Milpitas City Council
June 4, 2024

Figure 9.06-1: Building Step-Back

4. Non-residential building façades over 80 feet in length shall break up long street walls through at least two of the following features: recesses a minimum six feet in depth; awnings; colonnades; projections a minimum four feet in depth; step-backs a minimum six feet in depth; window reveals; cornice treatment; and changes in color and material.

5. Non-residential building height must vary such that the building has at least one change in height of at least one story. This may be achieved through changes in pitch, plane, orientation, a change in the number of stories, differentiated forms, projections and recesses and/or special architectural features such as towers.

E. Ground Floor Commercial Design Standards. On retail mixed use streets, and in any other areas with ground floor retail, restaurant, and commercial service uses, the following standards apply:

1. Ground floor spaces shall be a minimum of 60 feet in depth for a minimum of 50 percent of the space, and a minimum of 40 feet in depth for any remaining space.

2. Floor to Ceiling Height.
a. Retail: Minimum 18 feet floor-to-floor and a minimum 14 feet clear. b. Office: Minimum 14 feet.

3. Building Entrances. There shall be at least one entrance per 100 feet of building frontage and the main entrance may not face a parking lot.

4. Wall Plane Articulation. Windows, doors, columns, and other features shall be recessed or project forward, such that there is a six-inch difference between wall and window surfaces and a total of at least eighteen inches from the window to the outermost plane of a wall or column.

5. Floor Elevation. Ground floor elevation shall be no more than two feet above or below the sidewalk level.

F. Building Materials.

1. Ground Floor Materials. All ground floor exterior materials shall be durable, quality materials, such as glass, concrete, precast concrete, aluminum and high quality metal panels, composite panels, stone, and stucco.

2. Non-residential Building Materials. Primary building materials in all non-residential construction shall store carbon (e.g., wood, calcium carbonate-based cementitious substances, synthetic limestone).

3. Glass Materials. Glass types shall be clear glass, frit glass, sandblasted glass, spandrel glass, or channel glass. Glazing should provide a high degree of light transmittance and be nonreflective.

4. Roofing Materials. Roof design and materials shall include vegetated roofs, high-albedo built-up roofs, high albedo single-ply roofing, metal, terracotta tile, concrete tile, composite concrete tile, skylights, solar collectors, and photovoltaics.

4. Window Materials. Vinyl-frame windows and doors are prohibited. Wood-framed windows must have metal or fiberglass cladding on the exterior. Metal-frame windows must be thermally broken.

G. Unit Design.

1. A minimum of 10 percent of units in any single residential project shall be designed to be accessible to all users using the principles of Universal Design.

2. Public plazas shall be constructed with ADA-compliant ramps and tactile warning strips at the crosswalks. Equipment and facilities such as tables, trash cans, restrooms, and drinking fountains should allow for universal access, including people of all ages and ability levels.

H. Landscaping and Site Design.

1. All development projects shall include on-site vegetated stormwater treatment and landscaping and shade trees at a rate of one tree per 5,000 square feet of the residential building footprint and one tree for every 10,000 square feet of developed lot area for nonresidential or mixed-use development.

2. Where a creek runs under a site, the applicant must coordinate with the City Planning Department to daylight the waterway as part of the site design.

3. All applicants shall also reference the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Stormwater Handbook.

I. Parks and Publicly Accessible Open Spaces.

1. All development projects shall dedicate land for parks if a park is shown on the subject property on Figure 2-16: Existing and Proposed Parks, of the Metro Specific Plan.

2. Privately-owned public open space must remain accessible and open to the public during business hours. Private single-access gates are prohibited.

2. The Recreational Value System as described in the Metro Specific Plan Section 2.8, Parks and Public Spaces Framework, shall be used to ensure park improvements provide a diversity of active, contemplative, and social gathering experiences.

3. Parks must be bordered by a public right-of-way such as a street, trail or railroad, on at least three sides, and must be clearly visible and accessible from all abutting rights-of-way.

4. Small neighborhood-serving parks less than one-quarter acre must be located a minimum 500 feet from Montague Expressway, the Great Mall Parkway, or any rail line.

5. Seating shall be provided in all publicly-accessible open spaces. Seating may include both moveable and fixed seating as well as seat walls, steps, boulders, and other multi-use objects and must be placed along pathways and within or near gathering spaces.

J. Common and Private Open Spaces.

1. Private open spaces may take the form of balconies, patios, gardens, porches, decks, or roof decks.

2. Usable open space surfaces may be any combination of lawn, garden, flagstone, wood planking, concrete, or other dust-free surfacing, and may not exceed 10 percent slope.

2. Universal access shall be provided to all rooftop amenities. An accessible path to a publicly accessible restroom on an adjacent floor or at the rooftop level shall be provided for any common outdoor open space on the rooftop.

3. A minimum of 10 percent of common rooftop open spaces shall be landscaped using green roofs or planters.

K. Parking Design. Where parking is required or proposed, it must comply with the following:

1. Parking location. Off-street parking must be located in:
a. Ground-floor “tuck-under” individually secured garages; b. Shared garages (podium or underground); or
c. Above-ground structures “wrapped” with habitable uses.

2. Tandem Parking. Tandem parking may be provided in accordance with the following:
a. No more than two vehicles may be placed one behind the other. b. Both spaces shall be assigned to a single dwelling unit or to employees of the same non-residential establishment.
c. Each tandem parking bay must be a minimum 40 feet in length by 10 feet in width.

3. Ground-level visibility.
a. Individually secured garages. Individually secured garages shall be accessed from a shared rear or side drive aisle where such abuts the property. Where individual garages are accessed from the right-of-way, garages shall occupy no more than 50 percent of the frontage of each unit.

Figure 9.06-2: Individual Garages
b. Structured parking. Structured parking may not be located along the ground-level building frontage unless the parking is:
i. Recessed a minimum of four feet from the rest of the building façade and screened with a living wall or textured or decorative screening; or ii. Designed such that the parking area is located in a basement, where the vertical distance from grade to the finished floor directly above the parking area is a maximum of 42 inches.

Figure 9.06-3: Structured Parking Ground Level

4. Upper-level visibility. All upper-level street-facing structured parking must be screened from view from the right-of-way by at least one of the following features:
a. Regular openings designed to resemble windows of habitable spaces that do not reflect the sloping floor lines of interior parking ramps on the facade; b. A trellis or living wall; or
c. Textured or decorative screening.

5. Vehicle access. Parking must comply with the following standards:

a. A maximum of one driveway to shared parking is permitted on street frontages up to 120 feet in length; a maximum of two shared driveways are permitted on street frontages exceeding 120 feet in length.
b. Controlled entrances to shared parking facilities (i.e., gates, doors, etc.) shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from the back of sidewalk.
c. Vehicular entrances to parking areas shall be a minimum of 80 horizontal feet from vehicular entrances to parking areas on adjacent properties. d. Mechanical parking lifts are allowed in all structured parking configurations.

Figure 9.06-4: Parking Access

6. Parking separation. Parking for residential units shall be physically separated from parking for non-residential uses through a controlled fence, gate, or other barrier.

L. Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation.

1. A system of pedestrian walkways shall connect all primary buildings entrances on a site to each other, to on-site automobile and bicycle parking areas, and to any on-site open space areas, pedestrian amenities, and transit stops.

2. Walkways shall be the shortest practical distance between the primary building entrance and sidewalk, generally no more than 125 percent of the straight-line distance.

3. Walkways must link the entrances with on-site open spaces, on-site services, and other internal facilities.

4. Walkways shall be a minimum of five feet wide, hard-surfaced, and paved with permeable materials.

5. Where a required walkway crosses a driveway, parking area, or loading area, it must be clearly identifiable through a raised crosswalk, a different paving material, or similar method.

6. Where a required walkway is parallel and adjacent to a vehicle travel area, it must be raised or separated from the vehicle travel lane by a raised curb at least four inches high, bollards, or other physical barrier.

M. Utilities.

1. Utilities shall be placed in underground or subsurface conduits.

2. All mechanical equipment, ground transformers and meters shall be located and screened to minimize visual impacts.

3. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from street level views through roof designs that area architecturally integrated with the building, such as equipment wells and parapets.

4. Public utility distribution meters, vaults and similar installations shall be consolidated in a single area whenever possible and located away from highly visible areas such as street corners and public open spaces.

5. Backflow preventors shall be located within landscaped setback areas and painted black or dark green to minimize visual impact. Where no landscaped setback areas exist the backflow preventors shall be incorporated into the front of the building to minimize visual obtrusiveness.

6. Refuse and recycling containers shall not be visible from a public or private street. Such containers shall be stored either within the parking facility of the building or within a vehicular accessway with screening designed to meet the requirements of this section.

7. Trash enclosure walls shall incorporate building materials and colors that match the architecture of the building and be well landscaped.

8. All telecommunications antennas shall be building facade or roof mounted and screened appropriately.

9. On Main Street only telecommunication facilities that are disguised to appear as a part of the building architecture (i.e., "stealth" antennas) may be used.

XI-10-9.07 Affordable Housing
Affordable housing units should be provided in all new housing projects consistent with Title XII, Chapter 1 (Affordable Housing Ordinance).

XI-10-9.08 Exceptions to Standards

1. Exceptions to all but the use, floor area ratio, density, and park land requirement regulations of this Section may be approved by the Planning Commission through approval of a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the requirements of Section 57, Conditional Uses Permitted by Commission, of this Chapter.

2. In addition to the required findings under Chapter 57, the Planning Commission must be able to make the following additional findings for such exceptions:
a. The exceptions meet the design intent identified within the Zoning District and/or Specific Plan and do not detract from the overall architectural, landscaping and site planning integrity of the proposed development.
b. The exceptions allow for a public benefit not otherwise obtainable through the strict application of the specified standard.

c. The project design in its totality does not adversely impact adjoining properties to a greater degree than a project that complies with all development standards. Impacts to be considered include: access to sunlight, views, shadows on parks and open space, privacy, and noise.

SECTION 8. AMENDMENT OF MILPITAS MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE XI, CHAPTER 10, SECTION 53
Title XI, Chapter 10, Section 53 (Off-Street Parking Regulations) of the Milpitas Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 53 - Off-Street Parking Regulations
XI-10-53.01 Purpose and Intent
The following off-street parking requirements are regulations which are established in order to achieve, among others, the following purposes:

1. To establish minimum requirements for the off-street parking of motor vehicles in accordance with the use established on the property;

2. To relieve congestion on streets, and to provide more fully for movement of traffic, maneuvering of emergency vehicles or street maintenance equipment;

3. To protect neighborhoods from vehicular traffic congestion generated by the adjacent nonresidential uses of land; and

4. To promote the general welfare and convenience and prosperity of residential, commercial and manufacturing developments which depend upon the availability of off-street parking facilities.

XI-10-53.03 Applicability
Off-street parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the schedule in Table 53.09-3, Number of Parking Spaces Required, of this Section and improved as per Section 54.03 as a condition precedent to the occupancy of an institutional, commercial or manufacturing use and in conformance with other provisions of this Chapter:

1. Whenever a building is constructed; or

2. Whenever an existing building or use is altered, resulting in an increase in floor area, seating capacity or other units of measurement specified herein for required parking or loading facilities; or

3. Whenever the use of an existing building is changed to a use requiring fifty percent (50%) or more off-street parking spaces, as determined by the provisions of Table 53.09-3, Number of Parking Spaces Required, of this Section.

XI-10-53.05 Maintenance of Off-Street Parking
A. Continuation of Off-Street Parking. All off-street parking spaces shall continue unobstructed in operation, shall not be used for vehicle repair work of any kind unless within a building, and shall not be reduced below the required size as long as the primary use remains, unless an equivalent number of spaces is provided for said use in another approved location. This does not apply to those parking spaces which are established on a voluntary basis which are in excess of the requirements of this Chapter.

B. Temporary Sales, Storage and Advertising. The sale or storage of merchandise in permissive parking areas may be allowed by the Zoning Administrator through the approval of a Minor Site

Development Permit and subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed necessary by the Planning Commission to ensure adequate parking, access and circulation.

In no event shall any off-street parking space (permissive or otherwise) or lot be used for the stopping, standing or parking of any vehicle(s) for either the purpose of selling such vehicle (excluding an approved car sales lot), or advertising any other property, services or products on said vehicle.

C. Maintenance. All parking areas shall be kept clean and free of dirt, oil, mud or trash; pavement and striping shall be maintained in a continuous state of good repair.

D. Acknowledgment of Parking Spaces in Residential Projects. For new residential tract, multi-family or condominium projects, the amount and type of parking available to each dwelling unit shall be clearly stated within the CC&Rs in large font and bold lettering to the approval of the City Attorney or designee.

XI-10-53.07 Types of Parking Allowed
A. Standard Parking Spaces. The number of parking spaces required for various land uses shall be as required in Table 53.09-3, Number of Parking Spaces Required. Parking spaces shall be designed as required in Subsection 53.13, Design Standards for Off-Street Parking Facilities, of this Chapter.

B. Compact Parking Spaces. For parking areas and garages containing ten (10) or more stalls serving the following uses in Subsection 53.07(B)(1), up to forty percent (40%) of the required and nonrequired stalls may be designed as compact stalls to accommodate compact cars.

1. Applicable uses.
a. Commercial uses (CO, C1, C2, HS, TC zones).
i. Standards. Compact stalls shall be dispersed throughout the parking lot. b. Industrial uses.
i. Research and Development (R and D) facilities.
ii. Manufacturing facilities.
iii. Warehouse/distribution facilities.
iv. Other industrial uses deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. c. Multi-Family Residential uses.
i. Projects within R3, R4, and R5 zones.

2. Design Standards. See Subsection 53.13, Design Standards for Off-Street Parking Facilities, of this Section.

C. Disabled Accessible Parking Spaces. Parking spaces for the disabled shall comply in all respects with the requirements of the California Code of Regulations (State Building Code) or Federal law, where such prevails over State law.

D. Tandem Parking Spaces.

1. Applicability. Tandem parking may be allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, in accordance with Section 57.04, Conditional Use Permits, of this Chapter.

2. Standards.
a. Maximum allowed.
i. A maximum of seventy-five percent (75%) of parking required for residential uses may be tandem parking in projects with open structured parking facilities (e.g. single level or multi-level parking structures).
ii. A maximum of fifty percent (50%) of parking required for residential uses may be tandem parking in projects with private individual garages. b. Tandem parking spaces shall be a maximum of two (2) parking spaces deep. c. When tandem parking spaces are used in private garages or other parking facilities with more than two (2) parking spaces, they shall be assigned and marked for resident use.

E. Bicycle or Motorcycle Parking Spaces. The number of parking spaces required for various land uses shall be as required in Table 53.09-3, Number of Parking Spaces Required. Parking spaces shall be designed as required in Subsection 53.13, Design Standards for Off-Street Parking Facilities, of this Chapter.

XI-10-53.09 Off-Street Parking Required by Land Use
A. Enforcement and Interpretation of Parking Requirements.

1. Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required. The number of off-street parking spaces required for the land uses identified in the Permitted and Conditional Use Tables of this Chapter are listed in Table 53.09-3, Number of Parking Spaces Required, except where parking requirements are established in Section 13, Special Uses, of this Chapter, or exceptions to these requirements are granted in accordance with this Section.

2. Uses not specified. In the case of a use not specifically mentioned in Table 53.09-3, Number of Parking Spaces Required, or elsewhere in this Chapter, the requirements for off-street parking facilities shall be determined by the Planning Commission through the Interpretation process, in accordance with Section 61, Interpretation, of this Chapter, based on uses which create similar demands for off-street parking spaces. The Planning Commission may draw upon the experience of other local cities to make their decision.

3. New Buildings Without Tenants. If the type of tenants that will occupy a nonresidential building, or the nonresidential portion of a mixed-use building, is not known at the time the new building is being proposed, the number of parking spaces required for the nonresidential uses will be determined through the discretionary review process.

4. Mixed occupancies and uses. When two or more uses are located in the same lot or parcel of land or within the same building, the number of off-street parking spaces required shall be the sum total of the requirements of the various individual uses computed separately in accordance with the provisions of this Section and Section 13, Special Uses, when applicable.

Exception: For alternative parking computation in accordance with Subsection 53.11, Shared Parking, of this Chapter.

5. Measurement Standards and Definitions. For the purpose of determining off-street parking requirements, the following definitions and standards shall apply:
a. Gross Floor Area: The total of all the floors measured from the interior faces of the building, and outdoor areas used for retail purposes.
b. Net Floor Area (NFA): Net Floor Area shall mean the Gross Floor Areas less twenty percent (20%).
c. Seat: The number of seating units installed or indicated, or each twenty-four (24) lineal inches of benches, pews, or space for loose chairs. For places of meeting or assembly that do not include fixed seating, seven (7) square feet shall equal one (1) seat. d. Employees/students: The maximum number of employees/students on the principal shift or period.
e. Fractional Measurements: When units or measurements determining the number of required off-street parking spaces result in a requirement of fractional space, any fraction up to and including (.49) shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number and fractions including and over (.50) shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number.

For example, 7.41 would be rounded to 7 and 7.61 would be rounded to 8.

6. More than One Parking Ratio. Where more than one (1) parking ratio is shown for a particular use, the required number of spaces shall be the total of all ratios shown. For example, the parking requirement for hotel is "1 per unit, 2 for the manager's unit." The total parking requirement for a hotel is the sum of the required parking for the units and two (2) spaces for the manager's unit.

B. Permissive Parking Facilities. Nothing in this Section shall prevent the voluntary establishment of off-street parking facilities in excess of the requirements of this Section to serve any existing use of land or buildings, provided that all regulations herein governing the location, size and access design, improvement and operation of such facilities are adhered to.

C. Number of Parking Spaces Required. The number of off-street parking spaces required for various land uses shall be as listed in Table 53.09-3, Number of Parking Spaces Required, except for those listed specifically elsewhere in this Chapter. Unless otherwise indicated, the parking requirements are for square feet of gross floor area occupied by the use and, in the case of nonresidential uses, include the parking required for customers and employees.

Exceptions:

1. Where a portion of a structure is used for automobile parking, that portion shall not be counted in calculating the required parking for the structure. If parking is eliminated and the space is occupied by another use, parking shall be required for the use as indicated for the use in this Chapter.

2. Metro Specific Plan Area. Off-street parking requirements and bicycle parking requirements for all uses in the Metro Specific Plan area are as follows:

Table 53.09-1
Vehicle Parking Requirements in the Metro Zones
Use Minimum Maximum1
Residential and lodging
uses
None 1.5 spaces per unit
Industrial uses None 2 spaces per 1,000 square
feet
All other non-residential
uses
None 1 space per 1,000 square
feet
1 Valet, tandem spaces, and mechanical lift stalls are counted as individual spaces.

Table 53.09-2
Bicycle Parking Requirements in the Metro Zones
Use Minimum, Long-Term
Spaces
Minimum, Short-Term
Spaces
Multi-family residential uses 0.5 spaces per bedroom 0.1 spaces per bedroom Retail uses 1 space per 10,000 square
feet
1 space per 5,000 square
feet
Offices, Business and
Professional

1.5 spaces per 10,000
square feet
1 space per 20,000 square
feet
All other uses None None
Table 53.09-3
Number of Parking Spaces Required
Use Minimum Parking Spaces Required
A. Commercial Uses
Business Support Services 1 per 350 sq. ft.

Furniture and appliance stores and other bulky
item retail; Furniture Repair and Reupholstery
1 per 350 sq. ft.

Retail, Grocery and Convenience uses; Check
Cashing
1 per 200 sq. ft.

Mortuary, funeral parlor 1 per 4 seats and 1 per employee Personal Services 1 per 200 sq. ft.

Plant nursery 1 per 200 sq. ft.

Repair and Cleaning, Small Items 1 per 200 sq. ft.

B. Entertainment and Recreation
Arcade and amusement 1 per 200 sq. ft.

Billiards 1 per 200 sq. ft.

Bowling Alleys including incidental accessory
uses (eating and drinking, billiards, etc.)
6 per alley or lane
Clubs and Lodges 1 per 200 sq. ft.

Commercial Athletic Facility (indoor) 1 per 150 sq. ft.

With outdoor or indoor sports courts
Small courts (tennis, badminton) 2 per court plus required parking for other uses on site.

Large courts (basketball, volleyball) 5 per court plus required parking for other uses on site.

Golf Course 6 per hole plus parking for ancillary uses
Miniature Golf 1.25 per tee, plus 1 per employee
Motion Picture Theater (indoor) 1 per 3.5 seats
Nightclub 1 per 30 sq. ft.

C. Health and Veterinarian Uses
Convalescent Homes 1 per 2 beds or 1 per 1,000 sq. ft, whichever is greater
Hospital 1 per bed or 1 per 220 sq. ft., whichever is
greater
Kennel, indoor 1 per 1,000
Massage Establishments Two per treatment room or if no treatment room, one per 2 chairs or 2 tables
Medical and dental Clinic and Office 1 per 225 sq. ft.

Veterinary Clinic and Animal Grooming 1 per 250 sq. ft.

D. Industrial Uses
Custom and artisan manufacturing,
Contractor’s shop
1 per 500 sq. ft
Data Centers
Manufacturing
Processing/Plant (Dry-cleaning plant, photo
finishing/printing, etc.)
Warehousing and Distribution
1 per 1,500 sq. ft.

Mini Storage 1 per 5,000 sq. ft., plus 1 per resident
manager
Parcel hub 1 per 2,000 sq ft plus 1 truck parking space for each delivery vehicle on-site during the
peak time. The requirement for delivery
truck parking is not intended to
accommodate semi trucks delivering
products to the site.

Wholesale Sales 1 per 500 sq. ft.

Research and Development
Medical Laboratories
Soils and Materials Testing Laboratories
High employee demand uses
1 per 300 sq. ft.

Office space within an industrial building (to
be combined with categories above)
1 per 350 sq. ft.

E. Lodging

Extended Stay Hotels 0.7 per guest room or unit5
Hotels 0.7 per guest room5
Motels 0.7 per guest room5
F. Professional Offices, Financial Institutions and Related Uses Automated Teller Machine (free standing) 2 per machine
Financial institutions (banks, savings and
loans, etc.)
1 per 180 sq. ft.

Offices, business and professional 1 per 240 sq. ft.

G. Public, Quasi-Public and Assembly Uses
Adult Day Care 1 per 500 sq. ft.

Auditoriums and theaters and places of
meeting and assembly
1 per 4 seats
Child Care Uses2, 3:

Day Care School 1 per classroom or 1 per 500 sq. ft.,
whichever is greater.

