Milpitas City Council
October 28, 2025

Aesthetics Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.1-6 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR through an incentive program. This would also include alterations in nonresidential development potential through mixed-use development. Within the Specific Plan Area, rezoning would be required to clarify locations of the different types of allowable land uses. The allowable land uses, maximum building heights, residential densities, and nonresidential floor area ratios (FARs) would also change within the proposed Specific Plan Area. The proposed Specific Plan includes regulations for development, including density, intensity, height, and setbacks. Further, implementation of the Specific Plan would allow increased residential density within the Specific Plan Area that would be subject to the Objective Design Standards included in Chapter 4 of the proposed Specific Plan. The Objective Design Standards provide criteria for site planning, urban form, and building design in the Specific Plan Area . The Building Design and Architecture section of the proposed Objective Design Standards address the overall building form and massing, as well as primary building architectural features, including building entries, windows, roofs, materials, and colors.

Consistency with the policies and actions contained in the General Plan, as well as that of the Specific Plan itself, would ensure that new residential and non-residential development within the Specific Plan Area would be visually compatible with nearby open space resources and existing communities. As a result, no substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas are anticipated as a result of implementation of the Specific Plan. No new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than
significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Impact 3.1-2: Conflict with Applicable Zoning and Other Regulations Governing Scenic Quality in an Urbanized Area
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.1-3) determined that impacts related to conflicts with zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality as a result of General Plan implementation, including the Gateway -Main Street Specific Plan, would be less than significant. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in the construction and operation of development within the Specific Plan Area and could result in alteration of views, primarily due to potential development of high-rise residential structures. However, the proposed Specific Plan Objective Design Standards would implement and be consistent with General Plan policies regarding urban design.

As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

As noted above, the Specific Plan Area is located predominantly on flat terrain and is surrounded by primarily low- and mid-rise developments with some high-rise development located to the west. Within the Specific Plan Area, including along the majority of I-880 and railroad right-of-way, views are limited largely by existing development and landscaping, and long-distance views are precluded. Future development would be subject to design standards identified in the Objective Design Standards included in Chapter 4 of the proposed Specific Plan. Section 4.2 of the proposed Specific Plan identifies standards for site planning, urban form, and building design including the overall building form and massing, as well as primary building architectural features, including building entries, windows, roofs, materials, and colors, organized. The proposed Specific Plan Objective Design Standards would implement and be consistent with General Plan policies CD 1-1, CD 3-1 through CD 3-10, and LU 5-1 through LU 5-3. Through implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Objective Design Standards and adherence to the City’s design review process, the existing views and character throughout the City, including within the Specific Plan Area , would be maintained. As a result, development within the Specific Plan Area is expected to be consistent with and complementary to existing development and is not anticipated to result in substantial changes in long -distance and scenic views from within or across the Specific Plan Area. As a result, impacts would be less than significant within the Specific Plan Area.

Additionally, subsequent development under the proposed Specific Plan would be both consistent with and complimentary of existing land uses in the Specific Plan Area (e.g., Terra Serena Luna, located along South Abel Street). Further, individual projects within the Specific Plan Area would be required to adhere to local zoning and land

Ascent Aesthetics
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.1-7 use requirement as well as the proposed Specific Plan Objective Design Standards, including maintenance of existing views and implementation of screening measures (e.g., landscaping and other design features, primarily along the base of the structures).

Therefore, future development under the Specific Plan is not anticipated to adversely affect existing scenic quality in the already developed Specific Plan Area. No new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Impact 3.1-3: Light and Glare Impacts
The Milpitas General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.1-4) determined that impacts related to new sources of nighttime lighting and daytime glare as a result of General Plan implementation, including the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan, would be less than significant. The proposed Specific Plan would increase nighttime lighting within the Specific Plan Area as a result of new light sources attributed to proposed residential and mixed-use development. The proposed Specific Plan would be subject to the Milpitas General Plan 2040 policies and City lighting standards in the Municipal Code that address lighting and glare. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the Milpitas General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

Existing sources of light within the Specific Plan Area include street lights along roadways; lights in parking lots, along walkways, and on the exteriors of buildings; lights associated with the light rail system; and interior lights in buildings.

Because implementation of the Specific Plan would involve an intensification of uses within the Specific Plan Area, nighttime lighting would likely increase within the Specific Plan Area. Most of the new light sources would be attributed to proposed residential and mixed-use development and the associated evening activity of residents and guests. Near commercial development within the Specific Plan Area, there could be light in the evening hours adjacent to residential uses; however, the project would be subject to the General Plan policies that address lighting and glare, as well as consistency with adjacent uses (including Policies CD 1-1, 3-1, 3-4 and 3-8, as listed above). New development can result in increases in ambient nighttime lighting that can affect nighttime views of the sky.

Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in additional higher density multi-family residential development and mixed-use commercial development, which would increase ambient light in the Specific Plan Area. However, the Specific Plan Area and surrounding area is already developed and subject to nighttime ambient light, and the increase in such light would not significantly alter nighttime views of the sky (ability to see the stars), because such views are already limited in city settings. Further, future development would be subject to lighting standards identified in the Objective Design Standards included in Chapter 4 of the proposed Specific Plan. Section 4.3.5 of the proposed Specific Plan identifies standards to reduce light pollution and glare.

Daytime glare could be produced by an increase in surface area of residential and mixed-use structures that would result from implementation of the Specific Plan. However, development within the Specific Plan Area would be required to adhere to City policies that are designed to minimize glare. Policy CD 3- 1 would ensure that new development projects utilize appropriate building materials, such as window glazing, that do not result in significant increases in unusual glare.

Additionally, lighting, including adverse effects of glare and light trespass or spillover light are considerations addressed by the City through the site plan and design review process. All future development in the Specific Plan Area would be subject to this review process and lighting standards identified in the Objective Design Standards included in Chapter 4 of the proposed Specific Plan, ensuring that the effects of glare and spillover light would be addressed. No new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and impacts related light and glare as a result of implementation of the Specific Plan be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Aesthetics Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.1-8 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR This page is intentionally left blank.

Ascent Air Quality
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.2-1

3.2 AIR QUALITY
This section includes a discussion of existing air quality conditions, a summary of applicable regulations, and an analysis of potential construction and operational air quality impacts caused by development of the proposed Specific Plan. Mitigation is developed as necessary to reduce significant air quality impacts to the extent feasible.

No comment letters were received in response to the Notice of Preparation that pertained to air quality (see Appendix A).

3.2.1 Regulatory Setting
Air quality in the Specific Plan area is regulated through the efforts of various federal, State, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality through legislation, planning, policy-making, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies responsible for improving the air quality within the air basins are discussed below.

FEDERAL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been charged with implementing national air quality programs.

EPA’s air quality mandates draw primarily from the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), which was enacted in 1970. The most recent major amendments were made by Congress in 1990. EPA’s air quality efforts address both criteria air pollutants (CAPs) and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). EPA regulations concerning CAPs and HAPs are presented in greater detail below.

Criteria Air Pollutants
The CAA required EPA to establish national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for six common air pollutants found all over the U.S. referred to as criteria air pollutants (CAPs). EPA has established primary and secondary NAAQS for the following criteria air pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), respirable particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) and fine particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5), and lead. The NAAQS are shown in Table 3.2-1. The primary standards protect public health, and the secondary standards protect public welfare. The CAA also required each state to prepare a state implementation plan (SIP) for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS. The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. California’s SIP is modified periodically to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. EPA is responsible for reviewing all SIPs to determine whether they conform to the mandates of the CAA and its amendments, and whether implementation will achieve air quality goals. If EPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, EPA may prepare a federal implementation plan that imposes additional control measures. If an approvable SIP is not submitted or implemented within the mandated time frame, sanctions may be applied to transportation funding and stationary air pollution sources in the air basin.

Air Quality Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.2-2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Table 3.2-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time California (CAAQS)a,b National (NAAQS)c Primaryb,d
National (NAAQS)c
Secondaryb,e
Ozone 1-hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3) –e Same as primary standard 8-hour 0.070 ppm (137 μg/m3) 0.070 ppm (147 μg/m3)
Carbon monoxide (CO) 1-hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) Same as primary standard 8-hour 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Annual arithmetic mean 0.030 ppm (57 μg/m3) 53 ppb (100 μg/m3) Same as primary standard 1-hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3) 100 ppb (188 μg/m3) —
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 24-hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) — —
3-hour — — 0.5 ppm (1300 μg/m3)
1-hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) 75 ppb (196 μg/m3) —
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) Annual arithmetic mean 20 μg/m3 — Same as primary standard 24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Annual arithmetic mean 12 μg/m3 9.0 μg/m3 15.0 μg/m3 24-hour — 35 μg/m3 Same as primary standard
Lead f Calendar quarter — 1.5 μg/m3 Same as primary standard 30-Day average 1.5 μg/m3 — —
Rolling 3-Month Average – 0.15 μg/m3 Same as primary standard Hydrogen sulfide 1-hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3)
Sulfates 24-hour 25 μg/m3 No National standards
Vinyl chloride f 24-hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3)
Visibility-reducing particulate
matter
8-hour Extinction of 0.23 per km
Notes: µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; km = kilometers; ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million.

A California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, SO2 (1- and 24-hour), NO2, particulate matter, and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.

B Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based on a reference temperature of 25 degrees Celsius (°C) and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.

C National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. The PM10 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. The PM2.5 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for further clarification and current federal policies.

D National primary standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect public health.

E National secondary standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.

F The California Air Resources Board has identified lead and vinyl chloride as toxic air contaminants with no threshold of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.

Source: CARB 2016, EPA 2024.

Ascent Air Quality
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.2-3 Hazardous Air Pollutants and Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TAC), or, in federal parlance, hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), are a defined set of airborne pollutants that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. A TAC is defined under California law as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. A substance that is listed as a HAP pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 112 of the CAA (42 United States Code Section 7412[b]) is considered a TAC. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations.

A wide range of sources, from industrial plants to motor vehicles, emit TACs. The health effects associated with TACs are quite diverse and generally are assessed locally, rather than regionally. TACs can cause long- term health effects, such as cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, asthma, bronchitis, and genetic damage, or short-term acute effects, such as eye watering, respiratory irritation (a cough), runny nose, throat pain, and headaches.

For evaluation purposes, TACs are separated into carcinogens and noncarcinogens based on the nature of the physiological effects associated with exposure to the pollutant. Carcinogens are assumed to have no safe threshold below which health impacts would not occur. This contrasts with criteria air pollutants, for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which ambient standards have been established (Table 3.2 -1). Cancer risk from TACs is expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed individuals, typically over a lifetime of exposure.

EPA and, in California, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulate HAPs and TACs, respectively, through statutes (i.e., 42 United States Code Section 7412[b]) and regulations that generally require the use of the maximum achievable control technology or best available control technology for toxics to limit emiss ions.

STATE
CARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). The CCAA, which was adopted in 1988, required CARB to establish California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) (Table 3.2-1).

Criteria Air Pollutants
CARB has established CAAQS for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, visibility-reducing particulate matter, and the above-mentioned criteria air pollutants. In most cases, the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS. Differences in the standards are generally explained by the health effects studies considered during the standard-setting process and the interpretation of the studies. In addition, the CAAQS incorporate a margin of safety to protect sensitive individuals.

The CCAA requires that all local air districts in the State endeavor to attain and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest date practical. It specifies that local air districts should focus particular attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and areawide emission sources, and it provides air districts with the authority to regulate indirect emission sources.

CARB regulates emission of criteria air pollutants through several programs, regulations, and plans. The 2022 State SIP Strategy (2022 SIP) serves as compilation document of all actions taken by CARB and local air districts to further the attainment of the NAAQS. Pertinent regulations to the proposed Specific Plan included in the 2022 SIP include, but are not limited to, the Advanced Clean Cars II Program, Advanced Clean Fleets, and Zero -Emissions Trucks Measure, which all serve to electrify the transportation sector through sales requirements for benchmark years (CARB 2022).

Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs in California are regulated primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 1807, Chapter 1047, Statutes of 1983) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588, Chapter 1252, Statutes of 1987). AB 1807 sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Research, public participation, and scientific peer review are required before CARB can designate a substance as a TAC. To date, CARB has identified more than 21 TACs and adopted EPA’s list of HAPs as TACs. Most recently, particulate matter (PM) exhaust from diesel engines (diesel PM) was added to CARB’s list of TACs.

Air Quality Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.2-4 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR After a TAC is identified, CARB then adopts an airborne toxics control measure for sources that emit that particular TAC. If a safe threshold exists for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. If no safe threshold exists, the measure must incorporate best available control technology for toxics to minimize emissions.

The Hot Spots Act requires that existing facilities that emit toxic substances above a specified level prepare an inventory of toxic emissions, prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant, notify the public of significant risk levels, and prepare and implement risk reduction measures.

AB 617 of 2017 (California Health and Safety Code Section 39607.1) aims to help protect air quality and public health in communities around stationary sources of pollution including facilities subject to the State’s cap-and-trade program for GHG emissions. AB 617 imposes a State-mandated local program to address non-vehicular sources (e.g., refineries, manufacturing facilities) of criteria air pollutants and TACs. AB 617 requires CARB to identify high -pollutant areas and directs air districts to focus air quality improvement efforts through adoption of community emission reduction programs within these identified areas. Currently, air districts review individual sources and impose emissions limits on emitters based on best available control technology, pollutant type, and proximity to nearby existing land uses. AB 617 addresses the cumulative and additive nature of air pollutant health effects by requiring community-wide air quality assessment and emission reduction planning.

CARB has adopted diesel exhaust control measures and more stringent emissions standards for various transportation- related mobile sources of emissions, including transit buses, and off-road diesel equipment (e.g., tractors, generators).

Over time, the replacement of older vehicles will result in a vehicle fleet that produces substantially lower levels of TACs than under current conditions. Mobile-source emissions of TACs (e.g., benzene, 1-3-butadiene, diesel PM) have been reduced significantly over the last decade and will be reduced further in California through a progression of regulatory measures (e.g., Low Emission Vehicle/Clean Fuels and Phase II reformulated gasoline regulations) and control technologies. With implementation of CARB’s Risk Reduction Plan and other regulatory programs, it is estimated that emissions of diesel PM will be less than half of those in 2010 by 2035 (CARB 2023). Adopted regulations are also expected to continue to reduce formaldehyde emissions emitted by cars and light-duty trucks. As emissions are reduced, it is expected that risks associated with exposure to the emissions will also be reduced.

LOCAL
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) maintains and manages air quality conditions in the San Fransisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), including Santa Clara County, through a comprehensive program of planning, regulation, enforcement, technical innovation, and promotion of the understanding of air quality issues. The clean air strategy of BAAQMD includes the preparation of plans and programs for the attainmen t of the NAAQS and CAAQS, adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations, and issuance of permits for stationary sources. BAAQMD also inspects stationary sources, responds to citizen complaints, monitors ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implements other programs and regulations required by the CAA and CCAA.

Projects located in the SFBAAB are subject to BAAQMD’s rules and regulations. The following rules and regulations are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan:
 Regulation 2, Rule 1, General Permit Requirements. This rule includes criteria for issuance or denial of permits, exemptions, and appeals against decisions of the Air Pollution Control Officer and BAAQMD actions on applications.
 Regulation 2, Rule 2, New Source Review. Applies to new or modified sources and contains requirements for Best Available Control Technology and emission offsets. Rule 2 implements federal New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration requirements.
 Regulation 6, Rule 1, General Requirements. This rule limits the quantity of particulate matter in the atmosphere by controlling emission rates, concentration, visible emissions, and opacity.

Ascent Air Quality
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.2-5  Regulation 6, Rule 3, Wood-burning Devices. This rule further reduces fine particulate emissions from wood- burning activities when wildfire smoke impacts the Bay Area. Amendments to Rule 6 -3 would allow the Air District to call a Spare the Air Alert year-round to notify the public when particulate matter is expected to exceed unhealthy levels. When a Spare the Air Alert is in effect, a Mandatory Burn Ban would prohibit the use of wood- burning devices, outdoor wood-burning devices, and recreational fires to protect the health of Bay Area residents. The Air District proposes to extend the wood-burning prohibition to ensure that high PM2.5 concentrations, such as those that occur during wildfire events, are not further exacerbated by wood -burning activities.
 Regulation 6, Rule 6, Prohibition of Trackout. This rule limits the quantity of particulate matter in the atmosphere through control of trackout of solid materials onto paved public roads outside the boundaries of Large Bulk Material Sites, Large Construction Sites, and Large Disturbed Surface sites including landfills. This Rule does not apply to Bulk Material Sites, Construction Sites and Disturbed Surface Sites less than 1 acre .  Regulation 7, Odorous Substances. Regulation 7 places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds. A person or facility must meet all limitations of this regulation, but meeting such limitations shall not exempt such person or facility from any other requirements of BAAQMD, state, or national law. The limitations of this regulation are not applicable until BAAQMD receives odor complaints from 10 or more complainants within a 90-day period, alleging that a person or facility has caused odors perceived at or beyond the property line of such person or facility and deemed to be objectionable by the complainants in the normal course of their work, travel, or residence. When the limitations of this regulation become effective, as a result of citizen complaints described above, the limits remain effective until such time as no citizen complaints have been received by BAAQMD for 1 year. The limits of this regulation become applicable again if BAAQMD receives odor complaints from five or more complainants within a 90- day period. BAAQMD staff investigate and track all odor complaints it receives, make attempts to visit the site and identify the source of the objectionable odor, and assist the owner or facility in finding a way to reduce the odor.  Regulation 8, Rule 3, Architectural Coatings. Limits the quantity of volatile organic compounds in architectural coatings supplied, sold, offered for sale, applied, solicited for application, or manufactured for use within BAAQMD.
 Regulation 14, Rule 3, Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program. This rule serves as the regional commute benefits ordinance authorized by California Government Code section 65081. The purpose of this rule is to improve air quality, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants, and decrease traffic cong estion in the San Francisco Bay Area by encouraging employees to commute to work by transit and other alternative commute modes.

