6 = Conversion factor Values
Infant/Child Adult
3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
10 10 3 1

1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00

6.28E-03 6.28E-03 6.28E-03 6.28E-033.70E-04 3.70E-04 3.70E-04 3.70E-04 361 1090 572 261
1 11 1
350 350 350 350
70 70 70 70

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Project Cancer Risk by Year - MEI Receptor Location
DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG TOTAL
Exposure Age Cancer Cancer Cancer Cancer Age DPM Cancer Exhaust TOG
Cancer
Evaporative
TOG Cancer TOTAL Cancer
Exposure Duration Sensitivity Risk Risk Risk Risk Exposure Sensitivity Risk Risk Risk Risk Maximum Year (years) Age Factor (per million) (per million) (per million) (per million) Year Factor (per million) (per million) (per million) (per million) Fugitive Exhaust Total 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 2023 10 0.0202 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.28 0 HI PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.51 1 0 - 1 2023 10 0.0202 0.00 0.00 3.32 0.00 0.00 3.32 1 1 0.0581 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.004 0.0789 0.0000 0.102 1 1 - 2 2024 10 0.0285 0.00 0.00 4.68 0.00 0.00 4.68 2 1 0.0817 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.006 0.1210 0.0000 0.153 1 2 - 3 2025 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.0005 0.00004 0.002 3 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.014 1 3 - 4 2026 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.0005 0.00004 0.002 4 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.015 1 4 - 5 2027 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.0005 0.00004 0.002 5 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.01 6 1 5 - 6 2028 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.0005 0.00004 0.002 6 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.01 7 1 6 - 7 2029 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.0005 0.00004 0.002 7 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.01 8 1 7 - 8 2030 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.0005 0.00004 0.002 8 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.01 9 1 8 - 9 2031 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.0005 0.00004 0.002 9 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.01 10 1 9 - 10 2032 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.0005 0.00004 0.002 10 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.01 11 1 10 - 11 2033 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.0005 0.00004 0.002 11 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.01 12 1 11 - 12 2034 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.0005 0.00004 0.002 12 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.01 13 1 12 - 13 2035 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.0005 0.00004 0.002 13 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.01 14 1 13 - 14 2036 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.0005 0.00004 0.002 14 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.01 15 1 14 - 15 2037 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.0005 0.00004 0.002 15 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.01 16 1 15 - 16 2038 3 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.001 0.0005 0.00004 0.002 16 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.01 17 1 16-17 2039 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 17 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.01 18 1 17-18 2040 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 18 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.01 19 1 18-19 2041 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 19 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.01 20 1 19-20 2042 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 20 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.01 21 1 20-21 2043 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 21 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.01 22 1 21-22 2044 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 22 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.01 23 1 22-23 2045 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 23 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.01 24 1 23-24 2046 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 24 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.01 25 1 24-25 2047 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 25 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.01 26 1 25-26 2048 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 26 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.01 27 1 26-27 2049 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 27 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.01 28 1 27-28 2050 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 28 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.01 29 1 28-29 2051 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 29 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.01 30 1 29-30 2052 1 0.00004 0.0032 0.0044 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 30 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.000004 0.0002 0.000008 0.012 0.0002 0.01

8.29 0.01 0.001 8.30 0.14 0.001 0.0001 0.14
* Third trimester of pregnancy
TOG Evaporative CPF =
Age -->
Parameter
ASF =
DPM CPF =
TOG Exhaust CPF =
DBR* =
A =
EF =
AT =
FAH =
Total Increased Cancer Risk Total Increased Adult Risk
TAC Concentrations (ug/m3) Adult Exposure Only
Year DPM Exhaust TOG
Evaporative
TOG
Infant/Child Exposure Information
21-084 Mipitas Blvd OEHHA Cancer Risks & PM2.5 Calcs - Project.xlsx

Homes - Unmitigated 7.6m
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge Project, Milpitas - Total Project Impacts - Without MitigationDPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations Impacts at Off-Site Multi-Family Homes - 7.6 meter receptor height Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age groupED = Exposure duration (years)AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless) Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)A = Inhalation absorption factorEF = Exposure frequency (days/year)10-6 = Conversion factor Values
Infant/Child Adult
3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
10 10 3 1

1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00

6.28E-03 6.28E-03 6.28E-03 6.28E-033.70E-04 3.70E-04 3.70E-04 3.70E-04 361 1090 572 261
1 11 1
350 350 350 350
70 70 70 70

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Project Cancer Risk by Year - MEI Receptor Location
DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG TOTAL
Exposure Age Cancer Cancer Cancer Cancer Age DPM Cancer Exhaust TOG
Cancer
Evaporative
TOG Cancer TOTAL Cancer
Exposure Duration Sensitivity Risk Risk Risk Risk Exposure Sensitivity Risk Risk Risk Risk Maximum Year (years) Age Factor (per million) (per million) (per million) (per million) Year Factor (per million) (per million) (per million) (per million) Fugitive Exhaust Total 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 2023 10 0.1717 0.00 0.00 2.34 0.00 0.00 2.34 0 HI PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.51 1 0 - 1 2023 10 0.1717 0.00 0.00 28.21 0.00 0.00 28.21 1 1 0.4931 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.034 0.1274 0.0000 0.302 1 1 - 2 2024 10 0.2416 0.00 0.00 39.67 0.00 0.00 39.67 2 1 0.6935 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.048 0.1954 0.0000 0.443 1 2 - 3 2025 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 3 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.0002 0.014 1 3 - 4 2026 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 4 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.0002 0.015 1 4 - 5 2027 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 5 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 6 1 5 - 6 2028 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 6 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 7 1 6 - 7 2029 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 7 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 8 1 7 - 8 2030 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 8 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 9 1 8 - 9 2031 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 9 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 10 1 9 - 10 2032 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 10 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 11 1 10 - 11 2033 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 11 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 12 1 11 - 12 2034 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 12 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 13 1 12 - 13 2035 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 13 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 14 1 13 - 14 2036 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 14 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 15 1 14 - 15 2037 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 15 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 16 1 15 - 16 2038 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 16 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 17 1 16-17 2039 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 17 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 18 1 17-18 2040 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 18 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 19 1 18-19 2041 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 19 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 20 1 19-20 2042 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 20 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 21 1 20-21 2043 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 21 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 22 1 21-22 2044 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 22 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 23 1 22-23 2045 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 23 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 24 1 23-24 2046 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 24 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 25 1 24-25 2047 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 25 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 26 1 25-26 2048 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 26 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 27 1 26-27 2049 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 27 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 28 1 27-28 2050 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 28 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 29 1 28-29 2051 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 29 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 30 1 29-30 2052 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 30 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01

70.23 0.005 0.0004 70.23 1.19 0.0009 0.0001 1.19
* Third trimester of pregnancy
TOG Evaporative CPF =
Age -->
Parameter
ASF =
DPM CPF =
TOG Exhaust CPF =
DBR* =
A =
EF =
AT =
FAH =
Total Increased Cancer Risk Total Increased Adult Risk
TAC Concentrations (ug/m3) Adult Exposure Only
Year DPM Exhaust TOG
Evaporative
TOG
Infant/Child Exposure Information

Homes - Mitigated 7.6m
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge Project, Milpitas - Total Project Impacts - With AQ-1 and AQ-2 MitigationDPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations Impacts at Off-Site Multi-Family Homes - 7.6 meter receptor height Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age groupED = Exposure duration (years)AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless) Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)A = Inhalation absorption factorEF = Exposure frequency (days/year)10-6 = Conversion factor Values
Infant/Child Adult
3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
10 10 3 1

1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00

6.28E-03 6.28E-03 6.28E-03 6.28E-033.70E-04 3.70E-04 3.70E-04 3.70E-04 361 1090 572 261
1 11 1
350 350 350 350
70 70 70 70

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Project Cancer Risk by Year - MEI Receptor Location
DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG TOTAL
Exposure Age Cancer Cancer Cancer Cancer Age DPM Cancer Exhaust TOG
Cancer
Evaporative
TOG Cancer TOTAL Cancer
Exposure Duration Sensitivity Risk Risk Risk Risk Exposure Sensitivity Risk Risk Risk Risk Maximum Year (years) Age Factor (per million) (per million) (per million) (per million) Year Factor (per million) (per million) (per million) (per million) Fugitive Exhaust Total 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 2023 10 0.0172 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.23 0 HI PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.51 1 0 - 1 2023 10 0.0172 0.00 0.00 2.82 0.00 0.00 2.82 1 1 0.0493 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.003 0.0396 0.0000 0.062 1 1 - 2 2024 10 0.0242 0.00 0.00 3.97 0.00 0.00 3.97 2 1 0.0693 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.005 0.0608 0.0000 0.083 1 2 - 3 2025 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 3 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.0002 0.014 1 3 - 4 2026 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 4 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.0002 0.015 1 4 - 5 2027 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 5 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 6 1 5 - 6 2028 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 6 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 7 1 6 - 7 2029 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 7 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 8 1 7 - 8 2030 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 8 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 9 1 8 - 9 2031 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 9 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 10 1 9 - 10 2032 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 10 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 11 1 10 - 11 2033 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 11 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 12 1 11 - 12 2034 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 12 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 13 1 12 - 13 2035 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 13 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 14 1 13 - 14 2036 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 14 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 15 1 14 - 15 2037 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 15 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 16 1 15 - 16 2038 3 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 0.00002 0.001 16 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 17 1 16-17 2039 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 17 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 18 1 17-18 2040 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 18 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 19 1 18-19 2041 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 19 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 20 1 19-20 2042 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 20 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 21 1 20-21 2043 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 21 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 22 1 21-22 2044 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 22 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 23 1 22-23 2045 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 23 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 24 1 23-24 2046 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 24 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 25 1 24-25 2047 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 25 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 26 1 25-26 2048 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 26 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 27 1 26-27 2049 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 27 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 28 1 27-28 2050 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 28 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 29 1 28-29 2051 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 29 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01 30 1 29-30 2052 1 0.00003 0.0020 0.0028 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 30 1 0.0001 0.00003 0.000003 0.0001 0.000006 0.008 0.000 0.01

7.03 0.0046 0.0004 7.04 0.12 0.0009 0.00008 0.12
* Third trimester of pregnancy
TOG Evaporative CPF =
Age -->
Parameter
ASF =
DPM CPF =
TOG Exhaust CPF =
DBR* =
A =
EF =
AT =
FAH =
Total Increased Cancer Risk Total Increased Adult Risk
TAC Concentrations (ug/m3) Adult Exposure Only
Year DPM Exhaust TOG
Evaporative
TOG
Infant/Child Exposure Information
21-084 Mipitas Blvd OEHHA Cancer Risks & PM2.5 Calcs - Project.xlsx

Attachment 5: Major Roadway and Stationary Source TAC Emissions.

File Name:

EMFAC2021/CT‐EMFAC2017:

Run Date: 10/21/2021 11:01
Area: Santa Clara (SF)
Analysis Year: 2024
Season: Annual
======================================================================= Vehicle Category VMT Fraction     Diesel VMTGas VMT Fraction Across Category Within CateWithin Category
Truck 1 0.029 0.495 0.505
Truck 2 0.017 0.937 0.048
Non‐Truck 0.954 0.014 0.955
======================================================================= Road Type: Major/Collector
Silt Loading Factor:            CARB 0.032 g/m2
Precipitation Correction:            CARB P = 64 daysN = 365 days ======================================================================= Fleet Average Running Exhaust Emission Factors (grams/veh‐mile) Pollutant Name    <= 5 mph      10 mph      15 mph      20 mph      25 mph      30 mph      35 mph      40 mph      45 mph      50 mph      55 mph      60 mph      65 mph      70 mph      75 mph PM2.5 0.010064905 0.006724 0.004658 0.003383 0.002594 0.002091 0.001772 0.001585 0.0015 000000 PM10 0.010860599 0.007244 0.005012 0.003636 0.002785 0.002244 0.0019 0.001698 0.001606 000000 NOx 0.296868257 0.237706 0.185236 0.157127 0.136389 0.120487 0.108482 0.10014 0.095313 000000 CO
HC
TOG 0.150963635 0.097999 0.066066 0.046959 0.035418 0.028086 0.023335 0.020317 0.018555 000000 ROG 0.110165562 0.071807 0.048458 0.034482 0.026074 0.020722 0.0019 0.001698 0.001606 000000 1,3‐Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Diesel PM 0.001251732 0.001032 0.000815 0.000657 0.000562 0.000509 0.000485 0.000488 0.000514 000000 Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Naphthalene
POM
DEOG 0.01394394 0.01005 0.00541 0.002737 0.001898 0.0015 0.001234 0.001057 0.000946 000000 CO2 793.1583307 648.1291 530.7661 443.9999 381.1293 339.0136 313.8292 302.335 301.4587 000000 N2O 0.019918404 0.016886 0.01377 0.012097 0.010929 0.010153 0.009721 0.009429 0.009275 000000 CH4 0.021135015 0.014346 0.010151 0.00752 0.005838 0.004739 0.004019 0.003561 0.003297 000000 BC
Fleet Average Fuel Consumption (gallons/veh‐mile)
Fuel Type    <= 5 mph      10 mph      15 mph      20 mph      25 mph      30 mph      35 mph      40 mph      45 mph      50 mph      55 mph      60 mph      65 mph      70 mph      75 mph Gasoline 0.074234 0.060034 0.049124 0.040865 0.034934 0.031008 0.028719 0.027786 0.027897 0.028696 0.029898 0.031 0.031925 0.031925 0.031925 Diesel 0.007686 0.006432 0.004914 0.004206 0.003682 0.003262 0.002995 0.002791 0.002666 0.002665 0.002747 0.00288 0.003095 0.003095 0.003095 ======================================================================= Fleet Average Running Loss Emission Factors (grams/veh‐hour) Pollutant Name Emission Factor
HC
TOG 1.173452831
ROG 1.173452831
1,3‐Butadiene
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
CH4 0.175260502
HFC 0.016012165
======================================================================= Fleet Average Tire Wear Factors (grams/veh‐mile)
Pollutant Name
PM2.5 0.002050376
PM10 0.008201504
======================================================================= Fleet Average Brake Wear Factors (grams/veh‐mile)
Pollutant Name    <= 5 mph      10 mph      15 mph      20 mph      25 mph      30 mph      35 mph      40 mph      45 mph      50 mph      55 mph      60 mph      65 mph      70 mph      75 mph PM2.5 0.003917109 0.004454 0.004983 0.005505 0.00578 0.005867 0.005892 0.005395 0.004344 000000 PM10 0.011191739 0.012725 0.014237 0.015728 0.016514 0.016763 0.016835 0.015414 0.012412 000000 ======================================================================= Fleet Average Road Dust Factors (grams/veh‐mile)
Pollutant Name Emission Factor
PM2.5 0.014777
PM10 0.098515
=============================END=======================================

Traffic and EFS
(ft) (m) (ft) (m)
DPM_MonPkw DPM from Montague Parkway Both 6 0.45 87 26.52 11.15 3.4 6.8 3.16 45 mph off Peak, 40 mph AM and PM peak 33,000 XXX_MonPkw XXX from Montague Parkway Both 6 0.45 87 26.52 4.27 1.3 2.79 1.33 45 mph off Peak, 40 mph AM and PM peak 33,000 DPM_NW_Cap DPM from E. Capitol NW of Milpitas Blvd. Both 6 0.20 140 42.67 11.15 3.4 6.80 3.16 40 mph off Peak, 35 mph AM and PM peak 20,100 XXX_NW_Cap XXX from E. Capitol NW of Milpitas Blvd. Both 6 0.20 140 42.67 4.27 1.3 2.79 1.30 40 mph off Peak, 35 mph AM and PM peak 20,100 DPM_SE_Cap DPM from E. Capitol SE of Milpitas Blvd. Both 5 0.22 96 29.26 11.15 3.4 6.8 3.16 40 mph off Peak, 35 mph AM and PM peak 12,000 XXX_SE_Cap XXX from the new roadway east of the Crossing Both 5 0.22 96 29.26 4.27 1.3 2.79 1.33 40 mph off Peak, 35 mph AM and PM peak 12,000Emission Factors Speed Category 1 23Travel Speed (mph) 35 40 45
DPM 0.0004854 0.0004881 0.000514PM2.5 0.0017723 0.0015847 0.001500TOG Exhaust 0.022101 0.0192595 0.017609 TOG Evap 0.0335272 0.0293363 0.026077
Fugitive PM2.5 0.0227195 0.02222 0.02117
MontagueParkway
Capitol NWof MilpitasBlvd.

Capitol SE
ofMilpitas XXX XXX XXX
Truck 1 (MDT) 957 583 348 00
Truck 2 (HDT) 561 342 204 00
Non‐Truck 31,482 19,175 11,448 00
Total 2024 ADT ‐ 33,000 20,100 12,000
Average
Vehicles
per Day
Link Width Release Height
Link
Length
(miles)
No. Lanes
Initial
Vertical
Dimention
(m)
Initial
Vertical
Dispersion
(m)
Emisions per
vehicle (g/VMT)
Average Speed
(mph) Road Link Description Direction
Vehicle
Type
Major_Roadway_Emissions_2024.xlsx

DPM
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and DPM Emisssions ‐  DPM from Montague Parkway Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 358 0.0000232 8 0.0643577 2124 1.3048E‐04 16 0.05801478 1914 0.0001239141 0.00740349 244 1.58131E‐05 9 0.0598818 1976 0.000127902 17 0.05628001 1857 0.0001202092 0.00719554 237 1.5369E‐05 10 0.0540699 1784 0.000115488 18 0.05397567 1781 0.000115287 3 0.0090397 298 1.93079E‐05 11 0.0511832 1689 0.000109322 19 0.04834712 1595 0.0001032654 0.01740988 575 3.71858E‐05 12 0.0526533 1738 0.000112462 20 0.03893556 1285 8.31626E‐05 5 0.03764755 1242 8.04115E‐05 13 0.0561328 1852 0.000119894 21 0.03342021 1103 7.13823E‐05 6 0.05280664 1743 0.00011279 14 0.061969 2045 0.000125635 22 0.02602722 859 5.55916E‐05 7 0.06314643 2084 0.000128022 15 0.0606367 2001 0.000122934 23 0.0186155 614 3.97609E‐05 33,000
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and DPM Emisssions ‐  DPM from E. Capitol NW of Milpitas Blvd.

Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 218 0.00000585 8 0.0643577 1294 3.45048E‐05 16 0.05801478 1166 3.12762E‐051 0.00740349 149 3.99128E‐06 9 0.0598818 1204 3.22828E‐05 17 0.05628001 1131 3.0341E‐05 2 0.00719554 145 3.87918E‐06 10 0.0540699 1087 2.91495E‐05 18 0.05397567 1085 2.90987E‐05 3 0.0090397 182 4.87338E‐06 11 0.0511832 1029 2.75933E‐05 19 0.04834712 972 2.60643E‐05 4 0.01740988 350 9.38581E‐06 12 0.0526533 1058 2.83858E‐05 20 0.03893556 783 2.09905E‐05 5 0.03764755 757 2.02961E‐05 13 0.0561328 1128 3.02616E‐05 21 0.03342021 672 1.80171E‐05 6 0.05280664 1061 2.84685E‐05 14 0.061969 1246 3.32241E‐05 22 0.02602722 523 1.40315E‐05 7 0.06314643 1269 3.38554E‐05 15 0.0606367 1219 3.25098E‐05 23 0.0186155 374 1.00358E‐05 20,100
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and DPM Emisssions ‐  DPM from E. Capitol SE of Milpitas Blvd.

Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 130 0.00000394 8 0.0643577 772 2.32401E‐05 16 0.05801478 696 2.10656E‐05 1 0.00740349 89 2.68826E‐06 9 0.0598818 719 2.17435E‐05 17 0.05628001 675 2.04357E‐05 2 0.00719554 86 2.61275E‐06 10 0.0540699 649 1.96331E‐05 18 0.05397567 648 1.95989E‐05 3 0.0090397 108 3.28238E‐06 11 0.0511832 614 1.8585E‐05 19 0.04834712 580 1.75552E‐05 4 0.01740988 209 6.32165E‐06 12 0.0526533 632 1.91188E‐05 20 0.03893556 467 1.41378E‐05 5 0.03764755 452 1.36701E‐05 13 0.0561328 674 2.03822E‐05 21 0.03342021 401 1.21351E‐05 6 0.05280664 634 1.91744E‐05 14 0.061969 744 2.23775E‐05 22 0.02602722 312 9.45066E‐06 7 0.06314643 758 2.28027E‐05 15 0.0606367 728 2.18964E‐05 23 0.0186155 223 6.75941E‐06 12,000

TOTALTOTAL
Major_Roadway_Emissions_2024.xlsx TOTAL

FUG 2.5
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and Fugitive PM2.5 Emis XXX from Montague Parkway Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 358 0.000954 8 0.0643577 2124 0.005940955 16 0.05801478 1914 0.005102237 1 0.00740349 244 0.0006511 9 0.0598818 1976 0.005266436 17 0.05628001 1857 0.0049496692 0.00719554 237 0.0006328 10 0.0540699 1784 0.004755296 18 0.05397567 1781 0.0047470093 0.0090397 298 0.000795 11 0.0511832 1689 0.00450142 19 0.04834712 1595 0.0042519944 0.01740988 575 0.0015312 12 0.0526533 1738 0.004630709 20 0.03893556 1285 0.0034242735 0.03764755 1242 0.003311 13 0.0561328 1852 0.00493672 21 0.03342021 1103 0.0029392146 0.05280664 1743 0.0046442 14 0.061969 2045 0.005720452 22 0.02602722 859 0.0022890217 0.06314643 2084 0.0058291 15 0.0606367 2001 0.005597462 23 0.0186155 614 0.001637181 33,000
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and Fugitive PM2.5 Emis XXX from E. Capitol NW of Milpitas Blvd.

Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 218 0.000266 8 0.0643577 1294 0.001615129 16 0.05801478 1166 0.001424077 1 0.00740349 149 0.0001817 9 0.0598818 1204 0.001469906 17 0.05628001 1131 0.0013814942 0.00719554 145 0.0001766 10 0.0540699 1087 0.001327242 18 0.05397567 1085 0.0013249293 0.0090397 182 0.0002219 11 0.0511832 1029 0.001256384 19 0.04834712 972 0.0011867674 0.01740988 350 0.0004274 12 0.0526533 1058 0.001292469 20 0.03893556 783 0.0009557435 0.03764755 757 0.0009241 13 0.0561328 1128 0.001377879 21 0.03342021 672 0.0008203596 0.05280664 1061 0.0012962 14 0.061969 1246 0.001555182 22 0.02602722 523 0.0006388857 0.06314643 1269 0.0015847 15 0.0606367 1219 0.001521746 23 0.0186155 374 0.000456951 20,100
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and Fugitive PM2.5 Emis XXX from the new roadway east of the Crossing Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 130 0.000179 8 0.0643577 772 0.001087841 16 0.05801478 696 0.000959162 1 0.00740349 89 0.0001224 9 0.0598818 719 0.000990029 17 0.05628001 675 0.0009304812 0.00719554 86 0.000119 10 0.0540699 649 0.000893941 18 0.05397567 648 0.0008923833 0.0090397 108 0.0001495 11 0.0511832 614 0.000846215 19 0.04834712 580 0.0007993264 0.01740988 209 0.0002878 12 0.0526533 632 0.00087052 20 0.03893556 467 0.0006437245 0.03764755 452 0.0006224 13 0.0561328 674 0.000928046 21 0.03342021 401 0.0005525386 0.05280664 634 0.0008731 14 0.061969 744 0.001047465 22 0.02602722 312 0.0004303097 0.06314643 758 0.0010674 15 0.0606367 728 0.001024945 23 0.0186155 223 0.000307771 12,000

TOTALTOTAL
Major_Roadway_Emissions_2024.xlsx TOTAL

PM2.5
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and PM2.5 Emisssions ‐  XXX from Montague Parkway Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 358 0.0000676 8 0.0643577 2124 0.00042367 16 0.05801478 1914 0.0003613931 0.00740349 244 4.61187E‐05 9 0.0598818 1976 0.000373023 17 0.05628001 1857 0.0003505862 0.00719554 237 4.48234E‐05 10 0.0540699 1784 0.000336819 18 0.05397567 1781 0.0003362323 0.0090397 298 5.63112E‐05 11 0.0511832 1689 0.000318837 19 0.04834712 1595 0.000301174 0.01740988 575 0.000108452 12 0.0526533 1738 0.000327994 20 0.03893556 1285 0.0002425425 0.03764755 1242 0.000234519 13 0.0561328 1852 0.000349669 21 0.03342021 1103 0.0002081856 0.05280664 1743 0.00032895 14 0.061969 2045 0.000407945 22 0.02602722 859 0.0001621327 0.06314643 2084 0.000415696 15 0.0606367 2001 0.000399174 23 0.0186155 614 0.000115962 33,000
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and PM2.5 Emisssions ‐  XXX from E. Capitol NW of Milpitas Blvd.

Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 218 0.0000190 8 0.0643577 1294 0.000125992 16 0.05801478 1166 0.000101556 1 0.00740349 149 1.29599E‐05 9 0.0598818 1204 0.000104824 17 0.05628001 1131 9.8519E‐05 2 0.00719554 145 1.25959E‐05 10 0.0540699 1087 9.46502E‐05 18 0.05397567 1085 9.44853E‐05 3 0.0090397 182 1.58241E‐05 11 0.0511832 1029 8.9597E‐05 19 0.04834712 972 8.46324E‐05 4 0.01740988 350 3.04763E‐05 12 0.0526533 1058 9.21704E‐05 20 0.03893556 783 6.81573E‐05 5 0.03764755 757 6.59026E‐05 13 0.0561328 1128 9.82613E‐05 21 0.03342021 672 5.85026E‐056 0.05280664 1061 9.24389E‐05 14 0.061969 1246 0.000121316 22 0.02602722 523 4.55611E‐05 7 0.06314643 1269 0.000123621 15 0.0606367 1219 0.000118708 23 0.0186155 374 3.25867E‐05 20,100
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and PM2.5 Emisssions ‐  XXX from the new roadway east of the Crossing Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 130 0.0000128 8 0.0643577 772 8.48598E‐05 16 0.05801478 696 6.84011E‐051 0.00740349 89 8.72893E‐06 9 0.0598818 719 7.06024E‐05 17 0.05628001 675 6.63558E‐05 2 0.00719554 86 8.48376E‐06 10 0.0540699 649 6.375E‐05 18 0.05397567 648 6.36389E‐053 0.0090397 108 1.06581E‐05 11 0.0511832 614 6.03465E‐05 19 0.04834712 580 5.70027E‐054 0.01740988 209 2.05268E‐05 12 0.0526533 632 6.20797E‐05 20 0.03893556 467 4.59062E‐055 0.03764755 452 4.43876E‐05 13 0.0561328 674 6.61822E‐05 21 0.03342021 401 3.94034E‐056 0.05280664 634 6.22606E‐05 14 0.061969 744 8.17102E‐05 22 0.02602722 312 3.06868E‐057 0.06314643 758 8.32627E‐05 15 0.0606367 728 7.99534E‐05 23 0.0186155 223 2.19482E‐05 12,000

TOTALTOTALTOTAL
Major_Roadway_Emissions_2024.xlsx

TOG Evap
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Evaporative Emisssions ‐  XXX from Montague Parkway Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 358 0.001175 8 0.0643577 2124 0.007842866 16 0.05801478 1914 0.0062843521 0.00740349 244 0.000802 9 0.0598818 1976 0.006486594 17 0.05628001 1857 0.0060964362 0.00719554 237 0.0007794 10 0.0540699 1784 0.00585703 18 0.05397567 1781 0.0058468223 0.0090397 298 0.0009792 11 0.0511832 1689 0.005544334 19 0.04834712 1595 0.005237124 0.01740988 575 0.0018859 12 0.0526533 1738 0.005703577 20 0.03893556 1285 0.0042176285 0.03764755 1242 0.0040781 13 0.0561328 1852 0.006080487 21 0.03342021 1103 0.0036201876 0.05280664 1743 0.0057202 14 0.061969 2045 0.007551772 22 0.02602722 859 0.0028193547 0.06314643 2084 0.0076953 15 0.0606367 2001 0.00738941 23 0.0186155 614 0.002016492 33,000
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Evaporative Emisssions ‐  XXX from E. Capitol NW of Milpitas Blvd.

Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 218 0.000352 8 0.0643577 1294 0.002383448 16 0.05801478 1166 0.001879974 1 0.00740349 149 0.0002399 9 0.0598818 1204 0.001940475 17 0.05628001 1131 0.0018237592 0.00719554 145 0.0002332 10 0.0540699 1087 0.00175214 18 0.05397567 1085 0.0017490873 0.0090397 182 0.0002929 11 0.0511832 1029 0.001658597 19 0.04834712 972 0.0015666934 0.01740988 350 0.0005642 12 0.0526533 1058 0.001706235 20 0.03893556 783 0.0012617115 0.03764755 757 0.00122 13 0.0561328 1128 0.001818988 21 0.03342021 672 0.0010829856 0.05280664 1061 0.0017112 14 0.061969 1246 0.002294984 22 0.02602722 523 0.0008434147 0.06314643 1269 0.0023386 15 0.0606367 1219 0.002245642 23 0.0186155 374 0.000603237 20,100
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Evaporative Emisssions ‐  XXX from the new roadway east of the Crossing Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 130 0.000237 8 0.0643577 772 0.001605329 16 0.05801478 696 0.0012662241 0.00740349 89 0.0001616 9 0.0598818 719 0.001306973 17 0.05628001 675 0.0012283612 0.00719554 86 0.000157 10 0.0540699 649 0.001180123 18 0.05397567 648 0.0011780663 0.0090397 108 0.0001973 11 0.0511832 614 0.001117119 19 0.04834712 580 0.0010552194 0.01740988 209 0.00038 12 0.0526533 632 0.001149204 20 0.03893556 467 0.0008498035 0.03764755 452 0.0008217 13 0.0561328 674 0.001225147 21 0.03342021 401 0.0007294256 0.05280664 634 0.0011526 14 0.061969 744 0.001545746 22 0.02602722 312 0.0005680677 0.06314643 758 0.0015751 15 0.0606367 728 0.001512513 23 0.0186155 223 0.0004063 12,000

TOTALTOTALTOTAL
Major_Roadway_Emissions_2024.xlsx

TOG Ex
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Exhaust EmisssioXXX from Montague Parkway Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 358 0.000794 8 0.0643577 2124 0.005148907 16 0.05801478 1914 0.0042436881 0.00740349 244 0.0005416 9 0.0598818 1976 0.004380257 17 0.05628001 1857 0.0041167922 0.00719554 237 0.0005263 10 0.0540699 1784 0.003955126 18 0.05397567 1781 0.0039482333 0.0090397 298 0.0006612 11 0.0511832 1689 0.003743969 19 0.04834712 1595 0.0035365154 0.01740988 575 0.0012735 12 0.0526533 1738 0.003851503 20 0.03893556 1285 0.0028480745 0.03764755 1242 0.0027539 13 0.0561328 1852 0.004106022 21 0.03342021 1103 0.0024446356 0.05280664 1743 0.0038627 14 0.061969 2045 0.004957802 22 0.02602722 859 0.0019038497 0.06314643 2084 0.005052 15 0.0606367 2001 0.004851209 23 0.0186155 614 0.001361694 33,000
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Exhaust EmisssioXXX from E. Capitol NW of Milpitas Blvd.

Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 218 0.000231 8 0.0643577 1294 0.001571158 16 0.05801478 1166 0.0012342191 0.00740349 149 0.0001575 9 0.0598818 1204 0.001273938 17 0.05628001 1131 0.0011973132 0.00719554 145 0.0001531 10 0.0540699 1087 0.001150295 18 0.05397567 1085 0.001148293 0.0090397 182 0.0001923 11 0.0511832 1029 0.001088883 19 0.04834712 972 0.0010285474 0.01740988 350 0.0003704 12 0.0526533 1058 0.001120157 20 0.03893556 783 0.0008283245 0.03764755 757 0.0008009 13 0.0561328 1128 0.001194181 21 0.03342021 672 0.0007109896 0.05280664 1061 0.0011234 14 0.061969 1246 0.001318342 22 0.02602722 523 0.0005537097 0.06314643 1269 0.0015416 15 0.0606367 1219 0.001289998 23 0.0186155 374 0.00039603 20,100
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Exhaust EmisssioXXX from the new roadway east of the Crossing Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 130 0.000155 8 0.0643577 772 0.001058226 16 0.05801478 696 0.0008312861 0.00740349 89 0.0001061 9 0.0598818 719 0.000858039 17 0.05628001 675 0.0008064292 0.00719554 86 0.0001031 10 0.0540699 649 0.000774761 18 0.05397567 648 0.000773413 0.0090397 108 0.0001295 11 0.0511832 614 0.000733398 19 0.04834712 580 0.000692764 0.01740988 209 0.0002495 12 0.0526533 632 0.000754462 20 0.03893556 467 0.0005579035 0.03764755 452 0.0005394 13 0.0561328 674 0.000804319 21 0.03342021 401 0.0004788746 0.05280664 634 0.0007567 14 0.061969 744 0.001018949 22 0.02602722 312 0.0003729417 0.06314643 758 0.0010383 15 0.0606367 728 0.000997042 23 0.0186155 223 0.000266739 12,000

TOTALTOTALTOTAL
Major_Roadway_Emissions_2024.xlsx















!"#$%&'! !(')*%+%&$# ,"'-#&
.
/01222304
5 6
/22
47
8
9 :;






 


!"


#
$%%#&'($)$%$#*+ ,-,-
#
$%%#&'($)$%$#*+
. /01 2233456
787 9)*:;<:%=#*<:&

=:> ?+
;@:A%
$)>$%*A-
?B
;%A)C))#
D;*>:%%$:; 888EA>$%:)-F#;
#
$)>$%*A-
. G4H5IJK2LMNOPQ5H
R8?8
;%A)SSS A:;%(%
<--T
U
R8?8
;%A)?SR?SS V#;#%:* ,:%#D=##*%$
%#&$*W;&=X&$
>(%*Y:
%=#*#*:
(#*Z:
)&[##\>#(%#&%:[#*
[*%;%$))):Z#Z=#;*$%#*>#($Y$(]#)%=^$*W
(##;$;@-**#**
#;%*#(:;&
(%#&S
D=#*(##;$;@)#F#)
>$*;:%#(:

#;&#&Y:#F)
%$;@*#;*$%$F#);&
*#**
(=**(=::)**#;$:(#;%#*&(#*;&=#)%=Y($)$%$#*S _A:>$@=%+<-#-$T
)$%
;@#
#;%U$*%$(%

21‐084 S Milpitas Bridge Permit
Plant# Plant NameAddress City St Zip County UTM_E (kmUTM_N (kmCancer_201Hazard_20 PM2.5_201Type 17576 Olson Broth328 Sango Milpitas CA 95035 Santa Clara 597892.1 4140529 0.002 Auto Body Coating Operation 24653 BART 555 E CapitMilpitas CA 95035 Santa Clara 598112 4140935 3.9297 0.0139 0.0048 (1) Generator 25042 2334 LUND2334 LundySan Jose CA 95131 Santa Clara 598307 4140258 9.38 0.02 0.01 (6) Generators 108576 ARCO Facili2104 N CapSan Jose CA 95132 Santa Clara 598416.4 4140644 10.0044 0.044 Gas Dispensing Facility 21‐084 S Milpitas Bridge Permitted Facilities 2018_MH.csv

Attachment 6: Cumulative Community Health Risk Impacts Calculations

Milpitas Blvd. Bridge Project , Milpitas , CA - Impacts from Roadways AERMOD Risk Modeling Parameters at MEI
2nd Floor Receptors
Emissions Years 2024
Receptor Information
Number of Receptors
Receptor Height (in m) = 4.6 (2nd Floor)
Receptor Distances = Nearby Residential Locations
Meteorological Conditions
2013 - 2017
Land Use Classification urban
Wind Speed = variable
Wind Direction = variable
Montague Expressway - Offsite Residential Concentration at MEI - Floor 2 DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG

0.00067 0.02483 0.03689
Total PM2.5 Fugitive PM2.5 Vehicle PM2.5

0.03183 0.02972 0.00211
E. Capitol Avenue - Offsite Residential Concentration at MEI - Floor 2 DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG

0.00014 0.00584 0.00892
Total PM2.5 Fugitive PM2.5 Vehicle PM2.5

0.00716 0.00668 0.00048
BAAQMD SJC Met Data
Analysis Years
TAC Concentrations (µg/m3
)
2024
Analysis Years
PM2.5 Concentrations (µg/m3
)
2024
Analysis Years
TAC Concentrations (µg/m3
)
2024
Analysis Years
PM2.5 Concentrations (µg/m3
)
2024

Milpitas Blvd. Bridge Project , Milpitas , CA - Impacts from Montague Expressway Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations at MEI4.6 meter receptor height - Floor 2Cancer Risk Calculation Method Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age groupED = Exposure duration (years)AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless) Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)A = Inhalation absorption factorEF = Exposure frequency (days/year)10-6 = Conversion factor Cancer Potency Factors (mg/kg-day)-1
CPF

1.10E+00
Vehicle TOG Exhaust 6.28E-03Vehicle TOG Evaporative 3.70E-04 Values
Infant/Child Adult
Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
Parameter
ASF = 10 10 3 1
DBR* = 361 1090 572 261
A = 1 1 1 1
EF = 350 350 350 350
AT = 70 70 70 70
FAH = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Cancer Risk by Year - MEI Receptor Location
Exposure
Exposure Duration DPM
Exhaust
TOG
Evaporative

TOG DPM
Year (years) Age
0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 10 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.009 0.002 0.0002 0.01 Hazard Index Total PM2.5 (µg/m3)1 1 0 - 1 10 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.110 0.023 0.0020 0.14 0.0001 0.0322 1 1 - 2 10 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.110 0.023 0.0020 0.14 0.0001 0.0323 1 2 - 3 3 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.017 0.004 0.0003 0.02 0.0001 0.0324 1 3 - 4 3 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.017 0.004 0.0003 0.02 0.0001 0.0325 1 4 - 5 3 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.017 0.004 0.0003 0.026 1 5 - 6 3 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.017 0.004 0.0003 0.027 1 6 - 7 3 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.017 0.004 0.0003 0.028 1 7 - 8 3 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.017 0.004 0.0003 0.029 1 8 - 9 3 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.017 0.004 0.0003 0.02 10 1 9 - 10 3 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.017 0.004 0.0003 0.0211 1 10 - 11 3 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.017 0.004 0.0003 0.0212 1 11 - 12 3 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.017 0.004 0.0003 0.0213 1 12 - 13 3 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.017 0.004 0.0003 0.0214 1 13 - 14 3 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.017 0.004 0.0003 0.0215 1 14 - 15 3 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.017 0.004 0.0003 0.0216 1 15 - 16 3 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.017 0.004 0.0003 0.0217 1 16-17 1 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.002 0.0004 0.00004 0.00218 1 17-18 1 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.002 0.0004 0.00004 0.00219 1 18-19 1 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.002 0.0004 0.00004 0.00220 1 19-20 1 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.002 0.0004 0.00004 0.00221 1 20-21 1 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.002 0.0004 0.00004 0.00222 1 21-22 1 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.002 0.0004 0.00004 0.00223 1 22-23 1 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.002 0.0004 0.00004 0.00224 1 23-24 1 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.002 0.0004 0.00004 0.00225 1 24-25 1 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.002 0.0004 0.00004 0.00226 1 25-26 1 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.002 0.0004 0.00004 0.00227 1 26-27 1 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.002 0.0004 0.00004 0.00228 1 27-28 1 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.002 0.0004 0.00004 0.00229 1 28-29 1 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.002 0.0004 0.00004 0.00230 1 29-30 1 0.0007 0.0248 0.0369 0.002 0.0004 0.00004 0.002 Total Increased Cancer Risk 0.50 0.106 0.009 0.61
* Third trimester of pregnancy
TAC
DPM
Exposure Information Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk (per million) 2033
Maximum
20242024202520262027
TOTAL
Year
Age
Sensitivity
Factor
Exhaust
TOG
Evaporative
TOG
2028202920302031203220452034203520362037203820392040204120422043204420522053204620472048204920502051

Cap Ave 2nd Floor
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge Project , Milpitas , CA - Impacts from E. Capitol AvenueCancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations at MEI4.6 meter receptor height - Floor 2Cancer Risk Calculation Method Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age groupED = Exposure duration (years)AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless) Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)A = Inhalation absorption factorEF = Exposure frequency (days/year)10-6 = Conversion factor Cancer Potency Factors (mg/kg-day)-1
CPF

1.10E+00
Vehicle TOG Exhaust 6.28E-03Vehicle TOG Evaporative 3.70E-04 Values
Infant/Child Adult
Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
Parameter
ASF = 10 10 3 1
DBR* = 361 1090 572 261
A = 1 1 1 1
EF = 350 350 350 350
AT = 70 70 70 70
FAH = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Cancer Risk by Year - MEI Receptor Location
Exposure
Exposure Duration DPM
Exhaust
TOG
Evaporative

TOG DPM
Year (years) Age
0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 10 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.002 0.000 0.0000 0.00 Hazard Index Total PM2.5 (µg/m3)1 1 0 - 1 10 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.023 0.005 0.0005 0.03 0.00003 0.0072 1 1 - 2 10 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.023 0.005 0.0005 0.03 0.00003 0.0073 1 2 - 3 3 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.004 0.001 0.0001 0.005 0.00003 0.0074 1 3 - 4 3 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.004 0.001 0.0001 0.005 0.00003 0.0075 1 4 - 5 3 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.004 0.001 0.0001 0.0056 1 5 - 6 3 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.004 0.001 0.0001 0.0057 1 6 - 7 3 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.004 0.001 0.0001 0.0058 1 7 - 8 3 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.004 0.001 0.0001 0.0059 1 8 - 9 3 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.004 0.001 0.0001 0.005 10 1 9 - 10 3 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.004 0.001 0.0001 0.00511 1 10 - 11 3 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.004 0.001 0.0001 0.00512 1 11 - 12 3 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.004 0.001 0.0001 0.00513 1 12 - 13 3 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.004 0.001 0.0001 0.00514 1 13 - 14 3 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.004 0.001 0.0001 0.00515 1 14 - 15 3 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.004 0.001 0.0001 0.00516 1 15 - 16 3 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.004 0.001 0.0001 0.00517 1 16-17 1 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.0004 0.0001 0.00001 0.00118 1 17-18 1 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.0004 0.0001 0.00001 0.00119 1 18-19 1 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.0004 0.0001 0.00001 0.00120 1 19-20 1 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.0004 0.0001 0.00001 0.00121 1 20-21 1 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.0004 0.0001 0.00001 0.00122 1 21-22 1 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.0004 0.0001 0.00001 0.00123 1 22-23 1 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.0004 0.0001 0.00001 0.00124 1 23-24 1 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.0004 0.0001 0.00001 0.00125 1 24-25 1 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.0004 0.0001 0.00001 0.00126 1 25-26 1 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.0004 0.0001 0.00001 0.00127 1 26-27 1 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.0004 0.0001 0.00001 0.00128 1 27-28 1 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.0004 0.0001 0.00001 0.00129 1 28-29 1 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.0004 0.0001 0.00001 0.00130 1 29-30 1 0.0001 0.0058 0.0089 0.0004 0.0001 0.00001 0.001 Total Increased Cancer Risk 0.10 0.025 0.002 0.13
* Third trimester of pregnancy
TAC
DPM
Exposure Information Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk (per million) 2033
Maximum
20242024202520262027
TOTAL
Year
Age
Sensitivity
Factor
Exhaust
TOG
Evaporative
TOG
2028202920302031203220452034203520362037203820392040204120422043204420522053204620472048204920502051 21-084 Milpitas Brdg Cancer Risks & PM2.5 Calcs - Roadways.xlsx

SSIF
Date of Request
Contact Name
AffiliationPhoneEmailProject Name Milpitas Bridge
AddressCity MilpitasCounty Santa ClaraType (residential, commercial, mixed
use, industrial,etc.) NAProject Size (# of
units or building
square feet) NA
Project Site
Distance from
Receptor (feet) or
MEI1 Plant No. Facility Name Address Cancer Risk2 Hazard Risk2 PM2.52 Source No.3 Type of Source4 Fuel Code5 Status/Comments Distance
Adjustment
Multiplier
Adjusted
Cancer Risk
Estimate
Adjusted
Hazard
Risk
Adjusted
PM2.5
17576 Olson Brothers Body Shop 328 Sango Ct 0.002
Auto Body Coating
Operation

0.62 0.0 0.001 0.000

0.0 0.000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000.0 0.000 0.000.00 0.00000 0.000.000 0.0000 0.000.00 0.000 0.00 Footnotes: MEI

1. Maximally exposed individual Distance from
Receptor (feet)
or MEI1 FACID (Plant No.)
Distance
Adjustment
Multiplier
Adjusted
Cancer Risk
Estimate
Adjusted
Hazard
Risk
Adjusted
PM2.5
1439 0.19 0.00 0.00038 0.000

0.0000 0.00000 0.00000.0000 0.00000 0.00000.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.000 0.0000.00 0.00 0.00 c. BAAQMD Reg 11 Rule 16 required that all co‐residential (sharing a wall, floor, ceiling or is in the same building as a residential unit) dry cleaners cease use of perc on July 1, 2010.