Small family child care home Same as required for underlying residential use
Large Family Child Care Home and Child
Care Centers
1 per 1.5 employees
Community Center 1 per 4 fixed seats, or 1 per 6 linear feet of seating, plus 1 per 200 square feet of area
without seating but designed for meeting or
assembly by guests, plus 1 per 500 sq. ft. of
outdoor area developed for recreational
purposes
Community Garden Determined by Planning Director
Museums 1 per 400 sq. ft.

Public Utilities 1 per 400 sq. ft.

Religious Institutions 1 per 5 seats in the main area of assembly plus parking for classrooms and offices in
this table. Where there are no seats, then 1
seat equals 7 sq. ft.

Educational Institutions:

School-elementary (K-8 Private) 1 per classroom, plus 1 per 240 sq. ft. of office
School-secondary (9-12 Private) 1 per classroom, plus 1 per 240 sq. ft. of office, plus 1 per 5 students
Vocational School, including business,
professional, technical and trade
1 per 200 sq. ft.

Instructional Studios (Dance, Yoga) 1 per 150 sq. ft.

Private instruction, personal enrichment
(tutoring)
1 per instructional area or classroom,
whichever is greater. No fewer than 3
spaces.

Stadiums and arenas 1 per 4 seats

H. Restaurants or Food Service
Banquet facilities See restaurants below
Bars, Drinking Establishments 1 per 30 sq. ft.

Catering and Commissary 1 per 300 sq. ft. floor area
Drive thru See "Vehicle Related Uses" section.

Restaurants:

Sit down:

Indoor and outdoor: 1 per 39 square feet of dining area.

Take out: 1 per 2.5 seats (indoor/outdoor) plus 1 per 60 sq. ft. GFA for the ordering or take out area.

Mobile food parks 1 per 2.5 seats provide for on-site dining, plus 1 per 60 sq. ft. of lot area dedicated to
mobile food vending.

I. Residential Uses
Single Family and Duplexes:
3 bedrooms or fewer 2 per unit4
4 or more bedrooms 3 per unit, plus 1 per each additional bedroom4
Multi-Family (R3—R5 zones):

Studio 1 covered per unit
1 bedroom 1.5 covered per unit
2—3 bedrooms 2 covered per unit
4 or more bedrooms 3 per unit, plus 1 additional space for each additional bedroom (at least two covered).4
Guest parking
Projects with Parking structures 15% of the total required, may be uncovered Projects with Private garages 20% of the total required, may be uncovered Bicycle parking 5% of the total required
Boarding houses, dormitories, sororities and
fraternities, group living accommodations
1 per each room rented
Live-Work Units Single family and duplexes parking
requirements shall apply, plus 1.5 for the
commercial component
Mixed Use buildings or sites
Residential use
Studio 1 covered per unit
1 bedroom 1.5 covered per unit
2—3 bedrooms 2 covered per unit
4 or more bedrooms 3 per unit, plus 1 additional space for each additional bedroom (at least two covered).4
Guest parking
Projects with Parking structures 15% of the total required, may be uncovered Projects with Private garages 20% of the total required, may be uncovered Bicycle parking 5% of total required

Commercial use
Ground Floor Retail 1 per 250 sq. ft.

Office If building is 1,000 sq. ft. or smaller: 1 per
250 sq. ft.

If building is larger than 1,000 sq. ft.: 3.3 per
1,000 sq. ft.

Short-Term Rentals 1 per unit
Other uses Refer to specific uses within this table
Bicycle parking 5% of total required
Mobile Homes Refer to Section 13.07, Mobile Homes
Residential Care Facility 1 for every three beds
Senior Housing 1 per unit plus 2 per manager's unit
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) 1 per unit
J. Vehicle Related Uses
Auto rental agency 1 per 400 sq. ft. plus 1 per rental vehicle Auto repair (tire, oil change, smog check, etc.) 3 per service bay Car Wash 1 per 200 sq. ft. of building area and
reservoir space outside of building equal to
two (2) times the maximum capacity of
facility
Gas & Service Stations:

With Retail 1 per 200 sq. ft.

With Auto Repair 3 per service bay
Auto dealerships:

Sale or lease of vehicle 1 per 200 sq. ft. of showroom
Office 1 per 200 sq. ft.

With Service Bays 3 per service bay
Window service or drive-thru in conjunction
with any other use
The required parking for primary use
(restaurant, or other use providing window
service) plus queuing of 5 vehicles which do
not interfere with any on-site parking spaces
1 Refer to Subsection 2.03, Definitions, of this Chapter for a full description of "Commercial Services." 2 For loading and unloading: One (1) parking space per six (6) children up to five (5) spaces and thereafter one (1) space per ten (10) children. Driveways, garage aprons and street frontage may be counted if appropriate permits are first received when calculating spaces for child care homes. Tandem spaces are prohibited. 3 Exceptions for Child Care Requirements: The parking and loading/unloading requirements for child care facilities may in the Planning Commission's discretion be reduced, based on an empirical study (provided by the applicant) which establishes no adverse effects will occur as a result. The required number of loading/unloading spaces may be reduced without a study by one (1) space for each employee permanently assigned to load and unload children from vehicles. 4 Applicable to new and existing projects being remodeled resulting in additional bedrooms submitted for approval after April 7, 2009. Existing projects or projects either entitled or submitted active planning applications prior to April 7, 2009 shall use the parking regulations in effect at the time of entitlement or application submittal. For R4, R5, MXD/MXD2/MXD3 zones, 15% guest parking is legal and conforming for projects entitled or active planning applications submitted prior to April 7, 2009.
5 Refer to Subsection XI-10-53.15, Parking Standards for Hotels and Motels, of this Chapter for allowed reductions to minimum parking requirements.

XI-10-53.11 Shared Parking
A. Purpose and Intent. Dedicated parking areas for individual uses, especially when provided in new developments, can result in less efficient land usage, lower floor area ratios, and more environmental/water quality impacts.

Shared parking is typically applied when land uses have different parking demand patterns and are able to use the same parking spaces/areas throughout the day. Shared parking is most effective when these land uses have significantly different peak parking characteristics that vary by time of day, day of week, and/or season of the year. In these situations, shared parking strategies will result in fewer total parking spaces needed when compared to the total number of spaces needed for each land use or business separately.

B. Applicability. Shared parking may be applied in the following situations:

1. In mixed-use developments, which include one or more businesses that are complementary, ancillary, or support other activities. A typical mix of uses includes, but is not limited to:
residential, office, restaurants, retail, colleges, churches, cinemas, and special event situations if they can demonstrate that demand patterns vary among uses.

2. In shopping centers, when more than twenty percent (20%) of gross leasable area is occupied by dining and entertainment uses, (not including pad restaurants, unless they are located within 300 feet of the main shopping center building) shared parking may be applied.

C. Required Review. Shared parking proposals may be allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, in accordance with Subsection 57.04, Conditional Use Permits, of this Chapter.

D. Calculation of Parking Spaces Required with Shared Parking. The minimum number of parking spaces for a mixed use development or where shared parking strategies are proposed shall be determined by a study prepared following the procedures of the Urban Land Institute Shared Parking Report, ITE Shared Parking Guidelines, or other approved procedures. A formal study may be waived for small developments where there is established experience with the land use mix and its impact is expected to be minimal. The actual number of parking spaces required shall be based on well-recognized sources of parking data such as the ULI or ITE reports. If standard rates are not available or limited, the applicant may collect data at similar sites to establish local parking demand rates. If the shared parking plan assumes use of an existing parking facility, then field surveys may be conducted to determine actual parking accumulation. If possible, these surveys should consider the seasonal peak period for the combination of land uses involved.

E. Location of Shared Parking Spaces. Shared spaces shall be located within three hundred (300) feet of the use entrances they serve. Up to fifty percent (50%) of nonresidential spaces may be provided at greater distances if dedicated shuttle bus or van service is provided. Clear, safe pedestrian connections must be provided.

F. Captive Market Parking Requirements. For uses that are considered ancillary to a larger business, no additional parking may be required. Examples of this case include a coffee or snack shop within an office or hotel development, a copy/package store within a business park or redevelopment of small retail uses in a large business district. Parking requirements for similar ancillary uses may be reduced to account for the likely cross patronage among the adjacent uses located within a maximum

walking distance of three hundred (300) feet. Parking requirements may be reduced up to ninety percent (90%) as appropriate.

G. Agreement Between Sharing Property Owners. If a parking facility is to serve two (2) or more separate properties, a legal agreement between property owners guaranteeing access to, use of, and management of designated spaces shall be executed to the satisfaction of the City.

H. Shared Parking Plan. A shared parking plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division with the following information:

1. Site plan and required parking calculations of parking spaces intended for shared parking and their proximity to land uses that they will serve.

2. A signage plan that directs drivers to the most convenient parking areas for each particular use or group of uses (if such distinctions can be made).

3. A pedestrian circulation plan that shows connections and walkways between parking areas and land uses. These paths should be as direct and short as possible.

XI-10-53.13 Design Standards
A. Location of Parking.

1. Location of Parking in Relationship to a Use.
a. Residential Uses: Parking required for all residential uses shall conform with all of the following: (i) be located within the same project site as the use; (ii) be less than 300 feet away from the residential unit it serves; and (iii) shall not be located on any public street, public right-of-way or in any other public area. b. Commercial Services and Retail Stores in the Metro or Midtown Specific Plan Areas:

Commercial service and retail uses may meet its parking requirements with on-street parking if the project satisfies all of the following conditions: (i) the project site is located within the Metro or Midtown Specific Plan Areas; (ii) the on-street parking space is located along the project site frontage directly serving and adjacent to the use; (iii) no more than 50 percent of the required parking spaces shall be allocated on-street unless the commercial or retail use requires ten or less parking spaces; (iv) the on-street parking space is located less than 300 feet away from the use it serves; and (v) the onstreet parking space shall be designated as limited time parking in accordance with the California Vehicle Code.
c. Other Uses: Required parking for all other uses shall conform with all of the following:
(i) be located within the same project site as the use; (ii) be less than 300 feet away from the use for which the parking is required, as provided for in Table 53.09-3 Number of Parking Spaces Required or Section 13, Special Uses, of this Chapter; and, (iii) shall not be located on any public street, public right-of-way or in any other public area.

2. Location of Residential Parking, Permitted. Vehicles on private property used for residential purposes shall be parked only in paved parking spaces or in driveways which comply with the following standards:
a. The driveway provides access to required parking spaces; and

b. The vehicle is not blocking access to parking for other residential units.

3. Each automobile parking stall shall be so located that no automobile is required to back onto any public street or sidewalk to leave the parking stall, parking bay or driveway except from a lot in an "R2" or more restrictive zone containing not more than two (2) dwelling units.

4. Parking Location for R5, MXD2 and MXD3 projects.
a. No parking spaces area allowed within the front or street side setback areas. b. Parking must be located behind buildings to minimize visibility from public streets. c. At least seventy percent (70%) of the street facing perimeter of above-ground parking shall be wrapped with habitable space.

Exception: Exceptions may be allowed through the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, if the design quality of the structure is equivalent to habitable space. d. Parking may be partially above grade along the street, provided that no more than four (4) feet of the structure is above grade. The above-grade area must be wrapped with continuous landscaping that screens parking garage openings.

5. Parking Structure access for R5, MXD2 and MXD3 projects. a. No more than one curb cut per street frontage is allowed. b. Parking structure entrances shall be no greater than twenty-two (22) feet wide. c. Parking structure access points shall be set back from the curb so that a car can pull up to the entry gate or ticket machine without blocking the sidewalk.

B. Parking Space Size.

1. Individual garage.
a. Each parking space with a minimum width of ten (10) feet and a minimum length of twenty (20) feet shall be required in residential garages meeting both of the following criteria:
i. The individual garage contains four (4) or fewer parking spaces; ii. The individual garage does not include circulation elements such as driveway aisles, but consists primarily of parking spaces.

2. Compact Spaces
a. Each stall shall be legibly marked "compact stall" or "small car" on the stall surface.

Compact stalls may be used only for the above-listed buildings and uses and only within the Industrial zoning district.
b. Parking stalls shall be dispersed throughout the parking lot and not concentrated to discourage oversized vehicles from using the stalls.

3. Tandem Spaces
a. Each residential garage tandem (two parking spaces) shall have a minimum width of ten (10) feet and a minimum length of thirty-eight (38) feet.

4. Bicycle or Motorcycle Spaces. Any existing or proposed parking facility may utilize, on a substitution basis, on-site parking spaces for bicycle or motorcycle spaces. a. Said bicycle spaces shall be raised a minimum of six (6) inches from grade of the adjacent parking facility.
b. One parking space may be omitted for each eight (8) bicycle spaces provided. c. One parking space may be omitted for each two (2) motorcycle spaces provided. d. Bicycle spaces shall measure at least two (2) feet by seven (7) feet and shall be located in groups of four (4) and shall be of the following three types:
i. A rack which secures the frame, or
ii. An enclosed bike locker, or
iii. A fenced, covered, locked or guarded bike storage area. e. Motorcycle spaces shall measure four (4) feet by eight (8) feet and shall be provided with adequate unobstructed maneuvering areas to permit easy access to the space. f. In no instance shall credit for motorcycle or bicycle parking or combination thereof exceed five percent (5%) of the total required parking spaces.

C. Required Improvements. All parking areas and access driveways shall have a smoothly graded, stabilized and dustless surface with adequate drainage so that injury will not be caused to adjacent properties. Bumper guards or curbs shall be provided in order to define parking spaces or limits of paved areas.

Also refer to Section 54.03 of this Chapter for Improvement of Parking Areas.

D. Screening and Landscaping. All open automobile parking areas which abut upon a public street right-of-way shall provide landscaping to a depth of at least ten (10) feet of said street right-of-way and of any adopted plan line, with openings for walkway or drive purposes. Each landscaped planter in said parking facility shall be contained with a six (6) inch raised concrete curb (extruded curbing not permitted). Installation of an irrigation system shall be provided for in each planter area.

E. Lighting. .All lights used to illuminate a parking area shall be designed, located and arranged so as to reflect the light away from any street and any adjacent premises.

F. Signs. Directional signs are permitted in parking areas in accordance with the adopted Sign Ordinance.

G. Fencing. A solid masonry wall a minimum height of six (6) feet shall be required on all common property lines when any parking area is established abutting residentially zoned property or property shown on the adopted General Plan as being Residential. The architectural design of said wall shall be to the approval of the Planning Commission through the Site Development Permit process in accordance with Subsection 57.03, Site Development Permits and Minor Site Development Permits, of this Chapter.

H. Angles and Dimensions

1. Vehicle Overhang. Vehicles may overhang two (2) feet into any landscape area or private walkway if the walkway is a minimum six (6) feet in width, but in no event shall the overhang be permitted within any public right-of-way.

2. Stall and drive aisle dimensions. The stall and drive aisle dimensions shall be as follows:

Table 53.13-1
Parking Stall and Drive Aisle Dimensions
Angle A1 Stall
Width
B1 Stall
Depth
C1 Aisle
Width 1
Way
D1 Aisle
Width 2
Way
E1 Curb
Length per
Car
Standard size:
0° 9′ 9′ 12′ 16′ 22′
45° 9′ 19.5′ 12′ 22′ 12′
60° 9′ 21′ 18′ 22′ 10.5′
90° 9′ 18′ 24′ 24′ 9′
Compact size: [See Subsection 53.07(B)]
0° 7.5′ 7.5′ 12′ 15′ 17′
45° 7.5′ 16′ 13′ 20′ 8.5′
60° 7.5′ 17′ 15′ 20′ 8.5′
90° 7.5′ 15′ 20′ 20′ 7.5′
1 Reference to Figure 53.13-1, Parking Stall and Drive Aisle Dimensions

Figure 53.13-1
Parking Stall and Drive Aisle Dimensions

3. Backing Space in Residential Projects. A minimum unobstructed vehicular maneuvering distance of 25 feet measured from the opening of the garage or carport shall be provided, except as otherwise permitted in this section.

4. Parking Structures. The parking stall and drive aisle dimensions for Parking Structures, as defined in this Chapter, may be modified with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with Section 57 of this Chapter.
(Ord. No. 38.815, § 2, 9-2-14; Ord. No. 38.785, § 7, 4-7-09) XI-10-53.15 Allowed Reductions to Required Parking for Lodging Uses A. Allowed Reductions to Minimum Required Parking. The required parking for lodging uses, including hotels, motels, and extended stay hotels, may be reduced by up to 30 percent at the discretion of the decision-making authority based on a demonstrated program to reduce demand for on-site parking and maximize the efficient use of parking areas. A reduction in required parking shall be granted based on a point system as described in Subsection XI-10-53.15.C.

B. An applicant requesting a reduction to the minimum required parking for a lodging use shall submit a written description of all proposed parking demand reduction and site design measures and a written justification of the anticipated reduction in parking demand that would result from implementation of such measures.

C. Point System for Calculation of Parking Reduction. The decision-making authority may grant a reduction in the required number of parking spaces for lodging uses, as outlined in Table 53.15-1, according to the total number of points scored for implementation of parking demand reduction and site design measures.

Table 53.15-1
Point System for Parking Reduction for Lodging Uses
Total Points Allowed Parking Reduction
60 points or more 30 percent
40 points or more 20 percent
20 points or more 10 percent

1. Parking Reduction for Lodging Near Fixed Guideway Transit. A parking reduction may be granted for a lodging establishment within one-half (0.5) mile of a fixed guideway transit station. Fixed guideway transit means a public transit facility that uses and occupies a separate right-of-way or rail line for the exclusive use of public transit vehicles (15 points).

2. On-Site Parking Demand Reduction and Site Design Measures for Lodging Uses. Any combination of the following measures may be incorporated into the site plan and operational plan for a hotel, motel, or extended stay hotel to support a reduction in the minimum required on-site parking:
a. Shared parking agreement with owners of other property or properties in the vicinity of the lodging establishment pursuant to Subsection XI-10-53.11, Shared Parking, of this Chapter. The shared parking spaces must be located within 0.25 mile of the lodging use (10 points for a number of shared parking spaces totaling between 10 and 20 percent of the base parking space requirement for the lodging use; 15 points for a number of shared parking spaces totaling more than 20 percent of the base parking space requirement for the lodging use).
b. Providing free monthly transit passes for employees. To qualify for this measure a lodging use must be located within 0.5 mile of a transit route (bus or rail) with service frequency of every 15 minutes or less between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. (10 points).
c. Providing free 24-hour airport guest shuttle service (10 points). d. Providing free guest shuttle service to other key destinations (including but not limited to BART and VTA light rail stations, San Jose Diridon Caltrain Station, Levi's Stadium, and major commercial centers) (5 points for shuttle service serving one or two destinations, 10 points for shuttle service serving three or more destinations). e. Providing free shared cars for guest use with dedicated, permanent on-site parking spaces for the shared cars . To qualify for this measure the lodging use must provide at least one shared car for every 50 guest rooms (when applying this calculation, any fractional number of required shared cars shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number) (10 points).
f. Providing on-site, free micromobility devices for guest use. To qualify for this measure the lodging use must provide at least one shared micromobility device for every 50

guest rooms (when applying this calculation, any fractional number of required shared micromobility devices shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number). The operator of the lodging establishment shall obtain approval from the Planning Director or designee for the proposed placement and use of micromobility devices prior to commencing operations. The operator of the lodging establishment shall maintain micromobility devices in good working order at all times (5 points). g. Providing valet parking (on-site or at an off-site shared parking location) (5 points for a number of valet parking spaces totaling between 10 and 20 percent of the base parking space requirement for the lodging use; 10 points for a number of valet parking spaces totaling more than 20 percent of the base parking space requirement for the lodging use).
h. Mechanical lifts for vehicles (if provided, lifts must be operated by staff of the lodging establishment) (5 points for a number of mechanical lift spaces totaling between 10 and 20 percent of the base parking space requirement for the lodging use; 10 points for a number of mechanical lift spaces totaling more than 20 percent of the base parking space requirement for the lodging use).
i. Charging a daily fee of $25 or more for on-site parking of guest vehicles (10 points). j. Offering prepaid transit cards (Clipper) to guests (5 points). k. Featuring public transportation information and links on lodging establishment's website (schedules and route maps for Valley Transportation Authority [VTA] bus and light rail and/or Bay Area Rapid Transit [BART] regional rail) (3 points). l. Providing dedicated on-site passenger pickup/dropoff zones (3 points). m. Active marketing of guest shuttle services, on-site shared cars, and/or on-site shared micromobility devices, via the lodging establishment's website and other electronic and/or print advertising materials (3 points).
n. Other measures as proposed by lodging establishment operator (points to be determined by the decision-making authority based on the potential for parking demand reduction of the proposed measure).

SECTION 9. ADOPTION OF MILPITAS MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE XI, CHAPTER 10, SUBSECTION 54.18
Title XI, Chapter 10, Section 54 (General Provisions), Subsection XI-10-54.18 (2023-2031 Housing Element Sites) of the Milpitas Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:

XI-10-54.18 - 2023-2031 Housing Element Sites
A. Reused Sites. Reused sites are opportunity and rezone sites listed in the City of Milpitas 2023-2031 Housing Element, Appendix E, Tables E-13 and E-14 that are identified for lower-income housing capacity and as a 5th Cycle Housing Element site.

On these reused sites, owner-occupied and rental multi-family housing uses shall be allowed by right (i.e., without any discretionary review) when at least 20 percent of the units will be affordable to lower income households.

B. Rezone Sites. Rezone sites are listed in the City of Milpitas 2023-2031 Housing Element, Appendix E, Table E-14 that are identified for lower-income housing capacity. On these rezone sites, the following shall apply:

1. Owner-occupied and rental multi-family housing uses shall be allowed by right (i.e., without any discretionary review) when at least 20 percent of the units will be affordable to lower income households.

2. 100 percent residential use is allowed.

3. A minimum of 50 percent of the floor area in mixed-use projects must be occupied by residential use.

SECTION 10. AMENDMENT OF MILPITAS MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE XI, CHAPTER 10, SECTION 56
Title XI, Chapter 10, Section 56 (Nonconforming Buildings and Uses) of the Milpitas Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 56 - Nonconforming Buildings, Uses, and Parcels* XI-10-56.01 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of this chapter is to establish regulations for nonconforming buildings, structures and uses. It is the intent of these regulations to result in the conversion of nonconforming buildings, structures, and uses to conforming buildings, structures and uses. However, the City recognizes that until nonconforming buildings, structures, and uses are converted, improvements to them which promote their compatibility with their neighborhoods, enhance the quality of development, and do not increase nonconformity should be encouraged and allowed.

XI-10-56.02 Repair, Maintenance and Improvements to Nonconforming Buildings and Structures A nonconforming building or structure may be maintained, except as otherwise provided in this section.

A. Repair, Maintenance, Aesthetic Improvements. Repairs and alterations may be made to a nonconforming building or structure, provided that no structural alterations shall be made except those required by law or ordinance.

B. Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Upgrades. Improvements may be made to a nonconforming building or structure related to improving the energy efficiency, reducing the energy usage, and reducing the greenhouse gas emissions impact of the building or structure.

C. Restoration of Damaged Buildings. A nonconforming building or structure which is damaged or partially destroyed by fire, flood, wind, earthquake, or other calamity or act of God or the public enemy, to the extent of not more than seventy-five (75%) percent of its true value at that time, may be restored and the occupancy or use of such building, structure or part thereof, which existed at the time of such partial destruction, may be continued or resumed, provided the total cost of such restoration does not exceed seventy-five (75%) percent of the true value of the building or structure at the time of such damage and that such restoration is started within a period of one (1) year and is diligently prosecuted to completion.

In the event such damage or destruction exceeds seventy-five (75%) percent of the true value of such nonconforming building or structure, no repairs or reconstruction shall be made unless every portion of such building or structure is made to conform to all regulations for new buildings in the district in which it is located.

Provided, however, that any multistory single-family residence, which is subject to the provisions of the hillside section of this Title (Section XI-10-45), may be rebuilt to its approved height and setbacks and is not subject to the single-story height restrictions or other restrictions in the Zoning Title currently in effect, but shall conform to those regulations in effect at the time the structure was built.

D. Additions to, Enlargements and Moving of Nonconforming Buildings and Structures.

1. In the R1, R2 and R1-H Districts, a legal nonconforming building or structure shall not be added to or enlarged in any manner unless the addition or enlargement conforms to all development standards and regulations of the district in which it resides, including, but not limited to height, yard setbacks, maximum lot coverage, impervious surface coverage, and maximum size of residence regulations of said district. In addition, a legal nonconforming building or structure shall not be added to or enlarged unless existing front yard paving is brought into conformance.

2. In all districts other than the R1, R2, and R1-H, a legal nonconforming building or structure may be added to or enlarged in a manner consistent with the criteria established in Table XI-10-57.04-1 and if a Conditional Use Permit is obtained.

3. A building or structure lacking adequate automobile parking space in connection therewith may be altered or enlarged provided the required additional automobile parking space is supplied as per Section XI-10-53 for the entire building or use, including the addition or enlargement.

4. A nonconforming building or structure shall not be moved in whole or in part to any other location on the lot unless every portion of such building or structure is made to conform to all regulations of the district in which it is located.

XI-10-56.03 Nonconforming Use of Buildings and Structures A. The continuation or change of a nonconforming use of a building or structure shall meet the requirements provided below.

1. Continuation of Existing Nonconforming Use. A legally established use that is no longer permitted in a particular zoning district because of a modification of this Chapter shall be allowed to continue indefinitely, absent discontinuation of the use for a year or more and failure to comply with the re-establishment provisions of Section XI-10-56.03(B) below.

2. Discontinuation of Nonconforming Use. The nonconforming use of a building, structure or portion thereof, which is discontinued for a continuous period of one (1) year or more, may be replaced only with a conforming use, absent an approved nonconforming use reestablishment set forth in Section XI-10-56.03(B) below. Nonconforming uses which have been discontinued for a period of less than one (1) year may be replaced, if (1) with a nonconforming use of the same use classification as a matter of right or (2) a nonconforming use of a different use classification, subject to compliance with the findings and procedures set forth Section XI-10-56.03(B).

3. Changes of Use Within the Same Use Classification. An existing, ongoing nonconforming use may be changed to a different use within the same use classification. For example, a nonconforming auto repair shop use may be changed to a tire shop use, since both uses fall within the same use classification (auto service uses).

4. Change of Use to a Different Nonconforming Use Classification. An existing, ongoing nonconforming use may be changed to a nonconforming use of a different use classification only if it can be found that the proposed use is equivalent to or more appropriate than the existing nonconforming use at the project location. The proposed use may be allowed only by way of a conditional use permit and only if, in addition, all of the following findings can be made:
a. The proposed nonconforming use would not cause a nuisance to the surrounding properties and district (e.g., excessive parking demand, traffic, noise, etc.). b. The proposed nonconforming use would be compatible with the general character of the surrounding neighborhood or district.
c. The proposed nonconforming use is necessary to allow gainful economic use of structures or improvements until such structures or improvements can be permanently converted to conforming uses.

B. Re-establishment of Discontinued Nonconforming Uses Within the Milpitas Metro Specific Plan Area (Sunsetting Provision).

1. Once discontinued for a year or more, nonconforming uses only within the Milpitas Metro Specific Plan Area may be re-established if all of the following findings can be made:

a. The proposed re-establishment of a nonconforming use would not cause a nuisance to the surrounding properties and district (e.g., excessive parking demand, traffic, noise, etc.).
b. The proposed re-establishment of a nonconforming use would be compatible with the existing general character of the surrounding neighborhood or district. c. The proposed re-establishment of a nonconforming use is necessary to allow gainful economic use of structures or improvements until such structures or improvements can be permanently converted to conforming uses.

In addition to the above findings, the re-establishment of a discontinued nonconforming use may only be approved by the Planning Commission by way of a conditional use permit, with the above additional findings, if (1) the proposed use lies within 1,000 feet of any residential use or (2) the proposed use would require conditional use permit review under current zoning requirements for the zoning district listed in the zoning map in existence at the time the use became nonconforming. The re-establishment of a discontinued nonconforming use may be approved administratively by Planning Division staff in all other circumstances, contingent on the existence of findings by Planning Division staff that the above listed grounds for re-establishment exist.

2. This Section XI-10-56.03(B) shall become inoperative July 1, 2026, and shall be considered repealed on that date, unless a later enacted ordinance that becomes effective on or before July 1, 2026, deletes or extends that date. All other provisions of Section XI-10-56.03 shall be unaffected by this sunset clause.

C. Expansion of Assembly Uses in the Heavy Industrial (M2) Zoning District.

1. Assembly uses approved after February 7, 2017, that are rendered legally non-conforming may expand in floor area up to 25 percent of existing floor area until December 31, 2020.

Such expansions shall require approval of a Site Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission in accordance with the provisions of Section 57 "Applications."
XI-10-56.04 Nonconforming Use of Land

1. Continuation of Use. The nonconforming use of land (where no main building is involved), existing at the time the Ordinance codified in this section became effective, may be continued for a period of not more than five (5) years therefrom, provided:
a. That no such nonconforming use of land shall, in any way, be expanded or extended either on the same or adjoining property.
b. That, if such nonconforming use of land, or any portion thereof, is discontinued or changed, any future use of land shall be in conformity with the provisions of this Chapter. c. That any sign, billboard, commercial advertising structure or statuary, which is lawfully existing and maintained prior to January 26, 1954, may be continued, although such use does not conform with the provisions hereof; provided, however, that no structural alterations are made thereto and provided, further, that all such nonconforming signs, billboards, commercial advertising structures and statuary, and their supporting members, shall be completely removed from the premises not later than five (5) years from the effective date of the Ordinance codified in this section.

2. Nonconforming Due to Reclassification. The foregoing provisions of this section shall also apply to buildings, structures, land, or uses which hereafter become nonconforming due to any reclassification of districts under this Chapter or any subsequent change in the regulations of this Chapter; provided, however, that where a period of years is specified in this section for the removal of nonconforming buildings, structures, or uses, said period shall be computed from the date of such reclassification or change.

XI-10-56.05 Nonconforming Parcels
A. Legal Building Site. A nonconforming parcel that does not comply with the applicable lot requirements for the zone (e.g., lot area, lot width, etc.) in which it is located shall be considered a legal building site if it meets at least one of the following:

1. The parcel was created by a recorded subdivision;

2. The parcel is under one ownership and of record, and was legally created by a recorded deed prior to the effective date of the zoning amendment that made the parcel nonconforming; or

3. The parcel was approved through a variance procedure or resulted from a lot line adjustment.

B. Development of Legal Building Sites. A legal building site may be developed provided that any structure or development compiles with the standards for the zone unless standards are specifically waived or altered through a variance or as otherwise allowed by the zoning ordinance.

C. Subdivision or Adjustment of a Nonconforming Parcel. No subdivision or lot line adjustment shall be approved that would increase the nonconformity of an existing parcel.

SECTION 11. AMENDMENT OF MILPITAS MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE XI, CHAPTER 10, SECTION 3.03
The Zoning Map of the City of Milpitas, as amended, which was adopted as part of Ordinance No. 38, enacted as Title XI, Chapter 10, Section 3.03 of the Milpitas Municipal Code (“Zoning Map”), is hereby amended by rezoning the land use designation of only those parcels depicted within the depicted map as attached hereto in Exhibit A.

SECTION 12. SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this Ordinance are separable, and the invalidity of any phrase, clause, provision, or part has no effect on the validity of the remainder.

SECTION 13. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING
In accordance with Section 36937 of the Government Code of the State of California, this Ordinance takes effect 30 days from the date of its passage. The City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to cause this Ordinance or a summary thereof to be published in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California.

Exhibit A: Zoning Map Amendments

NORTH AMERICA | EUROPE | AFRICA | AUSTRALIA | ASIA
WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM
CEQA Section 15164 Addendum to the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan Subsequent FEIR To Establish Planning Document Consistency and Evaluate Minor Technical General Plan Amendments
City of Milpitas, Santa Clara County, California
Prepared for:

City of Milpitas
Planning Department
455 East Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, CA 95035
408.609.0072
Contact: Holly Pearson, AICP
Prepared by:

FirstCarbon Solutions
2999 Oak Road, Suite 250
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.357.2562
Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director
Madelyn Dolan, Project Manager
Date: April 26, 2024

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR Table of Contents FirstCarbon Solutions iii Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... v Section 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 - Environmental Checklist.................................................................................................... 1

1.2 - Environmental Analysis and Conclusions............................................................................ 1

1.3 - Mitigation Monitoring Program.......................................................................................... 3 Section 2: Project Description ........................................................................................................ 5

2.1 - Location and Setting.......................................................................................................... 5

2.2 - Project Background ........................................................................................................... 5

2.3 - Project Characteristics....................................................................................................... 8

2.4 - Discretionary Approvals .................................................................................................. 17 Section 3: CEQA Checklist............................................................................................................. 43

3.1 - Explanation of Checklist Evaluation Categories................................................................. 43

3.2 - Discussion and Mitigation Sections................................................................................... 44

3.3 - Environmental Topics ...................................................................................................... 45 I. Aesthetics, Light, and Glare .......................................................................................... 46 II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources.............................................................................. 51 III. Air Quality ..................................................................................................................... 55 IV. Biological Resources...................................................................................................... 67 V. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources.......................................................................... 76 VI. Energy ........................................................................................................................... 83 VII. Geology, Seismicity, and Soils ....................................................................................... 86 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions........................................................................................... 92 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials............................................................................... 100 X. Hydrology and Water Quality...................................................................................... 107 XI. Land Use and Planning................................................................................................ 114 XII. Mineral Resources....................................................................................................... 117 XIII. Noise ........................................................................................................................... 119 XIV. Population and Housing.............................................................................................. 129 XV. Public Services............................................................................................................. 133 XVI. Recreation ................................................................................................................... 138 XVII. Transportation............................................................................................................. 141 XVIII. Utilities and Service Systems ...................................................................................... 147 XIX. Wildfire........................................................................................................................ 155 XX. Mandatory Findings of Significance............................................................................ 161 Section 4: List of Preparers......................................................................................................... 167 Appendix A: City of Milpitas General Plan 2040
Appendix B: Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
List of Tables
Table 1: General Plan Buildout Estimates............................................................................................... 6 Table 2: Metro Specific Plan Buildout Estimates.................................................................................... 7

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas Table of Contents General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR iv FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Table 3: Change in Maximum Units at Buildout of the Proposed Project for Residential Parcels not Within the Metro Specific Plan Area ..............................................................12 Table 4: Change in Square Footage at Buildout of the Proposed Project for Nonresidential Parcels not Within the Metro Specific Plan Area ..............................................................13 Table 5: Metro Specific Plan Land Use Designations and Proposed Zones Within the Metro Specific Plan Area ...................................................................................................15 Table 6: General Plan Land Use Map Amendments..............................................................................16 List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map..........................................................................................................19 Exhibit 2: General Plan Land Use Designations.....................................................................................21 Exhibit 3: Metro Specific Plan Land Use Designations..........................................................................23 Exhibit 4: Existing Zoning Designations.................................................................................................25 Exhibit 5: Proposed Zoning Map–Overall Key Map...............................................................................27 Exhibit 5a: Proposed Zoning Map–Detailed Map .................................................................................29 Exhibit 5b: Proposed Zoning Map–Detailed Map .................................................................................31 Exhibit 5c: Proposed Zoning Map–Detailed Map..................................................................................33 Exhibit 5d: Proposed Zoning Map–Detailed Map .................................................................................35 Exhibit 6a: Existing General Plan Land Use and Proposed Zoning Map Comparison ...........................37 Exhibit 6b: Existing Metro Specific Plan Land Use vs. Proposed Metro Specific Plan Zoning ................................................................................................................................39 Exhibit 7: General Plan Amendment Parcels.........................................................................................41

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR Acronyms and Abbreviations FirstCarbon Solutions v Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
°C degrees Celsius (Centigrade)
°F degrees Fahrenheit
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACE Altamont Commuter Express
AIA Airport Influence Area
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ARB California Air Resources Board
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
BMP Best Management Practice
BPRD Business Park Research and Development
BVMU Boulevard Very High Density Mixed Use
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Cal/OSHA California Occupational Health and Safety Administration CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CAP Climate Action Plan
CBC California Building Standards Code
CBSC California Building Standards Commission
CCA Community Choice Aggregation
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFC California Fire Code
CH4 methane
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CIP capital improvement project
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CO carbon monoxide
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CWA Clean Water Act
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas Acronyms and Abbreviations General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR vi FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx EIR Environmental Impact Report
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
FAR floor area ratio
FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
GHG greenhouse gas
GNC General Commercial
HRA Health Risk Assessment
HS Highway Service
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
IWMP Integrated Waste Management Plan
LDR Low Density Residential
LEED® Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LID Low Impact Development
LOS Level of Service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
mgd million gallons per day
MM Mitigation Measure
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
mph miles per hour
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NC Neighborhood Commercial
NCMU Neighborhood Commercial Mixed Use
ND Negative Declaration
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NOX nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NWIC Northwest Information Center
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR Acronyms and Abbreviations FirstCarbon Solutions vii Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter POS Public Open Space
R&D research and development
ROG reactive organic gases
RRMU Residential Retail High Density Mixed Use
RWF Regional Wastewater Facility
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SCCFD Santa Clara County Fire Department
SCH State Clearinghouse
SCVURPP Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Prevention Program SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
SFEIR Subsequent Final Environmental Impact Report
SIP State Implementation Plan
SOI Sphere of Influence
SR State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
SSMP Sewer System Management Plan
SVCE Silicon Valley Clean Energy
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TAC Toxic Air Contaminant
TASP Transit Area Specific Plan
TCR Tribal Cultural Resource
TDM Transportation Demand Management
UGB Urban Growth Boundary
URR Metro Urban Residential
USA Urban Service Area
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USGBC United States Green Building Council
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VHD Very High Density
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
VTA Valley Transportation Authority
WMPU Water Master Plan Update
WPCP Water Pollution Control Plant
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas Acronyms and Abbreviations General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR viii FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx WSA Water Supply Assessment
WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR Introduction FirstCarbon Solutions 1 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
This Addendum and attached supporting documents have been prepared to determine whether and to what extent the certified City of Milpitas General Plan 2040 Final Environmental Impact Report (General Plan FEIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2020070348) and the certified City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan Subsequent Final Environmental Impact Report (Metro Specific Plan SFEIR, SCH #2006032091) remain sufficient to address the potential impacts of proposed updates to zoning districts and the Zoning Map for specific parcels necessary to ensure consistency with the adopted General Plan and Milpitas Metro Specific Plan (Metro Specific Plan), as well as minor technical amendments to the General Plan to ensure cohesive implementation, or whether additional documentation is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.).

1.1 - Environmental Checklist
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166, and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, subd. (a), the following Addendum has been prepared to evaluate the project. This Addendum has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project consistent with the significance thresholds and analysis methods contained in the previously certified EIRs.

Accordingly, this Addendum uses the standard environmental checklist categories provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines but provides answer columns for evaluation consistent with the considerations listed under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a).

1.2 - Environmental Analysis and Conclusions

1.2.1 - CEQA Guidelines Section 15164
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subd. (a) provides that the lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or adopted Negative Declaration (ND) if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR or ND have occurred (CEQA Guidelines § 15164(a)).

An Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the FEIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subd. (c)). The decision-making body shall consider the Addendum and the FEIR prior to making a decision on the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subd. (d)). An agency must also include a brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR or ND pursuant to Section 15162 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subd. (e)).

Consequently, once an EIR or ND has been certified or adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR or ND is required under CEQA unless, based on substantial evidence:

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas Introduction General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 2 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx 1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR . . . due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 1 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR [or ND] . . . due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR [or ND] was certified as complete. . . shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR [or ND];
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR [or ND];
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR [or ND] would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative (CEQA Guidelines § 5162(a); see also Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21166).

This Addendum, checklist, and attached documents constitute substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR or ND is not required prior to approval of the above-referenced project by responsible and trustee agencies and provides the required documentation under CEQA.

1.2.2 - Findings
There are no substantial changes contemplated by the proposed project, as described in Section

2.3.1, Project Summary, or under the circumstances in which the proposed project will be undertaken that require major revisions of the existing EIRs, or preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR or ND, due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. As illustrated herein, the project is consistent with the General Plan FEIR and Metro Specific Plan SFEIR and would involve only minor updates and clarifications necessary to ensure consistency in planning documents.

1.2.3 - Conclusions
The Milpitas City Council may approve the proposed project, as described in Section 2.3.1, Project Summary, based on this Addendum. The impacts of the proposed project remain consistent with the 1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15382 defines “significant effect on the environment” as “ . . . a substantial, or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance . . .” (see also Public Resources Code, Section 21068).

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR Introduction FirstCarbon Solutions 3 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx impacts previously analyzed in the certified General Plan FEIR and Metro Specific Plan SFEIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061, subd. (b)(3)).

The proposed project does not require any substantial revisions to the General Plan FEIR or Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. No new significant information or changes in circumstances surrounding the proposed project have occurred since the certification of the General Plan FEIR or Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. The previous analysis completed for the General Plan Update FEIR and Metro Specific Plan SFEIR remain adequate under CEQA.

1.3 - Mitigation Monitoring Program
The General Plan FEIR does not identify any significant unavoidable impacts. Accordingly, it does not contain any mitigation measures. Rather, the General Plan identifies policies that, when implemented, would avoid or minimize potential impacts. Therefore, preparation of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was not required as part of the approval of the General Plan.

The Metro Specific Plan SFEIR contained several mitigation measures related to air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and noise that when implemented would avoid or minimize potential impacts. Therefore, an MMRP was prepared in conjunction with certification of the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. Mitigation measures relevant to the proposed project are referenced throughout Section 3, CEQA Checklist.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR Project Description FirstCarbon Solutions 5 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project includes amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to ensure conformity with the City of Milpitas General Plan 2040 (General Plan) and Metro Specific Plan, which were recently updated. Additionally, the proposed project includes rezoning of certain parcels, revisions to zoning districts, and minor technical amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element and General Plan Land Use Map to ensure vertical consistency among the City’s planning documents.

Government Code Section 65860 requires a city’s zoning ordinance to be consistent with the general plan. When a Zoning Ordinance becomes inconsistent due to a general plan amendment, the City must enact a consistent Zoning Ordinance within a “reasonable time,” pursuant to Government Code Section 65860(c). Accordingly, the proposed project identifies parcels that require rezoning to ensure conformity with the current General Plan land use designations.

2.1 - Location and Setting
The project site consists of a portion of the General Plan Planning Area (Planning Area) as well as the Metro Specific Plan Area (Exhibit 1). The Planning Area encompasses the city limits, Sphere of Influence (SOI), and Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), also known as the Urban Service Area (USA), and is approximately 12,327 acres or approximately 19.3 square miles (Exhibit 2). It is bounded by San Francisco Bay and Santa Clara County (west), the City of Fremont (north), unincorporated Santa Clara County (east), and the City of San Jose (south). In addition, there are mountain ranges and wilderness areas to the east. The Planning Area is located on the Milpitas, California United States Geological Survey 7.5-Minute topographic quadrangle map, Township 6 South, Range 1 East, Section 00 (Latitude 37° 25’ 56” North; Longitude 121° 53’ 58” West).

The proposed project involves lands that are generally urbanized, including industrial, commercial, and residential land uses. The proposed rezonings would involve lands primarily within the southwestern and northwestern portions of the Planning Area. Additionally, parcels within the Metro Specific Plan Area as well as certain individual parcels in the center of the Planning Area would be rezoned.

2.2 - Project Background
As noted, this Addendum evaluates whether the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR remain sufficient to address the potential impacts of the proposed project. This section provides background and context for these two foundational documents.

2.2.1 - City of Milpitas General Plan 2040
The General Plan, the City’s current long-range planning document, was adopted by the Milpitas City Council on March 9, 2021.

The General Plan establishes goals, policies, and actions to guide the future growth and development of the City. The General Plan’s key objectives include (1) protecting and enhancing the

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas Project Description General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 6 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx unique character of the community, (2) promoting efficient use of limited land resources, (3) fostering strategic land use decisions, and (4) facilitating the use of alternative transportation options. It also establishes the City’s current Land Use Designations (Exhibit 2).

The General Plan buildout numbers for population, dwelling units, and employment are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: General Plan Buildout Estimates
Category General Plan Buildout Estimate
Population 113,530
Dwelling Units 33,401
Employment1 84,333
Notes:
1 Number of jobs in the City.

Source:

City of Milpitas. 2021. Milpitas 2040 General Plan Update FEIR. Website:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1168/Draft-EIR-PDF?bidId=. Accessed August 9, 2023.

The General Plan established a new Business Park Research and Development (BPRD) land use designation. To ensure consistency, a corresponding zoning district—BPRD—is proposed as part of this project.

City of Milpitas General Plan 2040 Final Environmental Impact Report In conjunction with the City’s adoption of the General Plan, on March 9, 2021, the City Council certified the General Plan FEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2020070348), which analyzed the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan.

2.2.2 - Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
The General Plan designates the Metro Specific Plan Area and mandates the maintenance and implementation of the Metro Specific Plan through Action LU-2a.

The Milpitas Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP) was adopted in 2008. The Metro Specific Plan was adopted by the Milpitas City Council on February 7, 2023, as an update to the TASP. The purpose of the Metro Specific Plan is to create consistency between the TASP and the General Plan.