The CCAA requires that all local air districts in the state endeavor to achieve and maintain the CAAQS in their region by the earliest practical date. It specifies that local air districts should focus attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and areawide emission sources and provides districts with the authority to regulate indirect sources.

To achieve the CAAQS, BAAQMD prepares and updates air quality plans on a regular basis. The air quality plans published by BAAQMD and other local air districts in the state are incorporated into California’s SIP strategy and meet CAA requirements.

For state air quality planning purposes, the SFBAAB is classified as a serious nonattainment area with respect to the 1-hour ozone standard. The “serious” classification triggers various plan submittal requirements and transportation performance standards. One such requirement is that BAAQMD update its Clean Air Plan every 3 years to reflect progress in meeting the NAAQS and CAAQS and to incorporate new information regarding the feasibility of control measures and new emission inventory data. BAAQMD’s record of progress in implementing previous measures must also be reviewed. BAAQMD prepared these plans in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments. On April 19, 2017, BAAQMD adopted the most recent revision to the Clean Air Plan, titled the 2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (BAAQMD 2017). This plan serves to:
 define a vision for transitioning the region to a postcarbon economy needed to achieve 2030 and 2050 greenhouse gas reduction targets;

Air Quality Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.2-6 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR  decrease emissions of air pollutants most harmful to Bay Area residents, such as particulate matter, ozone, and TACs;  reduce emissions of methane and other potent climate pollutants; and  decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion.

Although offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can be unpleasant, leading to considerable stress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and BAAQMD. BAAQMD’s Regulation 7 (“Odorous Substances”), discussed above, regulates odors.

BAAQMD 2022 CEQA Guidance
Chapter 7 of the 2022 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines contain development strategies for 20-year, or longer, time horizons. This chapter provides guidance on methods to evaluate air quality and climate change impacts of long - range plans prepared within the SFBAAB pursuant to CEQA. Regional plans are assessed differently than local long- range plans because of their unique characteristics and because they do not establish land use designations. This document describes how to analyze and apply the plan-level air quality thresholds to determine if a local long-range plan has a less-than-significant impact for criteria air pollutants and precursors, local TACs, and odors. The thresholds established by the guidance can be found in the “Thresholds of Significance” section below.

Milpitas General Plan
The Land Use (LU), Circulation (CIR) Community Design (CD), and Conservation and Sustainability (CON), Chapters of the 2040 Milpitas General Plan contain policies that address air quality (Milpitas 2021).  Policy LU 3-1: Support regional efforts that promote higher densities near major transit and travel facilities, and reduce regional vehicle miles traveled by supporting active modes of transportation including walking, biking, and public transit. Support local and regional land use decisions that promote safe access to and the use of alternatives to auto transit.
 Policy LU 3-2: Continue to utilize planning tools (including specific plans and overlay districts) that promote transit-oriented and mixed-use development objectives near the Milpitas Transit Center.  Policy LU 4-2: Emphasize efforts to reduce regional vehicle miles traveled by supporting land use patterns and site designs that promote active modes of transportation, including walking, biking, and public transit.  Policy LU 4-3: Support conveniently located neighborhood-serving commercial centers that provide desired services to local neighborhoods workers and visitors, reduce automobile dependency, and contribute positively to the surrounding neighborhoods.
 Policy LU 4-4: Encourage new development to facilitate pedestrian, bicycle and transit access through techniques such as minimizing building separation from public sidewalks; providing safe, direct, accessible, convenient, and pleasant pedestrian connections; including secure and convenient bike storage; and orienting building entrances to transit service.
 Policy LU 5-1: Require new development and redevelopment to be compatible, complementary and, where appropriate, well integrated with existing residential areas. Integrate new largescale development projects into the fabric of the existing community rather than allowing projects to be insular and self -contained, walled off, or physically divided from surrounding uses. Improve connectivity between neighborhoods and services with new development. Tie circulation systems and open spaces into existing streets and open spaces. Reduce unnecessary barriers and improve connections between neighborhoods and services by retrofitting existing development over time as area improvements or redevelopment occurs.
 Policy LU 6-6: Encourage redevelopment and intensification of mixed-use areas by allowing stand-alone vertical mixed-use, or integrated horizontal mixed-use projects in mixed use areas, consistent with the Land Use Map and policies and actions included in this element.

Ascent Air Quality
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.2-7  Policy CIR 2-1: Promote multimodal transportation options by developing an interconnected system of streets, roads, bridges, and highways that provides continuous, efficient, safe and convenient travel for all users regardless of mode, age or ability and encourage users to walk, ride a bicycle, or use transit for shorter, local trips.  Policy CIR 3-1: Coordinate with VTA and BART to design and implement capital improvements that support safety and access to rail stations and bus stops.
 Policy CIR 3-4: Ensure that all transit-supportive infrastructure, sidewalks, and bike lanes are adequately maintained to provide high-quality facilities for users.  Policy CIR 4-1: Encourage a shift to active transportation modes by expanding and enhancing current pedestrian and bicycle facilities to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists of all ages and abilities and encourage all users to reduce vehicle trips and utilize active transportation options with an increase in density of pedestrian and bicycle-supportive infrastructure.
 Policy CIR 4-2: Link and expand City pedestrian and bicycle circulation facilities to existing and planned local and regional networks, with an emphasis on expanding infrastructure options near transit.  Policy CIR 4-3: Encourage walking, biking and transit use by prioritizing and implementing “first-mile/last mile” improvements, wayfinding and educational efforts in the vicinity of the Great Mall transit center, light rail stations, the BART station, and heavily used bus stops.
 Policy CIR 4-5: Support building bridges or under-crossings across creek channels, railroad lines and roadways in a manner that will enhance safety, improve network connectivity, and facilitate bicycling and walking between high density residential developments, retail centers, civic buildings, and recreational centers.  Policy CIR 4-6: Eliminate gaps in the pedestrian and bicycle network, especially between neighborhoods, trails that access schools, and areas with higher health disparities.  Action CIR-4a: Prioritize, fund, and implement a comprehensive system of sidewalks, bikeways, and off- street trails that connects all parts of the City as identified in the Bikeway and Pedestrian Master Plan and Trails Master Plan and in accordance with the City of Milpitas Municipal Code.  Policy CIR 5-1: Develop, implement, and monitor vehicle trip reduction requirements for large development projects – including all land use types – to minimize the impact of new development on traffic congestion and to reduce vehicle emissions.
 Policy CIR 5-3: Encourage existing employers to adopt strategies to implement programs to reduce employee vehicle trips, including purchasing passes through VTA’s annual transit pass program; providing facilities such as secure bike parking, lockers, changing rooms, and showers; telework, and flexible work schedules.  Policy CIR 5-4: Encourage developers to provide enhanced TDM programs and alternative transportation infrastructure that exceeds minimum requirements in exchange for reduced parking requirements, with a focus on priority development areas and locations in proximity to high-capacity transit .
 Policy CIR 5-5: Cooperate with other private entities and public agencies to promote local and regional transit serving Milpitas.
 Policy CIR 6-1: Develop guidelines for the inclusion of green infrastructure in the design of transportation improvements.
 Policy CIR 6-2: Support development of healthier communities through the use of lower- or non-polluting modes of transportation to reduce GHG vehicle emissions and local air pollution levels.  Policy CIR 6-3: Encourage walking and bicycling as strategies to promote public health and reduce the long- term transportation costs of owning and maintaining a vehicle.  Policy CIR 6-4: Prioritize transportation improvements in part based on consideration of benefits to disadvantaged communities.

Air Quality Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.2-8 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR  Action CIR-6a: Design sidewalks and pedestrian pathways using environmental design best practices principles or other techniques to provide safe and comfortable facilities for pedestrians at all times of day and night.
 Policy CD 6-1: Support a complete streets approach to designing new streets and retrofitting existing streets by encouraging streets to provide stimulating settings; improve safe walkability, bicycling, and transit integration; strengthen connectivity; and enhance community identity through improvements to the public right -of-way such as sidewalks, street trees, parkways, curbs, human-scaled street lighting, and street furniture.  Policy CD 6-3: Consider the street type of all adjacent streets in the development review process to ensure that the design of the site, buildings, and public way respond to the multi-modal priorities for the area.  Action CD-6e: As part of the new design guidelines for commercial and mixed-use development, as called for in Action CD-2d, include design guidelines for non-residential uses within 200 feet of Interstate Highways 680 and 880. The guidelines should address the following concepts.

A. New office and commercial land use shall provide attractive landscaping, lighting, and signage adjacent to all buildings oriented to Interstate Highways 680 and 880.

B. Encourage buildings that include attractive focal elements, such as a tower or articulated roofline in each non-residential development adjacent to SR 680 and SR 880 to serve as visual landmarks.

C. New non-residential buildings oriented to Interstate Highways 680 and 880 shall provide an attractive facade similar in articulation, and using the same materials and colors, as the primary facade of the building.

D. Truck loading and refuse collection areas adjacent to Interstate Highways 680 and 880 shall be screened from view.

E. The landscaping for development projects adjacent to Interstate Highways 680 and 880 will reflect the natural character of the region in the selection of trees and groundcover.  Policy CD 11-8: Encourage low-impact development, including but not limited to, bioretention cells/rain gardens, cisterns and rain barrels, green roofs, pervious concrete/porous pavement, bioswales, and media filters.  Action CD-11a: As part of the development review process, ensure that projects incorporate sustainable elements, such as passive solar design, energy-efficient features, water conservation measures, street trees, electric vehicle charging stations, and low impact development features to the extent feasible.  Policy CON 1-2: Ensure all development projects comply with the mandatory energy efficiency requirements of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).  Policy CON 1-3: Support innovative green building best management practices including, but not limited to, LEED certification, and encourage project applicants to exceed the most current “green” development standards in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, as feasible.  Action CON-1e Continue to review all new public and private development projects to ensure compliance with the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24 standards as well as the energy efficiency standards established by California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), the General Plan, and the Milpitas Municipal Code Chapter 20 Green Building Regulations.
 Action CON-1f Continue to require all development project applications for new buildings to include a completed LEED or CALGreen Mandatory Measures Checklist.  Policy CON 7-1: Ensure that land use and transportation plans support air quality goals through a logical development pattern that focuses growth in and around existing urbanized areas, locates new housing near places of employment, encourages alternative modes of transportation, supports efficient parking strategies, reduces vehicle miles traveled, and requires projects to mitigate significant air quality impacts.

Ascent Air Quality
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.2-9  Policy CON 7-2: Minimize exposure of the public to toxic or harmful air emissions and odors through requiring an adequate buffer or setback distance between residential and other sensitive land uses and land uses that typically generate air pollutants, toxic air contaminants, or obnoxious fumes or odors, including but not limited to industrial, manufacturing, and processing facilities, high-volume roadways, and industrial rail lines. New sensitive receptors, such as residences (including residential care and assisted living facilities for the elderly), childcare centers, schools, playgrounds, churches, and medical facilities shall be located away from existing point sources of air pollution such that excessive levels of exposure do not result in unacceptable health risks. Compliance shall be verified through the preparation of a Health Risk Assessment when deemed necessary by the Planning Director.  Policy CON 7-3: Require projects which generate high levels of air pollutants, such as heavy industrial, manufacturing facilities and hazardous waste handling operations, to incorporate air quality mitigations in their design to reduce impacts to the greatest extent feasible.  Policy CON 7-4: Require projects to adhere to the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).
 Policy CON 7-5: Use the City’s development review process and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate and mitigate the local and cumulative effects of new development on air quality.  Policy CON 7-7: Comply with regional, state, and federal standards and programs for control of all airborne pollutants and noxious odors, regardless of source.
 Policy CON 7-8: Consider the health risks associated with Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) when reviewing development applications.
 Policy CON 7-10: Implement policies and action from the Land Use and Circulation Elements to provide mixed - use developments, locate high-density uses near transit facilities, provide neighborhood -serving retail uses convenient to residential neighborhoods, and other Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs that would reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled, thus reducing air-pollutant emissions.  Policy CON 7-11: Encourage improvements and design features that reduce vehicle delay such as bus turnouts, and synchronized traffic signals for new development to reduce excessive vehicle emissions caused by idling.  Action CON-7c: Require site-specific air quality Health Risk Assessments (HRAs) for developments that would place sensitive receptors closer than 500 feet from the edge of a regional roadway facility (including I-680, I- 880, and SR-237), or for development projects that would place significant point sources of air pollution such as gas station and dry cleaning facilities, or other industrial facilities that emit toxic air contaminates TACs within 500 feet of a sensitive receptor.
 Action CON-7e: Require dust control measures, including those included in the Santa Clara Valley Non-point Source Pollution Control Program, and BAAQMD’s Best Management Practices for fugitive dust control during construction.
 Action CON-7f: Use the BAAQMD “Air Quality Guidelines”, as amended, or replaced, in identifying thresholds, evaluating the potential project and cumulative impacts, and determining appropriate mitigation measures.
 Review development, infrastructure, and planning projects for consistency with BAAQMD requirements during the CEQA review process. Require project applicants to prepare air quality analyses to address BAAQMD, and General Plan requirements, which includes analysis and identification of:
• Air pollutant emissions associated with the project during construction, project operation, and cumulative conditions;
• Potential exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants; • Significant air quality impacts associated with the project for construction, project operation, and cumulative conditions; and

Air Quality Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.2-10 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR • Mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to less than significant or the maximum extent feasible where impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant.  Action CON-7h: Prior to the entitlement of a project that may be an air pollution point source, such as a manufacturing facility, the developer shall provide documentation that the use is located and appropriately separated from residential areas and sensitive receptors (e.g., homes, schools, and hospitals).  Action CON-7i: Require construction activity plans, and grading and drainage plans to include and/or provide for dust management to prevent fugitive dust from leaving the property boundaries and causing a public nuisance or a violation of an ambient air standard. Project applicants, or their assigned agents/contractors, shall be responsible for ensuring that all adequate dust control measures are implemented in a timely manner during all phases of project grading and construction.

3.2.2 Environmental Setting
The 605-acre Specific Plan Area is located within the San Fransisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The SFAB includes all of Marin, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Sonoma, and San Fransisco Counties. The ambient concentrations of air pollutant emissions are determined by the amount of emissions released by the sources of air pollutants and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute such emissions. Natural factors that affect transport and dilution include terrain, wind, atmospheric stability, and sunlight. Therefore, existing air quality conditions in the area are determined by such natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the amount of emissions released by existing air pollutant sources, as discussed separately below.

CLIMATE, METEOROLOGY, AND TOPOGRAPHY
The Mediterranean climate type of the SFBAAB is characterized by hot, dry summers and cool, rainy winters. During the summer, daily temperatures range from 49.9 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) to more than 81.8°F. The inland location and surrounding mountains shelter the area from much of the ocean breezes that keep the coastal regions moderate in temperature. Most precipitation in the area results from air masses that move in from the Pacific Ocean, usually from the west or northwest, during the winter months. More than half the total annual precipitation falls during the winter rainy season (November through February); the average winter temperature is a moderate 50°F. Also characteristic of SFBAAB winters are periods of dense and persistent low-level fog, which are most prevalent between storms. The prevailing winds are moderate in speed and vary from moisture-laden breezes from the south to dry land flows from the north.

The mountains surrounding the SFBAAB create a barrier to airflow, which leads to the entrapment of air pollutants when meteorological conditions are unfavorable for transport and dilution. The highest frequency of poor air movement occurs in the fall and winter when high-pressure cells are often present over the SFBAAB. The lack of surface wind during these periods, combined with the reduced vertical flow caused by a decline in surface heating, reduces the influx of air and leads to the concentration of air pollutants under stable meteorological conditions.