Date last updated:
03/13/2018
g. This spray booth is considered to be insignificant.

4. Permitted sources include diesel back‐up generators, gas stations, dry cleaners, boilers, printers, auto spray booths, etc.

11. Further information about common sources:
a. Sources that only include diesel internal combustion engines can be adjusted using the BAAQMD's Diesel Multiplier worksheet. b. The risk from natural gas boilers used for space heating when <25 MM BTU/hr would have an estimated cancer risk of one in a million or less, and a chronic hazard index of 0.003 or less. To Therefore, there is no cancer risk, hazard or PM2.5 concentrations from co‐residential dry cleaning businesses in the BAAQMD. d. Non co‐residential dry cleaners must phase out use of perc by Jan. 1, 2023. Therefore, the risk from these dry cleaners does not need to be factored in over a 70‐year period, but instead should reflect the e. Gas stations can be adjusted using BAAQMD's Gas Station Distance Mulitplier worksheet.

6. If a Health Risk Screening Assessment (HRSA) was completed for the source, the application number will be listed here.

7. The date that the HRSA was completed.8. Engineer who completed the HRSA. For District purposes only.

9. All HRSA completed before 1/5/2010 need to be multiplied by an age sensitivity factor of 1.7.

10. The HRSA "Chronic Health" number represents the Hazard Index.

5. Fuel codes: 98 = diesel, 189 = Natural Gas.

Table A: Requester Contact Information
Comments: New Roadway Connection2. These Cancer Risk, Hazard Index, and PM2.5 columns represent the values in the Google Earth Plant Information Table.

3. Each plant may have multiple permits and sources.
f. Unless otherwise noted, exempt sources are considered insignificant. See BAAQMD Reg 2 Rule 1 for a list of exempt sources.

Risk & Hazard Stationary Source Inquiry FormThis form is required when users request stationary source data from BAAQMDThis form is to be used with the BAAQMD's Google Earth stationary source screening tables.

Click here for guidance on conducting risk & hazard screening, including roadways & freeways,referto the District's Risk & Hazard Analysisflow chart.

Click here for District's Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards document.

For Air District assistance, the following steps must be completed:

1. Complete all the contact and project information requested in . Incomplete forms will not be processed. Please include a project site map.

2. Download and install the free program Google Earth, http://www.google.com/earth/download/ge/, and then download the county specific Google Earth stationary source application files from the District's website, http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning‐and‐Research/CEQA‐GUIDELINES/Tools‐and‐Methodology.aspx.

The small points on the map represent stationary sources permitted by the District (Map A on right). These permitted sources include diesel back‐up generators, gas stations, dry cleaners, boilers, printers, auto spray booths, etc. Click on a point to view the source's Information Table, including the name, location, and preliminary estimated cancer risk, hazard index, and PM2.5 concentration.

3. Find the project site in Google Earth by inputting the site's address in the Google Earth search box.

4. Identify stationary sources within at least a 1000ft radius of project site. Verify that the location of the source on the map matches with the source's address in the Information Table, by using the Google Earth address search box to confirm the source's address location. Please report any mapping errors to the District.

5. List the stationary source information in blue section only.

6. Note that a small percentage of the stationary sources have Health Risk Screening Assessment (HRSA) data INSTEAD of screening level data. These sources will be noted by an asterisk next to the Plant Name (Map B on right). If HRSA values are presented, these values have already been modeled and cannot be adjusted further.

7. Email this completed form to District staff. District staff will provide the most recent risk, hazard, and PM2.5 data that are available for the source(s). If this information or data are not available, source emissions data will be provided. Staff will respond to inquiries within three weeks.

Note that a public records request received for the same stationary source information will cancel the processing of your SSIF request.

Submit forms, maps, and questions to Areana Flores at 415‐749‐4616, or [email protected] Table A: Requester Contact Information
Table B: Google Earth data
Table B
Table A
StationarySource_adjusted risk_MEI.xlsx

429 E. Cotati Avenue
Cotati, California 94931
Tel: 707-794-0400 Fax: 707-794-0405
www.illingworthrodkin.com [email protected]

M E M O
Date: November 20, 2023
To: Natalie Noyes, AICP
Senior Project Manager
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
1871 The Alameda, Suite 200
San José, CA 95126
[email protected]
From: James Reyff
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.

SUBJECT: S. Milpitas Boulevard Vehicular Bridge at Penitencia Creek, Milpitas, CA – Update to the Air Quality Impact Analysis Job#21-084
The air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) assessment for this project was prepared in late 2021.1 After preparation of the assessment, there were updates to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines2 and the CalEEMod model. This memo describes these updates and explains and how they affect the air quality analysis prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.’s (I&R).

Changes to the BAAQMD Guidelines
BAAQMD published updates to their CEQA Guidelines in April of 2023. These updates were mostly a matter of including current practices for assessing impacts that are currently practiced by most consultants performing these types of assessments. An example would be the recommended use of CalEEMod for predicting construction and operational emissions, where the previous 2010 and 2017 guidelines recommended URBMIS. The air quality and GHG assessment completed for this project in 2021used methods to predict impacts that are consistent with the new guidelines.

Updates to CalEEMod
The air quality and GHG assessment completed for this project in 2021used CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Version 2022.1 was released in May 2022 and was recommended for use by BAAQMD 1 Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc, S. Milpitas Boulevard Vehicle Bridge Air Quality Assessment, November 10, 2021. 2 See BAAQMD: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updatedceqa-guidelines

Natalie Noyes
November 20, 2023

in 2023. Note that CalEEMod is routinely updated as newer, more accurate, information becomes available. In fact, there have been 34 updates to Version 2022.1model since its release. The primary difference between the two versions of CalEEMod is that the newer version uses the latest mobile emission factors that are based on the EMFAC2021 model. The older version of CalEEMod uses EMFAC2017 emission factors. However, I&R modified CalEEMod version 2020.4.0 to use the EMFAC2021 emission factors for the air quality and GHG assessment completed for the project. Also, the new CalEEMod incorporates the latest version of the Roadway Construction Emissions Model (RCEM) that was used to model the roadway construction emissions. The portion of the model that was incorporated into CalEEMod is the same as the version used for the air quality assessment.

Therefore, the air quality modeling is consistent with the new version of CalEEMod. There may be some minor differences due to slight modification of other factors; however, the new model will predict results similar to the air quality assessment. Certainly, any differences would be quite small and would not lead to new significant impacts.

983 University Avenue, Building D  Los Gatos, CA 95032  408.458.3200  www.harveyecology.com South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
Project #4544-01
Prepared for:

Natalie Noyes
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
1736 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94612
Prepared by:

H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
i H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
Table of Contents
Section 1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Project Location ...................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Background............................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Project Overview..................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.4 Project Description ................................................................................................................................................. 5

1.4.1 Bridge ................................................................................................................................................................ 5

1.4.2 Circulation ........................................................................................................................................................ 5

1.4.3 Construction..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Section 2. Methods......................................................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Background Review ................................................................................................................................................ 7

2.2 Site Visits................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Section 3. Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................................................ 8

3.1 Federal Regulations................................................................................................................................................. 8

3.1.1 Clean Water Act............................................................................................................................................... 8

3.1.2 Federal Endangered Species Act .................................................................................................................. 8

3.1.3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act............................................................ 9

3.1.4 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act ............................................................................................................... 9

3.2 State Regulations....................................................................................................................................................10

3.2.1 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act..............................................................................................10

3.2.2 California Endangered Species Act............................................................................................................11

3.2.3 California Environmental Quality Act.......................................................................................................11

3.2.4 California Fish and Game Code .................................................................................................................12

3.3 Local Regulations ..................................................................................................................................................14

3.3.1 City of Milpitas Tree Ordinance .................................................................................................................14 Section 4. Environmental Setting ..............................................................................................................................16

4.1 General Project Area Description ......................................................................................................................16

4.2 Biotic Habitats .......................................................................................................................................................16

4.2.1 Developed/Landscaped...............................................................................................................................18

4.2.2 Riparian Annual Grassland..........................................................................................................................19

4.2.3 Intermittent Stream/Freshwater Marsh ....................................................................................................19 Section 5. Special-Status Species and Sensitive Habitats........................................................................................21

5.1 Special-Status Plant Species.................................................................................................................................24

5.2 Special-Status Animal Species .............................................................................................................................24

5.3 Sensitive Natural Communities, Vegetation Alliances, and Habitats............................................................31

5.3.1 Sensitive Natural Communities...................................................................................................................31

5.3.2 Sensitive Vegetation Alliances.....................................................................................................................32

5.3.3 Sensitive Habitats (Waters of the U.S./State)...........................................................................................32

5.3.4 CDFW Riparian Habitat ..............................................................................................................................32

5.3.5 Nonnative and Invasive Species .................................................................................................................32 Section 6. Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................33

6.1 Impacts on Special-Status Species......................................................................................................................34

6.1.1 Impacts on Developed/Landscaped Habitat and Associated Common Plant and Wildlife Species (Less than Significant)............................................................................................................................................34

6.1.2 Impacts on Special-Status Plant Species (No Impact) ............................................................................34

6.1.3 Impacts on Water Quality, Native Fish, and Northwestern Pond Turtles (Less than Significant with Mitigation).......................................................................................................................................................35

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
ii H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023

6.1.4 Impacts on Wildlife due to Increased Lighting (Less than Significant with Mitigation) ...................37

6.1.5 Impacts on the San Francisco Common Yellowthroat and Yellow Warbler (Less than Significant)................................................................................................................................................................39

6.1.6 Impacts on Nesting Birds (Less than Significant)....................................................................................39

6.2 Impacts on Sensitive Communities....................................................................................................................40

6.3 Impacts on Wetlands............................................................................................................................................42

6.4 Impacts on Wildlife Movement ..........................................................................................................................44

6.5 Impacts due to Conflicts with Local Policies....................................................................................................44

6.5.1 Impacts Due to the Removal of Ordinance-Sized Trees (Less than Significant)...............................44

6.6 Impact due to Conflicts with an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan ........................................................45

6.7 Cumulative Impacts..............................................................................................................................................45 Section 7. Compliance with Additional Laws and Regulations for Nesting Birds.............................................47 Section 8. References...................................................................................................................................................48 Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map.................................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Study Area....................................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3. Proposed Project............................................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 4. Habitats and Impacts Map .........................................................................................................................17 Figure 5. CNDDB-Mapped Records of Special-Status Plants..............................................................................22 Figure 6. CNDDB-Mapped Records of Special-Status Animals..........................................................................23 Tables
Table 1. Special-status Animal Species, Their Status, and Potential Occurrence on the Project Site ...........25 Appendices
Appendix A.Plants Observed .......................................................................................................................................A-1 List of Preparers
Steve Rottenborn, Ph.D., Principal/Senior Wildlife Ecologist Kelly Hardwicke, Ph.D., Principal/Senior Plant Ecologist Katie Gallagher, M.S., Project Manager/Senior Plant Ecologist Jazmine Jensen, B.S., Wildlife Ecologist

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
1 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
Section 1. Introduction
This report describes the biological resources present in the area of the South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project, as well as the potential biological impacts of the proposed project and measures necessary to reduce or mitigate those impacts to less-than-significant levels under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This assessment is based upon the project plans provided to H. T. Harvey & Associates by David J. Powers & Associates through November 2023.

1.1 Project Location
The proposed bridge, located within the City of Milpitas (Figures 1 and 2), would extend South Milpitas Boulevard across Penitencia East Channel, at which point South Milpitas Boulevard would connect with a new connector street to be completed between Tarob Court and Sango Court. The study area for this report spans Penitencia East Channel and the future Tarob Court Connection. The project also includes construction of ramps at either end of the bridge to allow continued access to the existing maintenance roads along the channel (Figure 3). The study area is bounded by dense residential development to the north and office development to the south. The project site is located on the Milpitas, California, and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle.

1.2 Background
On June 3, 2008, the Milpitas City Council approved the Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP). The TASP allows redevelopment of an approximately 437-acre area in the southern portion of the City around the proposed Milpitas Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Light Rail system. The proposed project would improve vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian connectivity consistent with the goals and policies identified in the TASP.

1.3 Project Overview
The South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 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 project would require demolition of the existing vacant office building located at 1831-1841 Tarob Court (APN 086-36-030) which is owned by the City of Milpitas.

^_
^_
^_
^_
^_ ^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
SAN

FRANCISCO
MARIN
SOLANO

CONTRA COSTA

SAN BENITO

SANTA CLARA

SAN JOAQUIN

ALAMEDA

STANISLAUS

SAN MATEO

SANTA CRUZ
Fairfield
San Rafael
Martinez
San Francisco
Oakland
Stockton
Redwood City
San Jose
Santa Cruz
Hollister
Salinas
N:\Projects4500\4544-01\Reports\BRR\BRR\BRR.aprx
1 0.5 0 1
± Miles
December 2023
South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Biological Resources Report (4544-01) Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Project
Vicinity
California
Project
Location
Milpitas

S Milpitas Blvd
Imagery Source: Google Earth
N:\Projects4500\4544-01\Reports\BRR\BRR\BRR Pro 3.1.aprx 100 50 0 100
±
Feet
Study Area (1.60 ac)
Ordinary High Water Mark
Top of Bank
December 2023
South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Biological Resources Report (4544-01) Figure 2. Study Area

N:\Projects4500\4544-01\Reports\BRR\BRR\BRR Pro 3.1.aprx 75 37.5 0 75 ± Feet
Study Area
Top of Bank
Impacts
Proposed Bridge
Proposed Road
Proposed Ramp to Valley Water
Maintenance Road
Future Tarob Court Connection
Proposed Abutments
Temporary Work Area
Figure 3. Proposed Project
December 2023
South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Biological Resources Report (4544-01) S Milpitas Blvd

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
5 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023

1.4 Project Description

1.4.1 Bridge
The proposed bridge would be approximately 40 feet long and 48 feet wide. The bridge would include 11-foot vehicle lanes, six-foot bicycle lanes, and six-foot sidewalks in each direction. The railing of the bridge would consist of vertical parallel steel plates mounted on concrete barriers. The steel plates would range in height from 3 to 12 feet and would be illuminated from below, and serve as decorative elements. Additionally, potable water and recycled water lines would be attached to the bridge.

The bridge would be clear-span, meaning that no permanent structures or fill would be placed within the bed or banks of Penitencia East Channel. All abutments and support structures associated with the proposed bridge would occur outside the tops of the banks of Penitencia East Channel. Temporary access into the creek channel may be necessary during construction of the bridge. The bridge would be supported by cast-in-place reinforced concrete abutments supported by cast-in-drilled-hole piers. There would be a total of 14 piers, seven for each abutment. Each of the piers would be 24 inches in diameter and would be drilled to a depth of 60 feet below the ground surface.

The proposed project would also require demolition of the existing office building located at 1831-1841 Tarob Court and removal and replacement of approximately 20 ornamental trees, including a number of protected trees. Replacement of protected trees would occur per the Milpitas Tree Protection Ordinance.

1.4.2 Circulation
The project would extend South Milpitas Boulevard approximately 250 feet from its current termination point to a new intersection and construct a new connector street between the termination points of Tarob Court and Sango Court. The connecting roadways would have a 54-foot right of way that includes 11-foot-wide travel lanes for both vehicles and bicycles going in each direction, an 8-foot-wide vehicle parking aisle on one side of the street, and 7-foot-wide planting strip and 5-foot-wide sidewalks on both sides of the street.

South Milpitas Boulevard between East Capitol Avenue and the Sango Court/Tarbo Court roadway connection would be residential streets with a speed limit of 25 miles per hour. Both the South Milpitas Boulevard/Tarob Court/Sango Court intersection and South Milpitas Boulevard/Vineyard Avenue intersection would be stop sign controlled.

The proposed project would also construct connections to the existing Valley Water maintenance roads, which are located on both sides of Penitencia East Channel, above the tops of banks.

1.4.3 Construction
In addition to construction of the proposed bridge and roadway connection, the project would also require demolition of the existing office building located at 1831-1841 Tarob Court. Project construction would take approximately 18 months to complete. Construction of the bridge would take place in a single dry season from

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
6 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
June 15 to October 15, as required by Valley Water. Temporary access into the creek channel may be necessary during construction of the bridge, potentially requiring dewatering or diversion of the creek if water is present when construction occurs. Falsework may need to be placed in the creek bed during construction.

Demolition of the existing building and construction of the proposed roadway connection is anticipated to occur simultaneously with the bridge construction, estimated between Spring 2024 and Fall 2025. Construction work would occur between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday, excluding holidays consistent with the City’s Municipal Code Section V-213-3(b). No temporary roadway closures are anticipated during project construction.

As required under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP), the proposed project would implement water quality control measures during and after project construction activities to protect Penitencia East Channel and other receiving waters downstream of the project site.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
7 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
Section 2. Methods

2.1 Background Review
Prior to conducting field work, H. T. Harvey & Associates ecologists reviewed project plans; aerial images (Google LLC 2023); a USGS topographic map; the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW’s) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (2023); and other relevant reports, scientific literature, and technical databases. We also perused records of birds reported in nearby areas on eBird (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2020).

In addition, for plants, we reviewed all species on current California Native Plant Society (CNPS) California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4 lists occurring in the project region, which is defined as the Milpitas, California USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle and surrounding eight quadrangles (Newark, Niles, La Costa Valley, Mountain View, Calaveras Reservoir, Cupertino, San Jose West, and San Jose East). In addition, we queried the CNDDB (2023) for natural communities of special concern that occur within the project region. Maps and aerial images of the project site were obtained from several sources and reviewed. These sources included the USGS, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI 2023), and Google Earth (Google LLC 2023).

2.2 Site Visits
Reconnaissance-level field surveys of the project site were conducted by H. T. Harvey & Associates senior botanist/wetland ecologist Katie Gallagher, M.S. on July 1 and October 6, 2021. Senior wildlife ecologist Steve Rottenborn, Ph.D., and wildlife biologist Jazmine Jensen, B.A. visited the site on July 9, 2021. The purpose of these surveys was to provide an impact assessment specific to the proposed redevelopment of the project site as described above. Specifically, surveys were conducted to (1) assess existing biotic habitats and plant and animal communities on the project site, (2) assess the project site for its potential to support special-status species and their habitats, and (3) identify potential jurisdictional habitats, such as waters of the U.S./state and riparian habitat.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
8 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
Section 3. Regulatory Setting
Biological resources within the project site are regulated by a number of federal, state, and local laws and ordinances, as described below.