The Metro Specific Plan increased the TASP area from approximately 437 acres to approximately 510 acres, through annexation of lands to the east and west. The long-term objective of the Metro Specific Plan is to continue to accelerate the transformation of the area to a vibrant, connected, and fully developed, transit-oriented neighborhood. The Metro Specific Plan encompasses land located in the southeastern portion of the City.

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR Project Description FirstCarbon Solutions 7 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx The Metro Specific Plan buildout numbers for dwelling units, office, retail, and hotel rooms are provided in Table 2.

Table 2: Metro Specific Plan Buildout Estimates
Category General Plan Buildout Estimate
Dwelling Units 14,577
Office (Square Feet) 4,050,000
Retail (Square Feet) 2,540,000
Hotel (Rooms) 1,342
Sources:

City of Milpitas. 2022. Milpitas Metro Specific Plan Draft Subsequent EIR. Website:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1184. Accessed August 9, 2023.

The City utilizes specific plans to implement the policies of the General Plan in defined areas. The proposed project is partially located in the Metro Specific Plan Area. Development within the Metro Specific Plan Area is required to follow the policies and actions of the General Plan. It also contains policies and actions specific to the Metro Specific Plan Area that do not apply to the remainder of the Planning Area. As such, there are policies, actions, and mitigation measures relevant to the proposed project which only apply to the Metro Specific Plan Area portion of the project site.

The Metro Specific Plan established seven land use classifications specific to the Metro Specific Plan Area (Exhibit 3):

1. Metro Residential Retail High Density Mixed Use (RRMU)

2. Metro Boulevard Very High Density Mixed Use (BVMU)

3. Metro Multi-Family High Density Residential (MFH)

4. Metro Multi-Family Very High Density Residential (VHD)

5. Metro Urban Residential (URR)

6. Metro Business Park Research and Development (BPRD)

7. Metro Business Park Research and Development, Limited Residential (BPRD-R) Implementation of Metro Specific Plan requires updates to the City’s Zoning Map (Exhibit 4) and the City of Milpitas Zoning Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance), which are undertaken as part of the proposed project.

City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan Subsequent Final Environmental Impact Report In conjunction with the City’s adoption of the Metro Specific Plan on February 7, 2023, the City Council certified the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2006032091), which analyzed the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Metro Specific Plan.

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas Project Description General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 8 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx The Metro Specific Plan SFEIR tiered from the TASP FEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2006032091), which was certified in May 2008. The Metro Specific Plan SFEIR used analysis and information provided in the TASP FEIR to inform the analysis contained therein.

2.2.3 - Milpitas Zoning Ordinance
The current Zoning Ordinance was originally adopted in 1955 and was last updated in 2008.

Accordingly, the Zoning Ordinance is not currently consistent with City-approved planning documents. The proposed project would ensure consistency with the General Plan and Metro Specific Plan by making amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, where needed, to conform to the current land use designations.

2.3 - Project Characteristics

2.3.1 - Project Summary
The proposed project would update the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map and would also implement minor technical amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element and General Plan Land Use Map to ensure vertical consistency among the City’s planning documents.

Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map Updates
The proposed project would include updates to the City’s current Zoning Ordinance, zoning districts, and Zoning Map to ensure conformity with current General Plan and Metro Specific Plan land use designations.

The land use designations include a new BPRD General Plan land use designation, as well as seven Metro Specific Plan land use designations (RRMU; BVMU; MFH; VHD; URR; BPRD; and BPRD-R). All of these land use designations were thoroughly analyzed in the environmental documents certified by the City before approving the General Plan and Metro Specific Plan.

To ensure consistency with the approved General Plan and Metro Specific Plan, the proposed project would include updates to zoning districts along with specific development standards that would implement the purpose and goals of the General Plan and Metro Specific Plan land use designations, facilitating mixed-use, commercial, industrial, residential, and transit-oriented development in key opportunity areas within the General Plan Planning Area and Metro Specific Plan Area (as shown in Exhibits 5, 5a, 5b, 5c, and 5d).

As shown in Appendix A, the proposed project also includes minor technical clarifications to existing policies to facilitate implementation of the approved General Plan. None of these clarifications would result in impacts to the physical environment.

Proposed Zoning Districts Implementing the General Plan The proposed conforming updates to the zoning districts and development standards for the Planning Area necessary to bring them into alignment with the General Plan are described below:

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR Project Description FirstCarbon Solutions 9 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx • Business Park Research and Development (BPRD) Zone: The BPRD District includes important employment centers, business parks, high-intensity office buildings, advanced manufacturing, and other light industrial uses. The BPRD District would also include the integration of research and development, office, warehouse, and light manufacturing uses on consolidated sites with supportive ancillary uses.

Proposed Zoning Districts Implementing the Metro Specific Plan The proposed conforming updates to the zoning districts and development standards necessary to bring them into alignment with the Metro Specific Plan Area are described below:
• Metro Multi-Family High Density Residential (R3-Metro) Zoning District: The R3-Metro District includes High Density Residential areas (30 to 40 dwelling units per acre) with a mix of multi-family unit types and small-scale neighborhood businesses. The R3-Metro District implements the Multi-Family High Density Residential (MFH) land use designation as described in the Metro Specific Plan.
• Metro Multi-Family Very High Density Residential (R4-Metro) Zoning District: The R4-Metro District includes very high-density residential areas (40 to 85 dwelling units per acre) with lowand mid-rise multi-family residential buildings and compatible commercial uses. The R4-Metro District is intended to provide for higher density residential “villages” structured around transit station, streets, creek side open spaces, trails, and parks. The R4-Metro District implements the Multi-Family Very High Density Residential (VHD) land use designation as described in the Metro Specific Plan.
• Metro Urban Residential (R5-Metro) Zoning District: The R5-Metro District includes very high-density residential areas (70 to 120 dwelling units per acre) with high-rise residential buildings and compatible commercial uses located around transit stations. The R5-Metro District implements the Urban Residential (URR) land use designation as described in the Metro Specific Plan.
• Metro High Density Mixed Use (MXD2-Metro) Zoning District: The MXD2-Metro District includes a mix of retail, restaurant, entertainment, and commercial service uses on the ground floor and residential or office uses on upper stories. The MXD2-Metro District includes mixeduse floor area ratios (FARs) between 1.0 and 2.5 and residential densities between 40 to 85 dwelling units per acre. The MXD2-Metro District implements the Residential Retail Mixed Use (RRMU) land use designation as described in the Metro Specific Plan. • Metro Very High Density Mixed Use (MXD3-Metro) Zoning District: MXD3-Metro District includes urban areas with a mix of very high-density housing, retail, and employment uses.

The MXD3-Metro District includes mixed-use FARs between 2.5 and 5.0 and residential densities between 85 to 250 dwelling units per acre. The MXD3-Metro District implements the Boulevard Very High Density Mixed Use (BVMU) land use designation as described in the Metro Specific Plan.
• Metro Business Park Research and Development, Limited Residential (BPRD-R-Metro) Zone:

The BPRD-R-Metro District includes important employment centers, especially for jobs in the high-tech industry, with limited, integrated residential development (mixed-use FARs in the

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas Project Description General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 10 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx range of 1.0 to 5.0). The BPRD-R-Metro District includes business parks, high-intensity office buildings, advanced manufacturing, other light industrial uses, and limited residential uses.

The BPRD-R-Metro District implements the Business Park Research and Development, Limited Residential (BPRD-R) land use designations as described in the Metro Specific Plan. • Metro Business Park Research and Development (BPRD-Metro) Zone: The BPRD-Metro District includes important employment centers, business parks, high-intensity office buildings, advanced manufacturing, and other light industrial uses. The BPRD-Metro District includes FARs between 1.0 and 2.5, with additional FAR up to 4.0 for properties within 1,000 feet of the Milpitas Transit Center. The BPRD-Metro District implements the Business Park Research and Development Lower Intensity and Higher Intensity (BPRD-L and BPRD-H) land use designations as described in the Metro Specific Plan.

Existing Zoning Districts Undergoing Zoning Map Updates In addition to the new zoning districts described above, certain other parcels within the City would be rezoned for the purpose of ensuring consistency with their corresponding land use designations as identified in the updated General Plan. The existing zoning districts undergoing increases in acreage as part of the updates to the Zoning Map and development standards are described below:
• General Commercial (C2) Zone: The purpose of the C2 District is to provide for general commercial needs of neighborhood areas of the City and to promote stable, attractive commercial development. Permitted uses include those which primarily provide for day-today shopping needs, such as grocery stores, offices, restaurants, and certain other stores. The C2 District corresponds to the Neighborhood Commercial Mixed Use (NCMU) and General Neighborhood Commercial (GNC) land use designations. The C2 District allows a FAR of 0.5. • Mixed Use District (MXD) Zone: The purpose of the MXD District is to encourage a compatible mix of residential, retail, entertainment, office, and commercial services within a pedestrianoriented streetscape. Permitted uses include those which provide an “around-the-clockenvironment” with urban open areas that serve multiple purposes and can be used for special events. Residential uses within the MXD District have a minimum of 21 dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum of 30 dwelling units per gross acre. • Park and Public Open Space (POS) Zone: The POS District provides for public open space and recreational uses to preserve environmentally sensitive areas and accommodate community service or recreational facilities. Permitted uses include public parks, recreational facilities, public trails, and public community gardens.
• Single-Family Residential (R1) Zone: The purpose and intent of this zone is to stabilize and protect the residential characteristics of the City’s single-family neighborhoods and to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life. The R1 District is intended for the suburban family home and the service appurtenant thereto. One dwelling unit per lot is allowed and allowable lot sizes vary.
- R1-3: The R1-3 Zone requires a minimum 3,000 square-foot lot area and specific setback requirements. Residential uses within the R1-3 Zone have a minimum of three dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum of 14.52 dwelling units per gross acre.

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR Project Description FirstCarbon Solutions 11 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx • Multi-Family High Density Residential (R3) Zone: The purpose and intent of this zone is to stabilize and protect the residential characteristics of the City’s high-density multi-family neighborhoods and to promote, insofar as compatible with the intensity of land use, a suitable environment for family life. Lots in this zoning district must be at least 8,000 square feet and there must be a minimum of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit. • Institutional Zone (I): The purpose and intent of the Institutional District is to encourage the orderly development of public service and educational uses in the community and to ensure their presence as a vital part of the neighborhood balance. This zone conditionally permits correctional facilities, private universities, government offices, public hospitals, public libraries, parks, museums, public service uses, etc. Mobile food vending and temporary seasonal sales are permitted by right.

The existing zoning districts undergoing decreases in acreage as part of the updates to the Zoning Map and development standards are described below:
• Single-Family Residential (R1) Zone: The purpose and intent of this zone is to stabilize and protect the residential characteristics of the City’s single-family neighborhoods and to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life. The R1 District is intended for the suburban family home and relevant services. One dwelling unit per lot is allowed and allowable lot sizes vary.
- R1-2.5: The R1-2.5 Zone requires a minimum 2,500-square-foot lot area and specific setback requirements. Residential uses within the R1-2.5 Zone have a minimum of three dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum of 15 dwelling units per gross acre. - R1-6: The R1-6 Zone requires a minimum 6,000 square-foot lot area and specific setback requirements. Residential uses within the R1-6 Zone have a minimum of three dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum of 7.26 dwelling units per gross acre. - R1-10: The R1-10 Zone requires a minimum 10,000 square-foot lot area and specific setback requirements. Residential uses within the R1-10 Zone have a minimum of three dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum of 4.36 dwelling units per gross acre. • Multi-Family Very High Density Residential (R4) Zone: The purpose and intent of the R4 Zone is to stabilize and protect the residential characteristics of the City’s high-density multi-family residential areas and to promote a suitable residential environment. The R4 District is intended to provide for higher density residential villages structured around transit stations, streets, creek side open spaces, trails, and parks. Residential uses within the R4 Zone have a minimum of 31 dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum of 40 dwelling units per gross acre.
• Light Industrial (M1) Zone: The M1 Zone is reserved for the construction, use, and occupancy of facilities for office, research, limited and light manufacturing, and other compatible uses.

The M1 Zone allows a maximum FAR of 0.4.
• Industrial Park (MP) Zone: The MP Zone is reserved for the construction, use, and occupancy of facilities for office, research, general manufacturing, warehousing and distribution, and other compatible uses. The MP Zone allows a maximum FAR of 0.5.

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas Project Description General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 12 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx • Agricultural (A) Zone: The purpose and intent of the A Zone is to preserve lands best suited for agricultural use from the encroachment of incompatible uses and to preserve in agricultural use land suited to eventual development in other uses. • Highway Services (HS) Zone: The purpose and intent of the HS Zone is to provide for the wide range of personal and business services primarily oriented to the automobile customer and transient residential uses such as motels or mobile home parks. The HS Zone allows a maximum FAR of 0.5.
• Neighborhood Commercial (C1) Zone: The purpose and intent of the C1 Zone is to provide for general commercial needs of neighborhood areas of the City and to promote stable, attractive commercial development, which will afford a pleasant shopping environment and complement the essential residential character of the neighborhood. The C1 Zone currently allows a maximum FAR of 0.35.

Existing Land Use Designations vs. Proposed Zoning Districts Table 3 and Table 4, as well as Exhibit 6a, demonstrate the changes in maximum density allowed for the parcels not within the Metro Specific Plan Area. Tables 3 and 4 calculate the maximum development allowed for the parcels being evaluated. However, there are a number of factors that can limit the actual density constructed; actual buildout would likely occur at levels below the maximum allowed. By statute, zoning actions, development agreements, and tentative maps all must be consistent with the general plan. (Government Code §§ 65680 [zoning], 65867.5 [development agreements], and 66473.5 [tentative maps]; see also Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 536 [zoning]) Accordingly, for purposes of this analysis, the maximum density for the parcels not within the Metro Specific Plan is assumed to be limited by the applicable General Plan density range. As such, the potential maximum density and intensity of development would remain the same for every parcel with proposed zoning changes.

Table 3: Change in Maximum Units at Buildout of the Proposed Project for Residential Parcels not Within the Metro Specific Plan Area
Land Use
Designation
Existing Total
Acreage
Density Range
for Land Use
Designation
Maximum
Buildout of
Units
Corresponding
Zoning District
Proposed Total
Acreage
Density of
Zoning District
HDR 230.10 16-30 du/ac 6,903 du R3 274.82 12-20 du/ac
MDR 271.57 6-15 du/ac1 4,074 du R2 129.49 7-11 du/ac
R1-2.5 6.25 3-15 du/ac
R1-3 113.08 3-14.52 du/ac
R1-4 20.05 3-10.89 du/ac
R1-5 3.02 3-8.71 du/ac
LDR 1,455.26 3-5 du/ac2 7,276 du R1-6 1,357.13 3-7.26 du/ac R1-10 84.13 3-4.36 du/ac
VHDR 21.78 31-40 du/ac 871 du R4 115.59 31-40 du/ac

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR Project Description FirstCarbon Solutions 13 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Land Use
Designation
Existing Total
Acreage
Density Range
for Land Use
Designation
Maximum
Buildout of
Units
Corresponding
Zoning District
Proposed Total
Acreage
Density of
Zoning District
NCMU3, 4 70.27 29 du/ac 2,038 du MXD 51.455 21-30 du/ac Total 2,048.98 — 21,162 du — 2,155.015 —
Notes:

All values are approximate.
ac = acre
du = dwelling units
FAR = floor area ratio
HDR = High Density Residential
LDR = Low Density Residential
MDR = Medium Density Residential
NCMU = Neighborhood Commercial Mixed-Use
sf = square feet
VHDR = Very High Density Residential
1 As described below, the proposed project would also update the minimum allowable density for the Medium Density Residential (MDR) land use designation from 6-15 du/ac to 7-15 du/ac. 2 As described below, the proposed project would also update the maximum allowable density for the Low Density Residential (LDR) land use designation from 3-5 du/ac to 3-7 du/ac. 3 The NCMU land use designation and MXD zone are mixed use, and therefore, allow for both residential and nonresidential development. For the purpose of simplifying this calculation, it is assumed that 50 percent of the acreage for both the existing NCMU land use designation and the proposed MXD zone would be residential, and 50 percent of the acreage would be nonresidential. Therefore, 50 percent of the acreage for the existing NCMU land use designation (70.27 acres) and 50 percent of the acreage for the proposed MXD zone (51.455) are analyzed in this table, utilizing their corresponding development standards. The remaining 50 percent of the acreage is analyzed in Table 4, below, utilizing the corresponding development standards. 4 The NCMU land use designation includes multiple implementing zoning districts, including C1, C2, CO, and MXD. For the purposes of simplifying this calculation, this table and Table 4, below, utilize the MXD Zone and C1 Zone as the only implementing zones. C1 and CO both correspond with other land use designations analyzed in Table 4, below.

Table 4: Change in Square Footage at Buildout of the Proposed Project for Nonresidential Parcels not Within the Metro Specific Plan Area
Land Use
Designation
Existing Total
Acreage FAR
Square Footage
at Maximum
Buildout
Corresponding
Zoning District
Proposed Total
Acreage
Maximum
Allowable FAR
BPRD1 518.13 2.5 56,424,357 sf BPRD 485.15 2.5
GNC 154.59 0.5 3,366,970.2 sf HS2 89.96 0.50
CO3 13.4 0.50
NC 27.39 0.75 894,831.3 sf C14 59.25 0.35
MFG 499.73 1.0 21,768,238.8 sf M1 20.58 0.40
M2 583.79 0.40
INP 231.20 1.0 10,071,072 sf MP5 260.34 0.50
NCMU7 70.27 0.75 2,295,720.9 sf C26 246.76 0.50
MXD 51.455 0.75
Total 2,701.15 — 94,821,190.2 sf — 1,510.685 —

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas Project Description General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 14 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Land Use
Designation
Existing Total
Acreage FAR
Square Footage
at Maximum
Buildout
Corresponding
Zoning District
Proposed Total
Acreage
Maximum
Allowable FAR
Notes:

All values are approximate.

The Agricultural District (A), Institutional Zoning District (I), Waterways, and Public Open Space (POS) District are not represented in this table because they do not have development standards, and therefore would not serve this calculation.

BPRD = Business Park Research Development
FAR = floor area ratio
GNC = General Neighborhood Commercial
INP = Industrial Park
MFG = Manufacturing
NC = Neighborhood Commercial
NCMU = Neighborhood Commercial Mixed-Use
sf = square feet
1 The BPRD land use designation includes multiple implementing zoning districts, including BPRD and MP. For the purposes of simplifying this calculation, this table utilizes the BPRD zone as the only implementing zone because MP corresponds to the INP land use designation as well. 2 The HS Zone implements multiple land use designations including GNC and NC. For the purposes of simplifying this calculation, this table utilizes the GNC land use designation as the only associated land use designation because NC corresponds with other districts. Additionally, the development standards of the HS Zone were most consistent with the development standards of the GNC land use designation. 3 The CO zone implements multiple land use designations including NCMU, GNC, and NC. For the purposes of simplifying this calculation, this table utilizes the GNC land use designation as the only associated land use designation because NCMU and NC both correspond with other districts. Additionally, the development standards of the CO zone were most consistent with the development standards of the GNC land use designation. 4 The C1 Zone implements multiple land use designations including NCMU and NC. For the purposes of simplifying this calculation, this table utilizes the NC land use designation as the only associated land use designation because NCMU also corresponds with the MXD zone. 5 The MP zone implements multiple land use designations including BPRD and INP. For the purposes of simplifying this calculation, this table utilizes the INP land use designation as the only associated land use designation because the BPRD land use designation more directly corresponds with the BPRD zone. 6 The NCMU land use designation and MXD zone are mixed use, and, therefore, allow for both residential and nonresidential development. For the purpose of simplifying this calculation, it is assumed that 50 percent of the existing acreage for both the NCMU land use designation and the proposed MXD zone would be residential, and 50 percent of the existing NCMU acreage would be nonresidential. Therefore, 50 percent of the acreage for the existing NCMU land use designation (70.27 acres) and 50 percent of the acreage for the proposed MXD zone (51.455) are analyzed in Table 3, above, utilizing their corresponding development standards. The remaining 50 percent of the acreage is analyzed in this table, utilizing the corresponding development standards for nonresidential development. 7 The C2 zone is an implementing zone for multiple land use designations, including NCMU, GNC, and NC. For the purposes of simplifying this calculation, this table utilizes the NCMU land use designation as the only associated land use designation because GNC and NC both correspond with other districts. Additionally, the majority of parcels being rezoned would correspond to the NCMU land use designation.

As shown in Table 5, as well as Exhibit 6b, the proposed zones within the Metro Specific Plan Area would directly implement the existing Metro Specific Plan land use designations with the same allowable density ranges. As such, buildout would be equivalent to what was evaluated and approved in the Metro Specific Plan.

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR Project Description FirstCarbon Solutions 15 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Table 5: Metro Specific Plan Land Use Designations and Proposed Zones Within the Metro Specific Plan Area
Metro Specific Plan Land Use
Designation Proposed Metro Zones FAR/Density of Land Use Designation RRMU-Metro MXD2-Metro 40-85 du/ac

1.0-2.5 FAR
BVMU-Metro MXD3-Metro 85-250 du/ac
MFH-Metro R3-Metro 30-40 du/ac
VHD-Metro R4-Metro 40-85 du/ac
URR-Metro R5-Metro 70-120 du/ac
BPRD-Metro BPRD-Metro 1.0-2.5 FAR

4.0 FAR for properties within 1,000
feet of the Milpitas Transit Center1
BPRD-R-Metro BPRD-R 1.0-5.0 FAR for Mixed-use

1.0 FAR for office and R&D
PF-Metro I-Metro N/A
POS-Metro POS N/A
Notes:
du/ac = density units per acre
FAR = floor area ratio 1 Allowable FAR utilizes a sliding scale for FAR based on distance from the Milpitas Transit Center between 2.5 and 4.0 FAR.

General Plan Amendments
As part of the proposed project, 294 parcels would undergo land use updates to establish consistency between the General Plan Land Use Map and updated Zoning Map (Exhibit 7). Also, the Neighborhood Commercial (C1) Zoning District would no longer be considered an implementing Zone for the GNC Land Use Designation. The C1 Zone would be an implementing zone for the NC Land Use Designation only.

The proposed project would also clarify the allowed residential density of several General Plan land use designations, so they are consistent and aligned with the allowed density of the corresponding zoning districts. The proposed project would incrementally increase the allowable density for the Low Density Residential (LDR) land use designation from 3-5 du/ac to 3-7 du/ac, but would not exceed the corresponding zoning density, which allows for 3-15 du/ac (Table 3).