Surface concentrations of air pollutant emissions are highest when these conditions occur in combination with agricultural burning activities or with temperature inversions, which hamper dispersion by cre ating a ceiling over the area and trapping air pollutants near the ground.

May through October is ozone season in the SFBAAB. This period is characterized by warmer months with high ozone concentrations. In addition, longer daylight hours provide a plentiful amount of sunlight to fuel photochemical reactions between reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NO X), which result in ozone formation.

The local meteorology of the proposed Specific Plan Area and surrounding area is represented by measurements recorded at the Western Regional Climate Center Kentfield, California station. The normal annual precipitation is approximately 47.4 inches. January temperatures range from a normal minimum of 38.6°F to a normal maximum of

55.6°F. July temperatures range from a normal minimum of 50.2°F to a normal maximum of 83.4°F (WRCC 2016). The prevailing wind direction is from the north (WRCC 2002).

Ascent Air Quality
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.2-11

CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS
Concentrations of criteria air pollutants are used to indicate the quality of the ambient air. A brief description of key criteria air pollutants in the SFBAAB is provided below. Emission source types and health effects are summarized in Table 3.2-2. Santa Clara County’s attainment status for the CAAQS and the NAAQS are shown in Table 3.2 -3.

Table 3.2-2 Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants Pollutant Sources Acute1 Health Effects Chronic2 Health Effects Ozone Secondary pollutant resulting from reaction of
ROG and NOX in presence of sunlight. ROG
emissions result from incomplete combustion
and evaporation of chemical solvents and fuels;
NOX results from the combustion of fuels
increased respiration and pulmonary
resistance; cough, pain, shortness of
breath, lung inflammation
permeability of respiratory
epithelia, possibility of
permanent lung impairment
Carbon monoxide
(CO)
Incomplete combustion of fuels; motor vehicle
exhaust
headache, dizziness, fatigue, nausea,
vomiting, death
permanent heart and brain
damage
Nitrogen dioxide
(NO2)
combustion devices (e.g., boilers, gas turbines,
and mobile and stationary reciprocating internal
combustion engines)
coughing, difficulty breathing, vomiting,
headache, eye irritation, chemical
pneumonitis or pulmonary edema;
breathing abnormalities, cough, cyanosis,
chest pain, rapid heartbeat, death
chronic bronchitis, decreased
lung function
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) coal and oil combustion, steel mills, refineries, and pulp and paper mills
Irritation of upper respiratory tract,
increased asthma symptoms
Insufficient evidence linking
SO2 exposure to chronic
health impacts
Respirable
particulate matter
(PM
10), Fine
particulate matter
(PM2.5)
fugitive dust, soot, smoke, mobile and
stationary sources, construction, fires and
natural windblown dust, and formation in the
atmosphere by condensation and/or
transformation of SO2 and ROG
breathing and respiratory symptoms,
aggravation of existing respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases, premature death
alterations to the immune
system, carcinogenesis
Lead metal processing reproductive/ developmental effects (fetuses and children)
numerous effects including
neurological, endocrine, and
cardiovascular effects
Notes: NOX = oxides of nitrogen; ROG = reactive organic gases. 1 “Acute” refers to effects of short-term exposures to criteria air pollutants, usually at fairly high concentrations. 2 “Chronic” refers to effects of long-term exposures to criteria air pollutants, usually at lower, ambient concentrations.

Sources: EPA 2023a.

Ozone
Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly into the air but is created by chemical reactions between ROG and NO X.

This happens when pollutants emitted by cars, power plants, industrial boilers, refineries, chemical plants, and other sources react chemically in the presence of sunlight. Ozone at ground level is a harmful air pollutant because of its effects on people and the environment and is the main ingredient in smog (EPA 2023a).

Acute health effects of ozone exposure include increased respiratory and pulmonary resistance, cough, pain, shortness of breath, and lung inflammation. Chronic health effects include permeability of respiratory epithelia and possibility of permanent lung impairment (EPA 2023a). Emissions of the ozone precursors ROG and NOX have decreased over the past two decades because of more stringent motor vehicle standards and cleaner burning fuels (CARB 2013).

Nitrogen Dioxide
NO2 is a brownish, highly reactive gas that is present in all urban environments. The major human- made sources of NO2 are combustion devices, such as boilers, gas turbines, and mobile and stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines. Combustion devices emit primarily nitric oxide (NO), which reacts through oxidation in the

Air Quality Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.2-12 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR atmosphere to form NO2. The combined emissions of NO and NO2 are referred to as NOX and are reported as equivalent NO2. Because NO2 is formed and depleted by reactions associated with photochemical smog (ozone), the NO2 concentration in a particular geographical area may not be representative of the local sources of NO X emissions (EPA 2023a).

Acute health effects of exposure to NOX includes coughing, difficulty breathing, vomiting, headache, eye irritation, chemical pneumonitis, or pulmonary edema, breathing abnormalities, cough, cyanosis, chest pain, rapid heartbeat, and death. Chronic health effects include chronic bronchitis and decreased lung function (EPA 2023a).

Table 3.2-3 Attainment Status Designations for Santa Clara County Pollutant National Ambient Air Quality Standard California Ambient Air Quality Standard Ozone Attainment (1-hour)1 (No State Standard for 1-hour) Nonattainment (8-hour)3 Classification=Severe Nonattainment (8-hour) Classification=Marginal

Nonattainment (8-hour)4 Classification=Severe
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) Attainment (24-hour) Nonattainment (24-hour) Classification - Moderate Nonattainment (Annual)
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment (24-hour) (No State Standard for 24-Hour) Attainment (Annual) Attainment (Annual)
Carbon monoxide (CO) Attainment (1-hour) Attainment (1-hour) Attainment (8-hour) Attainment (8-hour)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Unclassified/Attainment (1-hour) Attainment (1-hour) Unclassified/Attainment (Annual) Attainment (Annual)
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)5 (Attainment Pending) (1-Hour) Attainment (1-hour) Attainment (24-hour)
Lead (Particulate) Attainment (3-month rolling avg.) Attainment (30-day average) Hydrogen Sulfide Unclassified (1-hour)
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment (24-hour)
Visibly Reducing Particles Unclassified (8-hour)
Vinyl Chloride Unclassified (24-hour)
Notes:
1 Air Quality meets federal 1-hour Ozone standard (77 FR 64036). EPA revoked this standard, but some associated requirements still apply.

BAAQMD attained the standard in 2009. BAAQMD has requested EPA recognize attainment to fulfill the requirements. 2 Per Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 40921.5(c), the classification is based on 1989 – 1991 data, and therefore does not change. 3 1997 Standard.
4 2008 Standard.
5 2010 Standard.

Source: EPA 2023b.

Particulate Matter
PM10 is emitted directly into the air, and includes fugitive dust, soot, and smoke from mobile and stationary sources, construction operations, fires and natural windblown dust, and particulate matter formed in the atmosphere by reaction of gaseous precursors (CARB 2013). PM

2.5 includes a subgroup of smaller particles that have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less. PM10 emissions in the SVAB are dominated by emissions from area sources, primarily fugitive dust from vehicle travel on unpaved and paved roads, farming operations, construction and demolition, and particles from residential fuel combustion. Direct emissions of PM10 are projected to remain relatively constant through 2035. Direct emissions of PM2.5 have steadily declined in the SVAB between 2000 and 2010 and are projected to increase slightly through 2035. Emissions of PM2.5 in the SVAB are dominated by the same sources as emissions of PM10 (CARB 2013).

Ascent Air Quality
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.2-13 Acute health effects of exposure to PM10 include breathing and respiratory symptoms, aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular diseases including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and premature death. Chronic health effects include alternations to the immune system and carcinogenesis (EPA 2023a ). For PM2.5, short-term exposures (up to 24-hours duration) have been associated with premature mortality, increased hospital admissions for heart or lung causes, acute and chronic bronchitis, asthma attacks, emergency room visits, respiratory symptoms, and restricted activity days. These adverse health effects have been reported primarily in infants, children, and older adults with preexisting heart or lung diseases. Long-term (months to years) exposure to PM

2.5 has been
linked to premature death, particularly in people who have chronic heart or lung diseases, and reduced lung function growth in children.

TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
According to the California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality (CARB 2013), the majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being diesel PM. Diesel PM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance, but rather a complex mixture of hu ndreds of substances.

Although diesel PM is emitted by diesel-fueled internal combustion engines, the composition of the emissions varies depending on engine type, operating conditions, fuel composition, lubricating oil, and whether an emissions control system is being used. Unlike the other TACs, no ambient monitoring data are available for diesel PM because no routine measurement method currently exists. However, CARB has made preliminary concentration estimates based on a PM exposure method. This method uses the CARB emissions inventory’s PM 10 database, ambient PM10
monitoring data, and the results from several studies to estimate concentrations of diesel PM. In addition to diesel PM, the TACs for which data are available that pose the greatest existing ambient risk in California are benzene, 1,3- butadiene, acetaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para-dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, and perchloroethylene.

Diesel PM poses the greatest health risk among these 10 TACs mentioned. Based on receptor modeling techniques, CARB estimated the average cancer risk associated with diesel PM concentrations in the SFBAAB to be 360 excess cancer cases per million people in the year 2000. Overall, levels of most TACs, except para- dichlorobenzene and formaldehyde, have decreased since 1990 (CARB 2013).

ODORS
Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache).

The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective. Some individuals can smell very minute quantities of specific substances; others may not have the same sensitivity but may have sensitivities to odors of other substances. In addition, people may have different reactions to the same odor; an odor that is offensive to one person may be perfectly acceptable to another (e.g., a cooking -related odor from a fast food restaurant). It is important to also note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. This is because of the phenomenon known as odor fatigue, in which a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity . Odor sources of concern include wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, composting facilities, recycling facilities, petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturing plants, painting operations, rendering plants, and fo od packaging plants (BAAQMD 2022).

SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Sensitive receptors are generally considered to include those land uses where exposure to pollutants could result in health-related risks to sensitive individuals, such as children or the elderly. Residential dwellings, schools, hospitals, playgrounds, and similar facilities are of primary concern because of the presence of individuals particularly sensitive

Air Quality Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.2-14 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR to pollutants and/or the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to pollutants. Because the proposed project is a specific plan document, there are no specific sensitive locations identified with respect to the proposed Specific Plan. As a conservative estimate of impacts, sensitive receptors are anticipated to be located directly adjacent to new development.

3.2.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
Regional and local criteria air pollutant emissions and associated impacts, as well as impacts from TACs, CO concentrations, and odors were assessed in accordance with BAAQMD-recommended methodologies. The proposed Specific Plan’s emissions are compared to BAAQMD-adopted thresholds. Because of the unknown variability of the future development, including specific construction schedules, under the proposed Specific Plan, air quality emissions from future, short-term construction activities are unable to be quantified. Therefore, short -term construction emissions were not quantified and evaluated qualitatively. The proposed Specific Plan was evaluated and compared to the General Plan Update EIR. This change includes a decrease in non-residential SF and additional residential units.

Construction impacts were evaluated qualitatively, similar to the methods used in the General Plan Update EIR.

Operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2022.1.1.28 computer program, as recommended by BAAQMD (CAPCOA 2024).

Modeling was based on project information (e.g., size, acreage, land uses, annual VMT , trip generation) where available; default values in CalEEMod such as water and wastewater usage are based on the project’s location and land use type. Construction would begin as early as 2039. Land use types for both the adopted General Plan and proposed Specific Plan were modeled with the change in land use types, acreages, number of dwelling units, VMT, and trip generation that were provided. Both scenarios were modeled with the differences in each project and compared. Specific model assumptions and inputs for these calculations can be found in Appendix B.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Per Chapter 7 of the BAAQMD’s CEQA guidance, a plan’s impact to air quality is considered a significant impact if the proposed Specific Plan would not do any of the following:

Criteria Air Pollutants
 A plans’ impact to air quality is considered a significant impact if the plan would not be consistent with current air quality plan control measures, and
 A plans’ impact to air quality is considered a significant impact if the plan would not increase VMT or vehicle trip increase less than or equal to projected population increase.

Local Risks and Hazards
 A plans’ impact to air quality is considered a significant impact if the plan identifies special overlay zones around existing and planned sources of TACs (including adopted Risk Reduction Plan areas), and  A plans’ impact to air quality is considered a significant impact if the plan identifies special overlay zones of at least 500 feet from all freeways and high-volume roadways.

Odors
 For plans to have a less-than-significant impact, a plan must identify the location of existing and planned odor sources in the plan area. The plan must also include policies to reduce potential odor impacts in the plan area.

Ascent Air Quality
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.2-15

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.3-1: Conflict With or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan, or Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Criteria Pollutants The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.3-1) concluded that implementation of the General Plan would be consistent with all federal and state guidelines including the 2017 Clean Air Plan. It was concluded in the General Plan Update EIR that population would increase while VMT per service population would decrease, and thus implementation of the General Plan would have a less-than-significant impact. The proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with the General Plan policies and BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan because the proposed Specific Plan would increase service population and decrease VMT, thus it would continue to be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan and General Plan policies. Thus, this impact would remain as less than significant as stated in the General Plan Update EIR.

Plan Consistency
Implementation of the General Plan was concluded to be a less-than-significant impact in the General Plan Update EIR because implementation would be consistent with all federal and state guidelines and the 2017 Clean Air Plan as the General Plan would increase service population, decrease VMT, enhance job-generating uses within the city and comply with all General Plan policies and actions associated with reducing criteria pollutant emissions. The General Plan Update EIR concluded that since implementation of the General Plan would reduce VMT per service population by 3 percent, while increasing jobs and service population within the general plan area by 60.1 percent, the General Plan would further the fundamental goals of the BAAQMD in reducing emissions of criteria pollutants.

Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would allow for additional residential development beyond what is allowed under the General Plan through increases in density and implementation through an incentive program within the Specific Plan Area and would also decrease VMT and VMT per service population. Based on Table 2-4 in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” it is estimated compared to the adopted Gener al Plan that the proposed Specific Plan at buildout could result in a service population (residents and jobs) increase from 20,466 to 21,925 (7 percent increase) as compared to the General Plan at buildout. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan would reduce the annual VMT in the Specific Plan Area from 250,360,800 to 195,800,600, a reduction of 21.8 percent and 54,560,200 annual VMT (Fehr & Peers 2024), as shown in Table 3.2-4. This would align with the 2017 Clean Air Plan and be consistent with General Plan Policies LU 3-1 through LU 3-3, LU-4.2 through LU 4-4, LU 5-1, LU 6-6, CIR 2-1, CIR 3-1 through CIR 3-4, CIR 4-1 through CIR 4-6, CIR-5-1 through CIR 5-5, and CIR 6-9, all of which pertain to population, land use developments, and traffic and VMT reduction. Thus, this impact would not be more significant than the impact identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

Table 3.2-4 Specific Plan VMT and Service Population Changes Plan VMT (Annual) Service Population Annual VMT per population Adopted General Plan 250,360,800 20,466 12,233
Proposed Specific Plan 195,800,600 21,925 8,930
Change -54,560,200 +1,459 -3,303
Percent Change -21.8% +7.1% -27.0%
Source: Fehr & Peers 2024.

Construction
Construction activities associated with future development under the proposed Specific Plan would result in short- term temporary increases in criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors as a result of off and on road vehicle exhaust and dust emissions associated with earthwork and vehicular travel on paved and unpaved surfaces.

Due to the programmatic nature of the Specific Plan, site-specific construction details (e.g., schedule, development size and land use type) are not available; thus, construction emissions were not quantified. Compared to the land use development anticipated under the General Plan, the proposed Specific Plan anticipates development of more residential land uses and less non-residential land uses in the same period of time (i.e., 2025 to 2040). However,

Air Quality Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.2-16 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR construction equipment fleets continue to become cleaner as older equipment is replaced with newer cleaner and higher tiered equipment. Therefore, exhaust emissions from heavy-duty equipment are not anticipated to substantially increase even considering the slight increase in anticipated development. In addition, it is important to note that BAAQMD’s construction thresholds for individual projects are developed based on average daily emissions ; thus, for average daily emissions to substantially increase compared to those anticipated in the General Plan Update EIR, the rate of development per year would need to substantially increase for a meaningful increase in emissions to occur. Nothing has changed since the time the General Plan Update EIR has been prepared that would affect the anticipated rate of development over the next 15 years. Moreover, similar to the General Plan, the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with General Plan policies CON 1-1, 1-4 through 1-6, CON 1-8, 7-2 through 7-7 which all pertain to air quality construction impacts and would require future land use development to incorporate and adhere to dust control measures in accordance with BAAQMD’s Best Management Practices for fugitive dust control during construction, and would require a CEQA review consistent with the BAAQMD requirements for each project within the proposed Specific Plan. Thus, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

Operations
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in additional development of dwelling units and residential sf and a decrease in non- residential development to allow for increased residential density. The proposed Specific Plan also aims to integrate a mix of land uses throughout Main Street and the surrounding districts to create a walkable downtown supported by commercial retail and office uses, civic and cultural anchors, and infill residential and neighborhood service nodes, as stated in Chapter 2, “Project Description.” Land uses within the Specific Plan Area from the General Plan and the proposed Specific Plan were modeled with their corresponding annual VMT and trip generation rates and emissions were compared on an emissions per capita basis. Total operational emissions are identified in Tables 3.2-5 and 3.2-6.