3.1 Federal Regulations

3.1.1 Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) functions to maintain and restore the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of Waters of the U.S., which include, but are not limited to, tributaries to traditionally navigable waters currently or historically used for interstate or foreign commerce, and adjacent wetlands. Historically, in non-tidal waters, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA extends to the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), which is defined in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 328.3. If there are wetlands adjacent to channelized features, the limits of USACE jurisdiction extend beyond the OHWM to the outer edges of the wetlands. A May 25, 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency limited the definition of jurisdictional wetlands and other waters that are considered waters of the U.S. to those wetlands and other waters having a continuous surface connection with traditional navigable waters or their relatively permanent tributaries.

Construction activities within jurisdictional waters are regulated by the USACE. The placement of fill into such waters must comply with permit requirements of the USACE. No USACE permit will be effective in the absence of Section 401 Water Quality Certification. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is the state agency (together with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards [RWQCBs]) charged with implementing water quality certification in California.

Project Applicability: Penitencia East Channel is considered waters of the U.S. based on the presence of OHWMs on opposing banks, regular flow, intermittent hydrology in most years, and direct hydrologic connectivity to other navigable waters (Coyote Creek and eventually San Francisco Bay). The channel bottom was determined to support three-parameter wetlands (USACE 2008) in some locations, based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils, and indirect observations of hydrology (i.e., surface soil cracks, inundation on aerial imagery, etc.). Therefore, depending on actual construction techniques for the bridge and the level of access and temporary fills that may be needed to be placed within the channel for construction of the bridge, a Section 404 permit from the USACE may be necessary to authorize the project’s proposed impacts on wetlands and other waters.

3.1.2 Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) protects federally listed wildlife species from harm or take, which is broadly defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
9 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
engage in any such conduct.” Take can also include habitat modification or degradation that directly results in death or injury of a listed wildlife species. An activity can be defined as take even if it is unintentional or accidental. Listed plant species are provided less protection than listed wildlife species. Listed plant species are legally protected from take under FESA only if they occur on federal lands.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have jurisdiction over federally listed, threatened, and endangered species under FESA. The USFWS also maintains lists of proposed and candidate species. Species on these lists are not legally protected under FESA but may become listed in the near future and are often included in their review of a project.

Project Applicability: No federally listed plant or animal species occur on the project site. The northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), proposed for federal listing, could potentially occur in the project area, though the project site does not provide high-quality habitat, and the species could occur only as a very infrequent dispersant, if it occurs at all. The monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), a candidate for federal listing, is expected to occur in the project area as an occasional migrant. Although adults may occasionally forage for nectar on flowering plants in the project vicinity, no milkweed (Asclepias sp.), which serves as the species’ larval host plant, was observed or is expected to occur in the project area. Therefore, monarchs would not breed in the project area. If either the northwestern pond turtle or monarch butterfly is listed prior to project initiation, and if take of the species may occur, consultation between the USACE and USFWS would occur during Section 404 permitting.

3.1.3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act governs all fishery management activities that occur in federal waters within the United States’ 200-nautical-mile limit. The Act establishes eight Regional Fishery Management Councils responsible for the preparation of fishery management plans (FMPs) to achieve the optimum yield from U.S. fisheries in their regions. These councils, with assistance from NMFS, establish Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) in FMPs for all managed species. Federal agencies that fund, permit, or implement activities that may adversely affect EFH are required to consult with the NMFS regarding potential adverse effects of their actions on EFH, and respond in writing to recommendations by the NMFS.

Project Applicability: No EFH is present on the project site, as the channel on the project site is intermittent and dry most of the year and thus does not provide suitable habitat for FMP-managed fish species.

3.1.4 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. Section703, prohibits killing, possessing, or trading of migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The MBTA protects whole birds, parts of birds, and bird eggs and nests; and prohibits the possession of all nests of protected bird species whether they are active or inactive. An active nest is defined as having eggs or young, as described by the Department of the Interior in its April 16, 2003 Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum. Nest starts (nests that are under construction and do not yet contain eggs) are not protected from destruction.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
10 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
Project Applicability: All native bird species that occur on the project site are protected under the MBTA.

3.2 State Regulations

3.2.1 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The SWRCB works in coordination with the nine RWQCBs to preserve, protect, enhance, and restore water quality. Each RWQCB makes decisions related to water quality for its region, and may approve, with or without conditions, or deny projects that could affect waters of the state. Their authority comes from the CWA and Porter-Cologne. Porter-Cologne broadly defines waters of the state as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” Because Porter-Cologne applies to any water, whereas the CWA applies only to certain waters, California’s jurisdictional reach overlaps and may exceed the boundaries of waters of the U.S. For example, Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ states that “shallow” waters of the state include headwaters, wetlands, and riparian areas. Moreover, the San Francisco Bay Region RWQCB’s Assistant Executive Director has stated that, in practice, the RWQCBs claim jurisdiction over riparian areas. Where riparian habitat is not present, such as may be the case at headwaters, jurisdiction is taken to the top of bank.

On April 2, 2019, the SWRCB adopted the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. In these new guidelines, riparian habitats are not specifically described as waters of the state but instead as important buffer habitats to streams that do conform to the State Wetland Definition. The Procedures describe riparian habitat buffers as important resources that may both be included in required mitigation packages for permits for impacts to waters of the state, as well as areas requiring permit authorization from the RWQCBs to impact.

Pursuant to the CWA, projects that are regulated by the USACE must also obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification permit from the RWQCB. This certification ensures that a proposed project will uphold state water quality standards. Because California’s jurisdiction to regulate its water resources is much broader than that of the federal government, proposed impacts on waters of the state require Water Quality Certification even if the area occurs outside of USACE jurisdiction. Moreover, the RWQCB may impose mitigation requirements even if the USACE does not. Under the Porter-Cologne, the SWRCB and the nine regional boards also have the responsibility of granting CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and Waste Discharge Requirements for certain point-source and non-point discharges to waters. These regulations limit impacts on aquatic and riparian habitats from a variety of urban sources.

Project Applicability: Waters of the state include all potential waters of the U.S., including the portions of Penitencia East Channel. The RWQCB will also consider the riparian vegetation rooted below top of bank and areas of the riparian banks above the OHWM and below top of bank to be important buffers to waters of the state associated with the channel. Therefore, we expect that a Section 401 water quality certification (or Waste Discharge Requirement under the Porter-Cologne Act if no Section 404 permit is needed) from the RWQCB

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
11 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
would be necessary to authorize the project’s proposed impacts on wetlands and riparian buffers regulated by the RWQCB.

3.2.2 California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA; California Fish and Game Code, Chapter 1.5, Sections 2050- 2116) prohibits the take of any plant or animal listed or proposed for listing as rare (plants only), threatened, or endangered. In accordance with CESA, the CDFW has jurisdiction over state-listed species (Fish and Game Code 2070). The CDFW regulates activities that may result in take of individuals (i.e., “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”). Habitat degradation or modification is not expressly included in the definition of take under the California Fish and Game Code. The CDFW, however, has interpreted take to include the “killing of a member of a species which is the proximate result of habitat modification.”
Project Applicability: No suitable habitat for any state-listed plant or animal species occurs in the project site, and thus no state-listed plants or animals are expected to occur in the project area.

3.2.3 California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA is a state law that requires state and local agencies to document and consider the environmental implications of their actions and to refrain from approving projects with significant environmental effects if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that can substantially lessen or avoid those effects. CEQA requires the full disclosure of the environmental effects of agency actions, such as approval of a general plan update or the projects covered by that plan, on resources such as air quality, water quality, cultural resources, and biological resources. The State Resources Agency promulgated guidelines for implementing CEQA are known as the State CEQA Guidelines.

Section 15380(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that a species not listed on the federal or state lists of protected species may be considered rare if the species can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definitions in FESA and CESA and the section of the California Fish and Game Code dealing with rare or endangered plants and animals. This section was included in the guidelines primarily to deal with situations in which a public agency is reviewing a project that may have a significant effect on a species that has not yet been listed by either the USFWS or CDFW or species that are locally or regionally rare.

The CDFW has produced three lists (amphibians and reptiles, birds, and mammals) of “species of special concern” that serve as “watch lists”. Species on these lists are of limited distribution or the extent of their habitats has been reduced substantially, such that threat to their populations may be imminent. Thus, their populations should be monitored. They may receive special attention during environmental review as potential rare species, but do not have specific statutory protection. All potentially rare or sensitive species, or habitats capable of supporting rare species, are considered for environmental review per the CEQA Section 15380(b).

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
12 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
The CNPS, a non-governmental conservation organization, has developed CRPRs for plant species of concern in California in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2020). The CRPRs include lichens, vascular, and non-vascular plants, and are defined as follows:
• CRPR 1A Plants considered extinct.
• CRPR 1B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. • CRPR 2A Plants considered extinct in California but more common elsewhere. • CRPR 2B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. • CRPR 3 Plants about which more information is needed - review list. • CRPR 4 Plants of limited distribution-watch list.

The CRPRs are further described by the following threat code extensions:
• .1—seriously endangered in California;
• .2—fairly endangered in California;
• .3—not very endangered in California.

Although the CNPS is not a regulatory agency and plants on these lists have no formal regulatory protection, plants appearing as CRPR 1B or 2 are, in general, considered to meet CEQA’s Section 15380 criteria, and adverse effects on these species may be considered significant. Impacts on plants that are listed by the CNPS as CRPR 3 or 4 are also considered during CEQA review, although because these species are typically not as rare as those of CRPR 1B or 2, impacts on them are less frequently considered significant.

Compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a) requires consideration of natural communities of special concern, in addition to plant and wildlife species. Vegetation types of “special concern” are tracked in Rarefind (CNDDB 2023). Further, the CDFW ranks sensitive vegetation alliances based on their global (G) and state (S) rankings analogous to those provided in the CNDDB. Global rankings (G1–G5) of natural communities reflect the overall condition (rarity and endangerment) of a habitat throughout its range, whereas S rankings reflect the condition of a habitat within California. If an alliance is marked as a G1–G3, all the associations within it would also be of high priority. The CDFW provides the Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program’s currently accepted list of vegetation alliances and associations (CDFW 2023).

Project Applicability: All potential impacts on biological resources will be considered during CEQA review of the project in the context of this Biological Resources Report.

3.2.4 California Fish and Game Code
Ephemeral and intermittent streams, rivers, creeks, dry washes, sloughs, blue line streams on USGS maps, and watercourses with subsurface flows fall under CDFW jurisdiction. Canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
13 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
other means of water conveyance may also be considered streams if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife. A stream is defined in Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 1.72, as “a body of water that follows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and that supports fish and other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation.” Using this definition, CDFW extends its jurisdiction to encompass riparian habitats that function as a part of a watercourse. California Fish and Game Code Section 2786 defines riparian habitat as “lands which contain habitat which grows close to and which depends upon soil moisture from a nearby freshwater source.” The lateral extent of a stream and associated riparian habitat that would fall under the jurisdiction of CDFW can be measured in several ways, depending on the particular situation and the type of fish or wildlife at risk. At minimum, CDFW would claim jurisdiction over a stream’s bed and bank. Where riparian habitat is present, the outer edge of riparian vegetation is generally used as the line of demarcation between riparian and upland habitats.

Pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 1603, CDFW regulates any project proposed by any person that will “substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated by the department, or use any material from the streambeds.” California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 requires an entity to notify CDFW of any proposed activity that may modify a river, stream, or lake. If CDFW determines that proposed activities may substantially adversely affect fish and wildlife resources, a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) must be prepared. The LSAA sets reasonable conditions necessary to protect fish and wildlife, and must comply with CEQA. The applicant may then proceed with the activity in accordance with the final LSAA.

Certain sections of the California Fish and Game Code describe regulations pertaining to protection of certain wildlife species. For example, Code Section 2000 prohibits take of any bird, mammal, fish, reptile, or amphibian except as provided by other sections of the code.

The California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3513, and 3800 (and other sections and subsections) protect native birds, including their nests and eggs, from all forms of take. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered take by the CDFW. Raptors (e.g., eagles, hawks, and owls) and their nests are specifically protected in California under Code Section 3503.5. Section 3503.5 states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.”
Bats and other non-game mammals are protected by California Fish and Game Code Section 4150, which states that all non-game mammals or parts thereof may not be taken or possessed except as provided otherwise in the code or in accordance with regulations adopted by the commission. Activities resulting in mortality of nongame mammals (e.g., destruction of an occupied nonbreeding bat roost, resulting in the death of bats), or disturbance that causes the loss of a maternity colony of bats (resulting in the death of young), may be considered take by the CDFW.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
14 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
Project Applicability: CDFW jurisdiction under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code would include the bed and banks of Penitencia East Channel up to the tops of the banks. No additional riparian habitat (outside the tops of the creek banks) is present.

Most native bird, mammal, and other wildlife species that occur in the study area and in the immediate vicinity are protected by the California Fish and Game Code.

3.3 Local Regulations
The project is located within the limits of the City of Milpitas. Applicable City ordinances and policies are discussed below.

3.3.1 City of Milpitas Tree Ordinance
The City of Milpitas, in Section 2-7.01 of the Municipal Code, requires a permit to remove or prune a tree on specified property types once it reaches a certain size in circumference. A permit is required to remove a tree of any size on residential, commercial/industrial, zoning/subdivision and vacant lots. A protected tree is:

1. All trees which have a fifty-six-inch (56") or greater circumference of any trunk measured 4 ½ feet from the ground and located on developed residential property.

2. All trees which have a thirty-seven-inch (37") or greater circumference of any trunk measured 4 ½ feet from the ground and located on developed commercial or industrial property.

3. All trees which have a thirty-seven-inch (37") or greater circumference of any trunk measured 4 ½ feet from the ground, when removal relates to any transaction for which zoning approval or subdivision approval is required.

4. Any tree existing at the time of a zoning or subdivision approval and was a specific subject of such approval or otherwise covered by subsection (b) above.

5. All trees which have a thirty-seven-inch (37") or greater circumference of any trunk measured 4 ½ feet from the ground and located on a vacant, undeveloped or underdeveloped property.

6. All heritage trees or groves of trees as defined in Section 2-2.10.

To remove any trees that meet the above conditions, a tree removal permit must be secured from the City of Milpitas.

Project Applicability: All trees within the study area are located in what could likely be classified as vacant, undeveloped, or underdeveloped property, rendering the protection threshold to be 37 inches. The project intends to remove several trees, including a number of ordinance-sized trees, in the study area. The project will

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
15 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
obtain a tree removal permit through the City’s planning and building department and comply with the City’s tree replacement guidelines and policies for any trees that need to be removed.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
16 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
Section 4. Environmental Setting

4.1 General Project Area Description
The study area is located in Milpitas in Santa Clara County, California. Based on the 30-year climate normals from 1980 through 2010, the project site receives approximately 16 inches of annual precipitation and has a mean temperature range of 49.6°– 70.9°F (PRISM Climate Group 2023). Elevations on the project site range from approximately 43 feet to 47 feet above sea level. The site is underlain by one soil unit: Urbanland-Clear Lake complex, 0 to 2% slopes (NRCS 2023). The soil unit is typically found on basin floors, and is composed of alluvium derived from metamorphic and sedimentary rock (NRCS 2023).

The Penitencia East Channel is mapped in the NWI (2023) as a temporarily flooded, excavated (man-made), intermittent stream. This stormwater conveyance feature is a trapezoidal channel maintained by Valley Water for flood protection, water resource management, and stream stewardship. The channel is a part of the Lower Penitencia Watershed, and flows into Lower Penitencia Creek approximately 380 feet east of McCandless Drive.

The highest point in the study area is the ground level of multifamily housing to the north of the channel. A retaining wall facilitates the elevation drop from the housing level to the existing Valley Water Maintenance Road. The channel edge of the road is the top of bank for the channel. The channel banks are graded soil and were recently mowed. The top third of the bank is very moderately sloped, then it transitions to a roughly 2:1 slope until it reaches the OHWM. From the OHWM to the channel bottom, the bank is a 3–4-foot vertical drop. Just downstream and outside of the Study Area, an outlet conveys perennial urban runoff into riprap and open water. Throughout the study area (i.e., upstream of this outlet), no surface water was observed during our site visits.

4.2 Biotic Habitats
Reconnaissance-level surveys identified three habitat types or land uses in the study area:
developed/landscaped; riparian annual grassland, and intermittent stream/freshwater marsh. This habitat is described in detail below, and the distribution of these habitats is provided in Figure 4. Plant species observed during the reconnaissance-level survey are listed in Appendix A.

N:\Projects4500\4544-01\Reports\BRR\BRR\BRR Pro 3.1.aprx 75 37.5 0 75 ± Feet
Study Area (1.60 ac)
Ordinary High Water Mark
Top of Bank
Habitats
Riparian Annual Grassland (0.18 ac)
Developed/Landscaped (1.32 ac)
Intermittent Stream (20%)/Freshwater Marsh (80%)
(0.09 ac)
Impacts
Proposed Permanent Impacts (0.77 ac)
Proposed Temporary Impacts (0.40 ac)
December 2023
South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Biological Resources Report (4544-01) Figure 4. Habitats and Impacts Map
S Milpitas Blvd
Imagery Source: Google Earth

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
18 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023

4.2.1 Developed/Landscaped
Vegetation. The majority of the project site consists
of developed and landscaped habitat in the form of
asphalt parking areas and the existing building on the
south side of the creek,. gravel and asphalt access
roads, ornamental trees, and landscaping.

Landscaping in the study area includes mostly mature
ornamental trees along the fenceline south of
Penitencia East Channel and in the Tarob Court
Connection area, and recently installed landscaping
associated with the adjacent multifamily housing.

Fences border the north and south boundary of the
study area and include a retaining wall along the north boundary. The most prevalent ornamental tree
species includes shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei) and
eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.). Various annual weeds grow sparsely within the pavement cracks and gravel.

Wildlife. The developed/landscaped habitat on the proposed project footprint is of relatively low value to wildlife due to the general lack of vegetation and the predominance of non-native species where vegetation is present. California towhees (Melozone crissalis), lesser goldfinches (Spinus psaltria), and American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos) were all observed using the graveled access roads and adjacent landscaping during the reconnaissance survey. The row of non-native ornamental shrubs bordering the northern access road on the project site, and the row of ornamental trees bordering the southern access road, provide nesting and foraging opportunities for some urban-adapted species. House finches (Haemorhous mexicanus), Anna’s hummingbirds (Calypte anna), bushtits (Psaltriparus minimus), and California towhees were all observed foraging in the ornamental shrubs and trees during the reconnaissance survey.

Anna’s hummingbirds, bushtits, and house finches may all nest in these ornamental shrubs. Additional species such as the white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), golden-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla), and Lincoln’s sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii) could potentially forage in these habitats during migration or winter. Few species of reptiles and amphibians occur in the developed/landscaped habitat on the project site due to its disturbed nature and low habitat heterogeneity. Nevertheless, reptiles such as the western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) may occur in this habitat. Common urban-adapted mammal species that may occur on the project site include the native raccoon (Procyon lotor) as well as the non-native house mouse (Mus musculus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), and black rat (Rattus rattus).

No old nests of raptors were observed on the site, or in surrounding areas, during the reconnaissance survey.

Further, an examination of the trees and buildings on and adjacent to the site failed to find any large cavities that might provide suitable habitat for a large roosting or maternity colony of bats.

Photo 1. Developed/landscaped habitat on
the project site.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
19 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
In general, the habitats identified in the study area provide habitat for certain common, urban-adapted wildlife species typically associated with urban development. The study area, which does not contain sensitive habitat, and which is embedded within a developed landscape characterized by extensive commercial and residential development, is isolated from extant regional wildlife populations and does not provide habitat for species that require high-quality, contiguous habitat.

4.2.2 Riparian Annual Grassland
Vegetation. This habitat type occurs between the top of bank along the edge of the Valley Water access roads and the OHWM. The channel banks consist entirely of ruderal grass and herb species. The dominant species include wild oats (Avena fatua), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), wild radish (Raphanus sativa), bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), and cheeseweed (Malva parviflora). Other species that are less common include ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), smilo grass (Stipa millacea), milkvetch (Vicia sativa), salsify (Tragopogon sp.), and Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon). The slopes appeared to be recently mowed during our site visit, and no bare soil was visible through the herb and annual grass thatch.

Wildlife. Common, urban-adapted bird species found elsewhere in the study area likely also occur in the ruderal grassland levee slope, although this habitat has limited value for wildlife due to the absence of trees and shrubs and its isolation from large, contiguous tracts of other grassland. Two feral domestic cats (Felis catus) were observed in this habitat; the presence of these non-native predators may further reduce the value of the habitat for wildlife. No evidence of burrowing mammals, such as California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi) or valley pocket gophers (Thomomys bottae), was observed. Lesser goldfinches, California towhees, and song sparrows (Melospiza melodia) were all observed foraging in the ruderal grassland. The rock pigeon (Columba livia), a non-native species, likely also forages in this habitat.