The proposed project would also update the minimum allowable density for the Medium Density Residential (MDR) land use designation from 6-15 du/ac to 7-15 du/ac. The maximum density would not be impacted. Table 6 illustrates seven of the parcels undergoing General Plan land use designation updates. Six of the parcels would be converted to the Permanent Open Space (POS) land use designation, thereby reducing the overall allowable intensity of development.

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas Project Description General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 16 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Table 6: General Plan Land Use Map Amendments
Furthermore, 287 parcels, totaling approximately 12.04 acres and currently designated MDR in the General Plan would be updated to High Density Residential (HDR) to ensure consistency between the General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Ordinance, and actual built form/density. The parcels are currently zoned R3, which would align with the HDR land use designation. Note that these parcels are largely built out, and updates to the land use designation would be consistent with the City’s planning documents. Therefore, these updates would not be expected to result in any significant development.

Lastly, the BPRD land use designation description included in the approved General Plan would undergo the following minor change shown in strikethrough:

The Business Park Research & Development (BPRD) is intended to accommodate business parks, high-intensity office buildings, light manufacturing parks, and light industrial areas that provide for a variety of businesses that support employment opportunities and services for Milpitas and the region. The BPRD designation would enable the integration of research and development, office, small warehouse and light manufacturing uses in one location, and allows existing firms to grow/expand operations on-site.

This change would not impact relevant development standards such as building height or FAR and thus, would not impact intensity and density of development.

Assessor’s Parcel
Number (APN)
Current General Plan
Land Use Density
Proposed General
Plan Land Use Density
8319027 Business
Park/Research and
Development
(BPRD)

2.5 FAR Public Facilities (PF) N/A
2259085 High Density
Residential (HDR)
16-30 du/ac POS N/A
(Open Space)
2201021 Manufacturing
(MFG)

1.0 FAR POS N/A (Open Space)
2239002 Industrial Park (INP) 1.0 FAR POS N/A (Open Space) 8326002 Milpitas GatewayMain Street Specific
Plan (MGSP)
N/A POS N/A (Open Space)
8327051 MGSP N/A POS N/A (Open Space)
8334002 MGSP N/A POS N/A (Open Space)
Notes:

APN = Assessor’s Parcel Number

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR Project Description FirstCarbon Solutions 17 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Project Summary
The proposed project would update the Zoning Map, the General Plan Land Use Map, and some General Plan and Zoning Ordinance text. However, as explained above, overall land uses, density, and intensity at full buildout of the City would remain relatively the same as previously evaluated in the approved General Plan and Metro Specific Plan.

2.4 - Discretionary Approvals
The proposed project requires the following discretionary approvals from the City of Milpitas:
• Approval of General Plan Amendments
• Approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendments
• Approval of Zoning Map Amendments

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

·|}þ82
·|}þ35
·|}þ9
·|}þ
·|}þ9 ·|}þ17
Santa Clara County
Santa Cruz County
·|}þ85
Alameda County
Santa Clara County
!"#$580
·|}þ92
!"#$880
!"#$680
·|}þ237
!"#$280
·|}þ84
!"#$280
Henry Cowell
Redwoods
St Park
Castle Rock
State Park
Big Basin
Redwoods
State Park
Portola
Redwoods
State Park
Lake Del Valle
State Rec Area
£¤101
£¤
Lake Chabot
Lake Del
Valle
San Antonio
Reservoir
Calaveras
Reservoir
Calero Anderson Lake
Reservoir
Chesbro
Reservoir
Uvas
Reservoir
Dublin Castro Valley
San Leandro
Livermore
San Lorenzo Pleasanton
Hayward
Foster City
Belmont Redwood City Newark
San Carlos
Menlo Park North
Fair Oaks
East Palo
Alto
Milpitas Stanford
Palo Alto Mountain View
Sunnyvale East
Foothills
Los Altos Santa Clara
Cupertino
San Jose
Campbell
Saratoga
Los Gatos
Morgan Hill
Fremont
Exhibit1
Reg ionalLocation Map
5 2.5 0 5
Miles
!
Text
Project Site
S ource:Census2000Data,TheCaliforniaS patialInform ation Library(CaS IL).

I

CITYOFMILPITAS

ZONINGDIS TRICTS ,ANDZONINGMAP,ANDGENERALPLANAMENDMENTPROJECT

ADDENDUMTOTHECITYOFMILPITAS GENERALPLANUPDATEFEIR

ANDTHECITYOFMILPITAS METROS PECIFICPLANS UBS EQUENTFEI
58070001•10/2023| 1_reg ional.m xd
·|}þ87
Legend
City of Milpitas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

58070001 • 10/2023 | 2_gplu.cdr
Source: City of Milpitas; Santa Clara County; USGS; CalAtlas. August 4, 2020..

Exhibit 2
General Plan Land Use Designations

CITY OF MILPITAS

ZONING DISTRICTS, AND ZONING MAP, AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT

ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF MILPITAS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FEIR

AND THE CITY OF MILPITAS METRO SPECIFIC PLAN SUBSEQUENT FEI Metro Specific Plan Area Boundary Metro Specific Plan Area Boundary

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

58070001 • 10/2023 | 3_metro_land_use.cdr
Exhibit 3
Metro Specific Plan Land Use Designations
Source: General Plan; City of Milpitas. Roads; US Census Bureau 2019 TIGER. Basemap; ESRI. April 06, 2022.

CITY OF MILPITAS

ZONING DISTRICTS, AND ZONING MAP, AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT

ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF MILPITAS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FEIR AND THE CITY OF MILPITAS METRO SPECIFIC PLAN SUBSEQUENT FEI Page 779 of 1026

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

58070001 • 10/2023 | 4_existing_zoning.cdr
Source: City of Milpitas, June 28, 2023.

CITY OF MILPITAS

ZONING DISTRICTS, AND ZONING MAP, AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT

ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF MILPITAS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FEIR

AND THE CITY OF MILPITAS METRO SPECIFIC PLAN SUBSEQUENT FEI Exhibit 4
Existing Zoning Designations
Metro Specific Plan Area Boundary
Metro Specific Plan Area Boundary

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

58070001•01/2024|5_propose d_zoning _ov e rall_m ap.m xd Exh ibit5
Propose dZoning Map -Ov e rallKe yMap
Source :Cityof Milpitas,update d12/2023.

CITYOFMILPITAS

ZONINGDISTRICTS,ANDZONINGMAP,ANDGENERALPLANAMENDMENTPROJECT

ADDENDUMTOTHECITYOFMILPITASGENERALPLANUPDATEFEIR

ANDTHECITYOFMILPITASMETROSPECIFICPLANSUBSEQ UENTFEI
3,300 1,650 0 3,300
Fe e t
Exhibit 5a
Exhibit 5b
Exhibit 5c
Exhibit 5d
Legend
City of Milpitas
City of Milpitas Parcels
Metro Specific Plan Boundary
Existing Zoning Districts With Zoning Map Updates
BPRD - Business Park Research and Development
C2 - General Commercial
I - Institutional
MXD - Mixed Use District
POS - Park and Public Open Space
R1-3 - Single-Family 3,000 Square-foot Lot Area
R3 - Multiple-Family District
Proposed Zoning Districts Implementing The Metro Specific Plan BPRD-Metro - Metro Business Park Research and Development BPRD-R-Metro - Metro Business Park Research and Development, Limited Residential I - Institutional
MXD2-Metro - Metro High Density Mixed Use
MXD3-Metro - Metro Very High Density Mixed Use
POS - Park and Public Open Space
R3-Metro - Metro Multi-Family High Density Residential
R4-Metro - Metro Multi-Family Very High Density Residential R5-Metro - Metro Urban Residential

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

58070001•01/2024|5a_zoning _detailed_m ap.m xd
Exh ibit5a
ProposedZoning Map -DetailedMap
S ource:CityofMilpitas,updated12/2023.

CITYOFMILPITAS

ZONINGDIS TRICTS ,ANDZONINGMAP,ANDGENERALPLANAMENDMENTPROJECT

ADDENDUMTOTHECITYOFMILPITAS GENERALPLANUPDATEFEIR

ANDTHECITYOFMILPITAS METROS PECIFICPLANS UBS EQUENTFEI
1,000 500 0 1,000
Feet
POS
R1-3
POS
POS
POS
POS
C2
C2
R3
MXD
MXD
C2 C2
Legend
City of Milpitas
City of Milpitas Parcels
Existing Zoning Districts With Zoning Map Updates
BPRD - Business Park Research and Development
C2 - General Commercial
I - Institutional
MXD - Mixed Use District
POS - Park and Public Open Space
R1-3 - Single-Family 3,000 Square-foot Lot Area
R3 - Multiple-Family District

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

C2
POS
I
POS
R1-3
POS
BPRD
58070001•01/2024|5b_zoning _de taile d_m ap.m xd
Exh ibit5b
Propose dZoning Map -De taile dMap
Source :Cityof Milpitas,update d12/2023.

CITYOFMILPITAS

ZONINGDISTRICTS,ANDZONINGMAP,ANDGENERALPLANAMENDMENTPROJECT

ADDENDUMTOTHECITYOFMILPITASGENERALPLANUPDATEFEIR

ANDTHECITYOFMILPITASMETROSPECIFICPLANSUBSEQ UENTFEI
920 460 0 920
Fe e t
Legend
City of Milpitas
City of Milpitas Parcels
Existing Zoning Districts With Zoning Map Updates
BPRD - Business Park Research and Development
C2 - General Commercial
I - Institutional
MXD - Mixed Use District
POS - Park and Public Open Space
R1-3 - Single-Family 3,000 Square-foot Lot Area
R3 - Multiple-Family District

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

BPRD
BPRD
BPRD
POS
I
POS
58070001•01/2024|5c_zoning _detailed_m ap.m xd
Exh ibit5c
ProposedZoning Map -DetailedMap
S ource:CityofMilpitas,updated12/2023.

CITYOFMILPITAS

ZONINGDIS TRICTS ,ANDZONINGMAP,ANDGENERALPLANAMENDMENTPROJECT

ADDENDUMTOTHECITYOFMILPITAS GENERALPLANUPDATEFEIR

ANDTHECITYOFMILPITAS METROS PECIFICPLANS UBS EQUENTFEI
1,100 550 0 1,100
Feet
Legend
City of Milpitas
City of Milpitas Parcels
Existing Zoning Districts With Zoning Map Updates
BPRD - Business Park Research and Development
C2 - General Commercial
I - Institutional
MXD - Mixed Use District
POS - Park and Public Open Space
R1-3 - Single-Family 3,000 Square-foot Lot Area
R3 - Multiple-Family District

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

MXD2-Metro
MXD3-Metro
BPRD-Metro
BPRD-Metro BPRD-Metro
MXD3-Metro
I
I
I
R3-Metro
R3-Metro
R3-Metro
MXD2-Metro
MXD3-Metro POS
POS
POS
BPRD-R-Metro
BPRD-R-Metro
MXD
C2
POS
POS
MXD2-Metro
R3-Metro
R3-Metro
R3-Metro
R3-Metro
MXD3-Metro
MXD2-Metro
MXD3-Metro
R4-Metro
R4-Metro
R5-Metro
POS
POS
POS
R4-Metro
BPRD-Metro
R4-Metro
58070001•01/2024|5d_zoning _detailed_m ap.m xd
Exh ibit5d
ProposedZoning Map -DetailedMap
S ource:CityofMilpitas,updated12/2023.

CITYOFMILPITAS

ZONINGDIS TRICTS ,ANDZONINGMAP,ANDGENERALPLANAMENDMENTPROJECT

ADDENDUMTOTHECITYOFMILPITAS GENERALPLANUPDATEFEIR

ANDTHECITYOFMILPITAS METROS PECIFICPLANS UBS EQUENTFEI
750 375 0 750
Feet
Legend
City of Milpitas
City of Milpitas Parcels
Metro Specific Plan Boundary
Existing Zoning Districts With Zoning Map Updates
BPRD - Business Park Research and Development
C2 - General Commercial
I - Institutional
MXD - Mixed Use District
POS - Park and Public Open Space
R1-3 - Single-Family 3,000 Square-foot Lot Area
R3 - Multiple-Family District
Proposed Zoning Districts Implementing The Metro Specific Plan BPRD-Metro - Metro Business Park Research and Development BPRD-R-Metro - Metro Business Park Research and Development, Limited Residential I - Institutional
MXD2-Metro - Metro High Density Mixed Use
MXD3-Metro - Metro Very High Density Mixed Use
POS - Park and Public Open Space
R3-Metro - Metro Multi-Family High Density Residential
R4-Metro - Metro Multi-Family Very High Density Residential R5-Metro - Metro Urban Residential

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Metro Specific Plan Boundary
Metro Specific Plan Area Boundary Metro Specific Plan Area Boundary 58070001 • 01/2024 | 6a_existing_gplu_proposed_zoning.cdr CITY OF MILPITAS

ZONING DISTRICTS, AND ZONING MAP, AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT

ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF MILPITAS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FEIR

AND THE CITY OF MILPITAS METRO SPECIFIC PLAN SUBSEQUENT FEI Source: City of Milpitas, updated 12/2023.

Exhibit 6a I Existing General Plan Land Use and Proposed Zoning Map Comparison Proposed Zoning
Existing General Plan Land Use

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

58070001 • 10/2023 | 6b_existing_proposed_metro_specific_plan.cdr Source: City of Milpitas.

CITY OF MILPITAS

ZONING DISTRICTS, AND ZONING MAP, AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT

ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF MILPITAS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FEIR

AND THE CITY OF MILPITAS METRO SPECIFIC PLAN SUBSEQUENT FEI Exhibit 6b
Existing Metro Specific Plan Land Use vs. Proposed Metro Specific Plan Zoning Legend
City of Milpitas
City of Milpitas Parcels
Metro Specific Plan Boundary
Proposed Zoning Districts Implementing The Metro Specific Plan BPRD-Metro - Metro Business Park Research and Development BPRD-R-Metro - Metro Business Park Research and Development, Limited Residential I - Institutional
MXD2-Metro - Metro High Density Mixed Use
MXD3-Metro - Metro Very High Density Mixed Use
POS - Park and Public Open Space
R3-Metro - Metro Multi-Family High Density Residential
R4-Metro - Metro Multi-Family Very High Density Residential R5-Metro - Metro Urban Residential

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

58070001•05/2024| 7_general_plan_am m endm en t.m xd
Exhibit7
GeneralPlan Am endm en tParcels
Source:City ofMilpitas,updated05/2024.

CITYOFMILPITAS

ZONINGDISTRICTS,ANDZONINGMAP,ANDGENERALPLANAMENDMENTPROJECT

ADDENDU MTOTHECITYOFMILPITASGENERALPLANU PDATEFEIR

ANDTHECITYOFMILPITASMETROSPECIFICPLANSU BSEQU ENTFEI
2,000 1,000 0 2,000
Feet
Legend
City of Milpitas
City of Milpitas Parcels
General Plan Amendment Parcels
HDR - High Density Residential
PF - Public Facilities
POS - Permanent Open Space
POS

POS POS
POS
POS
POS
PF
HDR

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR CEQA Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 43 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx SECTION 3: CEQA CHECKLIST
The purpose of the checklist is to evaluate the categories in terms of any changed condition (e.g., changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in a changed environmental result (e.g., a new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect) (CEQA Guidelines § 15162).

The questions posed in the checklist come from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. A “no” answer does not necessarily mean that there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental category, but that there is no change in the condition or status of the impact since it was analyzed and addressed with mitigation measures in the Final EIR. These environmental categories might be answered with a “no” in the checklist, since the proposed project does not introduce changes that would result in a modification to the conclusion of the previously approved CEQA document.

This Addendum addresses the conclusions of the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR to establish planning document consistency and evaluate minor technical General Plan Amendments.

3.1 - Explanation of Checklist Evaluation Categories
(1) Conclusion in General Plan FEIR and Metro Specific Plan SFEIR and Related Documents
This column summarizes the conclusion of the previous certified EIRs relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic.
(2) Do the Proposed Changes Involve New Impacts?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a)(1), this column indicates whether the changes represented by the proposed project will result in new significant environmental impacts not previously identified or mitigated by the previous certified EIRs or whether the changes will result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact.
(3) New Circumstances Involving New Impacts?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a)(2), this column indicates whether there have been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the proposed project is undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous certified EIRs due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. (4) New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a)(3)(A-D), this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas CEQA Checklist General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 44 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous certified EIRs was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous certified EIRs or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous certified EIRs;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous certified EIRs would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

If the additional analysis completed as part of this environmental review were to find that the conclusions of the previous certified EIRs remain the same and no new significant impacts are identified, or identified impacts are not found to be substantially more severe, or additional mitigation is not necessary, then the question would be answered “no” and no additional environmental document would be required.
(5) Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a)(3), this column indicates whether the previous certified EIRs provide mitigation measures to address effects in the related impact category. Any previously adopted mitigation measures will be identified. The response will also address proposed revisions to previously adopted mitigation measures. These mitigation measures will be implemented with the construction of the project, as applicable.

If “NA” is indicated, the previous certified EIRs have concluded that the impact either does not occur with this project or is not significant, and therefore no additional mitigation measures are needed.

3.2 - Discussion and Mitigation Sections
The following sections include three components for each environmental checklist question:
discussion of each checklist question and any potential impacts to the environment, any mitigation measures required, and a conclusion of the analysis. Each component is further described below:
(1) Discussion
A discussion of the elements of the checklist is provided under each environmental category in order to clarify the answers. The discussion provides information about the particular environmental issue, how the project relates to the issue, and the status of any mitigation that may be required or that has already been implemented.

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR CEQA Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 45 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx (2) Mitigation Measures
Applicable mitigation measures from the previous certified EIRs that apply to the proposed project are listed under each environmental category.
(3) Conclusions
A discussion of the conclusion relating to the analysis is contained in each section.

3.3 - Environmental Topics
The following topics are evaluated in accordance with current CEQA Guidelines and requirements:
• Aesthetics, Light, and Glare • Land Use and Planning
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Mineral Resources • Air Quality • Noise
• Biological Resources • Population and Housing
• Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources • Public Services • Energy • Recreation
• Geology and Soils • Transportation
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Utilities and Service Systems • Hazardous Materials • Wildfire
• Hydrology and Water Quality

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas CEQA Checklist General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 46 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion
in General
Plan FEIR
Conclusion
in Metro
Specific
Plan SFEIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
General
Plan FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Metro
Specific
Plan SFEIR
Mitigation
Measures
I. Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial
adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None None
b) Substantially damage
scenic resources,
including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and
historic building within
a State Scenic
Highway?
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None None
c) In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade
the existing visual
character or quality of
public views of the site
and its surroundings?
(Public views are those
that are experienced
from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the
project is in an
urbanized area, would
the project conflict
with applicable zoning
and other regulations
governing scenic
quality?
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None None
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or
glare which would
adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the
area?
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None None

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR CEQA Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 47 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Discussion
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Summary of General Plan FEIR
The General Plan FEIR indicated that there are no officially designated scenic vistas in the Planning Area. Significant visual resources in the Planning Area include Mission Hills and Monument Peak; Mount Diablo, though outside the Planning Area is considered a significant visual feature visible from the city limits.

The majority of areas within the City that are designated for urban land uses are already developed.

Additionally, the General Plan does not propose to convert any open space lands to urban uses.

However, implementation of the General Plan could lead to new and expanded urban development in the City, which could result in interference with views of visual features surrounding the City.

Development could also occur along highway corridors with high scenic values; however, the General Plan is developed to minimize interruption of views of nearby visual features by ensuring that new development is primarily an extension of the existing urban landscape.

The General Plan FEIR concluded that the implementation of the policies and actions contained in the General Plan would ensure that new urban residential and nonresidential development in the City is located in and around existing urbanized areas and developed to be visually compatible with open space resources. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would result in a less than significant impact regarding scenic vistas.

Summary of Metro Specific Plan SFEIR
There are no officially designated scenic vistas within the Metro Specific Plan Area. The Metro Specific Plan SFEIR concluded that the policy updates made to the TASP as part of the Metro Specific Plan would require compliance with the General Plan and the Metro Plan; furthermore, through compliance with these existing regulations, the changes made to the TASP policies by the Metro Specific Plan would not substantially change the overall impacts on aesthetics.

In addition, it was determined that the majority of projects that would be developed as a part of the Metro Specific Plan would not result in aesthetic impacts pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099, which states that visual resource impacts of residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center projects on an infill site within a Transit Priority Area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.

Therefore, the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR concluded that impacts related to aesthetics would be less than significant.

Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusions
There are no officially designated scenic vistas within the Metro Specific Plan Area or the General Plan Planning Area. As described in Section 2, Project Description, buildout of the proposed project would result in a similar intensity of development as that anticipated in the General Plan and Metro Specific Plan.

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas CEQA Checklist General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 48 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Furthermore, the proposed project does not include any specific development proposals at this time. Future development and associated land use activities would be subject to the General Plan policies and Metro Specific Plan policies, as applicable, including provisions associated with the protection of visual resources and visual compatibility with open space resources.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not introduce new significant environmental impacts related to scenic vistas or create substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. No additional analysis is required.
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a State Scenic Highway?
Summary of General Plan FEIR
The General Plan FEIR indicated that no designated State Scenic Highway is located within the Planning Area, and no scenic highways provide views of the Planning Area. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR concluded that impacts associated with General Plan implementation would be less than significant with respect to scenic resources.

Summary of Metro Specific Plan SFEIR
There are no designated State Scenic Highways within the Metro Specific Plan Area, and no scenic highways provide views of the Planning Area. Refer to summary provided in Impact I(a).

Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusions
There are no officially designated State Scenic Highways within the Metro Specific Plan Area or the General Plan Planning Area. A portion of I-680 in the northern portion of the City is listed as eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway. However, there are no changes being proposed in the immediate vicinity of this portion of I-680. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not introduce new significant environmental impacts or create substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. No additional analysis is required.
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Summary of General Plan FEIR
The General Plan FEIR found that the Planning Area is considered an urbanized area. Zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality in the City include the Design Guidelines and Plan Review Checklist, the City of Milpitas Master Streetscape Plan, and voter-approved Measures I, J, and K (summarized on page LU-2 of the General Plan Land Use Element. The General Plan FEIR also noted that the policies and actions included in the General Plan are intended to complement and further the intent of these provisions regulating scenic quality and resources, and any development

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR CEQA Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 49 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx occurring under the General Plan would be subject to compliance with these guidelines, as well as applicable regulations set forth in the City of Milpitas Municipal Code (Municipal Code).

The General Plan FEIR concluded that, with compliance with applicable regulations, implementation of the General Plan would result in a less than significant impact related to consistency with regulations governing scenic quality.

Summary of Metro Specific Plan SFEIR
The Metro Specific Plan Area is in an urbanized area. Refer to summary provided in Impact I(a).

Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusions
As described in Section 2, Project Description, buildout of the proposed project would result in a similar intensity of development as that anticipated in the General Plan and Metro Specific Plan.

Additionally, the proposed project includes updating the Zoning Ordinance to further protect visual character of the environment by specifying height restrictions, design standards, and FAR regulations for various new zoning districts. Future development associated with implementation of the proposed project would undergo discretionary review to ensure that such development matches the surrounding visual character and complies with development standards in the General Plan, Metro Specific Plan, and Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not introduce new significant environmental impacts or create substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. No additional analysis is required.
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Summary of General Plan FEIR
The General Plan FEIR found that implementation of the General Plan would introduce new sources of daytime glare into previously developed areas and increase the amount of daytime glare in existing urbanized areas. Additionally, exterior lighting around commercial and industrial areas may be present throughout the night, and nighttime lighting would be most severe in areas that do not currently experience high levels of nighttime lighting. The General Plan FEIR also indicated that future development would be required to be consistent with the General Plan, as well as lighting and design requirements in the Municipal Code. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR concluded that, with the implementation of applicable General Plan policies and actions and the Municipal Code during the design review process, impacts related to daytime glare and nighttime lighting would be less than significant.

Summary of Metro Specific Plan SFEIR
Refer to summary provided in Impact I(a).

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas CEQA Checklist General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 50 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusions
As described in Section 2, Project Description, buildout of the proposed project would result in a similar intensity of development as that anticipated in the General Plan and Metro Specific Plan.

As such, the proposed project would likely introduce a similar amount of light and glare to the Metro Specific Plan Area and the Planning Area.

While the proposed project does not include any specific development proposals at this time, future individual development projects would likely introduce new sources of daytime glare into previously undeveloped areas and increase the amount of daytime glare in existing urbanized areas. As already noted, future development associated with the implementation of the proposed project would be required to be consistent with the policies contained in the General Plan, Metro Specific Plan, and Municipal Code, as applicable and would be subject to regulatory process and environmental review.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not introduce new significant environmental impacts or create substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. No additional analysis is required.

Mitigation Measures
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures
None.

Metro Specific Plan SFEIR Mitigation Measures
None.

Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project
None required.

Conclusion
With regard to Aesthetics, the analysis demonstrates that:

1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which require major revisions to the previously certified EIRs due to new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

2. No substantial changes are proposed with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which require major revisions to the previously certified EIRs due to new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

3. No new information of substantial importance indicates any new or more significant effects than shown in the previously certified EIRs.

4. No mitigation measures are necessary because the proposed project’s specific impacts would be less than significant.

5. None of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR CEQA Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 51 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion
in General
Plan FEIR
Conclusion in
Metro
Specific Plan
SFEIR
Substantial
Changes in
Project
Involving
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Substantial
Changes in
Circumstances
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
General
Plan FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Metro
Specific
Plan SFEIR
Mitigation
Measures
II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime
Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or
Farmland of
Statewide
Importance
(Farmland), as
shown on the
maps prepared
pursuant to the
Farmland
Mapping and
Monitoring
Program of the
California
Resources Agency,
to nonagricultural
use?
Less than
significant
impact
No impact No No No None None
b) Conflict with
existing zoning for
agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act
Contract?
Less than
significant
impact
No impact No No No None None
c) Conflict with
existing zoning for,
or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as
defined in Public
Resources Code
Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as
defined by Public
Resources Code
Section 4526), or
No impact No impact No No No None None

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas CEQA Checklist General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 52 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion
in General
Plan FEIR
Conclusion in
Metro
Specific Plan
SFEIR
Substantial
Changes in
Project
Involving
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Substantial
Changes in
Circumstances
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
General
Plan FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Metro
Specific
Plan SFEIR
Mitigation
Measures
timberland zoned
Timberland
Production (as
defined by
Government Code
Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss
of forest land or
conversion of
forest land to nonforest use?
No impact No impact No No No None None
e) Involve other
changes in the
existing
environment
which, due to
their location or
nature, could
result in
conversion of
Farmland, to
nonagricultural
use or conversion
of forest land to
non-forest use?
Less than
significant
impact
No impact No No No None None
Discussion
a-e) Conversion of Important Farmland to Nonagricultural Use, Conflict with Existing Zoning for Agricultural Use or Williamson Act Contracts, Conflict with Existing Forest Land Zoning, Conversion of Forest Land to Non-Forest Use, and Other Changes to Convert Farmland to Nonagricultural Use or Forest Land to Non-Forest Use
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR CEQA Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 53 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Summary of General Plan FEIR
The General Plan FEIR indicated that there are no parcels within the City that have a land use designation for agricultural use or forest land, contain agriculture or forestry uses, have a Williamson Act Contract, or are on lands identified by the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP).

The majority of the areas within the City are designated for urban land uses and are already developed. While there are three parcels throughout the Planning Area that are zoned for agricultural use, none of these parcels are in active agricultural production. Furthermore, parcels within the Zoning District Agricultural District (A) are not intended to be used exclusively for agricultural uses in perpetuity. Table 1: General Plan Designations and Implementing Zoning Districts in the General Plan Land Use Element notes that the A zoning district is consistent with all land use designations; therefore, a zoning change from A to any other zoning district can be made in general accord with the General Plan.

Therefore, the General Plan FEIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would result in a less than significant impact on Agricultural and Forestry Resources.

Summary of the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR
The Metro Specific Plan SFEIR states that there are no areas with a land use or zoning designation for agricultural or forestry resources in the Metro Specific Plan Area, nor are there any lands currently being used for agriculture or forestry in the Metro Specific Plan Area. As such, the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR concluded that there would be no impacts related to agriculture and forestry.

Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusions
As part of the proposed project, Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 2201021, totaling approximately

4.09 acres, would undergo both a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from MFG to POS and change the zoning designation from A to POS. These changes would ensure consistency with the parcel’s existing land uses. Additionally, there are no lands within the General Plan Planning Area or the Metro Specific Plan Area currently being used for agriculture or forestry.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not introduce new significant environmental impacts related to agriculture and forestry or create substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. No additional analysis is required.

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas CEQA Checklist General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 54 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Mitigation Measures
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures
None.

Metro Specific Plan SFEIR Mitigation Measures
None.

Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project
None required.

Conclusion
With regard to Agricultural and Forestry Resources, the analysis demonstrates that:

1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which require major revisions to the previously certified EIRs due to new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

2. No substantial changes are proposed with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which require major revisions to the previously certified EIRs due to new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

3. No new information of substantial importance indicates any new or more significant effects than shown in the previously certified EIRs.

4. No mitigation measures are necessary because the proposed project’s specific impacts would be less than significant.

5. None of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR CEQA Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 55 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Environmental
Issue Area
Conclusion
in General
Plan FEIR
Conclusion in
Metro
Specific Plan
SFEIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve
New or
More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
General
Plan FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Metro
Specific
Plan SFEIR
Mitigation
Measures
III. Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or
obstruct
implementation
of the applicable
air quality plan?
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None None
b) Result in a
cumulatively
considerable net
increase of any
criteria pollutant
for which the
project region is
nonattainment
under an
applicable
federal or State
ambient air
quality
standard?
Less than
significant
impact
Significant
and
unavoidable
impact
No No No None MM AQ-1,
MM AQ-2,
MM AQ-3,
MM AQ-4,
MM AQ-5,
MM AQ-6,
MM AQ-7,
and MM
AQ-8
c) Expose sensitive
receptors to
substantial
pollutant
concentrations?
Less than
significant
impact
Significant
and
unavoidable
impact
No No No None MM AQ-9
d) Result in other
emissions (such
as those leading
to odors or)
adversely
affecting a
substantial
number of
people?
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None None

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas CEQA Checklist General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 56 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Discussion
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Summary of General Plan FEIR
The General Plan FEIR determined that the General Plan includes various policies and actions aimed at improving air quality by promoting compact urban development form, emphasizing infill development, and ensuring that land use patterns do not expose sensitive receptors2 to pollutant concentrations. The General Plan would also reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per service population at buildout using complete streets and multimodal transportation systems. The General Plan FEIR determined that the implementation of the General Plan would be consistent with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) 2017 Clean Air Plan through policies reducing greenhouse gas emissions, criteria pollutant emissions, odors, health risks, and other emissions. The General Plan would also be consistent with the goals of the BAAQMD by reducing emissions of criteria pollutants associated with VMT. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

Summary of Metro Specific Plan SFEIR
The Metro Specific Plan includes various policies and improvements that support regional attainment of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These policies include recommended sustainability measures, such as green building and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, reduction in GHG emissions, and coordination at local and regional levels to improve air quality. The Metro Specific Plan also promotes alternative modes of transportation, alternative transportation development, and VMT reductions. Additionally, the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR identified policies that aim to protect public health and reduce GHG emissions, such as policies that require new development near toxic air contaminant (TAC) sources be designed to minimize any potential health risks to adjacent receptors. The Metro Specific Plan SFEIR also identified control measures within the 2017 Clean Air Plan aimed at reducing air pollution related to transportation, energy, building, waste management, water, and stationary source control measures. The Metro Specific Plan SFEIR further determined that the Metro Specific Plan would not cause the disruption, delay, or otherwise hinder implementation of any applicable control measure from the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Therefore, the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR concluded that the Metro Specific Plan would have less than significant impacts related to conflicts with a clean air plan.

Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusions
The proposed project would update the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map, as well as make minor technical amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element and General Plan Land Use Map, to create conformity between the General Plan, the Metro Specific Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance. As 2 Air pollution does not affect every individual in the population in the same way, and some groups are more sensitive to adverse health effects than others. Residences, schools, day care centers, hospitals, nursing and convalescent homes, and parks are often identified as “sensitive receptors” since their occupants are sensitive to poor air quality. The groups identified with these land uses may have increased susceptibility to respiratory distress or, as in the case of residential receptors, their exposure time is greater than that for other land uses. BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as children, adults, and seniors occupying or residing in residential dwellings, schools, day care centers, hospitals, and senior-care facilities.

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR CEQA Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 57 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx explained under Section 2.3, Project Characteristics, buildout of the proposed project would result in relatively similar land use densities and intensities as was previously evaluated under the approved General Plan FEIR and Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. Therefore, air quality impacts associated with the proposed project would be consistent with those identified in the General Plan FEIR and Metro Specific Plan SFEIR analyses, including the conclusions that both the General Plan and Metro Specific Plan are consistent with the BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan and would have a less than significant impact, as future individual development projects under the proposed project would be required to comply with policies and measures contained in both the General Plan and Metro Specific Plan.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not introduce new significant environmental impacts or create substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. No additional analysis is required. b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard? Summary of General Plan FEIR
Refer to summary provided in Impact III(a).

Summary of Metro Specific Plan SFEIR
Construction
The Metro Specific Plan SFEIR found that construction under the Metro Specific Plan would result in temporary generation of ozone precursors (reactive organic gases [ROG], nitrogen oxides [NOX]), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter emissions, which could result in short-term impacts on ambient air quality within the Metro Specific Plan Area from construction equipment exhaust, haul trucks, demolition, etc. The construction emission impacts associated with future individual development projects would be short-term in nature and limited to the period of time when construction activity is taking place for the particular development, but concurrent construction of multiple projects would generate combined criteria pollutant emissions that could exceed BAAQMD’s project-level thresholds, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Per MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-4, the use of at least Tier 4 engines and renewable diesel for off-road equipment newer trucks to reduce NOX and particulate matter exhaust emission levels, and use of low-volatile organic compounds (VOC) paints to reduce ROG emission levels would be required during construction activities. Additionally, the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR would implement MM AQ-5, which requires construction projects to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Therefore, the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR concluded that impacts related to fugitive particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) and particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5) emissions would be less than significant.

However, there could be conditions under the Metro Specific Plan where the amount of construction activity for an individual development project or a combination of projects could result in the generation of ROG, NOX, and particulate matter emissions that exceed the BAAQMD significant thresholds. Therefore, MM AQ-6, which requires applicants to assess, determine, and mitigate total emissions from proposed construction activities, would reduce impacts related to exceeding BAAQMD’s daily pollutant thresholds. However, the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR concluded that

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas CEQA Checklist General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 58 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx construction air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable because it is possible that mitigation for future project health risks may be inadequate to reduce impacts below BAAQMD’s threshold level.

Operation
The Metro Specific Plan SFEIR determined that the Metro Specific Plan’s operational emissions would potentially exceed BAAQMD’s regional significance thresholds for ROG, NOX, and CO.

However, implementation of MM AQ-7 and MM AQ-8 would help ensure that individual development projects within the City would not contribute a significant level of air pollution such that regional air quality within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) would be degraded.

However, because cumulative development would potentially exceed the regional significance thresholds, the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR concluded that health impacts related to regional criteria pollutants would be significant and unavoidable.

Criteria Pollutants
The Metro Specific Plan SFEIR determined that the implementation of the Metro Specific Plan would have a significant and unavoidable impact with regard to exposing sensitive receptors to particulate matter pollution during construction and operation. The Metro Specific Plan SFEIR further identified that construction emissions resulting from future individual development projects could exceed BAAQMD’s regional ROG, NOX, and particulate matter thresholds. MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-6 would reduce regional emissions below BAAQMD’s regional thresholds, and MM AQ-7 and MM AQ-8 would reduce regional emissions of ROG, NOX, and particulate matter operational emissions to below the BAAQMD’s regional thresholds. However, the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR determined that health impacts related to regional criteria pollutants would be significant and unavoidable because offset programs under MM AQ-6 and MM AQ-8 may not be available at the time of future development. Additionally, the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR determined that CO emitted by traffic would exceed BAAQMD screening criteria. However, according to the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR, maximum traffic volumes would be less than the BAAQMD’s recommended screening criterion of 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour for areas where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited. Therefore, the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR concluded that the Metro Specific Plan would be consistent with the City/County Association of Government’s Congestion Management Plan and would have less than significant impacts related to concentrations of CO.

Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusions
Consistent with the General Plan FEIR, future individual development projects resulting from buildout of the proposed project would be evaluated under the policies and programs contained in the General Plan. The overall buildout numbers from the proposed project would be similar to those contained in the General Plan, resulting in similar operational emissions. As such, the traffic volumes would continue to meet the BAAQMD screening criteria for CO concentrations.

The proposed project would be required to implement Metro Specific Plan SFEIR mitigation measures, SFEIR MM AQ-1 through AQ-4, which require the use of at least Tier 4 engines and renewable diesel for off-road equipment, newer trucks to reduce NOX and particulate matter exhaust emission levels, and use of low-VOC paints to reduce ROG emission levels would be required during

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR CEQA Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 59 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx construction activities in areas within the Metro Specific Plan; and Metro Specific Plan SFEIR MM AQ-5, which requires construction projects within the Metro Plan Area to implement BMPs (as recommended by BAAQMD) to reduce these fugitive dust emissions. These MMs would reduce fugitive PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from the proposed project in areas within the Metro Specific Plan to less than significant levels. In addition, the proposed project would also be required to implement Metro Specific Plan SFEIR MM AQ-6 for project areas under the Metro Specific Plan, requiring applicants for individual development to assess and determine the estimated total emissions from proposed construction activities (subject to City review and approval), and coordinate with BAAQMD or a third-party or governmental entity to determine the mitigation fees for each development project’s applicant to pay on a pro rata basis to BAAQMD or a third-party or governmental entity to offset their pollutant emissions as necessary, such that BAAQMD’s daily pollutant thresholds would not be exceeded.

During operations, activities within the Metro Specific Plan would also be required to implement Metro Specific Plan SFEIR MM AQ-7 to reduce operational area source emissions to the extent feasible, and Metro Specific Plan MM AQ-8 to offset operational criteria pollutant emissions through the purchase of mitigation credits.

As discussed above, the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR concluded that, even with implementation of MM AQ-1 through AQ-8, offset of cumulative impacts to criteria pollutants could not be guaranteed to reduce impact levels below the BAAQMD’s significance threshold. Since the proposed project would implement similar land use densities and intensities as the existing Metro Specific Plan, the proposed project in areas under the Metro Specific Plan would be consistent with the analysis within the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not introduce new significant environmental impacts or create substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. No additional analysis is required.
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Summary of General Plan FEIR
The General Plan FEIR determined that the implementation of the General Plan would have the potential to introduce new sources of TAC and PM2.5 emissions within the City as well as siting new sensitive receptors in close proximity to existing sources of air pollutants. However, the General Plan FEIR identified various policies and actions within the General Plan intended to minimize exposure of TACs to sensitive receptors within the City. For example, Policy CON 7-2 requires adequate buffer or setback distances between sensitive land uses and potential sources of toxic or harmful air emissions. Additionally, Policy CON 7-3 requires projects that generate high levels of pollutants to incorporate air quality mitigations into design, and Action CO-7c requires site-specific air quality Health Risk Assessments (HRAs) for developments that would place sensitive receptors within a specific distance from sources of TAC emissions. Furthermore, the General Plan FEIR found that all new sources of TAC emissions within the City would be required to obtain an Air Permit from BAAQMD, including the analysis of TAC or PM2.5 emissions generated and potential health impacts to the nearest sensitive receptor. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR determined that the General Plan

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas CEQA Checklist General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 60 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx would minimize exposure to TACs and PM2.5 concentrations within the City. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

Summary of Metro Specific Plan SFEIR
Toxic Air Contaminants
The Metro Specific Plan SFEIR determined that additional emissions generated by new stationary sources, vehicle trips, and construction activity could expose receptors to cancer and non-cancer risks in excess of BAAQMD significance thresholds during construction and operation. Furthermore, the Metro Specific Plan includes industrial development within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive receptors. Therefore, MM AQ-9 requires applicants to provide a project-level evaluation of construction- and operational-related health risks from future individual development projects.

However, the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR concluded that impacts would be significant and unavoidable because it is possible that mitigation for future project health risks may be inadequate to reduce impacts below BAAQMD’s threshold level.

Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusions
As discussed above, buildout of the proposed project would result in similar land use densities and intensities as those analyzed under the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. The proposed project would not propose any significant land use modifications that could result in a substantial increase in air pollutant emissions. Furthermore, future individual development projects would be required to comply with applicable General Plan policies and measures described above, as well as applicable BAAQMD rules and regulations, designed to minimize the potential exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of TACs and PM2.5 within the City. Within the Metro Specific Plan Area, future individual development projects would be required to implement Metro Specific Plan SFEIR MM AQ-9, which requires individual projects within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor to provide a project-level evaluation of construction- and operational-related health risks.

Furthermore, SFEIR MM AQ-1, which requires the use of at least Tier 4 engines and renewable diesel for off-road equipment, would also reduce TACs during construction. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not introduce new significant environmental impacts or create substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. No additional analysis is required. d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors or) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Summary of General Plan FEIR
The General Plan FEIR determined that potential odor sources within the City are the Newby Island Landfill and Composting operation, the Santa Clara/San Jose Wastewater Facility, which is also known as the Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), the Zanker Landfill and Composting Facility, and the Zanker Organic Digester Facility. The General Plan FEIR found that the General Plan does not include land uses within the vicinity of these or any other potential sources of objectional odors.

Future individual development projects with the potential to generate significant objectional odors would be required to undergo CEQA review, as applicable, and the implementation of the General

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR CEQA Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 61 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Plan policies would further minimize the potential for other emissions to adversely affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR concluded that impacts related to odors would be less than significant.

Summary of Metro Specific Plan SFEIR
The Metro Specific Plan SFEIR determined that the implementation of the Metro Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact related to odors. While odors from heavy-duty equipment and paving equipment could result during construction, these odors would be identical to those generated by construction activities in the previously adopted and previously analyzed TASP.

Therefore, the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR concluded that construction-related odor impacts would be less than significant. During operation, diesel exhaust from landscaping equipment and trash pickup could create unpleasant exhaust odors. However, the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR determined that these impacts would be temporary and localized. Therefore, the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR concluded that operation-related odor impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusions
Implementation of the proposed project would result in similar land use patterns as well as land use densities and intensities to those identified and analyzed under the General Plan FEIR and Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. Furthermore, the proposed project would not place sensitive land uses near odor sources beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not introduce new significant environmental impacts or create substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. No additional analysis is required.

Mitigation Measures
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures
None.

Metro Specific Plan SFEIR Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-1 Require at Least Tier 4 Final Engines on Construction Equipment All applicants proposing development of projects within the Metro Plan Area shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to further reduce constructionrelated exhaust emissions by ensuring that all off-road equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) and operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of construction activities, shall operate on at least an Environmental Protection Act (EPA)-approved Tier 4 Final or newer engine. Exemptions can be made for specialized equipment where Tier 4 engines are not commercially available within 200 miles of the Metro Plan Area. The construction contract must identify these pieces of equipment, document their unavailability, and ensure that they operate on no less than an EPA-approved Tier 3 engine.

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas CEQA Checklist General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 62 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx MM AQ-2 Require Use of Diesel Trucks with 2010-Compliant Model Year Engines All applicants proposing development of projects within the Metro Plan Area shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to use diesel trucks that have 2010 model year or newer engines, but no less than the average fleet mix for the current calendar year as set forth in the ARB’s EMFAC database. In the event that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained, the contractor must provide documentation to the City showing that a good faith effort to locate such engines was conducted.

MM AQ-3 Require Construction Fleet to Use Renewable Diesel All applicants proposing development of projects within the Metro Plan Area shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related exhaust emissions by ensuring that all off-road equipment greater than 50 hp and operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of construction activities shall operate on renewable diesel (such as high performance renewable diesel).

MM AQ-4 Require Low-VOC Coatings During Construction
All applicants proposing development of projects within the Metro Plan Area shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related fugitive ROG emissions by ensuring that low-VOC coatings that have a VOC content of 10 grams/liter (g/L) or less are used during construction. The project applicant will submit evidence of the use of low-VOC coatings to City prior to the start of construction.

MM AQ-5 Require Fugitive Dust Best Management Practices All applicants proposing development of projects within the Metro Plan Area shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related fugitive dust by implementing BAAQMD’s basic control measures at all construction and staging areas. The following measures would be implemented. • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) will be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site will be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads will be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads, driveways, or driving surfaces shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR CEQA Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 63 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved will be completed as soon as possible. Building pads will be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• A publicly visible sign will be posted with the telephone number and the name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person will respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the BAAQMD will also be visible to ensure compliance.