Table 3.2-5 Adopted General Plan Estimated Operational Emissions (Average Daily) Emissions Source ROG (lb/day) NOx (lb/day) PM10 Exhaust (lb/day)
PM2.5 Exhaust
(lb/day)
Mobile 94.2 93.8 1.6 1.5
Area 188.0 2.5 0.3 0.2
Energy 2.3 41.1 3.2 3.2
Total Emissions 284.5 137.4 5.0 4.9
Emissions per Service Population 0.0139 0.0067 0.0002 0.0002 Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; PM10 = respirable particulate matter; lb/day = pounds per day; BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

Source: Modeled by Ascent 2024.

Table 3.2-6 Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Estimated Operational Emissions (Average Daily) Emissions Source ROG (lb/day) NOx (lb/day) PM10 Exhaust (lb/day)
PM2.5 Exhaust
(lb/day)
Mobile 118.0 87.7 1.3 1.2
Area 184.0 3.0 0.2 0.2
Energy 1.8 31.4 2.5 2.5
Total Emissions 303.8 122.1 4.0 3.9
Emissions per Service Population 0.0139 0.0056 0.0002 0.0002 Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; PM10 = respirable particulate matter; lb/day = pounds per day; BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

Source: Modeled by Ascent 2024.

Ascent Air Quality
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.2-17 As shown in Tables 3.2-5 and 3.2-6, the proposed Specific Plan would emit less NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 as a result of the increased residential densities and decreased non-residential development associated with the proposed Specific Plan compared to the General Plan. However, ROG emissions are estimated to increase due to the 18,964 or 50.2 percent (37,759 to 56,964) increase in daily trips.

Additionally, estimated operational emissions per service population would decrease or stay the same for each criteria pollutant as well. This would align with General Plan policies CD 6-1, CD 6-3, CD 11-2, CD 11-5, CD 11-8 through CD 11-11, CON 1-1 through CON 1-13, and CON 7-1 through CON 7-13 as stated above in Section 3.2.1, “Regulatory Settings.” CD 6-1 and CD 6-3 both promote walkable communities and would result in less VMT and ADT. CD 11-2, CD 11-5, and CD 11-8 through CD 11-11 all promote a more energy efficient operations through the encouraging passive solar design, the use of building material that conserve energy and material resources, encourage low-impact development, the use of green roofs to reduce the heat island effect, encourage development to use sustainable design approaches, and continuing to apply the CAP to increase the energy efficiency of development. CON 1-1 thought CON 1-13 would ensure that new development is consistent with the objectives and targets identified in the CAP, ensure all future development complies with the energy efficiency requirements in the CALGreen Code, support green building best management practices such as LEED certification and Titles 24 standards, require development to consider the lifecycle cost when identifying opportunities for the replacement and retrofitting of energy efficient technologies, reduce the city’s energy demand by pursuing the use of alternative energy and fuel-efficient vehicles and construction equipment, support the production of alterative and renewable energy, encourage energy efficiency and conservation through public awareness and educational opportunities, encourage site planning and building energy conservation through by taking advantage of shade, prevailing winds, landscapes, building orientations, and building material choices, encouraging the distribution of energy resources such as solar and fuel cells, considering incentive programs such as reduces fees and expedited permits for projects that exceed mandatory energy requirements and the City’s energy objectives, expand renewable energy installations, and support the use of electrical appliances and energy storage options that reduce the use of and reliance on natural gas. CON 7-1 through 7-13 would increase energy efficiency in the Specific Plan Area by creating a more compact community with reduced VMT and trip lengths, minimizing exposure of the public to toxic and harmful emissions by requiring an adequate buffer between residential and other sensitive land uses and land uses that typically generate air pollutants and TACs, requiring air quality mitigation measures in their design to reduce impacts if the project generates high levels of air pollutants, require projects to adhere to the requirements of the BAAQMD, enforce standards in the CAA, prioritize mixed-use developments near transit facilities, encourage reduced idling, and infrastructure improvements to safe walking and bicycling to reduce VMT and vehicle trips, and implement energy policies that reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases by increasing energy efficiency, conservation and the use of renewable resources. Thus, this impact would not be more significant than the impact identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

The proposed Specific Plan would further reduce VMT and VMT per service population while also increasing service population and jobs in the Specific Plan Area, therefore, the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan and the relevant General Plan policies. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan would continue to decrease operational emissions per capita, proving to be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan and the relevant General Plan policies. Thus, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain
less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Air Quality Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.2-18 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Impact 3.3-2: Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial TAC Concentrations The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.3-2) concluded that the General Plan would comply with the applicable policies and programs in the General Plan as well as applicable BAAQMD rules and regulations, that would minimize the potential exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of TACs and PM 2.5 within the City.

Therefore, this impact was concluded to be less than significant. The proposed Specific Plan would decrease non- residential SF within the Specific Plan Area and would not add additional TAC or PM2.5 emission sources that were not identified in the General Plan Update EIR. Thus, this impact would remain less than significant.

The General Plan Update EIR concluded that since the General Plan would include policies and programs that would minimize exposure to TAC and PM2.5 concentrations within the City, the impact is less than significant. 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. Policy CON 7-3 requires projects that generate high levels of pollutants to incorporate air quality mitigations into their design. Action CO-7c requires site-specific air quality Health Risk Assessments (HRAs) for developments that would place sensitive receptors closer than 500 feet from the edge of a regional roadway facility (including I-680, I-880, and SR-237), or for development projects that would place significant stationary sources of air pollution such as gas stations and dry cleaning facilities, or other industrial facilities that emit TACs within 500 feet of a sensitive receptor. Additionally, the General Plan Update EIR stated that all new sources of TAC emissions within the City would be required to obtain an air permit from BAAQMD that includes analysis of any TAC or PM2.5 emissions generated from the new source and the potential health impacts to the nearest sensitive receptor.

Health risks associated with TACs are most pronounced in the areas adjacent to freeway segments. Under the Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program, the BAAQMD has designated certain areas as “Impacted Communities” if the following occur: the areas (1) are close to or within areas of high TAC emissions; (2) have sensitive populations, defined as youth and seniors, with significant TAC exposures; and (3) have significant poverty. The General Plan Update EIR concluded that the city is not mapped by the BAAQMD as an Impacted Community under the CARE program. The CARE program has not changed mapping done by BAAQMD that would classify the Specific Plan Area as an Impacted Community.

Similar to the General Plan, the proposed Specific Plan would continue to require individual projects to undergo project-specific environmental review to determine health impacts from the construction and operation of future development. This would ensure future development under the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with General Plan Policy CON 7-2, CON 7-3, and CON 7-7, which requires adequate buffer or setback distances between sensitive land uses and potential sources of toxic or harmful air emissions, requires projects that generate high levels of pollutants to incorporate air quality mitigations into their design, and would require future development under the proposed Specific Plan to comply with regional, state, and federal standards and programs for all airborne pollutants and odors. In the event that future individual projects may result in exposure to TACs, these future projects would be required to implement mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a less than significant level, consistent with BAAQMD requirements. The proposed Specific Plan would not introduce any new TAC or PM 2.5 emission sources but would continue to require all new sources of TAC emissions within the City would be required to obtain an air permit from BAAQMD that includes analysis of any TAC or PM2.5 emissions created from the new source and the potential health impacts to the nearest sensitive receptor. Thus, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Ascent Air Quality
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.2-19 Impact 3.3-3: Result in Other Emissions (Such as Those Leading to Odors) Adversely Affecting a Substantial Number of People
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.3-3) concluded that the General Plan would not propose any land uses within the vicinity of this or any other potential source of objectionable odors. Individual projects that have the potential to generate significant objectionable odors would be required to undergo individual CEQA review . Additionally, the General Plan Update EIR stated that the General Plan would incorporate General Plan policies and actions that would further minimize the potential for other emissions (such as odors) to adversely affect a substantial number of people, and therefore a less-than-significant impact was concluded. The proposed Specific Plan would reduce the non- residential SF in the Specific Plan Area and would not introduce any new or substantial odor sources as identified in the General Plan Update EIR. Thus, this impact would remain less than significant.

Odorous emissions generated by heavy-duty diesel equipment and the laying of fresh asphalt during future anticipated construction activities would be intermittent and temporary and would dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase in distance. While construction of the proposed Specific Plan would be implemented over approximately 16 years, these types of odor-generating activities would not occur in a single location, or within proximity to off-site receptors, for an extended period. The type and level of construction activity would be typical of new development on a large site, and associated odor sources would not remain in any one part of the Specific Plan Area throughout all construction phases.

Regarding operational odor sources, the General Plan Update EIR identified potential odor sources known to exist in the city as the Newby Island Landfill & Composting operation, the Santa Clara / San Jose Regional Wastewater Facility, the Zanker Landfill & Composting Facility, and the Zanker Organic Digester Facility (ZWED). The General Plan Update EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would not propose any land uses within the vicinity of these sources or include new potential sources of objectionable odors. Individual projects that have the potential to generate significant objectionable odors would be required to undergo individual CEQA review. Similarly, the proposed Specific Plan would not propose sensitive land uses within the vicinity of existing major odor sources or anticipate new major odor-generating land uses.

General Plan Policies CON 7-2 and CON 7-7 would address potential odors, which would continue to apply within the Specific Plan Area. Policy CON 7-2 requires appropriate buffers and setbacks between sensitive land uses and odor sources and Policy CON 7-7 requires that all development comply with applicable regional, state, and federal standards pertaining to the control of odors. For the proposed Specific Plan, applicable standards include BAAQMD’s adopted rules and regulations pertaining to odors, specifically Regulation 7 which authorizes the air district to respond to and address citizen complaints pertaining to odors.

Considering the temporary nature of odor sources during construction of future development, this source is not typically considered a long-term nuisance generating substantial increases in odor complaints, and the proposed Specific Plan does not introduce any more substantial or unique construction activities compared to the General Plan Update EIR. Further, the proposed Specific Plan does not anticipate new major odor sources and proposed changes to land uses, compared to those previously anticipated in the General Plan Update EIR, consist of similar land uses (but more dense residential replacing non-residential uses), and odor exposure is not anticipated to increase. Further, all BAAQMD rules and regulations pertaining to odors, as required by the General Plan policies, would continue to be required, further reducing the potential for odor exposure. For these reasons, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Air Quality Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.2-20 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR This page is intentionally left blank.

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.3-1

3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section addresses common and sensitive biological resources that could be affected by implementation of the Specific Plan. The analysis includes a description of the existing environmental conditions, the methods used for assessment, the potential impacts associated with implementing the Specific Plan, and mitigation measures proposed to reduce significant and potentially significant impacts. This section also includes a brief overview of the federal, State, and local laws and regulations pertaining to the protection of biological resources in the City of Milpitas.

During public review of the Notice of Preparation for the EIR, comments were received from CDFW regarding impacts on aquatic resources, migratory birds and raptors, bats, and special-status species including western burrowing owl and Crotch’s bumble bee (see Appendix A).

3.3.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
Federal Endangered Species Act
Pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. Section 1531 et seq.), the U S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regulates the taking of species listed in the ESA as threatened or endangered. In general, persons subject to ESA (including private parties) are prohibited from “taking” endangered or threatened fish and wildlife species on private property, and from “taking” endangered or threatened plants in areas under federal jurisdiction or in violation of state law. Under Section 9 of the ESA, the definition of “take” is to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” USFWS has also interpreted the definition of “harm” to include significant habitat modification that could result in take.

Section 10 of the ESA applies if a non-federal agency is the lead agency for an action that results in take and no other federal agencies are involved in permitting the action. Section 7 of the ESA applies if a federal discretionary action is required (e.g., a federal agency must issue a permit), in which case the involved federal agency consults with USFWS.

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires a project applicant to obtain a permit before engaging in any activity that involves any discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands.

Fill material is material placed in waters of the United States where the material has the effect of replacing any portion of a water of the United States with dry land or changing the bottom elevation of any portion of a water of the United States. Waters of the United States include navigable waters of the United States; interstate waters; all other waters where the use, degradation, or destruction of the waters could affect interstate or foreign commerce; tributaries to any of these waters that are relatively permanent standing or continuously flowing bodies of water; and wetlands adjacent to and with a continuous surface connection to these waters. Wetlands are defined as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and durat ion sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Potentially jurisdictional wetlands must meet three wetland delineation criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil types, and wetland hydrology. Wetlands that meet the delineation criteria may be jurisdictional under Section 404 of the CWA pending US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) verification.

Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Under Section 401 of the CWA, an applicant for a Section 404 permit must obtain a certificate from the appropriate state agency stating that the intended dredging or filling activity is consistent with the state’s water quality standards and criteria. In California, the authority to grant water quality certification is delegated by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to the regional water quality control boards (RWQCBs).

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.3-2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), first enacted in 1918, provides for protection of international migratory birds and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to regulate the taking of migratory birds. The MBTA provides that it will be unlawful, except as permitted by regulations, to pursue, take, or kill any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird. Under the MBTA, “take” is defined as “to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or any attempt to carry out these activities.” A take does not include habitat destruction or alteration, as long as there is not a direct taking of birds, nests, eggs, or parts thereof. The current list of species protected by the MBTA can be found in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 10.13 (50 CFR 10.13). The list includes nearly all birds native to the United States.

STATE
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act), waters of the state fall under the jurisdiction of the appropriate RWQCB. RWQCBs must prepare and periodically update water quality control plans (basin plans). Each basin plan sets forth water quality standards for surface water and groundwater, as well as actions to control point and nonpoint sources of pollution to achieve and maintain these standards. The RWQCB’s jurisdiction includes federally protected waters, as well as areas that meet the definition of “waters of the state.” “Waters of the state” is defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state. The RWQCB has the discretion to take jurisdiction over areas not federally protected under Section 401 of the CWA provided they meet the definition of waters of the state. Actions that affect waters of the state, including wetlands, must meet the RWQCB’s waste discharge requirements.

California Endangered Species Act
Pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), a permit from CDFW is required for projects that could result in the “take” of a plant or animal species that is listed by the state as threatened or endangered. Under CESA, “take” is defined as an activity that would directly or indirectly kill an individual of a species, but does not include “harm” or “harass,” as does the federal definition. As a result, the threshold for take is higher under CESA than under the federal ESA. Authorization for take of state-listed species can be obtained through a California Fish and Game Code Section 2081 incidental take permit.

California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5—Protection of Bird Nests Section 3503 of the Fish and Game Code states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird. Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any raptors (i.e., species in the orders Falconiformes and Strigiformes), including their nests or eggs. Typical violations include destruction of active nests because of tree removal or disturbance caused by project construction or other activities that cause the adults to abandon the nest, resulting in loss of eggs and/or young.

Fully Protected Species under the California Fish and Game Code Protection of fully protected species is described in Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the California Fish and Game Code. These statutes prohibit take or possession of fully protected species and do not provide for authorization of incidental take except for scientific research purposes or for relocation to protect livestock.

California Fish and Game Code Section 1602—Streambed Alteration All diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake in California that supports wildlife resources are subject to regulation by CDFW under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. Under Section 1602, it is unlawful for any person, governmental agency, or public utility to do the following without first notifying CDFW:
 substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from, the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, or

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.3-3  deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake.

The regulatory definition of a stream is a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel that has banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This definition includes watercourses with a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation. CDFW’s jurisdiction within altered or artificial waterways is based on the value of those waterways to fish and wildlife. A CDFW streambed alteration agreement must be obtained for any action that would result in an impact on a river, stream, or lake.