4.2.3 Intermittent Stream/Freshwater Marsh
Vegetation. This habitat type occurs between the OHWM and the channel bottom. This reach of the channel supports a seasonally high groundwater table and seasonal flows during the wet season. An outlet immediately downstream of the study area conveyed perennial urban runoff, but the channel bottom in the study area was dry during both site visits. The portion between the OHWM and the toe of the slope is a vertical face throughout the Study Area and supports loamy eroded soils and ruderal transitional species, such as Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis) and smilo grass. The substrate on the channel bottom consists of loose coarse sand that has likely accumulated during storm events in some areas, while in other areas it consists of bare loamy soil with surface cracks and only light leaf litter scattered about. In the portions of the channel bottom with accumulated sand on the surface, diminutive upland species were observed to be rooted shallowly in the sand; these included small seed sandmat (Euphorbia polycarpa), sharp-leaved kickxia (Kickxia elatine), oval-leaf knotweed (Polygonum aviculare), and variable burclover (Medicago polymorpha). Visible hydric soil indicators begin about 10- 12 cm below the surface of the sand. In the portions where surface cracks are exposed, indicators of hydric soils were observed about 2 cm below the surface. The hydric soils were moist but not wet during our site visit.

Drift deposits were observed in several spots throughout the study area.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
20 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
The vegetation rooted deeper than the accumulated sand substrate in the channel bottom consists almost entirely of hydrophytic species, and we therefore considered areas dominated by this vegetation to comprise freshwater marsh habitat. A wide variety of species were observed in these areas, including water plantain (Alisma lanceolatum), barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli), tall cyperus (Cyperus eragrostis), tall willowherb (Epilobium brachycarpum), loosestrife (Lythrum sp.), spotted smartweed (Persicaria maculosa), curly dock (Rumex crispus), white sweetclover (Melilotus albus), speedwell (Veronica sp.), rabbitfoot grass (Polypogon monspieliensis), cattails (Typha dominguensis), and Bermuda grass. Saplings of date palm (Phoenix canariensis) and Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) were the only species observed that were not an herb or grass.

Thus, the channel bottom from the toe of slope to the toe of slope meets the requirements of a three-parameter wetland. In general, the freshwater marsh habitat comprised roughly 80% of this habitat type and intermittent stream (i.e., bare sand or soil) comprised roughly 20%.

Wildlife. The stream habitat in the project area is intermittent and dry, but turns perennial downstream to the west, outside the project boundary. The perennial stream found in the west channel provides foraging habitat for some wetland and aquatic bird species, such as mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), great egrets (Ardea alba), snowy egrets (Egretta thula), and black phoebes (Sayornis nigricans), as well as some migrants such as Wilson’s snipe (Gallinago delicata). The perennial stream habitat may also serve as habitat for amphibians such as Pacific tree frogs (Pseudacris regilla) and a variety of common fish species. However, the intermittent reach of stream on the project site is much drier. Although the aforementioned species could potentially forage in the on-site reach when it conveys water, they are expected to occur only temporarily, when flow is present, and likely in low numbers.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
21 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
Section 5. Special-Status Species and Sensitive Habitats CEQA requires assessment of the effects of a project on species that are protected by state, federal, or local governments as “threatened, rare, or endangered”; such species are typically described as “special-status species”. For the purpose of the environmental review of the project, special-status species have been defined as described below. Impacts on these species are regulated by some of the federal, state, and local laws and ordinances described in Section 3 above.

For purposes of this analysis, “special-status” plants are considered plant species that meet one or more of the following criteria:
• Listed under FESA as threatened, endangered, proposed threatened, proposed endangered, or a candidate species.
• Listed under CESA as threatened, endangered, rare, or a candidate species. • Listed by the CNPS as CRPR 1A, 1B, 2, 3, or 4.

For purposes of this analysis, “special-status” animals are considered animal species that meet one or more of the following criteria:
• Listed under FESA as threatened, endangered, proposed threatened, proposed endangered, or a candidate species.
• Listed under CESA as threatened, endangered, or a candidate threatened or endangered species. • Designated by the CDFW as a California species of special concern. • Listed in the California Fish and Game Code as fully protected species (fully protected birds are provided in Section 3511, mammals in Section 4700, reptiles and amphibians in Section 5050, and fish in Section 5515).

Information concerning threatened, endangered, and other special-status species that potentially occur on the project site was collected from several sources and reviewed by H. T. Harvey & Associates biologists as described in Section 2.1 above. Figure 5 depicts CNDDB records of special-status plant species in the general vicinity of the project site and Figure 6 depicts CNDDB records of special-status animal species. These generalized maps show areas where special-status species are known to occur or have occurred historically.

Northern Coastal Salt Marsh
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh
robust spineflower
Congdon's tarplant
saline clover
fragrant fritillary
alkali milk-vetch alkali milk-vetch
saline clover
Hall's bush-mallow
Hoover's button-celery
Hoover's button-celery
hairless popcornflower
Santa Clara red ribbons
Santa Clara red ribbons
maple-leaved checkerbloom
Point Reyes salty bird's-beak
hairless popcornflower
Contra Costa goldfields
Congdon's tarplant
California seablite
Hall's bush-mallow
Contra Costa goldfields
arcuate bush-mallow
Congdon's tarplant
Congdon's tarplant
chaparral harebell chaparral harebell
Congdon's tarplant
most beautiful jewelflower
Congdon's tarplant
most beautiful jewelflower
!.

N:\Projects4500\4544-01\Reports\BRR\BRR\BRR.aprxakaiser December 2023
South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Biological Resources Report (4544-01) Figure 5. CNDDB-Mapped Records of Special-Status Plants

1.1 0.55 0 1.1 ± Miles
Specific Location
General Area
Approximate Location
Plants
General Area
Terrestrial Communities
CNDDB Records
5-mile Radius
Project Location
Legend
!.

2 1
9 10
11 3
1 1
California red-legged frog
California tiger Salamander
California tiger Salamander
Alameda whipsnake (=striped racer)
California tiger Salamander
Western snowy plover
green sturgeon
green sturgeon
yellow rail yellow rail
Crotch bumble bee
western bumble bee
obscure bumble bee
northern California legless lizard
hoary bat
yellow rail yellow rail
Berkeley kangaroo rat
pallid bat
longfin smelt
Swainson's hawk
California black rail California black rail
tricolored blackbird
obscure bumble bee
foothill yellow-legged frog
salt-marsh wandering shrew
western yellow-billed cuckoo
tricolored blackbird
tricolored blackbird
burrowing owl burrowing owl
burrowing owl burrowing owl
foothill yellow-legged frog
Townsend's big-eared bat
burrowing owl burrowing owl
Alameda song sparrow
California Ridgway's rail California Ridgway's rail
hoary bat
burrowing owl burrowing owl
tricolored blackbird
saltmarsh common yellowthroat
mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail)
Alameda song sparrow
steelhead - central California coast DPS
western snowy plover
western snowy plover
burrowing owl burrowing owl
western snowy plover white-tailed kite
salt-marsh harvest mouse
salt-marsh wandering shrew
burrowing owl burrowing owl
western snowy plover
tricolored blackbird
saltmarsh common yellowthroat
tricolored blackbird
foothill yellow-legged frog
burrowing owl burrowing owl
California Ridgway's rail California Ridgway's rail
mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail)
Alameda song sparrow
California Ridgway's rail California Ridgway's rail
burrowing owl burrowing owl
foothill yellow-legged frog
western pond turtle
salt-marsh harvest mouse
burrowing owl burrowing owl
burrowing owl burrowing owl
great blue heron
burrowing owl burrowing owl
salt-marsh harvest mouse
burrowing owl burrowing owl
California black rail California black rail
northern harrier
salt-marsh harvest mouse
salt-marsh harvest mouse
burrowing owl burrowing owl
salt-marsh harvest mouse
salt-marsh harvest mouse
Alameda song sparrow
salt-marsh harvest mouse
burrowing owl burrowing owl
burrowing owl burrowing owl
salt-marsh harvest mouse
salt-marsh harvest mouse
Yuma myotis
foothill yellow-legged frog
burrowing owl burrowing owl
western pond turtle
western pond turtle
western pond turtle
burrowing owl burrowing owl
western pond turtle
western pond turtle
salt-marsh harvest mouse
salt-marsh harvest mouse
salt-marsh harvest mouse
foothill yellow-legged frog
burrowing owl burrowing owl
burrowing owl burrowing owl
burrowing owl burrowing owl
western pond turtle
saltmarsh common yellowthroat
western pond turtle
western pond turtle
western pond turtle
golden eagle
burrowing owl burrowing owl
burrowing owl burrowing owl
burrowing owl burrowing owl
burrowing owl burrowing owl
burrowing owl burrowing owl
burrowing owl burrowing owl
burrowing owl burrowing owl
burrowing owl burrowing owl
burrowing owl burrowing owl
burrowing owl burrowing owl
burrowing owl burrowing owl
burrowing owl burrowing owl
burrowing owl burrowing owl
burrowing owl burrowing owl
western pond turtle
great blue heron
California black rail California black rail
California black rail California black rail
western pond turtle
western pond turtle
western pond turtle
western pond turtle
western pond turtle
western pond turtle
western pond turtle
western pond turtle
Alameda whipsnake
salt-marsh harvest mouse
salt-marsh harvest mouse
foothill yellow-legged frog
foothill yellow-legged frog
white-tailed kite
CRLF
CRLF
CRLF
CRLF
CRLF
CRLF
CRLF
CRLF
CRLF
CRLF
CRLF
CRLF
CTS
CTS
CTS
CTS
CTS
CTS
CTS
CTS
CTSCTS
CTS
CTS
CTS
CTS
CTS
CTS
CTS
CTS
CTS
CTS
!.

N:\Projects4500\4544-01\Reports\BRR\BRR\BRR.aprxakaiser December 2023
South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Biological Resources Report (4544-01) Figure 6. CNDDB-Mapped Records of Special-Status Animals

1.1 0.55 0 1.1 ± Miles
Note: CTS = California Tiger Salamander,
CRLF = California Red-legged Frog
Specific Location
General Area
Approximate Location
Wildlife
General Area
Aquatic
CNDDB Records
5-mile Radius
Project Location
Legend
!.

Critical Habitat
Critical Habitat

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
24 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023

5.1 Special-Status Plant Species
The CNPS (2023) and CNDDB (2023) identify 54 special-status plant species as potentially occurring in at least one of the nine USGS quadrangles containing or surrounding the study area. All of these species were determined to be absent from the study area for at least one of the following reasons: (1) lack of suitable habitat types; (2) absence of specific microhabitat or edaphic requirements, such as serpentine soils; (3) the elevation range of the species is outside of the range within the study area; and/or (4) the species is considered extirpated from the site vicinity. Due to the current and historic land use of the study area, as well as the surrounding developed land use, no suitable habitat is present in the study area and we can rule out potential for any specialstatus plant species to occur.

5.2 Special-Status Animal Species
The legal status and likelihood of occurrence on the project site of special-status animals known to occur, or potentially occurring, in the surrounding region are presented in Table 1, and Figure 6 depicts the CNDDBmapped locations of special-status animals in the project vicinity. Analysis of the documented habitat requirements and occurrence records associated with the species in Table 1 considered allowed us to reject nearly all of the species as having no reasonable potential to occur in or immediately adjacent to the project footprint for at least one of the following reasons: (1) lack of suitable habitat types; (2) absence of specific microhabitat or edaphic requirements, such as serpentine soils; (3) the location of the project site within a developed landscape characterized by extensive commercial and residential development; (4) the lack of connectivity to higher-quality habitat; and/or (5) extirpation of the species from the vicinity.

Special-status fish species present in the South Bay and some of its tributaries include two federally threatened species, the green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) and the Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), along with the longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and the Central Valley fall-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), a California Species of Special Concern (CSSC). However, none of these special-status fish species are expected to occur in the project study area because the channel is not tidally influenced, is intermittent, and is too shallow to support habitat for any of these species. Moreover, there is no spawning habitat or higher-quality habitat for any of these species upstream of the project study area.

Likewise, the absence of salt marsh and the isolation of the study area from South Bay marshes precludes the presence of four special-status species known to occur in salt marsh habitat–the federally and state endangered salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris); the federally and state endangered California Ridgway’s rail (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus); the state threatened California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus); and the salt marsh wandering shrew (Sorex vagrans halicoetes), a CSSC.

Three special status amphibian species – the California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), which is federally threatened and also a CSSC; the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), which is federally listed as threatened and state-listed as endangered; and the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), which is both

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
25 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
Table 1. Special-status Animal Species, Their Status, and Potential Occurrence on the Project Site Name *Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence on the Project Site Federal or State Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species Crotch’s bumble bee
(Bombus crotchii)
SC Open grassland and scrub habitats
with abundant flowers providing
nectar and pollen and with
subterranean nest sites (such as animal
burrows).

Absent. Concern over possible population declines and
range contractions led CDFW (2019) to consider this species a candidate for listing under CESA. However, since 2019, there have been documented occurrences of 70-80
individuals from nearly 20 locations in Santa Clara County (Bumble Bee Watch 2023, iNaturalist 2023, S. Rottenborn, pers. obs.), indicating that the species is still extant, and fairly widespread (albeit in low numbers in most locations) in the county. The project site does not provide high-quality habitat for this species due to the low densities of flowering plants and absence of high-quality nest sites such as small mammal burrows. Given the extensively urbanized surroundings of the project site and absence of high-quality habitat, this species is not expected to occur on the site at all. Determined to be absent.

Monarch butterfly
(Danaus plexippus)
FC Requires milkweeds (Asclepias spp.) for
egg-laying and larval development,
but adults obtain nectar from a wide
variety of flowering plants in many
habitats. Individuals congregate in
winter roosts, primarily in Mexico and in
widely scattered locations on the
central and southern California coast.

Absent as Breeder. The monarch butterfly occurs in the South Bay as a widespread migrant, and occasional migrants are expected to fly through the project area. Some individuals may also forage for nectar on flowering plants. However, no milkweeds were observed in the project area during site surveys, so the species would not breed on the project site.

Further, the species is not known to form large wintering aggregations in Santa Clara County.

California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma californiense)
FT, ST Vernal or temporary pools in annual
grasslands or open woodlands. Adults
live terrestrially in small mammal
burrows.

Absent. Suitable breeding habitat is absent from the project site, and the species is not known to occur in the surrounding vicinity (CNDDB 2023). The site is isolated from higher-quality habitat and areas of potential occurrence by intensive
urban development. Determined to be absent.

California red-legged frog
(Rana draytonii)
FT, CSSC Streams, freshwater pools, and ponds
with emergent or overhanging
vegetation.

Absent. No suitable breeding, foraging, or dispersal habitat is present on the project site and the species is not known to occur in the surrounding vicinity (CNDDB 2023). The site is isolated from higher-quality habitat and areas of potential occurrence by intensive urban development. Determined to be absent.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
26 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
Name *Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence on the Project Site Foothill yellow-legged frog
(Rana boylii)
FT, SE Partially shaded shallow streams and
riffles with a rocky substrate. Occurs in
a variety of habitats in coast ranges.

Absent. No suitable breeding, dispersal, or foraging habitat for this species is present on the and there are no recent records of the species in the surrounding vicinity (CNDDB 2023). The site is isolated from higher-quality habitat and areas of potential occurrence by intensive urban
development. Determined to be absent.

Northwestern pond turtle
(Actinemys marmorata)
FP, CSSC Permanent or nearly permanent water
in a variety of habitats.

Absent as Breeder. No northwestern pond turtles were
observed during our July 9, 2021 site visit, but individuals of this long-lived species still occur in urban streams and ponds in the Santa Clara Valley, and it is possible, although unlikely, that one or two individual northwestern pond turtles could occur in the study area. The nearest known occurrence is from Upper Penitencia Creek (which is not directly
connected to Penitencia East Channel) approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the site (CNDDB 2023). Suitable habitat for the northwestern pond turtle consists of ponds or instream pools (i.e., slack water environments) with available basking sites, such as logs, and nearby upland areas with clay or silty soils for nesting, and shallow aquatic habitat with emergent vegetation and invertebrate prey for juveniles (Jennings and Hayes 1994). The study area does not contain any ponds or instream pools, and potential basking sites were not
detected. Moreover, essentially all of the nearby upland areas have been converted to commercial or residential
development, further reducing the likelihood that a turtle would attempt to nest in the study area. Therefore, if an individual pond turtle does occur, it would most likely occur as a dispersing individual.

Alameda whipsnake
(Masticophis lateralis
euryxanthus)
FT, ST Primarily associated with scrub and
chaparral, but may also occur in
grasslands, especially those with rock
outcrops.

Absent. No suitable habitat for the Alameda whipsnake
occurs on the project site. The site is isolated from higherquality habitat and areas of potential occurrence by intensive urban development. Determined to be absent.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
27 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
Name *Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence on the Project Site Bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
SE, SP Occurs mainly along seacoasts, rivers,
and lakes; nests in tall trees or in cliffs,
occasionally on electrical towers.

Feeds mostly on fish.

Absent. No suitable nesting or foraging habitat for bald eagles is present on the project site. A pair has nested for several years near Curtner Elementary School 2.6 miles
north/northwest of the project site (Cornell Lab of
Ornithology 2023), and individuals may fly over the site on occasion, but they are not expected to use the site itself due to the absence of suitable foraging habitat. Determined to be absent.

California Species of Special Concern
Southern coastal roach
(Hesperoleucus venustus
subditus)
CSSC Generally found in small streams, they
are well adapted to intermittent
watercourses (e.g., tolerant of high
temperatures and low oxygen levels).

Likely Absent. The reach of Penitencia East Channel on the project site supports intermittent flow, and a drop in
elevation downstream from the project site separates this reach from a perennial reach downstream. Although the
southern coastal roach likely occurs in the perennial reach, there is a low probability that it occurs in the project reach (it might occur only during very high flows that allow passage upstream to the project site, but such flows may involve flow rates too fast for these small fish to move upstream).

Sacramento hitch
(Lavinia exilicauda exilicauda)
CSSC Occurs in warm, lowland, waters
including clear streams, turbid sloughs,
lakes, and reservoirs. Has a high
tolerance for varying stream
conditions and water temperature.

Likely Absent. The reach of Penitencia East Channel on the project site supports intermittent flow, and a drop in
elevation downstream from the project site separates this reach from a perennial reach downstream. Although the
southern coastal roach likely occurs in the perennial reach, there is a low probability that it occurs in the project reach (it might occur only during very high flows that allow passage upstream to the project site, but such flows may involve flow rates too fast for these small fish to move upstream).

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
28 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
Name *Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence on the Project Site Burrowing owl
(Athene cunicularia)
CSSC Nests and roosts in open grasslands
and ruderal habitats with suitable
burrows, usually those made by
California ground squirrels.

Absent. No burrows of California ground squirrels to provide nesting and roosting habitat for this species were observed on the site or in surrounding areas during the July 9, 2021 survey. The site does not provide suitable foraging habitat given the limited nature of vegetation and the expected paucity of prey. The nearest area where this species currently breeds is on San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater
Facility buffer lands approximately 3.6 miles northwest of the project site (Talon Ecological Research Group 2023), but due to the absence of suitable habitat, this species is not expected to nest, roost, or forage on the project site.

Determined to be absent.

San Francisco common
yellowthroat
(Geothlypis trichas sinuosa)
CSSC Occupies wooded riparian areas, and
nests in herbaceous vegetation,
usually in wetlands or moist floodplains.

Absent as Breeder. No San Francisco common yellowthroats were observed during our July 9, 2021 site visit, and we do not expect this species to nest in or immediately adjacent to the project footprint. The scattered patches of emergent marsh vegetation are too small and too fragmented, and
relatively isolated from other patches of larger, contiguous patches of salt marsh habitat where this species is known to occur in the South Bay. However, there is some potential for the species to nest in the perennial reach of the creek well downstream from the project site, and small numbers of
dispersing individuals of this species could occasionally forage in the vegetation in and on the banks of the creek on the project site.

Yellow warbler
(Setophaga petechia)
CSSC
(nesting)
Nests in riparian woodlands. Absent as Breeder. No suitable riparian habitat is present on or adjacent to the project site to provide suitable nesting habitat for this species. Nonbreeding individuals will forage in trees and other vegetation on and adjacent to the site
during migration.

Western red bat
(Lasiurus blossevillii)
CSSC Roosts in foliage in forest or
woodlands, especially in or near
riparian habitat.

Absent. No suitable habitat is present in or adjacent to the project site. Determined to be absent.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
29 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
Name *Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence on the Project Site Pallid bat
(Antrozous pallidus)
CSSC Forages over many habitats; roosts in
caves, rock outcrops, buildings, and
hollow trees.

Absent. No bats or signs of bat presence, nor any suitable roost sites, were detected in trees or buildings on or adjacent to the project site during the July 9, 2021 survey. Determined to be absent.

Townsend’s big-eared bat
(Corynorhinus townsendii)
CSSC Roosts in caves and mine tunnels, and
occasionally in deep crevices in trees
such as redwoods or in abandoned
buildings, in a variety of habitats.

Absent. No suitable cavernous roosting habitat is present on or adjacent to the project site. Determined to be absent.

San Francisco dusky-footed
woodrat
(Neotoma fuscipes
annectens)
CSSC Nests in a variety of habitats including
riparian areas, oak woodlands, and
scrub.

Absent. No nests of this species were detected on or
adjacent to the site during the July 9, 2021 survey, and no suitable habitat is present. Determined to be absent.