MM AQ-6 Purchase Mitigation Credits for Construction Emissions Exceeding BAAQMD’s Daily Pollutant Thresholds
Applicants proposing development of projects within the Metro Plan Area shall compare their project size with the BAAQMD screening sizes appropriate to their project for construction criteria pollutants found in Table 3-1 in BAAQMD’s current CEQA Guidelines (2017). The screening limit for general office buildings, office park, or government office building is 277,000 square feet. There are different screening limits for residential, retail, hotels, and other developments based off specific land use type (e.g., single-family housing, apartments, low-rise, hotels, strip malls). If the project is less than the screening limit for its project type, then applicants shall confirm to the City whether construction-related activities would include any of the following:
• Demolition.
• Simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases (e.g., paving and building construction would occur simultaneously) or construction would occur simultaneous with other Metro Plan development.
• Simultaneous construction of more than one land use type (e.g., project would develop residential and commercial uses on the same site) (not applicable to highdensity infill development). • Extensive site preparation (i.e., greater than default assumptions used by the CalEEMod model for grading, cut/fill, or earth movement). • Extensive material transport (e.g., greater than 10,000 cubic yards of soil import/export) requiring a considerable amount of haul truck activity.

If the project is less than the screening limit for the project type and construction would involve none of the five conditions above, no further action is required.

Project applicants not excluded by the conditions above shall estimate annual average emissions for each year of construction and compare the annual average emissions for each year of construction to the applicable BAAQMD thresholds at the time of analysis. The emissions estimate shall be provided as part of the project’s initial application to the City. The City will review the estimate and confirm whether offsets are required for construction. Should the City-confirmed estimate indicate that the proposed development estimate would not result in construction emissions exceeding BAAQMD’s daily pollutant thresholds, no further action will be required.

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas CEQA Checklist General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 64 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx For proposed developments that are estimated to result in exceedances of thresholds, the applicants shall coordinate with a third-party (e.g., Bay Area Clean Air Foundation) or governmental entity to pay for criteria pollutant offsets for every year in which construction emissions are estimated to exceed the BAAQMD thresholds. If the estimate shows exceedances of multiple criteria pollutants above the BAAQMD thresholds, then offsets must be obtained to address each pollutant above the thresholds. Emission reduction projects and fee will be determined in consultation between the applicant and the third-party or governmental entity and will include offset provider administrative costs. The agreement that specifies fees and timing of payment shall be provided to the City for review and signed by the applicant and the third-party or governmental entity. The emission reductions shall be secured prior to any year in which construction activity is estimated to result in an exceedance. The payment for the emissions can either be on an annual basis or done once upfront, prior to construction.

To qualify under this mitigation measure, the specific emissions reduction project(s) must result in emission reductions in the SFBAAB that are real, surplus, quantifiable, and enforceable, and that would not otherwise be achieved through compliance with existing regulatory requirements of any other legal requirement.

MM AQ-7 Restrict Use of Natural Gas in New Development
Future development within the Metro Plan Area shall utilize electric space and water heating to the maximum extent feasible or to the extent required by existing or future local building regulations. Natural gas infrastructure and appliances shall be installed to the extent feasible as determined by the availability and capacity of electrical power distribution infrastructure.

MM AQ-8 Purchase Mitigation Credits for Operational Emissions Exceeding BAAQMD’s Daily Pollutant Thresholds
Applicants proposing development of projects within the Metro Plan Area shall compare their project size with the BAAQMD screening sizes appropriate to their project for operational criteria pollutants found in Table 3-1 in BAAQMD’s current CEQA Guidelines (2017). The screening limit for general office buildings, office park, or government office building is 346,000 square feet, 323,000 square feet, and 61,000 square feet, respectively. There are different screening limits for residential, retail, hotels, and other developments based off specific land use type (e.g., singlefamily housing, apartments, low-rise, hotels, strip malls) If the project is less than the screening limit for the project type, then no further action is required.

Project applicants not excluded by the condition above shall estimate annual average operational emissions for each operational year over the life of the project

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR CEQA Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 65 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx (20 years) and compare the annual average emissions for each year of operations to the BAAQMD thresholds used in the EIR for criteria pollutants. The emissions estimate shall be provided as part of the project’s initial application to the City for the project. The City will review the estimate and confirm whether offsets are required for operation. Should the City-confirmed estimate indicate that the proposed development estimate would not result in operational emissions exceeding BAAQMD’s daily pollutant thresholds, no further action is required.

For proposed developments that are estimated to result in exceedances of thresholds during any year of the project’s life, the applicants shall coordinate with a third-party (e.g., Bay Area Clean Air Foundation) or governmental entity to pay for criteria pollutant offsets for every year in which operational emissions are estimated to exceed the BAAQMD thresholds. If the estimate shows exceedances of multiple criteria pollutants above the BAAQMD thresholds, then offsets must be obtained to address each pollutant above the thresholds. Emission reduction projects and fee will be determined in consultation between the applicant and the third-party or governmental entity and will include offset provider administrative costs. The agreement that specifies fees and timing of payment shall be provided to the City for review and signed by the applicant and the third-party or governmental entity. The emission reductions shall be secured prior to any year in which operational activity is estimated to result in an exceedance. The payment for the emissions can either be on an annual basis or done once upfront prior to operation.

To qualify under this mitigation measure, the specific emissions reduction project(s) must result in emission reductions in the SFBAAB that are real, surplus, quantifiable, and enforceable, and that would not otherwise be achieved through compliance with existing regulatory requirements of any other legal requirement.

MM AQ-9 Prepare a Health Risk Assessment
All applicants proposing development of projects in the Metro Plan Area within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive receptors, as defined by BAAQMD (e.g., residential), shall prepare a site-specific construction and operational Health Risk Assessment (HRA). The HRA shall include all reasonably foreseeable sources of TAC, consistent with BAAQMD guidelines. If the HRA demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City, that the health risk exposures or PM2.5 concentrations for adjacent receptors would be less than BAAQMD project-level thresholds, then additional mitigation would be unnecessary. However, if the HRA demonstrates that health risks or PM2.5 concentrations would exceed BAAQMD project-level thresholds, additional feasible on- and off-site mitigation would be analyzed by the applicant to help reduce risks to the greatest extent practicable. Mitigation may include installation of indoor air filters (MERV 13 or higher) at sensitive receptor locations and planting of vegetation and trees as pollution buffers.

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas CEQA Checklist General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 66 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project
Implement MM AQ-1, MM AQ-2, MM AQ-3, MM AQ-4, MM AQ-5, MM AQ-6, MM AQ-7, MM AQ-8, and MM AQ-9.

Conclusion
With regard to Air Quality, the analysis demonstrates that:

1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which require major revisions to the previously certified EIRs due to new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

2. No substantial changes are proposed with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which require major revisions to the previously certified EIRs due to new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

3. No new information of substantial importance indicates any new or more significant effects than shown in the previously certified EIRs.

4. No new mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible, would in fact be feasible and would reduce one or more significant effects of the project. No new mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previously certified EIRs would substantially reduce significant impacts. None of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR CEQA Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 67 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion
in General
Plan FEIR
Conclusion
in Metro
Specific
Plan SFEIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
General
Plan FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Metro
Specific
Plan SFEIR
Mitigation
Measures
IV. Biological Resources
Would the project:
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 Wildlife
or United States
Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None None
b) Have a
substantial
adverse effect on
any riparian
habitat or other
sensitive natural
community
identified in local
or regional plans,
policies, and
regulations or by
the California
Department of
Fish and Wildlife
or United States
Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None None
c) Have a
substantial
adverse effect on
State or federally
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None None

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas CEQA Checklist General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 68 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion
in General
Plan FEIR
Conclusion
in Metro
Specific
Plan SFEIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
General
Plan FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Metro
Specific
Plan SFEIR
Mitigation
Measures
protected
wetlands
(including, but
not limited to,
marsh, vernal
pool, coastal,
etc.) through
direct removal,
filling,
hydrological
interruption, or
other means?
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 wildlife
nursery sites?
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None None
e) Conflict with any
local policies or
ordinances
protecting
biological
resources, such
as a tree
preservation
policy or
ordinance?
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None None
f) Conflict with the
provisions of an
adopted Habitat
Conservation
Plan, Natural
Community
Conservation
Plan, or other
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None None

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR CEQA Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 69 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion
in General
Plan FEIR
Conclusion
in Metro
Specific
Plan SFEIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
General
Plan FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Metro
Specific
Plan SFEIR
Mitigation
Measures
approved local,
regional, or State
Habitat
Conservation
Plan?
Discussion
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 Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service?
Summary of General Plan FEIR
The General Plan FEIR concluded that development associated with the implementation of the General Plan could result in the direct loss of habitat areas associated with special-status plant and animal species. Additionally, indirect impacts to special-status plant and animal species could occur, including habitat degradation, due to impacts to water quality, increased human presence, and loss of foraging habitat. However, special-status plant and animal species receive protection from various federal and State laws and regulations, including the Endangered Species Act and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). These regulations generally prohibit the removal of a species or direct impact to foraging and breeding habitats without a special permit. Additionally, the General Plan FEIR indicated that the General Plan includes various policies and actions intended to reduce or avoid impacts to special-status plant and animal species, such as General Plan Policies CON 2-1, CON 2-3, CON 3-1, CON 3-2, CON 3-4, CON 3-5, and CON 3-7, which require the conservation and/or replacement of trees, preservation of riparian corridors, and development of an urban forest along major corridors. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

Summary of Metro Specific Plan SFEIR
The Metro Specific Plan SFEIR concluded that future development projects would be required to comply with the General Plan and the Metro Specific Plan. Furthermore, the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR determined that the Metro Specific Plan could impact biological resources, such as burrowing owls, special-status raptor and bird species, significant trees, wetland, creeks, drainages, and riparian habitats. However, with the implementation of policies within the General Plan and the Metro Specific Plan, the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR concluded that impacts related to biological resources would be less than significant.

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas CEQA Checklist General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 70 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusions
The proposed project does not propose any physical development and would result in similar land use patterns, densities, and intensities to those already evaluated in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR, thereby precluding the potential for new impacts associated with biological resources beyond those already evaluated and disclosed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. Future development and land use activities resulting from the proposed project would be subject to federal and State regulations, including the Endangered Species Act and CESA, as well as General Plan goals, policies, and actions that would reduce impacts related to special-status plant and animal species.

Future development projects would also be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan, Metro Specific Plan, Municipal Code, and other regulations, as applicable. Applicable policies may include, but are not limited to, General Plan Policies CON 2-1, CON 2-3, CON 3-1, CON 3-2, CON 3-4, CON 3-5, and CON 3-7, which require the conservation and/or replacement of trees, preservation of riparian corridors, and development of an urban forest along major corridors. The General Plan also includes Action CON-2a, 2b, 2f, 3a through 3c, 3f, 3g, 3j, and 3l, which involve coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Santa Clara County, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and local water district groups; and require compliance with the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan.

Additionally, applicable Metro Specific Plan policies may include Policy SC 9.1, which protects bird habitat, Policy SC 8.1, which requires review and permitting for construction over the Santa Clara Valley Water District fee or easement lands, Policy SC 8.2, which requires new development adjacent to creeks to comply with standards for land uses near streams, and Policy SC 8.3, which requires minimum setbacks adjacent to creeks and drainage channels.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not introduce new significant environmental impacts or create substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. No additional analysis is required. b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or United States Fish and Wildlife Service? Summary of General Plan FEIR
The General Plan FEIR concluded that development associated with the implementation of the General Plan could change the physical environment, thereby adversely affecting riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities. A California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) search revealed three sensitive natural communities within the 12-quad region of the Planning Area, including the aquatic communities of the Northern Coastal Salt Marsh and the Sycamore Alluvial Woodland, as well as the terrestrial community of Serpentine Bunchgrass grassland. Additionally, the General Plan FEIR identified numerous aquatic habitats that qualify as sensitive habitat within the City. Therefore, implementation of individual projects would require site-specific review of the project site to determine the presence or absence of riparian habitat or natural sensitive communities. If riparian habitat or natural sensitive communities are present and disturbance is required, federal and State laws require measures to reduce, avoid, or compensate for impacts to these resources. Furthermore,

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR CEQA Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 71 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx development projects would be required to comply with the General Plan’s policies intended to protect sensitive natural communities, such as General Plan Policies CON-3.1 through CON-3.6, which require the preservation and enhancement of biological communities and riparian habitat and limit the disturbance of natural water bodies and drainage systems in the City. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

Summary of Metro Specific Plan SFEIR
Refer to summary provided in Impact IV(a).

Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusions
The proposed project does not propose any physical development and would result in similar land use patterns, densities, and intensities to those already evaluated in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR, thereby precluding the potential for new impacts associated with sensitive natural communities and riparian habitat beyond those already evaluated and disclosed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. Future development and land use activities resulting from the proposed project would be subject to federal and State regulations, as well as General Plan goals, policies, and actions, detailed above, which would require site-specific review of future project sites to determine whether riparian habitat or natural sensitive communities are present and mitigate as necessary.

Future development projects would also be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan, Metro Specific Plan, Municipal Code, and other regulations, as applicable. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not introduce new significant environmental impacts or create substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR.

No additional analysis is required.
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Summary of General Plan FEIR
The General Plan FEIR determined that the City contains numerous aquatic habitats that qualify as federally protected wetlands and jurisdictional waters found in the northwest corner of the Planning Area. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires any project that involves disturbance to a wetland or water of the United States to obtain a permit that authorizes the disturbance. If a project cannot avoid a wetland or jurisdictional water, then the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) requires that an equal amount of wetland be created elsewhere to mitigate loss of wetlands.

The General Plan FEIR determined that construction activities could result in the disturbance or loss of protected waters of the United States, but individual projects would be required to have a detailed review of the project site to determine the presence or absence of water features and to reduce, avoid, or compensate for impacts to these resources. Furthermore, projects would be required to comply with the General Plan’s policies and actions intended to protect wetlands and

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas CEQA Checklist General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 72 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx jurisdictional water features, such as General Plan Policies CON-3.1 through CON-3.6, which require the preservation and enhancement of biological communities and riparian habitat and limit the disturbance of natural water bodies and drainage systems in the City. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

Summary of Metro Specific Plan SFEIR
Refer to summary provided in Impact IV(a).

Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusions
The proposed project does not propose any physical development and would result in similar land use patterns, densities, and intensities to those already evaluated in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR, thereby precluding the potential for new impacts associated with federally protected wetlands beyond those already evaluated and disclosed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. Future development and land use activities resulting from the proposed project would be subject to federal and State regulations, including CWA and USACE requirements, as well as General Plan goals, policies, and actions intended to protect wetlands and jurisdictional water features, described above.

Future development projects would also be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan, Metro Specific Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other regulations, as applicable. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not introduce new significant environmental impacts or create substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. No additional analysis is required. 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 wildlife nursery sites?
Summary of General Plan FEIR
The General Plan FEIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with wildlife corridors. The General Plan FEIR found that the City contains numerous aquatic habitats that may be used for movement of wildlife, but the areas of land next to waterways within the city limits were generally designated for urban uses by the previous Land Use Map and were generally developed with urban uses. Therefore, the creeks at the time did not function as important movement corridors for native wildlife.

The updated General Plan Land Use Map that was adopted as part of the implementation of the most recent General Plan designates the majority of land adjacent to existing waterways as POS to allow the area to be used by wildlife as movement corridors.

Discretionary projects associated with the implementation of the General Plan would be required to undergo a detailed review to determine the presence or absence of movement corridors on the project site and to reduce, avoid, or compensate for impacts to these resources. Furthermore, the

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR CEQA Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 73 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx General Plan contains policies and actions intended to protect movement corridors, including Policies CON-3.1 through CON-3.6 and Actions CON-3a through 3c, CON-3e, CON-3f, CON-3h, CON3j, and CON-3l. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

Summary of Metro Specific Plan SFEIR
Refer to summary provided in Impact IV(a).

Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusions
The proposed project does not propose any physical development and would result in similar land use patterns, densities, and intensities to those already evaluated in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. Additionally, the proposed project does not propose to convert any open space lands to urban uses. In fact, as illustrated in Table 6, six of the seven parcels undergoing General Plan land use designation updates would be converted to the POS land use designation, thereby reducing the overall allowable intensity of development. This would preclude the potential for new impacts on wildlife movement corridors beyond those already evaluated and disclosed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. Future development and land use activities resulting from the proposed project would be subject to federal and State regulations, including CWA and USACE requirements, as well as General Plan goals, policies, and actions, described above, which require individual projects to determine the presence or absence of movement corridors and to mitigate impacts as necessary.

Furthermore, future development projects would also be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan, Metro Specific Plan, Municipal Code, and other regulations, as applicable. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not introduce new significant environmental impacts or create substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. No additional analysis is required. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Summary of General Plan FEIR
The General Plan FEIR concluded that since the General Plan is a policy-level document, it would not conflict with local policies or ordinances. Further, individual development projects associated with the implementation of the General Plan would be required to comply with the General Plan and with the Municipal Code. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Summary of Metro Specific Plan SFEIR
Refer to summary provided in Impact IV(a).

Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusions
The proposed project does not propose any physical development and would result in similar land use patterns, densities, and intensities to those already evaluated in the General Plan FEIR and the

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas CEQA Checklist General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 74 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Metro Specific Plan SFEIR, thereby precluding the potential for new impacts on the City’s existing and proposed local policies protecting biological resources beyond those already evaluated and disclosed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. Future development projects would be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan, Metro Specific Plan, Municipal Code, and other regulations, as applicable. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not introduce new significant environmental impacts or create substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. No additional analysis is required.
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? Summary of General Plan FEIR
The General Plan FEIR found that implementation of the General Plan would not conflict with the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan or any other Habitat Conservation Plans. The City is not currently a permittee of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, and the land within the city limits is not within the Habitat Plan Study Area and Permit Area. Additionally, the General Plan FEIR determined that the Land Use Map did not re-designate any land designated for open space or habitat protection.

Although the Cit is not a permittee of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, future projects associated with the implementation of the General Plan would be required to comply with the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan through the implementation of General Plan Action CON-3a, which states “Require new development, as well as infrastructure projects, long-range planning projects, and other projects, to comply with the requirements of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan to ensure that potentially significant impacts to special-status species and sensitive resources are adequately addressed.” Therefore, the General Plan FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

Summary of Metro Specific Plan SFEIR
Refer to summary provided in Impact IV(a).

Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusions
The proposed project does not propose any physical development and would result in similar land use patterns, densities, and intensities to those already evaluated in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR, thereby precluding the potential for new impacts on Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) or Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs) beyond those already evaluated and disclosed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. Future development and land use activities resulting from the proposed project would be required to comply with the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan through the implementation of Action CON-3a in the General Plan. Furthermore, future development projects would also be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan, Metro Specific Plan, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, Municipal Code, and other regulations, as applicable.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not introduce new significant environmental impacts or create substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. No additional analysis is required.

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR CEQA Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 75 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Mitigation Measures
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures
None.

Metro Specific Plan SFEIR Mitigation Measures
None.

Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project
None required.

Conclusion
With regard to Biological Resources, the analysis demonstrates that:

1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which require major revisions to the previously certified EIRs due to new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

2. No substantial changes are proposed with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which require major revisions to the previously certified EIRs due to new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

3. No new information of substantial importance indicates any new or more significant effects than shown in the previously certified EIRs.

4. No mitigation measures are necessary because the proposed project’s specific impacts would be less than significant.

5. None of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas CEQA Checklist General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 76 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion
in General
Plan FEIR
Conclusion in
Metro
Specific Plan
SFEIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
General
Plan FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Metro
Specific
Plan SFEIR
Mitigation
Measures
V. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a
substantial
adverse change in
the significance
of a historical
resource as
pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None None
b) Cause a
substantial
adverse change in
the significance
of an
archaeological
resource
pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None None
c) Disturb any
human remains,
including those
interred outside of
formal
cemeteries?
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None None
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:
d) Listed or eligible
for listing in the
California Register
of Historical
Resources, or in a
local register of
historical
resources as
defined in Public
Resources Code
Section 5020.1(k),
or
Less than
significant
impact
No impact No No No None None

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR CEQA Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 77 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion
in General
Plan FEIR
Conclusion in
Metro
Specific Plan
SFEIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
General
Plan FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Metro
Specific
Plan SFEIR
Mitigation
Measures
e) A resource
determined by the
lead agency, in its
discretion and
supported by
substantial
evidence, to be
significant
pursuant to
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of
Public Resources
Code Section
5024.1. In
applying the
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of
Public Resource
Code Section
5024.1, the lead
agency shall
consider the
significance of the
resource to a
California Native
American Tribe.

Less than
significant
impact
No impact No No No None None
Discussion
Cultural Resources
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Summary of General Plan FEIR
The General Plan FEIR determined that the General Plan Planning Area includes various known historic resource sites and would have the potential for undiscovered prehistoric sites to be located in the Planning Area as well. Thirty-three cultural resources have been identified within the Planning Area and 25 buildings are identified on the Santa Clara County Historic Property Data File Directory.

The General Plan FEIR further determined that future development associated with the implementation of the General Plan could affect known historical or unknown historical and archaeological resources which have not yet been identified.

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas CEQA Checklist General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 78 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Future projects would be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable State and local regulations, as well as analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with CEQA. Additionally, the General Plan FEIR includes policies and actions that would reduce impacts to cultural, historic, and archaeological resources, such as requiring archaeological monitoring, halting ground-disturbing activities and construction in the event that a resource is discovered, and Tribal consultation. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR concluded that impacts related to historic and archaeological resources would be less than significant.

Summary of Metro Specific Plan SFEIR
The Metro Specific Plan SFEIR determined that future projects associated with the implementation of the Metro Specific Plan would include ground-disturbing activities that could potentially affect known archaeological resources. The Metro Specific Plan SFEIR identified only one known archaeological resource (CA-SCL-593) within the Metro Specific Plan Area. However, future projects would be required to comply with General Plan Actions CON-4a and 4b, which require surveys prior to the approval of a project that would require excavation in an area sensitive for cultural or archaeological resources and the approval of measures to conserve, preserve, and document discovered resources. Additionally, the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR determined that Metro Specific Plan Policy SC 7 would require archaeological monitoring to reduce impacts. Therefore, the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusions
The proposed project does not include any ground disturbance and therefore would not directly result in impacts related to historic resources. Future individual development projects would be required to comply with General Plan policies and actions, such as Policy CON 4-1, which requires a record search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University. Furthermore, Policy CON 5-2 requires that future individual development projects evaluate the condition of historical buildings when considering the demolition of historic structures, and Action CON 4a requires a cultural survey prior to approval of any project in areas that are sensitive for cultural or archaeological resources. If historic resources are identified, Action CON 4b requires that all development, infrastructure, and other ground-disturbing projects comply with certain conditions and processes in the event that there is an inadvertent discovery of historic resources. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not introduce new significant environmental impacts or create substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. No additional analysis is required.
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Summary of General Plan FEIR
Refer to summary provided in Impact V(a).