LOCAL
The City of Milpitas General Plan 2040
The City of Milpitas General Plan 2040 (General Plan) Environmental Conservation and Sustainability Element (City of Milpitas 2021) includes the following policies that may apply to biological resources applicable to implementation of the Specific Plan:
 Policy CON 3-1: Preserve and enhance biological communities that contribute to Milpitas’ and the region’s biodiversity including, but not limited to, wetlands, riparian areas, and aquatic habitat.  Policy CON 3-2: Preserve and enhance the aesthetic and habitat value of riparian corridors including, but not limited to Coyote, Wrigley Ford and Penitencia Creeks.
 Policy CON 3-3: Limit the disturbance of natural water bodies and drainage systems in Milpitas by conserving natural open space areas, protecting channels, and minimizing the impacts and pollutants from stormwater and urban runoff.
 Policy CON 3-4: Focus conservation efforts on areas that contain suitable habitat for endangered, threatened, migratory, or special-status species and that can be managed with minimal interference with nearby urban land uses.
 Policy CON 3-5: Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to preserve wetlands, riparian corridors, and buffer zones in Milpitas by continuing to require that new development follow the “Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams” to protect streams and riparian habitats. Encourage the use of Green Stormwater Infrastructure such as water quality wetlands, bioretention swales, watershed-scale retrofits, and other low -impact development techniques, etc., consistent with the City’s Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan and where such measures are likely to be effective and technically and economically feasible.  Policy CON 3- 6: Work cooperatively with local, state, and federal agencies to comply with regulations, reduce pollutants in runoff, and protect and enhance water resources in the Santa Clara Basin through implementation of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Prevention Program (SCVURPPP).  Policy CON 3-7: Build upon existing streetscapes and develop an urban forest along the City’s major corridors and in residential neighborhoods to provide avian habitat, sequester carbon emissions, foster pedestrian activity, and provide shade.
 Action CON-3b: Where sensitive biological habitats have been identified on or immediately adjacent to a project site, the project shall include appropriate mitigation measures identified by a qualified biologist, which may include, but are not limited to the following:
 Pre-construction surveys for species listed under the State or Federal Endangered Species Acts, or species identified as special-status by the resource agencies, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist;  Construction barrier fencing shall be installed around sensitive resources and areas identified for avoidance or protection, and to reduce potential soil compaction in sensitive areas; and  Pre-construction training of contractors and sub-contractors shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify and avoid protected species and habitat.

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.3-4 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR  Action CON-3c: Cooperate with State, federal and local agencies to ensure that development does not cause significant adverse impacts to existing riparian corridors; this includes continued compliance with the “Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams” from the Santa Clara Valley Water District and Title XI, Chapter 15 (Floodplain Management Regulations) of the Milpitas Municipal Code.  Action CON-3d: Continue to require new development and infrastructure projects to incorporate the standards and requirements contained in the Green Stormwater Infrastructure Handbook, Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Stormwater Handbook and comply with Title XI, Chapter 16 (Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control) of the Milpitas Municipal Code to ensure that Low Impact Development (LID) measures are incorporated into site designs to reduce pollutants from non-point sources, incorporate “green” stormwater infrastructure, and encourage greater use of permeable paving surfaces.  Action CON-3e: Continue to implement a comprehensive municipal stormwater pollution-prevention program in compliance with requirements of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) and the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit as issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.  Action CON-3f: Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to restrict future fencing, piping and channelization of creeks when flood control and public safety can be achieved through measures that preserve the natural environmental and habitat of riparian corridors; in addition, evaluate opportunities to revert some existing concrete-lined channels to more natural alternatives such as levees.  Action CON-3g: Encourage the Santa Clara Valley Water District, County Parks Department, developers and private property owners to plant and maintain native trees and plants and replace invasive, non -native species with native ones along creek corridors.
 Action CON-3h: Continue to work collaboratively with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to institute on -going programs to remove invasive plant species and harmful insects from sensitive habitat areas, primarily by means other than application of herbicides and pesticides.
 Action CON-3j: Coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Santa Clara County, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and local watershed protection groups to identify potentially impacted aquatic habitat within Milpitas and to develop riparian management guidelines to be implemented by development, recreation, and other projects adjacent to creeks, streams, and other waterways. Efforts should result in standards to reduce impacts between urban development and riparian corridors, including lighting restrictions, pollution controls, noise reduction, and other measures deemed appropriate to preserve and enhance the biological function of habitat.

Tree Maintenance and Protection Ordinance of the City of Milpitas City Ordinance 201.5 in Milpitas outlines the regulations and responsibilities for tree maintenance and removal of street trees, heritage trees, and protected trees.

Street Trees: The city plants Approved Street Trees in public rights-of-way and tree planting easements. The Public Works Director selects suitable trees from the Approved Street Tree List. Residents or property owners are responsible for watering and protecting street trees located in these easements.

Heritage Trees: These are trees of significant size, age, form, or historical importance. It is illegal to prune or remove a Heritage Tree without a permit from the Public Works Department.

Protected Trees: Trees on residential, commercial, industrial, and vacant lots are protected by law if they meet certain size requirements:
 Residential trees with a circumference of 56 inches or more.  Commercial/industrial and vacant lot trees with a circumference of 37 inches or more. A permit is required to remove or prune these trees.

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.3-5

3.3.2 Environmental Setting

LAND COVER
Urban habitat comprises most of the Specific Plan Area, with limited natural habitat occurring in small fragments throughout the area (Figure 3.3-1) (EDAW 2001). Natural terrestrial habitats include arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) alliance along Wrigley Ford Creek, Goodding's willow - red willow (Salix goodingii-Salix laevigata) alliance along the eastern edge of the Specific Plan Area, shrub fragments along Thompson Street, and small patches of annual and perennial grassland and nonnative forest occurring throughout. Portions of Penitencia Creek and Wrigley Ford Creek occur in the Specific Plan Area (Figure 3.3-2). The dominant species along Wrigley Ford Creek is arroyo willow, and nonnative vegetation is prevalent along Penitencia Creek (Figure 3.3-1). Descriptions of these creeks are provided in the Midtown Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (Midtown SP EIR) (see Chapter 3.7.1 “Existing Setting”) (EDAW 2001).

COMMON WILDLIFE
Wildlife diversity is expected to be low due to the urbanized nature of the Specific Plan A rea (EDAW 2001). A list of common species found or expected to utilize the developed and undeveloped habitat in the Specific Plan Area are described in the Midtown SP EIR (See Chapter 3.7.1 “Existing Setting”) (EDAW 2001).

SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Special-Status Species
Special-status species are defined as species that are legally protected under CESA (California Fish and Game Code, Section 2050 et seq.), the federal ESA, or other regulations, or that are otherwise considered sensitive by federal, state, or local resource agencies. Special-status species are species, subspecies, or varieties that fall into one or more of the following categories, regardless of their legal or protection status:
 officially listed by California or the federal government as endangered, threatened, or rare;  a candidate for state or federal listing as endangered, threatened, or rare;  taxa (i.e., taxonomic category or group) that meet the criteria for listing, even if not currently included on any list, as described in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15380 of the State CEQA Guidelines;  species identified by CDFW as Species of Special Concern;  species listed as Fully Protected under the California Fish and Game Code;  species that are considered locally significant, that is, a species that is not rare from a statewide perspective but is rare or unique in a local context such as within a county or region (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 [c]) or is so designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances (State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G); and  taxa considered by the CDFW to be “rare, threatened, or endangered in California” and assigned a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR). The CDFW system includes three rarity and endangerment ranks for categorizing plant species of concern, summarized as follows:
 CRPR 1A Plants presumed to be extinct in California;
 CRPR 1B Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; and  CRPR 2 Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere.

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.3-6 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR

Source: Data downloaded from the 2020 Santa Cruz and Santa Clara county fine scale vegetation map; adapted by Ascent in 2024.

Figure 3.3-1 Land Cover

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.3-7

Source: Data downloaded from USFWS in 2024; adapted by Ascent in 2024.

Figure 3.3-2 Aquatic Resources

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.3-8 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR The term “California species of special concern” is applied by CDFW to animals not listed under ESA or CESA, but that are considered to be declining at a rate that could result in listing, or that historically occurred in low numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist. CDFW’s fully protected status was California’s first attempt to identify and protect animals that were rare or facing extinction. Most species listed as fully protected were eventually listed as threatened or endangered under CESA; however, some species remain listed as fully protected but do not have simultaneous listing under CESA.

Table 3.3-1 provides a list of special-status species potentially occurring in the Specific Plan Area vicinity. Special- status plant and wildlife species that could occur within or adjacent to the Specific Plan Area are evaluated in this SEIR and are discussed in further detail below.

Table 3.3-1 Special- Status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Specific Plan Area and Their Potential for Occurrence in the Specific Plan Area
Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
CRPR Habitat Potential for Occurrence2
Alkali milk-vetch
Astragalus tener var. tener — — 1B.2
Low ground, alkali flats, and flooded lands;
in annual grassland or in playas or vernal
pools. 0–550 ft in elevation. Blooms March–
June. Annual.

May occur. The Specific Plan Area contains
grassland habitat and seasonal wetland
habitat that may be suitable for this species.

Brittlescale
Atriplex depressa — — 1B.2
Chenopod scrub, meadows, seeps, playas,
valley and foothill grassland, and vernal
pools. Usually in alkali scalds or alkaline clay
in meadows or annual grassland; rarely
associated with riparian, marshes, or vernal
pools. 5–1,065 ft in elevation. Blooms April–
October. Annual.

May occur. The Specific Plan Area contains
grassland and seasonal wetland habitat that
may be suitable for this species.

Lesser saltscale
Atriplex minuscula — — 1B.1
Chenopod scrub, alkali playas, valley and
foothill grassland. In alkali sink and
grassland in sandy, alkaline soils. 0–740 ft in
elevation. Blooms May–October. Annual.

May occur. The Specific Plan Area contains
grassland habitat that may be suitable for
this species.

Big-scale balsamroot
Balsamorhiza macrolepis — — 1B.2
Chaparral, valley and foothill grassland,
cismontane woodland. Sometimes on
serpentine. 115–4,805 ft in elev
ation. Blooms
March–June. Perennial.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan
Area does no contain chaparral, woodland,
or undisturbed grassland suitable for this
species.

Congdon's tarplant
Centromadia parryi ssp.
congdonii

— — 1B.1
Valley and foothill grassland. Alkaline soils,
sometimes described as heavy white clay.
0–800 ft in elevation. Blooms May–October.

Annual.

Known to occur. There is an occurrence
from 2008 along the eastern boundary of
the Specific Plan Area, between Topaz
Street and the railroad.

Point Reyes salty bird's-
beak
Chloropyron maritimum
ssp. palustre
— — 1B.2
In coastal salt marsh with Salicornia,
Distichlis, Jaumea, Spartina, etc. 0–375 ft in
elevation. Blooms June–October. Annual.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan
Area does not contain coastal salt marsh
habitat suitable for this species.

Robust spineflower
Chorizanthe robusta var.
robusta

FE — 1B.1
Cismontane woodland, coastal dunes,
coastal scrub, chaparral. Sandy terraces and
bluffs or in loose sand. 30–805 ft in
elevation. Blooms April–September. Annual.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan
Area does not contain sandy terraces or
bluffs with loose sand substrate suitable for
this species.

Mt. Hamilton thistle
Cirsium fontinale var.
campylon

— — 1B.2
Ultramafic. Cismontane woodland,
chaparral, valley and foothill grassland. In
seasonal and perennial drainages on
serpentine. 330–2,920 ft in elevation.

Blooms April–October. Perennial.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan
Area is outside of the elevational range of
this species.

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.3-9 Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
CRPR Habitat Potential for Occurrence2
San Francisco collinsia
Collinsia multicolor — — 1B.2
Closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal
scrub. On decomposed shale (mudstone)
mixed with humus; sometimes on
serpentine. 100–820 ft in elevation. Blooms
March–May. Annual.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan
Area does not contain closed-cone
coniferous forest or coastal scrub habitat
suitable for this species.

Hospital Canyon larkspur
Delphinium californicum
ssp. interius

— — 1B.2
Cismontane woodland, chaparral, coastal
scrub. In wet, boggy meadows, openings in
chaparral and in canyons. 640–3,595 ft in
elevation. Blooms April–June. Perennial.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan
Area does not contain closed-cone
coniferous forest or coastal scrub habitat
suitable for this species.

Western leatherwood
Dirca occidentalis — — 1B.2
Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral,
closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane
woodland, north coast coniferous forest,
riparian forest, riparian woodland. On
brushy slopes, mesic sites; mostly in mixed
evergreen and foothill woodland
communities. 80–1,395 ft in elevation.

Blooms January–March. Perennial.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan
Area is outside of the geographical range of
this species, and the Specific Plan Area does
not contain brushy slope habitat suitable
for this species.

Santa Clara Valley
dudleya
Dudleya abramsii ssp.
setchellii
FE — 1B.1
Ultramafic. Valley and foothill grassland,
cismontane woodland. On rocky serpentine
outcrops. 195–1,495 ft in elevation. Blooms
April–October. Perennial.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan
Area is out of the elevational range of this
species and does not contain serpentine
substrate suitable for this species.

Hoover's button-celery
Eryngium aristulatum var.
hooveri

— — 1B.1
Alkaline depressions, vernal pools, and
other wet places near the coast. 5–165 ft in
elevation. Blooms July. Annual/Perennial.

May occur. The Specific Plan Area contains
a vernally wet depression near Elmwood
Correctional Facility that may be marginally
suitable for this species.

San Joaquin spearscale
Extriplex joaquinana — — 1B.2
Chenopod scrub, alkali meadow, playas,
valley and foothill grassland. In seasonal
alkali wetlands or alkali sink scrub with
Distichlis spicata, Frankenia, etc. 5–2,740 ft
in elevation. Blooms April–October. Annual.

May occur. The Specific Plan Area contains
grassland and wetland habitat potentially
suitable for this species.

Fragrant fritillary
Fritillaria liliacea — — 1B.2
Coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland,
coastal prairie, cismontane woodland. Often
on serpentine; various soils reported
though usually on clay. 10–1,310 ft in
elevation. Blooms February–April.

Geophyte.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan
Area does not contain coastal scrub, coastal
prairie, or undisturbed grassland habitat
with serpentine substrate suitable for this
species.

Loma Prieta hoita
Hoita strobilina — — 1B.1
Ultramafic. Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, riparian woodland. Serpentine;
mesic sites. 195–3,200 ft in elevation.

Blooms May–July. Perennial.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan
Area is out of the elevational range of this
species and does not contain serpentine
substrate suitable for this species.

Contra Costa goldfields
Lasthenia conjugens FE — 1B.1
Valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools,
alkaline playas, cismontane woodland.

Swales and low depressions, in open grassy
areas. 5–1,475 ft in elevation. Blooms
March–June. Annual.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan
Area does not contain alkali playa or vernal
pool habitat suitable for this species.

Mmooth lessingia
Lessingia micradenia var.
glabrata

— — 1B.2
Ultramafic. Chaparral, cismontane
woodland. Serpentine; often on roadsides.
395–1,380 ft in elevation. Blooms July–
November. Annual.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan
Area is out of the elevational range of this
species and does not contain serpentine
substrate suitable for this species.

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.3-10 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
CRPR Habitat Potential for Occurrence2
Arcuate bush-mallow
Malacothamnus arcuatus — — 1B.2
Chaparral, cismontane woodland. Gravelly
alluvium. 5–2,410 ft in elevation. Blooms
April–September. Perennial.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan
Area does not contain chaparral or
woodland habitat with gravelly alluvium
substrate suitable for this species.

Hall's bush-mallow
Malacothamnus hallii — — 1B.2
Chaparral, coastal scrub. Some populations
on serpentine. 35–2,395 ft in elevation.

Blooms May–September. Perennial.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan
Area does not contain chaparral or coastal
scrub habitat suitable for this species.

Woodland woollythreads
Monolopia gracilens — — 1B.2
Chaparral, valley and foothill grassland,
cismontane woodland, broadleafed upland
forest, north coast coniferous forest. Grassy
sites, in openings; sandy to rocky soils.

Often seen on serpentine after burns but
may have only weak affinity to serpentine.
330–3,935 ft in elevation. Blooms March–
July. Annual.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan
Area is out of the elevational range of this
species. Prostrate vernal pool
navarretia
Navarretia prostrata
— — 1B.2
Alkaline soils in wet grassland or coastal
scrub, or in vernal pools. Mesic, alkaline
sites. 10–4,050 ft in elevation. Blooms April–
July. Annual.

May occur. The Specific Plan Area contains
wet grassland habitat potentially suitable
for this species.

Hairless popcornflower
Plagiobothrys glaber — — 1A
Coastal salt marsh, alkaline grasslands, and
vernal pools. 15–590 ft in elevation. Blooms
March–May. Annual.

Not expected to occur. This species is
presumed extirpated in California, and it is
unlikely to occur in a highly urbanized
environment such as the Specific Plan Area.

California alkali grass
Puccinellia simplex — — 1B.2
Meadows and seeps, vernal pools, sinks,
flats and lake margins within chenopod
scrub and valley and foothill grasslands.

Alkaline, vernally mesic. 5–3,000 ft in
elevation. Blooms March–May. Annual.

May occur. The Specific Plan Area contains
vernally wet depressions and grassland
habitat potentially suitable for this species.

Chaparral harebell
Ravenella exigua — — 1B.2
Chaparral. On rocky, usually serpentinite,
substrate. 900-4,100 ft in elevation. Blooms
May-June. Annual.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan
Area is out of the elevational range of this
species.

Chaparral ragwort
Senecio aphanactis — — 2B.2
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub. Drying alkaline flats. 65–2,805 ft in
elevation. Blooms January–April. Annual.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan
Area does not contain chaparral, woodland,
or coastal scrub habitat suitable for this
species.