American badger
(Taxidea taxus)
CSSC Burrows in grasslands and occasionally
in infrequently disked agricultural
areas.

Absent. No suitable habitat is present on the project site, and the site is isolated from suitable habitat by intensive urban development. Determined to be absent.

State Fully Protected Species
Golden eagle
(Aquila chrysaetos)
SP Breeds on cliffs or in large trees (rarely
on electrical towers); forages in open
areas.

Absent. No suitable nesting habitat for golden eagles is present within the study area. The species is not known or expected to forage on the site due to a lack of suitable habitat and the highly urbanized surrounding context.

Determined to be absent.

White-tailed kite
(Elanus leucurus)
SP Nests in tall shrubs and trees; forages in
grasslands, marshes, and ruderal
habitats.

Absent. Suitable nesting and foraging habitat is not present on the project site. The species is not known or expected to forage on the site due to the highly urbanized surrounding context. Determined to be absent.

Key to Abbreviations:

Status: Federally Proposed (FP); Federally Threatened (FT); Federal Candidate (FC); State Endangered (SE); State Threatened (ST); State Fully Protected (SP); State Candidate (SC); California Species of Special Concern (CSSC).

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
30 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
federally and state threatened, do not occur in the study area or on the valley floor. The foothill yellow-legged frog occurs in upper-watershed areas, along cobbly streams, and is absent from the Santa Clara Valley floor.

Populations of the California tiger salamander located on the valley floor have been extirpated due to habitat loss, and the species is now considered absent from the majority of the valley floor, including the study area and the surrounding vicinity (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1999, 2011; Valley Water 2011). Populations of the red-legged frog located on the valley floor have been extirpated due to habitat loss and the introduction of nonnative predators such as non-native fishes and bullfrogs. Like the tiger salamander, the red-legged frog is now considered absent from the majority of the valley floor, including the project study area and the surrounding vicinity (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1997; Valley Water 2011).

Other special-status species known from the region, but absent from the project site due to a lack of suitable habitat, restricted range, and/or isolation of the site from populations by urbanization, include the Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus), western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), San Francisco duskyfooted woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), American badger (Taxidea taxus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus).

A pair of bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) breeds near Curtner Elementary School 2.6 miles north/northwest of the project site, and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) breed as close as 3.5 miles to the northwest on San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility buffer lands. However due to the absence of suitable habitat, neither species would use the site or nearby areas for nesting, roosting, or foraging.

Four special-status species, the monarch butterfly, northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), San Francisco common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa), and yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), have some potential to occur in the project footprint as nonbreeders. The monarch butterfly is expected to occur in the project area as an occasional migrant, but because its larval host plant is absent from the site, the species would not breed in the project area. High-quality northwestern pond turtle habitat, consisting of ponds or instream pools, is absent from the project site, and the intermittent nature of the stream within the project footprint limits the availability of open-water foraging and dispersal habitat for this species. Moreover, essentially all of the nearby areas have been converted to commercial or residential development, limiting the availability of nesting habitat and further reducing the likelihood that a turtle would be found in the study area. The San Francisco common yellowthroat is not expected to nest on the site owing to the sparse nature of vegetation (especially wetland vegetation) along the stream channel. Both the northwestern pond turtle and San Francisco common yellowthroat are more likely to occur in the perennial reach of the creek downstream from the project site, and it is possible that individuals of this species could disperse onto the project site on rare occasions.

However, they would occur on the site infrequently and in low numbers, if at all. The yellow warbler would not breed or near the project site due to the absence of suitable riparian habitat, but occasional migrants could forage in trees or other vegetation on or adjacent to the site.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
31 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023

5.3 Sensitive Natural Communities, Vegetation Alliances, and Habitats
Natural communities have been considered part of the Natural Heritage Conservation triad, along with plants and animals of conservation significance, since the state inception of the Natural Heritage Program in 1979.

CDFW determines the level of rarity and imperilment of vegetation types, and tracks sensitive communities in its Rarefind database (CNDDB 2023). Global rankings (G) of natural communities reflect the overall condition (rarity and endangerment) of a habitat throughout its range, whereas state (S) rankings are a reflection of the condition of a habitat within California. Natural communities are defined using NatureServe’s standard heritage program methodology as follows (Faber-Langendoen et al. 2012):

G1/S1: Critically imperiled.

G2/S2: Imperiled.

G3/S3: Vulnerable.

G4/S4: Apparently secure.

G5/S4: Secure.

In addition to tracking sensitive natural communities, CDFW also ranks vegetation alliances, defined by repeating patterns of plants across a landscape that reflect climate, soil, water, disturbance, and other environmental factors (CDFW 2023). If an alliance is marked G1-G3, all of the vegetation associations within it will also be of high priority. CDFW provides the Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program’s (VegCAMP) currently accepted list of vegetation alliances and associations (CDFW 2023).

Impacts on CDFW sensitive natural communities, vegetation alliances/associations, or any such community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, must be considered and evaluated under CEQA (Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Appendix G of the California Code of Regulations). Furthermore, aquatic, wetland and riparian habitats are also protected under applicable federal, state, or local regulations, and are generally subject to regulation, protection, or consideration by the USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, and/or the USFWS.

5.3.1 Sensitive Natural Communities
A query of sensitive habitats in Rarefind (CNDDB 2023) identified two sensitive habitat types as occurring within the nine USGS quadrangles containing or surrounding study area: northern coastal salt marsh (Rank G3/S3) and sycamore alluvial woodland (Rank G1/S1.1). Northern coastal salt marsh, is characterized by Holland (1986) as occurring along sheltered inland margins of bays, often co-dominated by pickleweed (Salicornia spp.), California cordgrass (Spartina foliosa), and sometimes saltgrass (Distichlis spicata). None of these species and no salt marsh habitats were observed in the study area. Riparian habitats within the study area do

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
32 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
not meet the definition of sycamore alluvial woodland, which is dominated by western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and occurs within braided, depositional channels of intermittent streams, usually with cobble or boulder substrate (Holland 1986).

5.3.2 Sensitive Vegetation Alliances
The intermittent stream/freshwater marsh in the study area is dominated by non-native species, such as water plantain, barnyard grass, tall cyperus, and tall willowherb. The riparian annual grassland is also dominated by non-native species such as wild oats, Italian thistle, and prickly lettuce. Neither habitat type closely align with any designated Alliances as described in the Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (CDFW 2023).

These are all non-native dominated habitats and do not compose a vegetation alliance that would be considered sensitive. Therefore, no sensitive vegetation alliances are present on the project site.

5.3.3 Sensitive Habitats (Waters of the U.S./State)
As described above under Section 3.1.1, Penitencia East Channel is considered waters of the U.S./state up to the OHWM lines. Jurisdictional riparian buffers for waters of the state in the study area would likely extend up to the top of bank lines of the channel.

5.3.4 CDFW Riparian Habitat
Due to its rarity and disproportionately high habitat values and functions to wildlife, CDFW considers even lower quality riparian habitat to be sensitive. As described above in Section 3.2.4, the CDFW would likely claim jurisdiction over areas at, and below, the top of bank lines on either side of Penitencia East Channel regardless of the vegetative composition of these areas. No riparian habitat (e.g., riparian trees) is present above the top of bank in the study area.

5.3.5 Nonnative and Invasive Species
Several nonnative, invasive plant species occur in the study area. Of these, the following have a rating of “limited” invasiveness (considered invasive but their ecological impacts are minor on a statewide level and their reproductive biology and other attributes result in low to moderate rates of invasiveness) according to the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) (2023): bristly ox-tongue, wild radish, variable burclover, curly dock, date palm, rabbitfoot grass, and smilo grass. The following species have a “moderate” rating, indicating that they have substantial and apparent-but generally not severe-ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure, and that their reproductive biology and other attributes are conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal, though establishment would be generally dependent upon ecological disturbance: Italian thistle, wild oats, ripgut brome, Bermuda grass, and Italian rye grass. Species with a “high” invasive rating by the Cal-IPC have the potential to cause severe ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure. Their reproductive biology and other attributes are conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal and establishment, and most are widely distributed ecologically. Within the study area no species with a “high” rating were observed. Cal-IPC rating for each species is listed in Appendix A.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
33 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
Section 6. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The State CEQA Guidelines provide direction for evaluating the impacts of projects on biological resources and determining which impacts will be significant. CEQA defines a “significant effect on the environment” as “a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area affected by the proposed project.” Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, a project's impacts on biological resources are deemed significant if the project would:

A. “substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species” B. “cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels” C. “threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community”
D. “reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal” In addition to the Section 15065 criteria that trigger mandatory findings of significance, Appendix G of State CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of other potential impacts to consider when analyzing the significance of project effects. The impacts listed in Appendix G may or may not be significant, depending on the level of the impact. For biological resources, these impacts include whether the project would:

A. “have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” B. “have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service”
C. “have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act”
D. “interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites”
E. “conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance”
F. “conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan” Potential impacts on existing biological resources were evaluated by comparing the quantity and quality of habitats present on the project site under baseline conditions to the anticipated conditions after implementation of the proposed project. Direct and indirect impacts on special-status species and sensitive natural communities

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
34 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
were assessed based on the potential for the species, their habitat, or the natural community in question to be disturbed or enhanced following implementation of the proposed project.

6.1 Impacts on Special-Status Species: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS (Less than Significant)

6.1.1 Impacts on Developed/Landscaped Habitat and Associated Common Plant and Wildlife Species (Less than Significant)
The proposed project will permanently redevelop 0.74 acre of developed/landscaped habitat in the study area (Figure 4). Permanent impacts would occur as a result of the demolition of the building south of Penitencia East Channel and construction of the road extension of South Milpitas Boulevard, vehicular ramps connecting the Valley Water maintenance roads to the road extension, a vehicular bridge over Penitencia East Channel, and the Tarob Road Connection. Project construction will temporarily impact 0.34 acre of developed/landscaped habitat (Figure 4). The developed/landscaped habitat on the site is not sensitive or valuable from the perspective of providing important plant or wildlife habitat. Therefore, impacts on these habitats would not be considered significant under CEQA.

As discussed previously, the project site currently supports a number of common wildlife species, although due to its largely developed nature, the site provides relatively low-quality habitat for most species and thus supports relatively small numbers of individuals of any one species. The common wildlife species that occur on the site are regionally abundant, are present in widely available habitats in the region, and will continue to be present on the site following construction. Additionally, the project would impact only a small proportion of their regional populations, and the number of individuals likely to be displaced by habitat disturbance and loss would be quite small with respect to the amount of suitable habitat available in the area. Also, landscaping proposed by the project would provide resources useful to some common wildlife species. Thus, impacts on most common species and their habitats resulting from the implementation of the project would not meet the threshold of having a substantial adverse effect, and would not be considered significant under CEQA.

The plant species observed on the project site during the reconnaissance-level survey (Appendix A) are not regulated under state or federal laws and are not listed as rare by the CNPS. All native plant species found or with any potential to occur on the site were regionally abundant and common in California. Therefore, implementation of the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on common plant species and impacts on such species would not be considered significant under CEQA.

6.1.2 Impacts on Special-Status Plant Species (No Impact) As described above, no special-status plant species are considered to have potential to occur on or adjacent to the study area. As a result, the proposed project will have no impact on special-status plant species.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
35 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023

6.1.3 Impacts on Water Quality, Native Fish, and Northwestern Pond Turtles (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Construction of the new bridge will necessitate work within the bed and banks of the Penitencia East Channel.

Falsework may need to be installed in the channel to facilitate construction of the bridge, and if water is present when construction needs to commence, diversion of flow in the channel and dewatering of the construction area would need to occur. No special-status fish, and possibly no native fish at all, occur in the reach of Penitencia East Channel where the project is located. Therefore, it is unlikely that flow diversion and dewatering would affect movement of fish along the channel or trap fish within the dewatering area. Similarly, northwestern pond turtles are not expected to breed or occur frequently on or near the project site. There is a very low potential for northwestern pond turtles to occur, and if the species occurs in the project area at all, it would occur as an irregular dispersant. Nevertheless, if water is present in the channel when work needs to occur, there is at least a low potential for northwestern pond turtles or native fish (e.g., if high winter flows allowed fish to move upstream) to be present in the work area. Dewatering could result in the loss of native fish to desiccation or turtles due to movement of vehicles and equipment.

In addition, the project could result in indirect impacts on water quality in reaches of Penitencia East Channel further downstream, where fish and northwestern pond turtles are more likely to occur. Indirect impacts on water quality from construction of the project would be avoided and minimized by implementing erosion and sediment control measures, as well as BMPs for work near aquatic environments.

Construction projects in California causing land disturbances that are equal to 1 acre or greater must comply with state requirements to control the discharge of stormwater pollutants under the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit; Water Board Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended). Prior to the start of construction/demolition, a Notice of Intent must be filed with the State Water Board describing the project. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be developed and maintained during the project and it must include the use of BMPs to protect water quality until the site is stabilized. Standard permit conditions under the Construction General Permit require that the applicant utilize various measures including: on-site sediment control BMPs, damp street sweeping, temporary cover of disturbed land surfaces to control erosion during construction, and utilization of stabilized construction entrances and/or wash racks, among other factors.

In many Bay Area counties, including Santa Clara County, projects must also comply with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (Water Board Order No. R2-2015-0049). This permit requires that all projects implement BMPs and incorporate Low Impact Development practices into the design to prevent stormwater runoff pollution, promote infiltration, and hold/slow down the volume of water coming from a site after construction has been completed. In order to meet these permit and policy requirements, projects must incorporate the use of green roofs, impervious surfaces, tree planters, grassy swales, bioretention and/or detention basins, among other factors.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
36 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
In the absence of avoidance and minimization measures, project activities could similarly result in impacts on special-status fish and northwestern pond turtles in the Penitencia East Channel or other waters downstream from the project site due to a temporary increase in erosion, sedimentation, and turbidity in aquatic habitats located downstream of the work area. Additionally, minor spills of petrochemicals, hydraulic fluids, and solvents may occur during vehicle and equipment refueling. Such leaks/spills could adversely affect water quality downstream of construction activities. However, compliance with permit conditions to protect water quality, as described above, will minimize the potential for impacts to water quality due to increases in erosion, sedimentation, and turbidity as well as releases of pollutants into the creek water. These measures will also minimize the release or pollutants to waters in the Penitencia East Channel, thereby protecting water quality in the river. Therefore, project activities are not expected to result in substantial adverse indirect effects on water in the Penitencia East Channel.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3 will reduce impacts on native fish and northwestern pond turtles to less than significant levels by ensuring that individual native fish and northwestern pond turtles are not trapped or otherwise impacted by the project.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Worker Environmental Awareness Program. All construction personnel working on the bridge will participate in a worker environmental awareness program. These personnel will be informed about the potential presence of native fish and northwestern pond turtles within and downstream from the project site. Prior to construction activities, a qualified biologist will instruct all construction personnel about (1) the description and status of these species; (2) the importance of their associated habitats; (3) a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts on these species during project construction; and (4) procedures to be followed if a northwestern pond turtle is observed by construction personnel in or near the project area during construction. If construction personnel observe any turtle in an area where it is at risk of injury or mortality due to the project, or where construction activity could prevent the turtle from returning to perennial habitat downstream from the project site, they will contact a qualified biologist immediately. All project activities that could impact the turtle will stop until the biologist has arrived at the site and determined whether the turtle is a northwestern pond turtle and (with any necessary USFWS approval) relocated the turtle to an appropriate location downstream.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Preconstruction Survey and Fish Exclusion Prior to Dewatering Activities.

Prior to conducting dewatering activities, a qualified biologist will conduct a survey of the project area to look for fish and northwestern pond turtles. If any northwestern pond turtles are detected in areas where they are at risk of injury or mortality due to the project, or where construction activity could prevent the turtles from returning to perennial habitat downstream from the project site, the biologist will relocate the turtles to suitable habitat in the perennial reach of Penitencia East Channel downstream. If northwestern pond turtle has been listed by the USFWS under FESA by the time construction occurs, the biologist will handle/relocate individual turtles only with USFWS approval.

During the preconstruction survey, the biologist will determine whether there is any potential for native fish to be present in the project area based on presence/absence and depth of water. If any fish are or have the

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
37 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
potential to be present in the on-site segment of creek channel, and if continuous flow is present from the project site downstream to the perennial reach of creek, the biologist will use block nets to exclude fish from the reach to be dewatered. A block net will be placed at the upper end of the reach to be dewatered.

Subsequently, qualified biologists will walk from the upper to lower end of the reach with a seine stretched across the channel to encourage fish to move out of the construction area. When the lower end of the construction area is reached, a second block net will be installed to isolate the construction reach. This procedure will be repeated as needed until no fish remain in the construction area. If surface water is not continuous between the project site and the perennial reach downstream, so that fish excluded from the site are unable to reach suitable habitat downstream, then the qualified biologist will capture native fish using appropriate methods and immediately release them in the perennial reach of the channel downstream.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3. Maintenance of Flow through the Site. In the unlikely event that fish are present within the channel when construction occurs, continuous flow will be maintained through the project site (e.g., in a temporary pipe) so that any fish upstream from the site are able to disperse downstream.

6.1.4 Impacts on Wildlife due to Increased Lighting (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Many animals are sensitive to light cues, which influence their physiology and shape their behaviors, particularly during the breeding season (Ringer 1972, de Molenaar et al. 2006). Artificial light has been used as a means of manipulating breeding behavior and productivity in captive birds for decades (de Molenaar et al. 2006), and has been shown to influence the territorial singing behavior of wild birds (Longcore and Rich 2004, Miller 2006, de Molenaar et al. 2006). While it is difficult to extrapolate results of experiments on captive birds to wild populations, it is known that photoperiod (the relative amount of light and dark in a 24-hour period) is an essential cue triggering physiological processes as diverse as growth, metabolism, development, breeding behavior, and molting (de Molenaar et al. 2006). This holds true for birds, mammals (Beier 2006), and other taxa as well, suggesting that increases in ambient light may interfere with these processes across a wide range of species, resulting in impacts on wildlife populations.

Artificial lighting may indirectly impact mammals and birds by increasing the nocturnal activity of predators like owls, hawks, and mammalian predators (Negro et al. 2000, Longcore and Rich 2004, DeCandido and Allen 2006, Beier 2006). The presence of artificial light may also influence habitat use by rodents (Beier 2006) and by breeding birds (Rogers et al. 2006, de Molenaar et al. 2006), by causing avoidance of well-lit areas, resulting in a net loss of habitat availability and quality.

Artificial lighting may also indirectly affect fish. For example, an increase in illuminance at night can alter the nighttime activities of predators and prey, such as disturbing the seasonal and diel light cycles of freshwater invertebrates that fish feed on in riverine systems, by disrupting their nocturnal drift periods, which is timed with lower predation risk periods (Flecker 1992, Miyasaka and Nakano 2001, Hernandez and Peckarsky 2014).

This can reduce the nocturnal drift activity by freshwater invertebrates and potentially reduce the availability of prey for foraging fish species in the river. In addition, an increase in nighttime illuminance can disrupt the temporal and spatial movement patterns of young (fry) fish that typically disperse and migrate at night to

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
38 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
decrease their risk of predation (Scheuerell and Schindler 2003, Stich et al. 2015, Zapata et al 2019). Numerous studies have shown that an increase in nighttime illuminance on bodies of water can inhibit foraging activity, increase predation risk on fish, as well as significantly change the composition of fish communities that occur across a day-night period (Riley et al. 2013, Zapata et al. 2014).

Although the literature has shown how an increase in artificial lighting may indirectly affect birds, mammals, fish, and nesting sea turtles, little is known about potential effects of artificial lighting on many species of amphibians and reptiles, including freshwater turtles (Perry et al. 2008). Northwestern pond turtles most likely exhibit physiological and behavioral responses in the presence of novel artificial light sources. However, few studies have revealed any conclusive data on what the impacts may be from artificial lighting in urban environments on adjacent habitats where freshwater turtles may occur (Perry et al 2008). To our knowledge, no specific studies have been conducted that have attempted to elucidate pond turtle responses to an increase in artificial lighting conditions in their natural aquatic habitats. Northwestern pond turtles are primarily active during the day, spending the majority of their time basking on haul-out structures, such as patches of floating vegetation and logs near the edges or in the middle of their aquatic habitats, where they can quickly escape if threatened (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Some crepuscular and nocturnal movements have been observed by the species, but pond turtles typically take refuge at the bottom of aquatic habitats, burying themselves in muddy bottoms or dense vegetation during the night, and thus, in our opinion, would not be significantly affected by an increase in artificial light conditions.

The project will construct lighting on a bridge that will increase the amount of light within and around the project site. Based on the project’s lighting plans, this lighting could potentially spill into the adjacent Penitencia East Channel, thereby resulting in an increase in lighting compared to existing conditions. If the lighting is excessive, or pointed upwards, nocturnal migrant birds may also be adversely affected.

The species inhabiting the sensitive habitats along the Penitencia East Channel are already habituated to the existing artificial illuminance from a variety of urban and natural light sources that are found on the site and nearby. As mentioned previously, fish are unlikely to be present in the segment of channel that includes the project site due to the intermittent nature of stream flow. If fish are present at all, they would be present only briefly during high flows, when fish from downstream areas could swim upstream and temporarily occur in the project vicinity. Similarly, northwestern pond turtles are expected to occur in the project area only as rare dispersants, if they occur at all. The bridge is far enough from areas providing more regular flow downstream that lighting from the project is not expected to adversely affect animals in perennial segments downstream.