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR CEQA Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 79 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Summary of Metro Specific Plan SFEIR
The Metro Specific Plan SFEIR determined that there is a moderate to high potential for unrecorded Native American cultural resources to be located within the Metro Specific Plan Area. Future projects associated with the implementation of the Metro Specific Plan would be required to comply with General Plan Actions CON-4a and Action CON-4b, which require archaeological monitoring and protection measures if resources are uncovered. Metro Specific Plan Policy SC 7 would also be implemented, which requires archaeological monitoring. Therefore, the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR concluded that impacts related to unknown archaeological resources would be less than significant.

Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusions
The proposed project does not include any ground disturbance and therefore would not directly result in impacts related to historic resources. Future individual development projects would be required to comply with General Plan policies and actions, such as Policy CON 4-1, which requires a record search of the CHRIS at the NWIC at Sonoma State University. Action CON 4a requires a cultural survey prior to approval of any project in areas that are sensitive for cultural or archaeological resources. If archaeological resources are identified, Action CON 4b requires that all development, infrastructure, and other ground-disturbing projects comply with certain conditions and processes in the event that there is an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources.

Furthermore, Metro Specific Plan Policy SC 7 requires archaeological and Native American monitoring, cultural sensitivity training for the general contractor and those conducting grounddisturbing activities, and inadvertent discovery procedures for all projects involving ground disturbance within the Metro Specific Plan Area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not introduce new significant environmental impacts or create substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. No additional analysis is required.
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Summary of General Plan FEIR
The General Plan FEIR determined that excavation and construction activities allowed under the General Plan may yield human remains that may not be marked in former burials. Future projects may disturb or destroy buried Native American human remains. However, the General Plan FEIR further identified that future development projects in the City would be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and State and local regulations, as well as analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with CEQA. Public Resources Code Section 5097 requires construction activities to stop work and follow specific notification procedures in the event that human remains are inadvertently discovered during development activities. The General Plan also requires that human remains are treated in compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR concluded that impacts related to human remains would be less than significant.

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas CEQA Checklist General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 80 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Summary of Metro Specific Plan SFEIR
The Metro Specific Plan SFEIR determined that future projects associated with the implementation of the Metro Specific Plan would include ground-disturbing activities that could potentially affect human remains. The Metro Specific Plan SFEIR found that human remains were identified in association with CA-SCL-593 within the Metro Specific Plan Area and identified a moderate to high potential for encountering as-yet undiscovered archaeological resources containing further human remains. Metro Specific Plan Policy SC 7 requires archaeological monitoring that would reduce impacts related to human remains, and if human remains are discovered, General Plan Action CON4b would require halting work, notifying the County Coroner, and determining next steps to reduce and mitigate impacts. The General Plan also requires that human remains are treated in compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Therefore, the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR concluded that impacts related to human remains would be less than significant.

Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusions
The proposed project does not include any ground disturbance and therefore would not result in impacts related to historic resources. Future individual development projects would be required to comply with General Plan policies and actions, such as Policy CON 4-1, which requires a record search of the CHRIS at the NWIC at Sonoma State University. Policy CON 4-2 requires that if human remains are found during construction, they are treated in compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Policy CON 4-3 requires collaboration with Native American Tribal representatives to identify and appropriately address impacts to Native American cultural resources and sacred sites during the development review process. Action CON 4a requires a cultural survey prior to approval of any project in areas that are sensitive for cultural or archaeological resources. If archaeological resources are identified, Action CON 4b requires all development, infrastructure, and other grounddisturbing projects comply with certain conditions and processes in the event that there is an inadvertent discovery of human remains. Furthermore, Metro Specific Plan Policy SC 7 requires archaeological and Native American monitoring, cultural sensitivity training for the general contractor and those conducting ground-disturbing activities, and inadvertent discovery procedures for all projects involving ground disturbance within the Metro Specific Plan Area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not introduce new significant environmental impacts or create substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. No additional analysis is required.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR CEQA Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 81 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx d. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or e. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.

Summary of General Plan FEIR
The General Plan FEIR identified that no responses to Tribal consultation conducted under Senate Bill (SB) 18 were received and no specific resources were identified through consultation with affiliated Tribes. However, the General Plan FEIR determined that it is possible unknown cultural resources may be present and could be adversely affected by the implementation of the General Plan. Future projects would be required to be evaluated for project-specific impacts under CEQA at the time of project application, and the General Plan and CEQA Guidelines require Tribal consultation and the protection of any identified archaeological and Tribal resources. With the implementation of General Plan policies and actions, such as General Plan Action CON 4a and 4b, local review guidelines, and State and local guidelines, the General Plan FEIR concluded that impacts related to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) would be less than significant.

Summary of Metro Specific Plan SFEIR
The Metro Specific Plan SFEIR determined that the General Plan includes policies and actions to protect TCRs in compliance with AB 52. While ground disturbance associated with new construction could result in temporary or permanent construction-related impacts on TCRs during ground disturbance, no TCRs have been identified within the Metro Specific Plan Area. Furthermore, the City has not received any requests from Tribes to be notified of future projects under AB 52. Therefore, the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR concluded that impacts related to TCRs would be less than significant.

Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusions
The proposed project does not include any ground disturbance and therefore would not directly result in impacts related to TCRs. Future individual development projects would be required to comply with General Plan policies and actions, such as Policy CON 4-1, which requires a record search of the CHRIS at the NWIC at Sonoma State University. Policy CON 4-2 requires that if TCRs are found during construction, they are treated in compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Policy CON 4- 3 requires collaboration with Native American Tribal representatives to identify and appropriately address, impacts to Native American cultural resources and sacred sites during the development review process. Policy CON 4-4 requires compliance with SB 18 and AB 52 related to Tribal intergovernmental consultation. Action CON 4a requires a cultural survey prior to approval of any project in areas that are sensitive for TCRs. If archaeological resources are identified, Action CON 4b requires that all development, infrastructure, and other ground-disturbing activities comply with certain conditions and processes in the event that there is an inadvertent discovery of TCRs.

Furthermore, Metro Specific Plan Policy SC 7 requires archaeological and Native American

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas CEQA Checklist General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 82 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx monitoring, cultural sensitivity training for the general contractor and those conducting grounddisturbing activities, and inadvertent discovery procedures for all projects involving ground disturbance within the Metro Specific Plan Area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not introduce new significant environmental impacts or create substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. No additional analysis is required.

Mitigation Measures
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures
None.

Metro Specific Plan SFEIR Mitigation Measures
None.

Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project
None required.

Conclusion
With regard to Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources, the analysis demonstrates that:

1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which require major revisions to the previously certified EIRs due to new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

2. No substantial changes are proposed with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which require major revisions to the previously certified EIRs due to new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

3. No new information of substantial importance indicates any new or more significant effects than shown in the previously certified EIRs.

4. No mitigation measures are necessary because the proposed project’s specific impacts would be less than significant.

5. None of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR CEQA Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 83 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion
in General
Plan FEIR
Conclusion in
Metro
Specific Plan
SFEIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
General
Plan FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Metro
Specific
Plan SFEIR
Mitigation
Measures
VI. Energy
Would the project:
a) Result in
potentially
significant
environmental
impact due to
wasteful,
inefficient, or
unnecessary
consumption of
energy resources,
during project
construction or
operation?
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None None
b) Conflict with or
obstruct a State or
local plan for
renewable energy
or energy
efficiency?
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None None
Discussion
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b. Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Summary of General Plan FEIR
The General Plan FEIR determined that the implementation of the General Plan would not cause an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources or conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Buildout of the General Plan would use energy resources for the operation of buildings, on-road vehicle trips, and off-road construction activities.

However, the General Plan FEIR determined that future individual development projects would conserve energy to the maximum extent feasible and would reduce per capita energy consumption to achieve this goal, since the General Plan requires that all implementing projects comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations regulating energy usage. Furthermore, the General Plan FEIR would comply with the State’s latest Title 24 building energy efficiency standards and other

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas CEQA Checklist General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 84 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Statewide measures intended to improve energy efficiency. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR concluded that impacts related to energy would be less than significant.

Summary of Metro Specific Plan SFEIR
The Metro Specific Plan SFEIR determined that energy would be required during construction of the Metro Specific Plan for construction equipment, employee and haul truck trips, lighting, and heat.

The Metro Specific Plan FEIR found that the Metro Specific Plan was compliant with the applicable federal, State, and local regulations regulating energy usage. The Metro Specific Plan SFEIR determined that the Metro Specific Plan is compliant with the General Plan and the updated Climate Action Plan (CAP). The Metro Specific Plan also aims to promote higher density and intensity development to provide an opportunity for advancing sustainability measures related to accessibility, energy use, and resource management. The Metro Specific Plan SFEIR identified that the Metro Specific Plan would be consistent with the goals of the Plan Bay Area 2050 prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).

Future individual development projects would also comply with the State’s latest Title 24 building energy efficiency standards, as well as the Municipal Code. The Metro Specific Plan further incorporates policies to prevent wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.

Additionally, the Metro Specific Plan FEIR identified that Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE), the local Community Choice Aggregation (CCA), in conjunction with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), would maintain sufficient capacity to serve residential and commercial electricity customers in the Metro Specific Plan Area. Therefore, the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR concluded that impacts related to energy resources would be less than significant.

Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusions
As discussed in Section 2.3.1, Project Summary, implementation of the proposed project would result in similar land use patterns, densities and intensities to those analyzed by the General Plan FEIR and Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan FEIR and Metro Specific Plan SFEIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. All projects within the City would be required to comply with applicable regulations stated above to ensure efficient energy use.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not introduce new significant environmental impacts or create substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. No additional analysis is required.

Mitigation Measures
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures
None.

Metro Specific Plan SFEIR Mitigation Measures
None.

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR CEQA Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 85 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project
None required.

Conclusion
With regard to Energy, the analysis demonstrates that:

1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which require major revisions to the previously certified EIRs due to new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

2. No substantial changes are proposed with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which require major revisions to the previously certified EIRs due to new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

3. No new information of substantial importance indicates any new or more significant effects than shown in the previously certified EIRs.

4. No mitigation measures are necessary because the proposed project’s specific impacts would be less than significant.

5. None of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas CEQA Checklist General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 86 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion
in General
Plan FEIR
Conclusion in
Metro
Specific Plan
SFEIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
General
Plan FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Metro
Specific
Plan SFEIR
Mitigation
Measures
VII. Geology, Seismicity, and Soils
Would the project:
a) Directly or
indirectly cause
potential
substantial
adverse effects,
including the risk
of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a
known
earthquake
fault, as
delineated on
the most
recent AlquistPriolo
Earthquake
Fault Zoning
Map issued by
the State
Geologist for
the area or
based on
other
substantial
evidence of a
known fault?
Refer to
Division of
Mines and
Geology
Special
Publication 42.

Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None None
ii) Strong seismic
ground
shaking?
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None None
iii) Seismicrelated ground
failure,
including
liquefaction?
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None None

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR CEQA Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 87 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion
in General
Plan FEIR
Conclusion in
Metro
Specific Plan
SFEIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
General
Plan FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Metro
Specific
Plan SFEIR
Mitigation
Measures
iv) Landslides? Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None None
b) Result in
substantial soil
erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None None
c) Be located on a
geologic unit or
soil that is
unstable, or that
would become
unstable as a
result of the
project, and
potentially result
in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral
spreading,
subsidence,
liquefaction or
collapse?
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None None
d) Be located on
expansive soil, as
defined in Table
18-1-B of the
Uniform Building
Code (1994),
creating
substantial direct
or indirect risks to
life or property?
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None None
e) Have soils
incapable of
adequately
supporting the
use of septic tanks
or alternative
wastewater
disposal systems
where sewers are
not available for
the disposal of
wastewater?
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None None

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas CEQA Checklist General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 88 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion
in General
Plan FEIR
Conclusion in
Metro
Specific Plan
SFEIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
General
Plan FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Metro
Specific
Plan SFEIR
Mitigation
Measures
f) Directly or
indirectly destroy
a unique
paleontological
resource or site or
unique geologic
feature?
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None None
Discussion
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Summary of General Plan FEIR
The General Plan FEIR determined that development associated with the implementation of the General Plan would have the potential to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, related to surface rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, ground instability/failure, or expansive soils. The Planning Area includes known active faults, and the Hayward Fault Zone traverses the Planning Area. Unstable geologic units could be present within the Planning Area, including those at risk for liquefaction, landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse, and the majority of the land within the Planning Area has moderately to very highly expansive soils, while the eastern and western portions of the Planning Area have low expansive soils. The areas with

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR CEQA Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 89 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx moderately to highly expansive soils would require special design considerations due to shrink-swell potentials.

Furthermore, the General Plan FEIR determined that implementation of the General Plan has the potential to result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Construction-related erosion could result in the loss of a substantial amount of nonrenewable topsoil and adversely affect water quality in surface waters. However, the General Plan FEIR identified that, because the majority of the land within the city limits contains urban uses, the erosion potential is low.

The General Plan FEIR found that all future projects would be required to comply with the provisions of the California Building Standards Code (CBC), which require geotechnical studies, engineering improvements to address potential seismic and ground failure issues, and earthquake-resistant construction techniques. Future individual development projects would be evaluated for conformance with the CBC, General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other regulations. Further, the General Plan requires review of development proposals to ensure compliance with the California Health and Safety Code, applicable building standards related to seismic safety, and CEQA.

Therefore, the General Plan FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

Summary of Metro Specific Plan SFEIR
The Metro Specific Plan SFEIR concluded that future individual development projects in the Metro Specific Plan Area would be required to comply with the CBC, building permit applications (which require a preliminary soils report) the Municipal Code, a geotechnical investigation and appropriate mitigation measures for development within a seismic hazard zone, and General Plan Policy 5.a-I-3, which requires that projects comply with the guidelines prescribed in the City’s Geotechnical Hazards Evaluation manual. Therefore, the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR concluded that impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant.

Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusions
The proposed project does not propose any physical development, which precludes the potential for new impacts associated with seismic hazards, erosion, sedimentation, unstable geologic units, and expansive soils beyond those already evaluated and disclosed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. Construction-related soil erosion could occur during future discretionary projects associated with the implementation of the proposed project. However, most development that could occur as a result of the proposed project would take place on lands that already contain urban uses, which have a low erosion potential.

Furthermore, future development and land use activities resulting from the proposed project would be subject to General Plan goals, policies, and actions that would reduce impacts related to development occurring in a fault zone, ground shaking, ground failure, and landslides. Future development projects would be evaluated for conformance with the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), General Plan, Metro Specific Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other regulations described above, as applicable. Future projects would be required to develop and implement a sitespecific geotechnical study in compliance with the State and City codes. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not introduce new significant environmental impacts or create

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas CEQA Checklist General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 90 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. No additional analysis is required. e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Summary of General Plan FEIR
The General Plan FEIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would not have the potential for soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Construction within the city limits would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems because wastewater would be discharged into the existing public sanitary sewer system in the Planning Area. Additionally, the General Plan FEIR identified that adequate system capacity is ensured through implementation and periodic auditing of the Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) and sewer-related capital improvement project (CIP) projects and studies. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

Summary of Metro Specific Plan SFEIR
Refer to summary provided in Impact VII(a).

Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusions
Existing urban development within the General Plan Planning Area and the Metro Specific Plan Area is currently served with sanitary sewer service provided by the City. New urban development that would occur within the Planning Area or the Metro Specific Plan Area as a result of the proposed project would be served by sanitary sewer service. No new septic systems or alternative wastewater systems are contemplated by the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not introduce new significant environmental impacts or create substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. No additional analysis is required.
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Summary of General Plan FEIR
The General Plan FEIR determined that there could be fossils of potential scientific significance and other unique geologic features that remain undiscovered and are not recorded. Ground-disturbing construction associated with the implementation of the General Plan could potentially uncover previously unknown resources. However, the General Plan FEIR found that implementation of the General Plan policies and actions would ensure steps would be taken to minimize impacts to paleontological resources if they are discovered during construction. This includes Action CON 4b, which requires that all work within 100 feet of a paleontological discovery cease until it can be evaluated by a paleontologist. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR CEQA Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 91 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Summary of Metro Specific Plan SFEIR
Refer to summary provided in Impact VII(a).

Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusions
The proposed project would largely maintain the existing land use patterns throughout the General Plan Planning Area and the Metro Specific Plan Area, thereby precluding the potential for new, unaddressed impacts on paleontological resources beyond those already evaluated and disclosed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. Future individual development projects would be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local policies regarding paleontological resources, including Action CON 4b. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not introduce new significant environmental impacts or create substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. No additional analysis is required.

Mitigation Measures
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures
None.

Metro Specific Plan SFEIR Mitigation Measures
None.

Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project
None required.

Conclusion
With regard to Geology, Seismicity, and Soils, the analysis demonstrates that:

1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which require major revisions to the previously certified EIRs due to new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

2. No substantial changes are proposed with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which require major revisions to the previously certified EIRs due to new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

3. No new information of substantial importance indicates any new or more significant effects than shown in the previously certified EIRs.

4. No mitigation measures are necessary because the proposed project’s specific impacts would be less than significant.

5. None of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas CEQA Checklist General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 92 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion
in General
Plan FEIR
Conclusion in
Metro
Specific Plan
SFEIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
General
Plan FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Metro
Specific Plan
SFEIR
Mitigation
Measures
VIII.Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
a) Generate
greenhouse gas
emissions, either
directly or
indirectly, that
may have a
significant impact
on the
environment?
Less than
significant
impact
Significant
and
unavoidable
impact
No No No None MM GHG-1,
MM GHG-2,
and
MM GHG-3
b) Conflict with any
applicable plan,
policy or
regulation
adopted for the
purpose of
reducing the
emissions of
greenhouse
gases?
Less than
significant
impact
Significant
and
unavoidable
impact
No No No None MM GHG-1,
MM GHG-2,
and
MM GHG-3
Discussion
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Summary of General Plan FEIR
The General Plan FEIR determined that the implementation of the General Plan would contribute to increases of GHG emissions that are associated with global climate change, including increases of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O).

Short-term Emissions
Short-term GHG emissions would occur because of construction equipment used for demolition, grading, paving, and building construction activities. The General Plan FEIR identified that construction-related GHG emissions would be assessed on a project-by-project basis and would be required to comply with the State’s requirements for GHG emissions, as required by the City’s CAP

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR CEQA Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 93 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx and the BAAQMD. For example, Milpitas CAP Measure 12.2 encourages projects to comply with BAAQMD performance-based BMPs that reduce GHG emissions during construction. Further, General Plan Policy CON 704 requires projects to adhere to the requirements of the BAAQMD, and Policy CON 705 requires the City to use the development review process and the CEQA process to evaluate and mitigate effects of new development on air quality.

Long-Term Emissions
The General Plan FEIR determined that future individual development projects would result in continuous GHG emissions from mobile, area, and operational sources. However, the implementation of the General Plan would reduce VMT per capita and per service population at buildout, thereby decreasing GHG emissions in the long run. Additionally, the General Plan FEIR acknowledges that the City’s CAP is a Qualified GHG Reduction Plan, which identifies reduction measures and implementation strategies to achieve the State-recommended GHG emissions reduction targets. The General Plan FEIR identifies several General Plan policies that directly support and implement the goals established by the CAP. Because future individual development projects would be required to comply with the General Plan and adopted federal, State, and local regulations, the General Plan FEIR concluded that impacts related to the generation of GHG emissions would be less than significant.

Conflict with Applicable Plans and Policies
The General Plan FEIR determined that the General Plan is consistent with the ity’s adopted CAP, which satisfies the GHG reduction requirements established by Assembly Bill (AB) 32. In addition, the General Plan FEIR found that the General Plan would not conflict with the implementation of regional transportation-related GHG targets outlined in ABAG’s Plan Bay Area because of the land use modifications contained in the General Plan and the corresponding reduction in VMT. The General Plan would also not conflict with any provisions of the Scoping Plan or other applicable regulations related to GHG reductions because the General Plan expands transit access, increases mobility options, promotes a compact pedestrian-oriented urban development pattern, and focuses new development on infill sites with higher densities. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

Summary of Metro Specific Plan SFEIR
Construction-related Emissions
The Metro Specific Plan SFEIR determined that the implementation of the Metro Specific Plan would result in the temporary generation of GHG emissions from mobile and stationary construction equipment exhaust and employee and haul truck vehicle exhaust. However, construction-related GHG emissions from the Metro Specific Plan would be required to comply with MM GHG-1, which would reduce construction emissions consistent with BAAQMD guidance and Statewide emission reduction goals.

Operation-related Emissions
The Metro Specific Plan SFEIR determined that operation of the Metro Specific Plan would generate direct and indirect GHG emissions from vehicle trips, natural gas combustion, landscaping activities, electricity consumption, water and wastewater generation, and water use. The Metro Specific Plan

City of Milpitas—15164 Addendum for the City of Milpitas CEQA Checklist General Plan Update FEIR and the City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SFEIR 94 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5807/58070001/Addendum/58070001 Milpitas Addendum.docx SFEIR also found that implementation of the Metro Specific Plan would reduce VMT per service population at buildout, consistent with SB 743, through various policies prioritizing transit and pedestrian connectivity and transit infrastructure. However, the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR determined that mobile emissions from the Metro Specific Plan would not achieve the State’s carbon neutrality goal by 2045.

The Metro Specific Plan includes policies to reduce emissions from building energy consumption, area sources, water consumption, and waste generation; however, the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR determined that there is no guarantee that all of the voluntary sustainability features would be included in all future development, and impacts would be potentially significant. Therefore, future individual projects would be required to implement MM GHG-2 to reduce operational GHG emissions in the sectors with the largest amount of emissions. If all measures included in MM GHG-2 were implemented, then the Metro Specific Plan would be consistent with the State’s reduction targets for 2030. Implementation of MM GHG-3 as part of future individual projects would further reduce net operational GHG emissions through purchase of GHG mitigation credits if not all of the measures in MM GHG-2 are implemented. However, the Metro Specific Plan FEIR concluded that there could still be GHG emissions by 2045 and carbon neutrality may not be achieved. Therefore, the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR concluded that impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusions
As described under Section 2.3.1, Project Summary, the proposed project would result in similar land use densities and intensities to those identified and analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. For areas under the General Plan FEIR but outside the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR, the proposed project would comply with applicable policies and measures contained in the General Plan and the City’s adopted CAP. Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan FEIR and Metro Specific Plan SFEIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Future individual development projects within the Metro Specific Plan Area would be required to implement Metro Specific Plan SFEIR MM GHG-1, which would require the implementation of BAAQMD-Recommended Construction BMPs, Metro Specific Plan SFEIR MM GHG-2, which would require individual development projects to implement operational GHG reduction measures, and Metro Specific Plan SFEIR MM GHG-3, which would require individual development projects to purchase GHG mitigation credits.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not introduce new significant environmental impacts or create substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and the Metro Specific Plan SFEIR. No additional analysis is required.

Mitigation Measures
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures
None.