Long-styled sand-spurrey
Spergularia macrotheca
var. longistyla

— — 1B.2
Marshes and swamps, meadows and seeps ,
vernal pools, and alkaline grasslands. Can
tolerate disturbed habitat. Alkaline. 0–835 ft
in elevation. Blooms February–May.

Perennial.

May occur. The Specific Plan Area contains
grassland and wetland habitat that may be
suitable for this species.

Metcalf Canyon
jewelflower
Streptanthus albidus ssp.
albidu
s
FE — 1B.1
Ultramafic. Valley and foothill grassland.

Relatively open areas in dry grassy
meadows on serpentine soils; also on
serpentine balds. 150–2,625 ft in elevation.

Blooms April–July. Annual.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan
Area is out of the elevational range of this
species and does not contain serpentine
substrate suitable for this species.

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.3-11 Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
CRPR Habitat Potential for Occurrence2
Most beautiful
jewelflower
Streptanthus albidus ssp.
peramoenus
— — 1B.2
Ultramafic. Chaparral, valley and foothill
grassland, cismontane woodland.

Serpentine outcrops, on ridges and slopes.
310–3,280 ft in elevation. Blooms April–
September. Annual.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan
Area is out of the elevational range of this
species.

Northern slender
pondweed
Stuckenia filiformis ssp.
alpina
— — 2B.2
Marshes, swamps, and shallow, clear water
of lakes and drainage channels. 985–7,055
ft in elevation. Blooms May–July. Geophyte.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan
Area is out of the elevational range of this
species.

California seablite
Suaeda californica FE — 1B.1 Margins of coastal salt marshes. 0–15 ft in elevation. Blooms July–October. Perennial.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan
Area does not contain coastal marsh or
swamp habitat suitable for this species.

Saline clover
Trifolium hydrophilum — — 1B.2
Marshes and swamps, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools. Mesic, alkaline sites.
0–985 ft in elevation. Blooms April–June.

Annual.

May occur. The Specific Plan Area contains
wetland and grassland habitat potentially
suitable for this species.

Notes: CRPR = California Rare Plant Rank; CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act; ESA = Endangered Species Act 1 Legal Status Definitions
Federal:

FE Federally Listed as Endangered (legally protected by ESA) California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR):
1A Plant species that are presumed extirpated or extinct because they have not been seen or collected in the wild in California for many years. A plant is extinct if it no longer occurs anywhere. A plant that is extirpated from California has been eliminated from California but may still occur elsewhere in its range.
1B Plant species considered rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (protected under CEQA, but not legally protected under ESA or CESA).
2B Plant species considered rare or endangered in California but more common elsewhere (protected under CEQA, but not legally protected under ESA or CESA).

CRPR Threat Ranks:

0.1 Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened; high degree and immediacy of threat)

0.2 Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened; moderate degree and immediacy of threat) 2 Potential for Occurrence Definitions
Not expected to occur: Species is unlikely to be present because of poor habitat quality, lack of suitable habitat features, or restricted current distribution of the species.

May occur: Suitable habitat is available and there have been nearby recorded occurrences of the species.

Known to occur: The species has been observed within the treatment areas.

Sources: CNDDB 2024; CNPS 2024.

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.3-12 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Table 3.3-2 Special- Status Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Specific Plan Area and Their Potential for Occurrence in the Specific Plan Area Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Habitat Potential for Occurrence2
Amphibians and Reptiles
California tiger salamander -
central California DPS
Ambystoma californiense
pop. 1
FT ST Lives in vacant or mammal-occupied burrows
throughout most of the year; in grassland,
savanna, or open woodland habitats. Need
underground refuges, especially ground
squirrel burrows, and standing bodies of fresh
water such as ponds, vernal pools and other
ephemeral or sometimes permanent water
bodies for breeding.

Not expected to occur. Due to urban
development, most California tiger
salamander populations within the Santa
Clara Valley floor have been extirpated
(CNDDB 2024). The remaining populations
occur along the valley floor’s edges, in the
surrounding foothills, and in some
undeveloped areas south of San Jose (CNDDB
2024). The Specific Plan Area is located in the
middle of the valley floor and is surrounded
by dense urbanization. Penitencia and
Wrigley Ford creeks are largely channelized
and often concrete-lined, therefore they do
not offer high-quality breeding habitat. In
addition, the areas surrounding these creeks
lack sufficient upland habitat as it is
surrounded by urban uses along its borders.

The seasonal wetland near Elmwood
Correctional Facility is in a highly urbanized
environment and is surrounded by
development and busy roads on all sides, so
it is unlikely to provide habitat suitable for this
species.

Santa Cruz black salamander
Aneides niger
— SSC Mixed deciduous and coniferous woodlands
and coastal grasslands in San Mateo, Santa
Cruz, and Santa Clara counties. Adults found
under rocks, talus, and damp woody debris.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan Area
is out of the known geographical range of
this species and lacks woodland and coastal
grassland habitat suitable for this species.

Northern California legless
lizard
Anniella pulchra
— SSC Chaparral. Coastal dunes. Coastal scrub.

Sandy or loose loamy soils under sparse
vegetation. Soil moisture is essential. Prefers
soils with a high moisture content.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan Area
does not contain chaparral, coastal dune, or
coastal scrub habitat suitable for this species.

California giant salamander
Dicamptodon ensatus
— SSC Meadow and seep, north coast coniferous
forest, and riparian forest. Known from wet
coastal forests near streams and seeps from
Mendocino County south to Monterey
County and east to Napa County. Aquatic
larvae found in cold, clear streams,
occasionally in
lakes and ponds. Adults known
from wet forests under rocks and logs near
streams and lakes.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan Area
is out of the known geographical range of
this species.

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.3-13 Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Habitat Potential for Occurrence2
Northwestern pond turtle
Actinemys marmorata
FP SSC Ponds, marshes, rivers, streams and irrigation
ditches, usually with aquatic vegetation,
below 6,000 ft elevation. Needs basking sites
and suitable (sandy banks or grassy open
fields) upland habitat up to 0.5 km from water
for egg-laying.

May occur. Penitencia Creek may provide
aquatic and basking habitat suitable for
northwestern pond turtle. There is very little
natural habitat (i.e. sandy banks or grassy
open fields) along Penitencia Creek and the
high levels of disturbance associated with
developed land use along the creek make it
unsuitable for egg-laying.

Alameda whipsnake
Masticophis lateralis
euryxanthus
FT ST Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Typically
found in chaparral and scrub habitats but will
also use adjacent grassland, oak savanna and
woodland habitats. Mostly south-facing
slopes and ravines, with rock outcrops, deep
crevices or abundant rodent burrows, where
shrubs form a vegetative mosaic with oak
trees and grasses.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan Area
is out of the known geographical range of
this species and lacks chaparral and scrub
habitat suitable for this species.

California red-legged frog
Rana draytonii
FT SSC Artificial flowing waters, artificial standing
waters, freshwater marsh, marsh & swamp,
riparian forest, riparian scrub, riparian
woodland, Sacramento/San Joaquin flowing
waters, Sacramento/San Joaquin standing
waters, south coast flowing waters. Lowlands
and foothills in or near permanent sources of
deep water with dense, shrubby or emergent
riparian vegetation. Requires 11-20 weeks of
permanent water for larval development.

Must have access to estivation habitat.

May occur. Wrigley Ford Creek may provide
aquatic habitat suitable for red-legged frog
and the dense riparian corridor along the
creek may provide upland habitat.

Foothill yellow-legged frog
(Central Coast DPS)
Rana boylii pop. 4
FT SE San Francisco Peninsula and Diablo Range
south of San Francisco Bay Estuary, and south
through the Santa Cruz and Gabilan
Mountains east of the Salinas River in the
southern inner Coast Ranges. Partly shaded
shallow streams and riffles with a rocky
substrate in a variety of habitats. Needs at
least some cobble-sized substrate for egg-
laying and at least 15 weeks to attain
metamorphosis.

Not expected to occur. All occurrences of
foothill yellow-legged frog in Santa Clara
Valley have been extirpated due to
urbanization (CNDDB 2024). All known
occurrences are restricted to the surrounding
foothills and mountains (CNDDB 2024).

Birds
Tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
(nesting colonies)
— ST
SSC
Freshwater marsh, marsh and swamp, swamp,
wetland. Highly colonial species, most
numerous in Central Valley and vicinity.

Largely endemic to California. Requires open
water, protected nesting substrate, and
foraging area with insect prey within a few
kilometers of the colony.

May occur. Tricolored blackbirds may fly
through the Specific Plan Area or temporarily
use the thin strip of riparian vegetation along
Penitencia Creek and Wrigley Ford Creek,
however, they are unlikely to nest in these
areas due to the small size of the riparian
corridor and high levels of disturbance from
surrounding developed land uses. In addition,
the Specific Plan Area does not contain
foraging habitat (i.e. extensive wetlands or
agricultural fields) suitable for this species.

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.3-14 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Habitat Potential for Occurrence2
Golden eagle
Aquila chrysaetos
(nesting and wintering)
— FP Broadleaved upland forest, cismontane
woodland, coastal prairie, Great Basin
grassland, Great Basin scrub, lower montane
coniferous forest, pinyon and juniper
woodlands, upper montane coniferous forest,
and valley and foothill grassland. Rolling
foothills, mountain areas, sage-juniper flats,
and desert. Cliff-walled canyons provide
nesting habitat in most parts of range; also,
large trees in open areas.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan Area
is surrounded by dense urban development
and lacks cliff-
walled canyons or large trees in
open areas for nesting, as well as open space
with grassland, woodland, coastal prairie,
scrub, or forest habitat for foraging.

Burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
(burrow sites)
— SSC
SC
Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, Great Basin
grassland, Great Basin scrub, Mojavean desert
scrub, Sonoran desert scrub, and valley and
foothill grassland. Open, dry annual or
perennial grasslands, deserts and scrublands
characterized by low-
growing vegetation. Can
also be found in vacant lots, road medians
and airports. Subterranean nester, dependent
upon burrowing mammals, most notably, the
California ground squirrel.

May occur. There are historical observations
of burrowing owl in the Specific Plan Area
from 1998 and 2006 (CNDDB 2024). The 1998
occurrence has since been turned into a
residential neighborhood and is now
considered extirpated (CNDDB 2024). The
2006 occurrence, found in the vicinity of the
Elmwood Correctional Facility, may be
extirpated because most of the grasslands in
the mapped occurrence area have been
developed. However, small fragments of
grassland habitat still exist in the area that
could support this species. Both occurrences
were surrounded by urban development and
were found in low quality habitats such as
sewer drainages and small areas of ruderal,
disced grassland. Other grassland habitat
within the Specific Plan Area may provide
habitat marginally suitable for this species.

Swainson's hawk
Buteo swainsoni
(nesting)
— ST Great Basin grassland, riparian forest, riparian
woodland, valley and foothill grassland.

Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees,
juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, savannahs,
and agricultural or ranch lands with groves or
lines of trees. Requires adjacent suitable
foraging areas such as grasslands, or alfalfa or
grain fields supporting rodent populations.

Not expected to occur. There are very few
observations of Swainson’s hawk in the
urbanized areas of the Santa Clara Valley, and
all observations are either considered
extirpated or note that Swainson’s Hawk was
only flying overhead towards other areas
(CNDDB 2024; eBird 2024). In addition, the
Specific Plan Area does not contain large
open grasslands or agricultural areas suitable
for foraging. Consequently, Swainson’s hawk
is unlikely to nest in the Specific Plan Area
due to lack of high-quality foraging habitat
and the high levels of human disturbance.

Western snowy plover
Charadrius nivosus nivosus
(nesting)
FT SSC Sandy beaches, salt pond levees and shores
of large alkali lakes. Needs sandy, gravelly or
friable soils for nesting.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan Area
does not contain beach or shore habitat with
sandy substrate suitable for this species.

Northern harrier
Circus hudsonius
(nesting)
— SSC Coastal salt and freshwater marsh. Nest and
forage in grasslands, from salt grass in desert
sink to mountain cienagas. Nests on ground
in shrubby vegetation, usually at marsh edge;
nest built of a large mound of sticks in wet
areas.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan Area
does not contain marsh habitat suitable for
this species.

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.3-15 Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Habitat Potential for Occurrence2
Western yellow-billed cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
(nesting)
FT SE Riparian forest. Riparian forest nester, along
the broad, lower flood-bottoms of larger river
systems. Nests in riparian jungles of willow,
often mixed with cottonwoods, with lower
story of blackberry, nettles, or wild grape.

Not expected to occur. Western yellow-billed
cuckoo generally requires large areas of
riparian woodland that contain habitat for
nesting and foraging in incontiguous or
nearly contiguous patches that are greater
than 325 ft in width and 200 acres or more i n
extent (USFS 2014). The fragmented riparian
habitat along the creeks in the Specific Plan
Area have a very narrow width (95 ft or less),
and are surrounded by urban development;
they do not provide the size of habitat
necessary for western yellow-billed cuckoo.

There is a historical observation of western
yellow-billed cuckoo from 1899 in the general
vicinity of the Specific Plan Area, however, it is
considered extirpated due to urban
development (CNDDB 2024).

Yellow rail
Coturnicops noveboracensis
(nesting and wintering)
— SSC Freshwater marsh, wet meadow and seep.

Summer resident in eastern Sierra Nevada in
Mono County.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan Area
does not contain marsh or wet meadow
habitat suitable for this species.

White-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus
(nesting)
— FP Cismontane woodland, marsh and swamp,
riparian woodland, valley and foothill
grassland, and wetlands. Rolling foothills and
valley margins with scattered oaks and river
bottomlands or marshes next to deciduous
woodland. Open grasslands, meadows, or
marshes for foraging close to isolated, dense -
topped trees for nesting and perching.

May occur. White-tailed kites are frequently
observed in the urban areas of the Santa
Clara Valley, including the vicinity of Milpitas
(eBird 2024). Although white-tailed kite is
more likely to use less urbanized areas with
higher quality foraging habitat outside of the
Specific Plan Area, it is possible that they may
use the small fragments of grassland or
riparian habitat within the Specific Plan Area
for foraging and nearby tall trees for nesting.

Saltmarsh common
yellowthroat
Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
(year-round)
— SSC Marsh and swamp. Resident of the San
Francisco Bay region, in fresh and salt water
marshes. Requires thick, continuous cover
down to water surface for foraging; tall
grasses, tule patches, willows for nesting.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan Area
does not contain marsh or swamp habitat
suitable for this species.

California black rail
Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus
(nesting)
— ST
FP
Brackish marsh, freshwater marsh, marsh and
swamp, salt marsh, wetland. Inhabits
freshwater marshes, wet meadows and
shallow margins of saltwater marshes
bordering larger bays. Needs water depths of
about 1 inch that do not fluctuate during the
year and dense vegetation for nesting habitat.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan Area
does not contain marsh or swamp habitat
suitable for this species.

Alameda song sparrow
Melospiza melodia pusillula
(year-round)
— SSC Salt marsh. Resident of salt marshes
bordering south arm of San Francisco Bay.

Inhabits pickleweed (
Salicornia spp.) marshes;
nests low in Grindelia bushes (high enough to
escape high tides) and in pickleweed.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan Area
does not contain salt marsh habitat suitable
for this species.

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.3-16 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Habitat Potential for Occurrence2
California Ridgway's rail
Rallus obsoletus obsoletus
(year-round)
FE SE
FP
Brackish marsh, marsh and swamp, salt
marsh, wetlands. Salt-water and brackish
marshes traversed by tidal sloughs in the
vicinity of San Francisco Bay. Associated with
abundant growths of pickleweed, but feeds
away from cover on invertebrates from mud -
bottomed sloughs.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan Area
does not contain brackish or salt marsh
habitat suitable for this species.

Bank swallow
Riparia riparia
(nesting)
— ST Riparian scrub, riparian woodland. Colonial
nester; nests primarily in riparian and other
lowland habitats west of the desert. Requires
vertical banks/cliffs with fine-textured/sandy
soils near streams, rivers, lakes, ocean to dig
nesting hole.

Not expected to occur. Creeks within the
Specific Plan Area do not contain tall, vertical,
unvegetated banks suitable for nesting.

Black skimmer
Rynchops niger
(nesting colony)
— SSC Alkali playa, sand shore. Nests on gravel bars,
low islets, and sandy beaches, in unvegetated
sites. Nesting colonies usually less than 200
pairs.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan Area
does not contain alkali playa or sandy shore
habitat suitable for this species.

California least tern
Sternula antillarum browni
(nesting colony)
FE SE
FP
Nests along the coast from San Francisco Bay
south to northern Baja California. Colonial
breeder on bare or sparsely vegetated, flat
substrates: sand beaches, alkali flats, landfills,
or paved areas.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan Area
is outside of the known geographical range of
this species and does not contain shore
habitat suitable for this species.

Fish
Green sturgeon - southern
DPS
Acipenser medirostris pop. 1
FT — Aquatic, estuary, marine bay, Sacramento/San
Joaquin flowing waters Spawning site fidelity.