Nevertheless, due to the ecological importance of wetland and stream habitats, substantial increases in illuminance of the Penitencia East Channel and its associated aquatic and wetland habitats could result in a potentially significant impact under CEQA by disrupting the natural behaviors of the species using these habitats. Although there is agreement throughout the literature that increases in illuminance can affect wildlife behavior, as described above, there is no quantitative level of illuminance increase (above ambient light) that is agreed upon as a threshold for significant impacts to animals. In our professional opinion, Mitigation Measures

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
39 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
BIO-4 and BIO-5 below, which focus on shielding and minimizing spillover of lighting into the Penitencia East Channel as part of the project, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level under CEQA.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4. Minimization and Shielding of Lighting. All lighting for vehicular and pedestrian safety shall be minimized to the extent feasible (i.e., shall be no brighter than necessary for safety purposes), shall be oriented toward the bridge rather than outwards toward the Penitencia East Channel, and shall be fully shielded to block illumination from shining upward or outward toward the creek channel.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5. Review of the Lighting Plan. If lighting is incorporated into the bridge railings (e.g., as a component of proposed artwork), the lighting plan shall be reviewed by a qualified biologist to ensure that the directionality and magnitude of lighting would not be so great as to result in adverse effects on wildlife from the perspective of disturbing wildlife in adjacent areas or attracting/disorienting nocturnal migrant birds.

The biologist will make this determination by evaluating whether bright lighting is oriented upward or outward toward the creek channel (which should be avoided), and by working with the project’s designers and lighting specialists to ensure that the bridge does not appear as a “beacon”, being substantially brighter than ambient lighting in surrounding areas.

6.1.5 Impacts on the San Francisco Common Yellowthroat and Yellow Warbler (Less than Significant)
The San Francisco common yellowthroat and yellow warbler potentially occur on the project site as nonbreeding migrants, transients, or foragers, but they are not known or expected to breed or occur in large numbers on or near the project site. At most, a few individuals of each of these species could occasionally forage on the project site. Proposed project activities would not result in the injury or mortality of individuals of any of these species, as they are mobile enough to avoid construction equipment. Because these species do not breed on the site, project activities will not affect breeding habitat or vulnerable young of these species.

Therefore, the project is not expected to result in the injury or mortality of individuals of these species. At most, the project may result in the disturbance of a few foraging individuals and loss of a relatively limited extent of foraging habitat.

6.1.6 Impacts on Nesting Birds (Less than Significant)
Construction disturbance during the bird nesting season (February 1 through August 31, for most species) could result in the incidental loss of eggs or nestlings, either directly through the destruction or disturbance of active nests or indirectly by causing the abandonment of nests. Due to the absence of native or sensitive habitats from the project site, the habitat on the site supports only regionally common, urban-adapted breeding birds, and the numbers that occur on the site (i.e., one to several pairs of each species) represent only a very small proportion of these species’ regional populations. In addition, many of these birds are expected to continue to nest and forage on the project site following project construction. Therefore, project impacts on nesting and foraging birds that occur on the site would not rise to the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect, and these impacts are not considered a significant impact under CEQA. However, all native migratory birds,

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
40 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
including raptors, are protected under the California Fish and Game Code1. Recommended measures to comply with these laws are provided under Section 7 Compliance with Additional Laws and Regulations, below.

6.2 Impacts on Sensitive Communities: Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
The CDFW defines sensitive natural communities and vegetation alliances using NatureServe’s standard heritage program methodology (CDFW 2023), as described above in Section 5.3. Aquatic, wetland, and riparian habitats are also protected under applicable federal, state, or local regulations, and are generally subject to regulation, protection, or consideration by the USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, and/or the USFWS (see Section 6.3 below). Project impacts on sensitive natural communities, vegetation alliances/associations, or any such community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, were considered and evaluated.

Riparian annual grassland occurs on the banks of Penitencia East Channel. The majority of ground-disturbing project impacts (i.e., project construction) will occur outside the top of banks of Penitencia East Channel, and because the abutments will be placed above top of bank, no permanent loss of riparian jurisdiction (from abutment encroachment) will occur. No riprap or other improvements are proposed to the banks that would prevent future vegetation growth. However, some permanent and temporary impacts to the riparian banks will occur, in the form of shading from the proposed bridge and temporary work within the bed and banks of the channel during bridge construction. The bridge will permanently shade 0.02 acre of riparian annual grassland (Figure 4). Permanently shaded vegetation will weaken, decrease in cover, or even die off leaving bare soil exposed. However, non-native-dominated annual grassland such as this is typically able to persist under some shading. The new bridge will be 8 ft above the banks, allowing for some light to reach the grassy areas under the deck and enough herbaceous growth to stabilize soils and provide similar habitat quality to the existing condition in most if not all of the newly shaded area.

The temporary work area within the channel, where foot traffic by workers may be needed, consists of a 40- foot buffer upstream and downstream of the proposed bridge, temporarily impacting up to 0.03 acre of riparian annual grassland (Figure 4). Within this temporary impact area, dewatering and diversion of flow would be necessary if water is present when construction occurs, and falsework may be placed within the bed and banks of the channel to facilitate bridge construction. Temporary construction disturbance to the vegetated riparian banks and the channel bed could lead to temporal loss of the soil stabilization functions that the riparian grassland provides, causing erosion and sedimentation, which would be significant if not prevented. Denuded 1 Per a December 22, 2017 memorandum issued by the U.S. Department of the Interior, the MBTA’s prohibition on taking migratory birds and their active nests applies only to direct, purposeful actions, and does not include take incidental to other activities, presumably including tree removal. Nevertheless, all native birds and their nests, eggs, or young are protected by the California Fish and Game Code.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
41 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
banks may also be susceptible to increased or new infestations of weeds from lack of competition or introduction of new weed propagules on equipment used in this habitat.

Work in and near riparian corridors has the potential for indirect impacts as well, for example, spills of equipment fuels or oil that could enter the channel and cause degradation and contamination of the riparian habitat. However, as the project will comply with the Construction General Permit and will have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, best management practices will be employed to prevent such spills from entering the riparian corridor.

Although the quality of riparian habitat on the project site is very low, riparian habitat provides important functions with respect to protecting water quality and providing habitat for animals. Therefore, project impacts on riparian habitat are significant, in the absence of mitigation measures. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-6 through BIO-9 will reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Mitigation Measure BIO-6. Work Period. Construction work within the stream banks will be confined to the period of June 15 to October 15 (or as otherwise allowed by resource agency permits). Riparian restoration work using hand tools is not confined to this time period but shall be completed within the wet season the same year following completion of the project.

Mitigation Measure BIO-7. Work Area Delineation. The permittee shall clearly show all riparian habitat on project plansets and place flagging around the work limits within the stream, riparian, and wetland areas to prevent inadvertent impacts to areas not proposed to be disturbed by the project. Flagging shall be removed and appropriately disposed of within 5 calendar days of the completion of construction work. Access paths and staging areas shall be adequately temporarily fenced or flagged to prevent damage to adjacent stream, riparian or wetland habitat.

Mitigation Measure BIO-8. Prevention of Spread of Invasive Plant Species. To prevent the spread of invasive weed infestations from source populations found on the project site to sensitive habitats at other work locations, or causing the spread of new infestations within the riparian corridor at this site, • All ground disturbing equipment used within the riparian corridor will be washed (including tracks, and undercarriages) at a legally operating equipment yard before being brought to the site and, after construction is completed, before being used at another site providing natural habitat. • All applicable construction materials used on site, such as straw wattles, mulch, and fill material, will be certified weed free.
• Invasive plant species with a “high” ecosystem impact rating by the California Invasive Plant Council (CalIPC; http://www.cal-ipc.org/paf/) will be actively monitored and controlled in the first 3 years following completion of construction and revegetation of temporary impact areas. The percent cover of “high” invasive plant species will be maintained at less than ten percent of the total plant cover in areas disturbed by project work. During the monitoring site visits described in Mitigation Measure BIO-6, the qualified

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
42 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
ecologist will assess the type, distribution, and abundance of invasive plant species and recommend effective control measures. Invasive plants will be removed from the project site on an as-needed basis.

Mitigation Measure BIO-9. Revegetation of Temporary Impact Areas. Temporary impact areas within the bed and banks of the channel shall be restored to preconstruction conditions or better. Restoration shall include restoring the topography of temporary impact areas to preconstruction conditions to the extent feasible, bank stabilization, and reestablishment of appropriate vegetation. A habitat-appropriate, weed-free native seed mix or propagated plants shall be applied or installed. Species such as California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California fuschia (Epilobium canum), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra), and seaside heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum) would be appropriate. The project proponent shall not plant, seed, or otherwise introduce invasive exotic plant species. Revegetation shall be completed as soon as possible after grading at the project site is completed. Seeding placed between October 15 and April 15 shall be covered with broadcast straw, jute netting, coconut fiber blanket, or similar erosion control blanket. Erosion control products with monofilament or woven plastic strands shall not be used. The revegetation will be considered successful if the vegetative cover in the temporary impact areas reaches 75% of the existing baseline cover, excluding species rated as “high” by Cal-IPC.

A qualified ecologist will monitor conditions in the temporary riparian and stream/marsh impact areas for a minimum of 3 years, or until the success criteria for vegetation cover are attained, whichever is later. Prior to commencement of construction, the ecologist will establish at least four permanent photographic documentation stations (i.e., one station near each corner of the bridge) to provide representative views of vegetation cover. The locations of the photographic documentation stations will be recorded using a GPS, and the direction of the photographs documented with a compass. The ecologist will prepare site maps with the photo-documentation points clearly marked for the project site. Prior to commencement of construction, the ecologist will photographically document the pre-project condition of the project site from each documentation station and estimate the vegetation cover at each station. Following implementation of the project, including any seeding or plant installation, a qualified ecologist will visit the site at least once in late spring to photographically document the postconstruction condition of the project site and estimate vegetation cover.

The ecologist will report the results of these inspections (including the assessment of overall vegetation cover described in this measure and the assessment of invasive plants described in Mitigation Measure BIO-5) in a brief memo following each year’s site visit. Monitoring and maintenance may be extended if the success criteria are not attained by year 3. Remedial measures to be considered include, but are not limited to, supplemental planting or seeding, increased maintenance frequency, increased invasive plant removal activities, or alteration of maintenance strategies.

6.3 Impacts on Wetlands: Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
43 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Wetlands and other waters of the U.S./state are present within Penitencia East Channel in the form of intermittent stream/freshwater marsh. Jurisdictional wetlands in the channel bottom are supported by intermittent flows and presumably a high groundwater table and are dominated by non-native vegetation. Some permanent (shading) and temporary impacts to the channel are proposed, in the form of the bridge and a temporary work area around the bridge. The bridge has been designed so that no loss of wetland or aquatic area will be permanently lost due to abutments or other structures.

The bridge will permanently shade 0.01 acre of intermittent stream/freshwater marsh (Figure 4). This habitat is naturally dynamic, seasonally altering its species composition, cover, and locations every year. The upstream watershed continuously disperses plant propagules into the study area, influencing the species composition dynamics year to year. The watershed will also convey storm flows differently year to year, depending on the amount of hardscape or soil saturation levels. Lastly, seemingly arbitrary locations will contain new plant propagules to take root and storm flows to scour out established vegetation. The shading will occur in a gradient under the bridge with the sunniest area closest to the bridge edges and the shadiest area along the centerline of the bridge. These unpredictable factors will all contribute to a shift in species composition, cover, and location due to bridge shading. Nevertheless, the altered habitat is anticipated to still function as an intermittent stream/freshwater marsh, as the soils and hydrologic regime will not change to a significant level.

The temporary work area within the channel, where dewatering, creek diversion, and installation of falsework may occur as described in Section 6.2, consists of a 40-foot buffer upstream and downstream of the proposed bridge, temporarily impacting up to 0.02 acre of intermittent stream/freshwater marsh (Figure 4). Temporary construction disturbance to the wetland habitat could lead to temporal loss of the soil stabilization functions that the wetland vegetation provides, causing erosion and sedimentation, which would be significant if not prevented. Denuded habitat may also be susceptible to increased or new infestations of weeds from lack of competition or introduction of new weed propagules on equipment used in this habitat.

Work in and near wetlands has the potential for indirect impacts as well, for example, spills of equipment fuels or oil that could enter the channel and cause degradation and contamination of the wetland habitat. However, as the project will comply with the Construction General Permit and will have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, best management practices will be employed to prevent such spills from entering the riparian corridor.

Although the quality of wetland and creek habitat on the project site is relatively low, this habitat provides important functions with respect to protecting water quality in downstream waters, and these features provide at least some habitat for animals. Therefore, project impacts on wetlands and aquatic habitat are significant, in the absence of mitigation measures. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-6 through BIO-9 will reduce impacts on wetlands and aquatic habitats to less-than-significant levels.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
44 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023

6.4 Impacts on Wildlife Movement: Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites (Less than Significant) For many species, the landscape is a mosaic of suitable and unsuitable habitat types. Environmental corridors are segments of land that provide a link between these different habitats while also providing cover.

Development that fragments natural habitats (i.e., breaks them into smaller, disjunct pieces) can have a twofold impact on wildlife: first, as habitat patches become smaller they are unable to support as many individuals (patch size); and second, the area between habitat patches may be unsuitable for wildlife species to traverse (connectivity).

The project site is almost entirely developed, and is situated within a dense matrix of urban development. The Penitencia East Channel does not provide an important movement pathway for aquatic or terrestrial wildlife species, as the channel dead-ends at the rail line just 0.2 miles upstream from the site. Any animals attempting to move along the stream in an upstream direction would encounter this dead-end, rather than being able to move through the project area to reach higher-quality habitat upstream. Similarly, there are no source populations of aquatic or terrestrial animals upstream that would be moving downstream through the project area. As a result, the proposed development of the project site would not result in the fragmentation of natural habitats, and any common, urban-adapted wildlife species that currently move through the project site would continue to be able to do so following project construction.

Although the project may require dewatering of the on-site portion of Penitencia East Channel, construction would occur during the dry season when little to no water would be present in the creek, and when the creek would not be important for the movement of aquatic species (e.g., fish) upstream and downstream.

Thus, the project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors in the site vicinity.

6.5 Impacts due to Conflicts with Local Policies: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (Less than Significant with Mitigation)

6.5.1 Impacts Due to the Removal of Ordinance-Sized Trees (Less than Significant) The proposed project will remove approximately 20 trees within what could be classified as vacant, undeveloped, or underdeveloped property, including a number of protected trees. All trees are ornamental and non-native including shamel ash and eucalyptus trees, with diameters ranging from three inches to 37 inches or more. The removal or pruning of ordinance-sized trees conflicts with Section 2-7.01 of the City of Milpitas Municipal Code. However, the project proponent will obtain a tree removal permit through the City’s planning and building department and comply with the City’s tree replacement guidelines and policies for any trees that need to be removed.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
45 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
The project will comply with the City’s tree preservation ordinance, including obtaining a tree removal permit, and it will comply with conditions of the project’s tree removal permit. Such compliance will reduce any potential impacts due to conflicts with the City’s tree preservation ordinance to less than significant levels under CEQA.

6.6 Impact due to Conflicts with an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan (Less than Significant) 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.

6.7 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts arise due to the linking of impacts from past, current, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the region. Future development activities in the City will result in impacts on the same habitat types and species that will be affected by the proposed project. The proposed project, in combination with other projects in the area and other activities that impact the species that are affected by this project, could contribute to cumulative effects on special-status species. Other projects in the area include office/retail/commercial development, mixed use, and residential projects that could adversely affect these species.

The cumulative impact on biological resources resulting from the project in combination with other projects in the larger region would be dependent on the relative magnitude of adverse effects of these projects on biological resources compared to the relative benefit of impact avoidance and minimization efforts prescribed by planning documents, CEQA mitigation measures, and permit requirements for each project; and compensatory mitigation and proactive conservation measures associated with each project. In the absence of such avoidance, minimization, compensatory mitigation, and conservation measures, cumulatively significant impacts on biological resources would occur.

However, many projects in the region that impact resources similar to those impacted by the project will be subject to CEQA requirements. It is expected that such projects will mitigate their impacts on sensitive habitats and special-status species through the incorporation of mitigation measures and compliance with permit conditions.

Regardless of the magnitude and significance of cumulative impacts that result from other projects, the South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge project is not expected to have a substantial effect on biological resources, and would implement the mitigation measure described above to reduce impacts under CEQA to less than significant levels. Thus, provided that this project successfully incorporates the mitigation measure described in this

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
46 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
biological resources report, the project will not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative effects on biological resources.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
47 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
Section 7. Compliance with Additional Laws and
Regulations for Nesting Birds
Several species of common native birds protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code may nest in trees and shrubs on the site or immediately adjacent to the site. It is also possible that protected native birds could nest on the building on the site. The removal of vegetation or demolition of a building supporting active nests may cause the direct loss of eggs or young, while construction-related activities located near an active nest may cause adults to abandon their eggs or young. This type of impact would not be significant under CEQA, in our opinion, because of the local and regional abundances of the species that could potentially nest on the site and the very low magnitude of the potential impact of development on these species (i.e., the project is expected to impact only a few pairs of these species, which is not a substantial impact on their regional populations). However, the following measures should be implemented to ensure that project activities do not violate the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code:

Measure 1. Avoidance of the Nesting Season. To the extent feasible, commencement of demolition and construction activities should be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. If demolition and construction activities are scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, all potential demolition/construction impacts on nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in Santa Clara County extends from February 1 through August 31.

Measure 2. Pre-Activity/Pre-Disturbance Surveys. If it is not possible to schedule demolition and construction activities between September 1 and January 31, then pre-activity surveys for nesting birds should be conducted by a qualified ornithologist to ensure that no nests will be disturbed during project implementation. We recommend that these surveys be conducted no more than seven days prior to the initiation of demolition or construction activities. During this survey, the ornithologist will inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees, shrubs, and buildings) in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for nests.

Measure 3. Non-Disturbance Buffers. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the ornithologist will determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically 300 feet for raptors and 100 feet for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be disturbed during project implementation.

Measure 4. Inhibition of Nesting. If construction activities will not be initiated until after the start of the nesting season, all potential nesting substrates (e.g., bushes, trees, grasses, and other vegetation) that are scheduled to be removed by the project may be removed prior to the start of the nesting season (e.g., prior to February 1). This will preclude the initiation of nests in this vegetation, and minimize the potential delay of the project due to the presence of active nests in these substrates.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
48 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
Section 8. References
Beier, P. 2006. Effects of artificial night lighting on mammals in Rich, C. and T. Longcore, eds. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Covelo, CA: Island Press. Pp 19-42.

Bumble Bee Watch. 2023. Bumble bee sightings map. Accessed December 2023 from https://www.bumblebeewatch.org/app/#/bees/map.
[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019. Report to the Fish and Game Commission.

Evaluation of the petition from the Xerces Society, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Center for Food Safety to list four species of bumble bees as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act.

April 4.
[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program:

Natural Communities List. Accessed December 2023 from
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities. [CNDDB] California Natural Diversity Database. 2023. Rarefind 5.0. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accessed December 2023 from
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp. [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2023. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, 9-01

1.0). Accessed December 2023 from http://www.cnps.org/inventory.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2023. eBird. http://www.ebird.org/. Accessed December 2023. de Molenaar, J.G., M.E. Sanders, and D.A. Jonkers. 2006. Road lighting and grassland birds: local influence of road lighting on a black-tailed godwit population in Rich, C. and T. Longcore, eds. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Covelo, CA: Island Press. Pp 114-136.

DeCandido R. and D. Allen. 2006. Nocturnal hunting by peregrine falcons at the Empire State Building, New York City. Wilson J. Ornithol. 118(1): 53-58.

Faber-Langendoen, D., J. Nichols, L. Master, K. Snow, A. Tomaino, R. Bittman, G. Hammerson, B. Heidel, L.

Ramsay, A. Teucher, and B. Young. 2012. NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments:

Methodology for Assigning Ranks. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.

Flecker, A.S. 1992. Fish predation and the evolution of invertebrate drift periodicity-evidence from neotropical streams. Ecology 73(2): 438-448.

Google LLC. 2023. Google Earth Pro (Version 7.3.3.7786 (64-bit)) [Software]. Available from earth.google.com.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
49 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1997. Red-legged frog distribution and status - 1997. Prepared for the Santa Clara Valley Water District.

H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1999. Santa Clara Valley Water District California Tiger Salamander Distribution and Status – 1999. Prepared for the Santa Clara Valley Water District.

H. T. Harvey & Associates. 2011. Santa Clara Valley Water District Stream Maintenance Program Biological Assessment. July 2012.

Hernandez, S.A., and B.L. Peckarsky. 2014. Do stream mayflies exhibit trade-offs between food acquisition and predator avoidance behaviors? Freshwater Science 33(1): 124–133. iNaturalist. 2023. Accessed December 2023 from https://www.inaturalist.org/observations.

Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California.

California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California.

Jepson Flora Project (eds.). 2023. Jepson eFlora. Accessed December 2023 from https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/.

Longcore, T. and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2(4): 191-198.

Miller, M. W. 2006. Apparent effects of light pollution on singing behavior of American robins. Condor 108(1):
130-139.

Miyasaka, H., and S. Nakano. 2001. Drift dispersal of mayfly nymphs in the presence of chemical and visual cues from diurnal drift- and nocturnal benthic-foraging fishes. Freshwater Biology 46 (9): 1229–1237.

Negro, J. J., J. Bustamante, C. Melguizo, J. L. Ruiz, and J. M. Grande. 2000. Nocturnal activity of lesser kestrels under artificial lighting conditions in Seville, Spain. J. Raptor Res. 34(4): 327-329. [NWI] National Wetlands Inventory. 2023. Wetlands Mapper. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed December 2023 from http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.html. [NRCS] Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2023. Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Accessed December 2023 from: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Perry, G., B. W. Buchanan, R. N. Fisher, M. Salmon, and S. E. Wise. 2008. Chapter 16: Effects of Artificial Night Lighting on Amphibians and Reptiles In Urban Environments. In Mitchell, J. C., R. E. Jung Brown, and B. Batrholomew (Ed.). Urban Herpetology – Herpetological Conservation 3:239-256.

Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles.

PRISM Climate Group. 2023. Online PRISM Data Explorer. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Accessed December 2023 from: http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
50 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
Riley, W.D., P.I. Davison, D.L. Maxwell, and B. Bendall. 2013. Street lighting delays and disrupts the dispersal of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) fry. Biological Conservation 158: 140-146.

Ringer, R. K. 1972. Effect of light and behavior on nutrition. J. Anim. Sci. 35: 642-647.

Scheuerell, M.D., and D.E. Schindler. 2003. Diel vertical migration by juvenile sockeye salmon: Empirical evidence for the antipredation window. Ecology 84(7): 1713–1720.

Stich, D.S., G.B. Zydlewski, J.F. Kocik, and J.D. Zydlewski. 2015. Linking behavior, physiology, and survival of Atlantic salmon smolts during estuary migration. Marine and Coastal Fisheries 7 (1): 68–86.

Talon Ecological Research Group. 2023. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan 2022 burrowing owl breeding season survey report.
[Valley Water] Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2011. Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Multi-Year Stream Maintenance Program Update 2012-2022.

Zapata, M.J., L.A. Yeager, and C.A. Layman. 2014. Day–night patterns in natural and artificial patch reef fish assemblages of the Bahamas. Caribbean Naturalist 18: 1–15.

Zapata, M.J., S. Mazeika, P. Sullivan, and S.M. Gray. 2019. Artificial Lighting at Night in Estuaries-Implications from Individuals to Ecosystems. Estuaries and Coasts 42: 309-330.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
A-1 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
Appendix A. Plants Observed
Scientific Name Common Name Wetland
Rank
Cal-IPC
Rank

EUDICOTS
ASTERACEAE – SUNFLOWER FAMILY
Carduus pycnocephalus ssp. pycnocephalus* Italian thistle Moderate Helminthotheca echioides* bristly ox-tongue FAC Limited Lactuca serriola* prickly lettuce FACU
Tragopogon sp.* goat's beard
BRASSICACEAE – MUSTARD FAMILY
Raphanus sativus* radish Limited
CONVOLVULACEAE – MORNING–GLORY FAMILY
Convolvulus arvensis* bindweed
EUPHORBIACEAE – SPURGE FAMILY
Euphorbia polycarpa smallseed sandmat
FABACEAE – LEGUME FAMILY
Medicago polymorpha* variable burclover FACU Limited
Melilotus albus* white sweetclover
Vicia sativa* garden vetch FACU
LYTHRACEAE – LOOSESTRIFE FAMILY
Lythrum sp. loosestrife OBL
MALVACEAE – MALLOW FAMILY
Malva parviflora* cheeseweed
OLEACEAE – OLIVE FAMILY
Fraxinus uhdei* shamel ash
ONAGRACEAE – EVENING PRIMROSE FAMILY
Epilobium brachycarpum short-fruited willowherb
PLANTAGINACEAE – PLANTAIN FAMILY
Kickxia elatine* sharp-leaved kickxia
Veronica sp. speedwell
POLYGONACEAE – BUCKWHEAT FAMILY
Persicaria maculosa* lady's thumb FACW
Polygonum aviculare ssp. aviculare* oval leaf knotweed FAC Rumex crispus* curly dock FAC Limited
SALICACEAE – WILLOW FAMILY

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Project
Biological Resources Report
A-2 H. T. Harvey & Associates
December 8, 2023
Populus fremontii ssp. fremontii Fremont cottonwood FAC

MONOCOTS
ALISMATACEAE – WATER–PLANTAIN FAMILY
Alisma lanceolatum* lance-like water-plantain OBL
ARECACEAE – PALM FAMILY
Phoenix canariensis* Canary Island palm Limited
CYPERACEAE – SEDGE FAMILY
Cyperus eragrostis lovegrass flatsedge FACW
POACEAE – GRASS FAMILY
Avena fatua* wild oat Moderate
Bromus diandrus* ripgut grass Moderate
Cynodon dactylon* Bermuda grass FACU Moderate
Echinochloa crus-galli* cock's spur barnyard
grass
FACW
Festuca perennis* rye grass FAC Moderate
Polypogon monspeliensis* annual beard grass FACW Limited Polypogon viridis* water beard grass FACW
Stipa miliacea var. miliacea* smilo grass Limited
TYPHACEAE – CATTAIL FAMILY
Typha domingensis southern cattail OBL

FOUNDATION EXPLORATION

VEHICULAR BRIDGE
400 AND 450MONTAGUE EXPRESSWAY

MILPITAS, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:

Mr. Dave Geist
Lennar Homes
2603 Camino Ramon, Suite 525
San Ramon, California 94583
Prepared by:

ENGEO Incorporated
January 5, 2017
Project No:
12074.000.002
Copyright © 2016 by ENGEO
Incorporated. This document may not
be reproduced in whole or in part by
any means whatsoever, nor may it be
quoted or excerpted without the
express written consent of ENGEO
Incorporated.

GEOTECHNICAL

ENVIRONMENTAL

WATER RESOURCES

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
6399 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite 150  San Jose, CA 95119  (408) 574-4900  Fax (888) 279-2698 www.engeo.com
Project No.
12074.000.002
January 5, 2017
Mr. Dave Geist
Lennar Homes
2603 Camino Ramon, Suite 252
San Ramon, CA 94583
Subject: Vehicular Bridge
400 and 450 Montague Expressway
Milpitas, California

FOUNDATION EXPLORATION
Dear Mr. Geist:

We prepared this bridge design geotechnical report for Lennar Homes. We characterized the subsurface conditions at the location of the proposed Vehicular Bridge planned at your 400 and 450 Montague Expressway project to provide the enclosed geotechnical recommendations for design.

Our experience and that of our profession clearly indicate that the risk of costly design, construction, and maintenance problems can be significantly lowered by retaining the design geotechnical engineering firm to review the project plans and specifications and provide geotechnical observation and testing services during construction. Please let us know when working drawings are nearing completion, and we will be glad to discuss these additional services with you.

If you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please call and we will be glad to discuss them with you.

Sincerely,
ENGEO Incorporated
Jeanine T. Ruffoni, PE Robert H. Boeche, CEG
Pedro J. Espinosa, GE
jtr/rhb/pe/bvv

Lennar Homes 12074.000.002
Vehicular Bridge, 400 and 450 Montague Expressway January 5, 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter of Transmittal

1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE .......................................................................................1 PROJECT LOCATION ........................................................................................1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................2

2.0 FINDINGS ...................................................................................................... 2 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY ..........................................................................2

2.1.1 Geology ........................................................................................................2

2.1.2 Seismicity .....................................................................................................2 FIELD EXPLORATION.......................................................................................2 SURFACE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................4 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ......................................................................4 LABORATORY TESTING ..................................................................................4

3.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................... 4 SEISMIC HAZARDS ............................................................................................4

3.1.1 Ground Rupture ...........................................................................................5

3.1.2 Ground Shaking and Seismic Design Criteria .............................................5

3.1.3 Liquefaction .................................................................................................5

3.1.4 Lateral Spreading .........................................................................................6 SOIL CORROSIVITY ..........................................................................................6 SCOUR....................................................................................................................7

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 7 FOUNDATION DESIGN ......................................................................................7

4.1.1 Foundation Type ..........................................................................................7

4.1.2 Foundation Data Provided by Structural Engineer ......................................7

4.1.3 Pile Vertical Capacity ..................................................................................8

4.1.4 Lateral Resistance ........................................................................................9

4.1.5 Lateral Capacity Group Reduction ..............................................................9

4.1.6 CIDH Pile Construction .............................................................................10 RETAINING WALLS .........................................................................................11

4.2.1 Abutment Walls .........................................................................................11

4.2.2 Retaining Wall Drainage ............................................................................11 PAVEMENT DESIGN AND EARTHWORK ..................................................11

5.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS ...................... 11

FIGURES
APPENDIX A – Exploration Logs (ENGEO, 2016)

Lennar Homes 12074.000.002
Vehicular Bridge, 400 and 450 Montague Expressway January 5, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
APPENDIX B – Laboratory Test Data (ENGEO, 2016)
APPENDIX C – Corrosivity Test Data (CERCO Analytical, Inc., 2016)

Lennar Homes 12074.000.002
Vehicular Bridge, 400 and 450 Montague Expressway January 5, 2017 - 1 -

1.0 INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE AND SCOPE
We prepared this report to provide recommendations for foundation design of the proposed Vehicular Bridge at the 400 and 450 Montague Expressway project in Milpitas. For this report, we conducted a subsurface exploration, performed lab testing, and provided design details relevant to the proposed bridges.

We previously provided preliminary foundation recommendations in July 2016 (ENGEO, July 2016). We also previously provided geotechnical recommendations regarding development of the adjacent residential project in June 2015 (ENGEO, June 2015).

A separate report will be issued to address the planned Pedestrian Overcrossing once design plans are available.

For our use, we received the following:
 Carlson, Barbee, & Gibson (CBG), 730 E. Capitol Ultimate Improvements Plan, 450 Montague, Structural Engineering Group, dated June 18, 2015.  Cornerstone Structural Engineering Group (CSEG), Memorandum: 450 Montague Vehicular and Pedestrian Bridges Required Preliminary Foundation Report (PFR) Items, dated July 13, 2015.  CSEG, Foundation Design Data Sheet, Milpitas Blvd Extension Bridge Over Penitencia Creek, dated June 30, 2016.
 CSEG, General Plan, S. Milpitas Boulevard Bridge Over East Penitencia Creek, dated August 22, 2016 (Plan Check Submittal).

This report was prepared for the exclusive use of our client and their consultants for design of this project. In the event that any changes are made in the character, design or layout of the development, we must be contacted to review the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report to evaluate whether modifications are recommended. This document may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means whatsoever, nor may it be quoted or excerpted without our express written consent.

PROJECT LOCATION
Based on review of the provided 730 E. Capitol Ultimate Improvements plan prepared by CBG with markups by CSEG, the planned Vehicular Bridge is generally located southeast of the intersection of Montague Expressway and East Capitol Avenue in Milpitas, California, as shown on Figures 1 and 2. More specifically, the planned bridge is shown to span East Penitencia Creek, connecting the future Milpitas Boulevard extension to the north with a future public park

Lennar Homes 12074.000.002
Vehicular Bridge, 400 and 450 Montague Expressway January 5, 2017 - 2 -
to the south. The adjacent East Penitencia Creek banks are generally up to 10 feet high and have slope gradients of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Based on a memorandum prepared by CSEG and dated July 13, 2015, the planned Vehicular Bridge will consist of a 40-foot-long and 48-foot-wide, clear-span cast-in-place reinforced concrete slab supported on cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piers. It is also our understanding that the abutments will be diaphragm abutments.

2.0 FINDINGS

GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY

2.1.1 Geology
Regional geologic maps locate the site in the broad, north-south trending, alluvial-filled Santa Clara Valley. Wentworth, et al. (1999, Figure 3) has mapped the soils underlying the bridge locations as younger Holocene-age alluvial fan deposits (Qhf1).

2.1.2 Seismicity
Because of the presence of nearby active faults[1], the Bay Area Region is considered seismically active. Numerous small earthquakes occur every year in the region, and large (>M7) earthquakes have been recorded and can be expected to occur in the future. The site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone. Figure 5 shows the approximate location of known active and potentially active faults and significant historic earthquakes mapped within the San Francisco Bay Region.

The nearest known active faults [1] considered in the development of the ARS curve in accordance with the 2013 Caltrans SDC procedure (further discussed in Section 3.1.2.) are as follows: the Silver Creek Fault is mapped approximately 1.9 miles southwest of the site; the Hayward Fault (southeast extension) is mapped about 2.4 miles northeast of the site; and the Hayward Fault (main trace) is mapped about 5.5 miles north of the site.

FIELD EXPLORATION
We observed drilling of two borings (1-B3 and 1-B4) at the locations shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. We note that Borings 1-B1 and 1-B2 were performed at the general abutment locations for the planned Pedestrian Overcrossing and are not included in this report.

[1] Caltrans considers an active fault as one that has had surface displacement within Holocene or latest Pleistocene time (last 15,000 years)

Lennar Homes 12074.000.002
Vehicular Bridge, 400 and 450 Montague Expressway January 5, 2017 - 3 -
Table 2.2-1 summarizes the exploration location, elevation, and depth.

TABLE 2.2-1
Summary of Exploration Locations
Exploration Location Total Depth (feet) Top Elevation
(NGVD 29) (feet)
Bottom Elevation
(NGVD 29) (feet)
1-B3 57½ 43 -14½
1-B4 61½ 42 -19½
Considering the type of planned foundation (24-inch CIDH), the depth of exploration was targeted for approximately 60 feet below ground surface. Furthermore, based on our experience in the general site area in similarly mapped geologic deposits, we anticipate that deposits generally become stiffer with increasing depth.

An ENGEO representative observed the drilling and logged the subsurface conditions at each location. We retained a truck-mounted drill rig and crew to advance the borings using 6-inchdiameter mud rotary methods. The borings were advanced to depths ranging from 57½ to 61½ feet below existing grade. We permitted and backfilled the borings in accordance with the requirements of the Santa Clara Valley Water District.

We collected disturbed and relatively undisturbed soil samples using a 2½-inch-inside-diameter (I.D.) California-type split-spoon sampler fitted with 6-inch-long stainless steel liners and a 2-inch-outside-diameter (O.D.) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) split-spoon sampler. In addition, 3-inch O.D. Shelby tube samplers were utilized.

The standard blow counts were obtained by dropping a 140-pound hammer through a 30-inch free fall. The sampler was driven 18 inches and the number of blows was recorded for each 6 inches of penetration. Unless otherwise indicated, the blows per foot recorded on the boring log represent the accumulated number of blows to drive the last 1 foot of penetration; the blow counts have not been converted using any correction factors.

We used the field logs to develop the report logs in Appendix A. The logs depict subsurface conditions at the exploration locations for the date of exploration; however, subsurface conditions may vary with time.

SURFACE CONDITIONS
The borings were located along the Santa Clara Valley Water District maintenance trail and site grades ranged from approximately Elevation 42 to 43 feet (NGVD 29). The surface conditions generally consisted of minor shrubs and seasonal vegetation.

Lennar Homes 12074.000.002
Vehicular Bridge, 400 and 450 Montague Expressway January 5, 2017 - 4 -

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Based on the conditions encountered in the exploratory borings, the subsurface conditions generally consist of stiff to very stiff lean clay and fat clay deposits encountered to the maximum explored depth of approximately 61½ feet below existing ground surface (bgs). Undocumented fill consisting of gravelly lean clay was encountered in 1-B3 to approximately 2 feet bgs. Also, a localized zone of medium stiff fat clay was encountered at approximately 41 feet bgs.

GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
Prior to switching to mud rotary drilling, groundwater was generally encountered during solidflight auger drilling activities at approximately 11 feet bgs, corresponding to Elevation 32 feet (NGVD 29). Similarly, a historic high groundwater level between 5 and 10 feet below existing grade was reported for the site vicinity (CGS, Milpitas Quadrangle, 2001).

Fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, tidal fluctuations, irrigation practice, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made.

LABORATORY TESTING
The lab tests performed in this study include moisture content, dry density, plasticity index, gradation, and shear strength on selected samples. The laboratory test results are included on the borelog in Appendix A. Individual test results are presented in Appendix B. We also submitted select samples for analytical corrosion testing including pH, redox, resistivity, sulfate and chloride content as further discussed in Section 3.2.

3.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on our explorations, laboratory test results and analysis, we conclude that the proposed bridge is feasible from a geotechnical and geologic standpoint, provided that the recommendations included in this report, along with other sound engineering practices, are incorporated in the design and construction of the project.

The site was evaluated with respect to known geological and geotechnical hazards common to the San Francisco Bay Region, as discussed in the below sections.

SEISMIC HAZARDS
Potential seismic hazards resulting from a nearby moderate to major earthquake can generally be classified as primary and secondary. The primary effect is ground rupture, also called surface faulting. The common secondary seismic hazards include ground shaking and ground lurching.

The following sections present a discussion of these hazards as they apply to the site.

Lennar Homes 12074.000.002
Vehicular Bridge, 400 and 450 Montague Expressway January 5, 2017 - 5 -

3.1.1 Ground Rupture
Since there are no known active faults crossing the project area and the project area is not located within an Earthquake Fault Special Study Zone, it is our opinion that ground rupture is unlikely at the subject property.

3.1.2 Ground Shaking and Seismic Design Criteria
As discussed previously, the project site is located in a seismically active region. An earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generated within the San Francisco Bay Region could cause significant ground shaking at the project site. The degree of shaking is dependent on the magnitude of the event, the distance to its zone of rupture and local geologic conditions. The seismic design criteria are discussed below.

Based on the geology of the area and our study for the greater Montague Expressway project, we anticipate the subsurface conditions to be relatively uniform at the bridge location. For design, we estimated the average shear wave velocities for the top 100 feet (30 meters) (Vs30) of soil to be approximately 300 meters/second.

To develop ARS curves in accordance with the 2013 Caltrans SDC procedures, we performed site-specific seismic hazard analyses. The 2013 Caltrans SDC requires comparing and enveloping the ARS curves calculated from the following:
 Deterministic Criteria based on late-Quaternary faults in the 2012 fault database published by California Geology Survey.
 Probabilistic Criteria based on a 5% in 50 years probability of exceedance ground motion (975-year return period).
 Minimum Spectrum based on a Mw = 6.5 strike-slip event occurring at a distance of 12 km from site.

The deterministic criteria are controlled by an event on the Silver Creek fault (approximately

1.9 miles from the project area), which is a reverse fault capable of generating a Maximum Credible Earthquake with a maximum moment magnitude, Mmax, of 6.9. The probabilistic criteria are based on source data from the 2008 United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Map.

The resulting ARS curve developed in accordance with the 2013 Caltrans SDC, include nearfault directivity effects and is contained in Figure 6.

3.1.3 Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction results from loss of strength during cyclic loading, such as imposed by earthquakes. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, saturated, uniformly graded,

Lennar Homes 12074.000.002
Vehicular Bridge, 400 and 450 Montague Expressway January 5, 2017 - 6 -
fine-grained sands. Empirical evidence indicates that loose to medium dense gravels, silty sands, low-plasticity silts, and some low-plasticity clays are also potentially liquefiable.

Review of the Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the Milpitas Quadrangle (2004, Figure 4) indicates that the project area is located within a mapped liquefaction zone.

Considering the borings generally encountered moderately- to highly-expansive stiff to very stiff cohesive materials, we consider the risk of liquefaction to be low.

3.1.4 Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a failure within a nearly horizontal soil zone, which causes the overlying soil mass to move down a gentle slope or toward a free face such as a creek or open body of water.

The existing slope banks of the adjacent Penitencia Creek may act as a free face for lateral spreading should subsurface soils liquefy during a seismic event. However, as discussed in above sections, we consider the risk of liquefaction to be low. Therefore, it is our opinion that the risk of lateral spreading at the proposed bridge locations is low.

SOIL CORROSIVITY
We submitted three select soil samples to CERCO Analytical Inc. for determination of pH, resistivity, sulfate, and chloride. The results are summarized in the table below and the complete results of these tests are presented in Appendix C.

TABLE 3.2-1
Soil Corrosivity Test Results
Sample Number Sulfate
(mg/kg)
Chloride Ion
(mg/kg)
Resistivity
(Ohm-cm) pH
1-B3 @ 5 feet bgs 71 < 15 860 8.28
1-B4 @ 30 feet bgs 33 < 15 3,700 8.57
According to Caltrans Corrosion Guidelines Version 2.0 (2012), site soils are considered corrosive if chloride concentration is 500 ppm or above, sulfate concentration is 2,000 ppm or above, or pH is 5.5 or less. Based on these criteria, site soils are not considered corrosive to structural elements.

In accordance with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 6th Edition, with Amendments by Caltrans dated January 2014, a minimum concrete compressive strength of 3,600 psi for reinforced concrete and a maximum water-cement ratio of 0.40 is required.

Minimum concrete cover for various structural elements should be determined using Table 5.12.3-1 (AASHTO).

It should be noted; however, that the structural engineering design requirements for concrete may result in more stringent concrete specifications.