Spawns in the Sacramento, Feather and Yuba
Rivers. Presence in upper Stanislaus and San
Joaquin Rivers may indicate spawning. Non -
spawning adults occupy marine/estuarine
waters. Delta Estuary is important for rearing
juveniles. Spawning occurs primarily in cool
(11–15 C) sections of mainstem rivers in deep
pools (25–30 feet) with substrate containing
small to medium sized sand, gravel, cobble,
or boulder.

Not expected to occur. Penitencia and
Wrigley Ford Creek do not provide habitat
suitable for green sturgeon because they are
channelized and often shallow and concrete -
lined, and may contain multiple fish passage
constraints such as culverts, roads and
bridges (CDFW 2024b). In addition, green
sturgeon is not known from any river or creek
in Santa Clara County or surrounding areas
(CNDDB 2024).

Steelhead - central California
coast DPS
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus
pop. 8
FT — Sacramento/San Joaquin flowing waters.

From Russian River, south to Soquel Creek
and to, but not including, Pajaro River. Also
San Francisco and San Pablo Bay basins.

Not expected to occur. Penitencia and
Wrigley Ford Creek are channelized and often
shallow and concrete-lined and may contain
multiple fish passage constraints such as
culverts, roads and bridges (CDFW 2024b). In
addition, Steelhead is only known from the
Guadalupe River in Santa Clara County, which
does not have a connection to Penitencia or
Wrigley Ford creeks (CNDDB 2024).

Longfin smelt
Spirinchus thaleichthys
FC ST
SSC
Estuary. Euryhaline, nektonic and
anadromous. Found in open waters of
estuaries, mostly in middle or bottom of
water column. Prefer salinities of 15-30 ppt,
but can be found in completely freshwater to
almost pure seawater.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan Area
does not contain estuary habitat suitable for
longfin smelt. In addition, longfin smelt is only
known from the San Francisco Bay and not
from any tributaries in Santa Clara County or
surrounding counties (CNDDB 2024).

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.3-17 Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Habitat Potential for Occurrence2
Invertebrates
Crotch’s bumble bee
Bombus crotchii
— SC Found primarily in California: mediterranean,
Pacific coast, western desert, Great Valley, and
adjacent foothills through most of
southwestern California. Habitat includes
open grassland and scrub. Nests
underground.

May occur. Small patches of grassland habitat
within the Specific Plan Area may provide
nesting and foraging habitat for Crotch’s
bumble bee, and forested areas may provide
overwintering habitat. There have been
observations of Crotch’s bumble bee in the
last couple years in the Santa Clara Valley,
including urbanized areas in San Jose (Xerces
Society et al. 2024).

Western bumble bee
Bombus occidentalis
— SC Once common throughout much of its range,
in California, this species is currently largely
restricted to high elevation sites in the Sierra
Nevada and the northern California coast.

Habitat includes open grassy areas, chaparral,
scrub, and meadows. Requires suitable
nesting sites for the colonies, availability of
nectar and pollen from floral resources
throughout the duration of the colony period
(spring, summer, and fall), and suitable
overwintering sites for the queens.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan Area
is outside of the current known range of
western bumble bee (CDFW 2023).

Monarch
Danaus plexippus
FC — Closed-cone coniferous forest. Winter roost
sites extend along the coast from northern
Mendocino to Baja California, Mexico. Roosts
located in wind-protected tree groves
(eucalyptus, Monterey pine, cypress), with
nectar and water sources nearby.

May occur. The Specific Plan Area is near the
overwintering range for monarch, and floral
resources within the Specific Plan Area may
provide foraging habitat. However, the
Specific Plan Area is unlikely to provide
overwintering habitat, as overwintering sites
are generally within 1.5 miles of the coast
(Leong et al. 2004, cited in Pelton et al. 2016),
and no overwintering sites have been
recorded in Santa Clara County (Xerces
Society 2024).

Bay checkerspot butterfly
Euphydryas editha bayensis
FT — Coastal dunes, ultramafic, valley and foothill
grassland. Restricted to native grasslands on
outcrops of serpentine soil in the vicinity of
San Francisco Bay. Plantago erecta is the
primary host plant; Orthocarpus densiflorus
and O. purpurscens are the secondary host
plants.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan Area
does not contain serpentine grassland
suitable for this species.

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp
Lepidurus packardi
FE — Valley and foothill grassland, vernal pool,
wetland. Inhabits vernal pools and swales in
the Sacramento Valley containing clear to
highly turbid water. Pools commonly found in
grass bottomed swales of unplowed
grasslands. Some pools are mud-bottomed
and highly turbid.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan Area
does not contain vernal pool habitat suitable
for this species.

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.3-18 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Habitat Potential for Occurrence2
Mammals
Pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
— SSC Deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands
and forests. Most common in open, dry
habitats with rocky areas for roosting. Tree
roosting has also been documented in large
conifer snags, inside basal hollows of
redwoods and giant sequoias, and bole
cavities in oaks. May occasionally utilize
buildings and bridges for roosting. Roosts
must protect bats from high temperatures.

Very sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites.

May occur. Pallid bats may forage in
grasslands within and in the vicinity of the
Specific Plan Area. Roosting habitat may be
present in buildings, bridges and tree cavities
in the Specific Plan Area.

Townsend's big-eared bat
Corynorhinus townsendii
— SSC Throughout California in a wide variety of
habitats. Most common in mesic sites.

Requires large cavities for roosting, which
may include abandoned buildings and mines,
caves, and basal cavities of trees. Roosts in
the open, hanging from walls and ceilings.

Roosting sites limiting. Extremely sensitive to
human disturbance.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan Area
is within a highly urbanized setting and is
unlikely to provide roosting habitat suitable
for Townsend’s big-eared bat due to regular
human disturbance.

Western Red Bat
Lasiurus blossevillii
— SSC Cismontane woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest, riparian forest, riparian
woodland Roosts primarily in trees, 2–40 feet
above ground, from sea level up through
mixed conifer forests. Prefers habitat edges
and mosaics with trees that are protected
from above and open below with open areas
for foraging.

May occur. Riparian habitat along Wrigley
Ford and Penitencia creeks may provide
roosting habitat for this species.

San Francisco dusky-footed
woodrat
Neotoma fuscipes annectens
— SSC Chaparral, redwood. Forest habitats of
moderate canopy and moderate to dense
understory. Constructs nests of shredded
grass, leaves and other material. May be
limited by availability of nest-building
materials.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan Area
does not contain chaparral or redwood
habitat suitable for this species.

Salt-marsh harvest mouse
Reithrodontomys raviventris
FE SE
FP
Marsh and swamp, wetland. Only in the saline
emergent wetlands of San Francisco Bay and
its tributaries. Pickleweed is primary habitat,
but may occur in other marsh vegetation
types and in adjacent upland areas. Does not
burrow, build loosely organized nests.

Requires higher areas for flood escape.

Not expected to occur. Salt-marsh harvest
mouse is only known from the saline
emergent wetlands directly surrounding the
San Francisco Bay (CNDDB 2024), and the
Specific Plan Area does not contain marsh or
swamp habitat suitable for this species.

Salt-marsh wandering shrew
Sorex vagrans halicoetes
— SSC Marsh and swamp, wetland. Salt marshes of
the south arm of San Francisco Bay. Medium
high marsh 6-8 feet above sea level where
abundant driftwood is scattered among
pickleweed (Salicornia spp.).

Not expected to occur. Salt-marsh wandering
shrew is only known from the salt marshes
directly surrounding the San Francisco Bay
(CNDDB 2024), and the Specific Plan Area
does not contain marsh or swamp habitat
suitable for this species.

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.3-19 Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Habitat Potential for Occurrence2
American badger
Taxidea taxus
— SSC Alkali marsh, alkali playa, alpine, alpine dwarf
scrub, bog a fen, brackish marsh, broadleaved
upland forest, chaparral, chenopod scrub,
cismontane woodland, closed-cone
coniferous forest, coastal bluff scrub, coastal
dunes, coastal prairie. Most abundant in drier
open stages of most shrub, forest, and
herbaceous habitats, with friable soils. Needs
sufficient food, friable soils and open,
uncultivated ground. Preys on burrowing
rodents. Digs burrows.

Not expected to occur. The Specific Plan Area
does not contain open, uncultivated ground
suitable for this species.

Notes: CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database; CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act; DPS = Distinct Population Segment 1 Legal Status Definitions
Federal:

FE Federally Listed as Endangered (legally protected)
FT Federally Listed as Threatened (legally protected)
FP Proposed for Listing under the federal Endangered Species Act FC Candidate for Listing under the federal Endangered Species Act State:

FP Fully Protected (legally protected)
SSC Species of Special Concern (no formal protection other than CEQA consideration) SE State Listed as Endangered (legally protected)
ST State Listed as Threatened (legally protected)
SC State Candidate for listing (legally protected)
2 Potential for Occurrence Definitions
Not expected to occur: Species is unlikely to be present because of poor habitat quality, lack of suitable habitat features, or restricted current distribution of the species.

May occur: Suitable habitat is available; however, there are little to no other indicators that the species might be present.

Sources: CDFW 2023; CDFW 2024b; CNDDB 2024; eBird 2024; Leong et al. 2004, cited in Pelton e. al. 2016; Xerces Society 2024; Xerces Society et al. 2024.

Sensitive Natural Communities and Habitats
Sensitive habitats include those that are of special concern to resource agencies or are afforded specific consideration through CEQA or other federal or state laws. Sensitive natural habitats may be of special concern to regulatory agencies and conservation organizations for a variety of reasons, including their locally or regionally declining status, or because they provide important habitat to common and special-status species. Sensitive natural communities are those native plant communities defined by CDFW as having limited distribution statewide or within a county or region and that are often vulnerable to environmental effects of projects (CDFW 2018). Goodding's willow - red willow riparian woodland and forest, which has a state rarity rank of S3, is present within the Specific Plan Area along the eastern perimeter (Figure 3.3-1). A state rarity rank of S3 means that this community is rare and threatened in California.

Wildlife Movement Corridors
A wildlife movement corridor is generally a topographical/landscape feature or movement zone that connects two or more natural habitat areas. Wildlife corridors link areas of wildlife habitat that are separated by variation in vegetation, rugged terrain, human disturbance and habitat fragmentation, or other biophysical factors. Movement corridors may provide favorable locations for wildlife to travel between different habitat areas, such as foraging sites, breeding sites, cover areas, and preferred summer and winter range locations. They may also function as dispersal corridors, allowing animals to move between various locations in their range. Therefore, wildlife movement and

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.3-20 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR migration corridors are considered an important ecological resource by CDFW and other agencies and are protected by many local governments in California.

Some of the important areas for habitat connectivity in California were mapped as Essential Connectivity Areas (ECAs) for the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project, which was commissioned by the California Department of Transportation and CDFW with the purpose of making transportation and land use planning more efficient and less costly, while helping reduce dangerous wildlife-vehicle collisions (Spencer et al. 2010). The ECAs were not developed to define areas subject to specific regulations by CDFW or other agencies. The Specific Plan Area is not located in any ECA modeled by the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project (CDFW 2024a ). The Specific Plan Area contains very little natural habitat and is surrounded by major freeways and urban development that likely limits wildlife movement within these areas. The Specific Plan Area does not currently function as a critical habitat linkage or as a movement corridor for wildlife species.

Wildlife Nursery Sites
Nursery sites are locations where fish or wildlife concentrate for hatching and/or raising young, such as nesting rookeries for birds (e.g., herons, egrets), spawning areas for native fish, fawning areas for mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus), and maternal roosts for bats. As described above, the Specific Plan Area contains very little natural habitat and is surrounded by urban development, and most of the area likely does not contain significant wildlife nursery sites. However, maternal bat roosts may be present in large trees and buildings in the Specific Plan Area.

Aquatic Habitat
Portions of Penitencia Creek and Wrigley Ford Creek exist in the Specific Plan Area (Figure 3.3-2). Wrigley Ford Creek goes by different names, such as Penitencia Creek Lower, depending on the source. For the purposes of this SEIR, it will be referred to as Lower Wrigley Ford Creek. These creeks are channelized but have not been entirely lined with concrete, so the creeks support areas of wetland and riparian vegetation such as cattail ( Typha ssp.), water primrose (Ludwigia peploides), and willows (Salix ssp.) (EDAW 2001). There is limited vegetation in Penitencia Creek and the southern portion of the creek runs through a concrete channel, whereas Lower Wrigley Ford Creek has more heavily vegetated areas, particularly in the northern portion of the of the specific plan area (EDAW 2001).

The Midtown SP EIR identifies two wetland areas in the Specific Plan Area near the Elmwood Correctional facility. One area is located near the intersection of Thompson Street and Great Mall Parkway and contains seasonal ponding in grassland habitat with a few shrubs and trees surrounding it. The second area is north of Machado Avenue; however, the area has since been developed with residential uses. Other wetlands may be present in the Specific Plan Area that have not been identified, such as areas along the edges of Penitencia and Wrigley Ford Creek , or small wetland features (e.g, seeps) that are not easily identified due to their small size and subtle nature.

3.3.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
The biological resources information and impact analysis presented in this section is based on a review of biological resource databases, scientific studies, and aerial photographs of the Specific Plan Area and region. Information sources reviewed include:
 The California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW’s) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) records search of the following USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles: Milpitas, Mountain View, Calaveras Reservoir, Newark, Niles, La Costa, San Jose East, San Jose West, and Cupertino (CNDDB 2024);  California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS’s) online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California for the nine USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles listed above (CNPS 2024);  The USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) species list for the Specific Plan Area (USFWS 2024a);  Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) Habitat Connectivity Viewer (CDFW 2024a );

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.3-21  eBird (eBird 2024);
 Santa Cruz and Santa Clara Fine Scale Vegetation Map (Tukman Geospatial and Aerial Information Systems 2023);  National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2024b);
 Environmental Impact Report for the City of Milpitas General Plan (De Novo Planning Group 2020); and  Environmental Impact Report for the Midtown Specific Plan (Midtown SP EIR) (EDAW 2001) .

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
An impact on biological resources is considered significant if implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would do any of the following:
 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 CDFW or USFWS;
 have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by CDFW or USFWS;  interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites ;  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;  conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; and/or
 conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

ISSUES NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
Wildlife Movement Corridors
As described in Section 3.3.2, “Environmental Setting,” the Specific Plan Area does not contain any portion of a modeled ECA or natural landscape block. The Specific Plan Area contains little natural habitat and is surrounded by urban development that limits wildlife movement within the region surrounding the project area. Furthermore, the Specific Plan Area is adjacent to I-880 to the west and I-680 to the east, which are a significant barrier to wildlife movement. The Specific Plan Area does not currently function as a critical habitat linkage or as a significant movement corridor for wildlife species therefore, this element will not be discussed further.

Conflict with the Provisions of an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan The Specific Plan Area is within the Expanded Study Area for burrowing owl conservation in the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (SCVHP). The geographical area of the primary SCVHP Study Area was determined inefficient to adequately mitigate and contribute to the recovery of western burrowing owl due to its small size, which limited conservation opportunities that would increase the local population. Therefore, the expanded study area, which is an additional 48,464 acres outside of the primary SCVHP Study Area and includes the City of Milpitas, was included to help meet these goals. However, projects or actions initiated by other jurisdictions not listed as Permittees in the SCVHP are excluded from this coverage. The City of Milpitas is not listed as a Permittee under the SCVHP, and the Specific Plan would include conservation measures for western burrowing owl consistent with the SCVHP’s conservation strategies for this species. Therefore, there would be no conflict with the SCVHP and this issue is not evaluated further.

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.3-22 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR New Specific Plan Area Boundary
As described above, the Specific Plan proposes a new Specific Plan Area boundary (Figure 2-3) which includes additional areas that currently have other designations in the General Plan Land Use Element (see Section 2, “Project Description,”). These additional areas are primarily composed of residential and commercial zones, with small fragments of parks and open space at Parc Metro West and Parc Metro East. Changes to land use are only proposed for the residential elements to increase residential density, and the parks and open space are to remain as- is. Areas where changes to residential density are proposed are currently developed with some small strips of landscaped trees along busy roads. These areas do not contain habitat for special-status species, riparian habitat, or other sensitive natural communities, therefore, changes to existing zoning and land use in these areas are not expected to adversely affect these sensitive biological resources. Native birds without special status protected by the federal MBTA and California Fish and Game Code may potentially use trees in this area for nesting. However, impacts on nesting native birds were discussed for the General Plan and in Impact 3.3-2 below. Therefore, there will be no new substantial impact on biological resources because of the new project boundary, and this element will not be discussed further.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.3-1: Substantially Affect Special-Status Plant Species Either Directly or Through Habitat Modifications
General Plan Update EIR Impact 3.4-1 identified less-than-significant impacts on special-status plant species through compliance with existing state and federal regulations and General Plan Update actions and policies. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in future development that may result in loss of or disturbance to Congdon’s tarplant, alkali milk-vetch, brittlescale, lesser saltscale, Hoover's button-celery, San Joaquin spearscale, prostrate vernal pool navarretia, California alkali grass, long-styled sand-spurrey, and saline clover if present in or near a project area. Adherence to General Plan Action CON-3b would provide protection for special-status plants through pre-construction surveys, implementation of mitigation measures identified by a qualified biologist such as avoidance and protective barriers, and pre-construction training for contractors and sub-contractors to identify and avoid protected species and habitat. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

The Specific Plan Area contains habitat potentially suitable for nine special-status plant species: alkali milk-vetch, brittlescale, lesser saltscale, Hoover's button-celery, San Joaquin spearscale, prostrate vernal pool navarretia, California alkali grass, long-styled sand-spurrey, and saline clover. These species are typically found in wetland habitats in grasslands, often on alkaline soils (Table 3.3-1). While the Specific Plan Area is largely developed, as described above, a seasonally ponded wetland occurs near the Elmwood Correctional Facility that is surrounded by grassland that may provide habitat marginally suitable for these species. This wetland area, as well as the majority of the Specific Plan Area, contains Urbanland-Newpark soil complex, which Newpark soil series are known to support salt tolerant native plants (Web Soil Survey 2024; USDA 2015). It is also possible that other wetland areas exist in the Specific Plan Area that have not been identified through a formal wetland delineation. A tenth species, Congdon’s tarplant, is known to occur along the eastern boundary of the Specific Plan Area along the eastern side of the railroad, in an area zoned as Heavy Industrial. The Specific Plan allows for the continuation of existing manufacturing, warehousing, and industrial activities under the current Heavy Industrial land use designation. While the proposed Specific Plan does not directly authorize any development or infrastructure projects in the area occupied by Congdon’s tarplant, development of future projects in that area may directly remove Congdon’s tarplant or habitat that supports this species. Other future projects developed in grassland or wetland areas have potential to affect these ten special-status species, if present.

Individual plants may be directly removed or damaged, including being broken, crushed, or buried from vehicle and equipment operation, vegetation trimming and removal, soil excavation and compaction, and grading associated with new construction activities. Damaged plants may experience altered growth and development, or reduced or eliminated seed-set and reproduction, and mortality of individuals could occur.

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.3-23 General Plan Action CON-3b would require pre-construction surveys to be conducted for special-status plants prior to implementation of future projects under the Specific Plan. If special-status species are identified on or immediately adjacent to a project site, Action CON-3b of the General Plan requires that projects shall include appropriate mitigation measures identified by a qualified biologist, such as avoidance and protective barriers, and pre- construction training for contractors and sub-contractors to identify and avoid protected species and habitat. As a result, no substantial adverse effects on special-status plant species would occur as a result of implementation of the Specific Plan. No new significant or substantially more severe impacts on special-status plants would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

Impact 3.3-2: Substantially Affect Special-Status Wildlife Species Either Directly or Through Habitat Modifications
General Plan Update EIR Impact 3.4-1 identified less-than-significant impacts on special-status wildlife species through compliance with existing state and federal regulations and General Plan Update actions and policies. Implementation of the Specific Plan may result in future development that could result in disturbance, injury, or mortality of several special-status wildlife species, if present; reduced breeding productivity of these species; and loss of species habitat.

Adherence to General Plan Action CON-3b would provide protection for special-status wildlife by requiring pre- construction surveys, implementing mitigation measures identified by a qualified biologist such as avoidance and protective barriers, and pre-construction training for contractors and sub-contractors to identify and avoid protected species and habitat. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impacts on special-status wildlife would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

Nine special-status wildlife species have potential to occur in the Specific Plan Area: northwestern pond turtle, California red-legged frog, tricolored blackbird, white-tailed kite, burrowing owl, Crotch’s bumble bee, monarch, pallid bat, and western red bat (Table 3.3-1). Additionally, native birds without special status but protected by the California Fish and Game Code and the federal MBTA may also nest in the Specific Plan Area.

Impacts on tricolored blackbirds were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR. Since the implementation of the General Plan Update, tricolored blackbirds have been listed as threatened under CESA. Tricolored blackbirds may pass through the Specific Plan Area or make temporary use of the narrow riparian vegetation along Penitencia Creek and Wrigley Ford Creek. However, it is unlikely that the species would nest in these areas due to the limited size of the riparian habitat and the high levels of disturbance from nearby urban development. Additionally, the Specific Plan Area lacks foraging habitat, such as extensive wetlands or agricultural fields, which are essential for this species.

Future development implemented under the Specific Plan would not result in the loss of foraging or nesting habitat for tricolored blackbird. As a result, significant impacts on tricolored blackbirds are not anticipated, and this species is not discussed further.

Where sensitive biological habitats have been identified on or immediately adjacent to a project site, Action CON -3b of the General Plan requires that projects include appropriate mitigation measures identified by a qualified biologist, such as preconstruction surveys for special-status species, protective barriers, and pre-construction training for contractors and sub-contractors to identify and avoid protected species and habitat.

Northwestern Pond Turtle
Northwestern pond turtle forages in ponds, marshes, slow-moving streams, and sloughs where there is open water.

The species nests in nearby uplands with low, sparse vegetation, such as grassland. Portions of Penitencia Creek within the Specific Plan Area may provide aquatic habitat suitable for northwestern pond turtle. Upland bank habitat along Penitencia Creek may provide basking habitat. However, there is very little natural habitat (i.e., sandy banks or grassy open fields) along Penitencia Creek, and the high levels of disturbance associated with developed land use along the creek make it unsuitable for egg-laying. Therefore, any future development under the Specific Plan along Penitencia Creek are not expected to interfere with breeding habitat or reproductive success for northwestern pond turtle.

The Specific Plan proposes trail developments for the pedestrian trail system along Penitencia Creek. Although the implementation of the proposed Specific Plan does not directly permit any development or infrastructure projects

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.3-24 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR within Penitencia Creek or its banks, potential future construction and maintenance activities near the creek, including the proposed pedestrian trails, could lead to aquatic or basking habitat loss from habitat conversion or disturbance due to vegetation removal, sedimentation, and water pollution.

General Plan Policies CON 3-1, CON 3-2, CON 3-3, and CON 3-5, and Actions CON 3-b, CON-3c, CON-3d, CON-3e, CON-3f, CON-3g, and CON-3h pertain to the protection of riparian habitat and water quality and would therefore help protect northwestern pond turtle and its habitat. The policies focus on preserving and enhancing biological communities, particularly riparian corridors, by minimizing disturbances to water bodies and protecting these areas from pollutants and urban runoff. Action CON-3b ensures that projects near sensitive habitats include mitigation measures, such as pre-construction surveys and protection barriers, to prevent damage. Action CON-3c strengthens compliance with guidelines to avoid adverse impacts on riparian corridors by encouraging collaboration with the SCVWD and adherence to guidelines in the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams (SCVWRPC 2006). These guidelines emphasize the importance of maintaining riparian corridors and preventing the removal of native vegetation, outline measures to reduce surface runoff, manage erosion, and stabilize streambanks, and require jurisdictions to develop a riparian buffer of at least 40 to 150 feet from top of bank, depending on the site’s specific biotic and geomorphic conditions, to protect sensitive habitats and prevent disturbances from development activities. Actions CON-3d and CON-3e focus on incorporating low-impact development (LID) measures and implementing stormwater pollution prevention programs to reduce pollution and runoff impacts. Additionally, Action CON-3f aims to preserve the natural state of creeks, while Actions CON-3g and CON-3h encourage the use of native plants and removal of invasive species, further enhancing riparian habitats. These measures would minimize impacts on northwestern pond turtle habitat by protecting vegetation used as basking sites and cover and protecting water quality. Therefore, implementation of the Specific Plan is not expected to result in a significant loss of overall aquatic habitat for northwestern pond turtle.

Construction of the pedestrian trail system or other future development activities under the Specific Plan near or within Penitencia Creek could result in northwestern pond turtles being crushed and killed, if present . Additionally, noise and vibration from future construction may disturb northwestern pond turtle and could result in injury. Impacts on northwestern pond turtle were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and were determined to be less than significant because Action CON-3b of the General Plan requires that projects include appropriate mitigation measures identified by a qualified biologist, such as pre-construction surveys, protective barriers, and pre- construction training for contractors and sub-contractors to identify and avoid protected species and habitat.

Subsequent development projects under the proposed Specific Plan would be required to comply with the policies and actions of the General Plan Update and adopted state and federal regulations for the protection of special- status wildlife habitat, which would prevent injury to and disturbance and loss of northwestern pond turtle. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impacts on northwestern pond turtles would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR and impacts on northwestern pond turtle would remain less than significant.

California Red-Legged Frog
Habitat suitable for California red-legged frog is typically characterized by an aquatic breeding area (e.g., pools within streams and creeks, ponds, marshes, stock ponds) within a matrix of riparian and upland dispersal habitat (USFWS 2002). Adult and juvenile California red-legged frogs are known to travel through upland habitat (e.g., riparian, woodland, grassland) to move between breeding and nonbreeding sites (e.g., other ponds, deep pools in streams, moist and cool riparian understory, burrows) for access to refugia and foraging habitat, or to disperse to new breeding locations. Wrigley Ford Creek in the northern section of the Specific Plan Area may provide aquatic breeding habitat for California red-legged frog, and the riparian vegetation along the creek may provide upland habitat.

As described above for northwestern pond turtle, Policies CON 3-1, CON 3-2, CON 3-3, and CON 3-5, and Actions CON 3-b, CON-3c, CON-3d, CON-3e, CON-3f, CON-3g, and CON-3h from the General Plan pertain to the protection of riparian habitat and water quality and would therefore help protect California red -legged frogs and associated habitat. These policies and actions would minimize impacts on California red- legged frog by preventing sedimentation and water pollution, and preserving riparian vegetation used as upland habitat. Therefore, implementation of the Specific Plan is not expected to result in a significant loss of overall habitat for California red - legged frog and impacts would not be substantial.

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.3-25 If future development under the Specific Plan occurs in the riparian corridor of Wrigley Ford Creek, ground disturbance or vegetation removal may directly harm, crush, or kill individuals if they are using these areas for migration or dispersal. Impacts on California red-legged frog were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and were determined to be less than significant because Action CON-3b of the General Plan requires that projects include appropriate mitigation measures identified by a qualified biologist, such as preconstruction surveys, protective barriers, and pre-construction training for contractors and sub-contractors to identify and avoid protected species and habitat. Subsequent development projects under the proposed Specific plan w ould be required to comply with the policies and actions of the General Plan Update and adopted state and federal regulations for the protection of special-status wildlife and habitat, which would prevent injury to and disturbance and loss of California red-legged frog. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impacts would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR and impacts on California red-legged frog would remain less than significant.

Special-Status Birds, Raptors, and Common Nesting Birds White-tailed kite, other raptors, and common birds have potential to nest and forage in the Specific Plan Area. White - tailed kites are common in urban areas throughout the Santa Clara Valley, including near the Specific Plan Area (eBird 2024). While white-tailed kites and other raptors are more likely to frequent less urbanized areas with higher -quality foraging habitat outside the Specific Plan Area, they may still utilize small patches of grassland or riparian habitat within the plan area for foraging, and nearby tall trees for nesting. Common birds can also utilize buildings, grasslands, and native and landscaped trees or shrubs for nesting.

Any future potential projects developed under the Specific Plan that include tree removal, vegetation clearing, ground disturbance, staging, or heavy equipment operation may result in direct loss of special-status or common birds and active nests, if present in or adjacent to the project area. Additionally, operation of heavy equipment, construction activities, and an increase in human presence associated with potential new development could generate noise or visual stimuli that could result in disturbance of nearby nesting birds, which may result in nest abandonment and potential loss of eggs or chicks. Further, buildings constructed in the Specific Plan Area as part of future development could pose a collision risk for birds. Most of these impacts on special-status birds were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and were determined to be less than significant because Action CON -3b of the General Plan requires that projects include appropriate mitigation measures identified by a qualified biologist, such as pre-construction surveys, protective barriers, and pre-construction training for contractors and sub-contractors to identify and avoid protected species and habitat. Subsequent development projects under the proposed Specific Plan would be required to comply with the policies and actions of the General Plan Update and adopted state and federal regulations for the protection of special-status wildlife and habitat, which would prevent injury to and disturbance and loss of special-status birds. While bird collisions with buildings were not analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, the Specific Plan incorporates measures aimed at reducing this risk, including preventing the use of mirrored or reflective glass on any exterior building facade, as well as restricting the use of freestanding transparent glass panels as shading devices, signage, or other architectural elements (see section 4.2.4 “Windows and Glazing”). As a result of General Plan actions and Objective Design Standards included in the Specific Plan, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR and impacts on special-status birds would remain
less than significant.

Burrowing Owl
The Specific Plan Area contains small fragments of grassland habitat potentially suitable for burrowing owl foraging and nesting. There is a historical record of a burrowing owl colony within the Specific Plan Area from 2006, near the Elmwood Correctional Facility (CNDDB 2024). It is possible this occurrence may be extirpated due to the subsequent development of most of the grasslands in the area. However, small fragments of grassland habitat remain in this area, which could still support this species. The occurrence was found in sub-optimal habitat consisting of sewer drainages and small patches of ruderal, disked grassland, surrounded by urban development. Other grassland areas within the Specific Plan Area may also provide habitat that is marginally suitable for this species.

Future potential development proposed under the Specific Plan Update that involves conversion of grassland habitat into urban uses can result in habitat loss for burrowing owl. Any future development that includes vegetation

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.3-26 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR clearing, heavy equipment or other ground disturbing activities may result in direct loss of active burrows associated with burrowing owls, if present in the area. Additionally, operation of heavy equipment and other construction activities could generate noise or visual stimuli that could result in disturbance of nearby nesting burrowing owl, which may result in nest abandonment and potential loss of eggs or chicks.

Impacts on burrowing owl were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and were determined to be less than significant because Action CON-3b of the General Plan requires that projects include appropriate mitigation measures identified by a qualified biologist, such as pre-construction surveys, protective barriers, and pre- construction training for contractors and sub-contractors to identify and avoid protected species and habitat. Since the adoption of the General Plan EIR, the California Fish and Game Commission designated burrowing owl as a candidate for listing under CESA. However, Action CON-3b would still apply. Subsequent development projects would be required to comply with the policies and actions of the General Plan Update and adopted state regulations for the protection of special-status wildlife and habitat, which would prevent injury to and disturbance and loss of burrowing owl. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR and impacts on burrowing owl would remain less than significant.

Crotch’s Bumble Bee
Crotch’s bumble bee has recently undergone a decline in abundance and distribution and is no longer present across much of its historic range. In California, the Crotch’s bumble bee’s range includes the Mediterranean region (ecoregion encompassing the greater Central Valley, Sierra foothills, and central Coast Ranges of California south to Mexico), Pacific Coast, Great Valley, and adjacent foothills through most of southwestern California (CDFW 2023). The Specific Plan Area is within this range.

Although all life history characteristics of Crotch’s bumble bees are not well understood, bumble bees have three basic habitat requirements: suitable nesting sites for the colonies, availability of nectar and pollen from floral resources throughout the duration of the colony period (spring, summer, and fall), and suitable overwintering sites for queens. Bumble bees in general can fly up to about six miles from the nest while foraging; however, most foraging activity is likely conducted much closer to the nest (Williams et al. 2014).

Known native floral resources for Crotch’s bumble bee include milkweed ( Asclepias ssp.), lupine (Lupinus spp.), poppy (Eschscholzia spp.), vetch (Vicia spp.) and Centaurea spp. (Xerces Society 2023). Bumble bees are typically generalist foragers and are known to use other native and nonnative floral resources, such as clover ( Trifolium spp.) (Williams et al. 2014). These floral species, as well as other native and nonnative floral resources, are known to occur in the Specific Plan Area (iNaturalist 2024).

In California, Crotch’s bumble bees typically inhabit open grassland and scrub habitats (Xerces Society 2018). Crotch’s bumble bees nest underground and likely use, at least in part, old rodent burrows (Williams et al. 2014; Xerces Society 2018). Some bumble bees favor nest sites near woody transitional habitats and nest in holes or crevices in leaf litter, beneath woody debris, at the base of a tree, in herbaceous plant debris, or near grass clumps (Lanterman et al. 2019).

Overwintering likely occurs primarily in woodlands (USFWS 2021). Overwintering queens may prefer shaded areas near trees in areas without dense vegetation and north-facing slopes (Liczner and Colla 2019; Williams et al. 2019).

Bumble bees in California have been documented overwintering under 1–2 inches of duff, between leaf or needle litter and mineral soil (Williams et al. 2014).

Developed land is the dominant land cover in the Specific Plan Area, which makes it unlikely to support a high concentration of Crotch’s bumble bee colonies, if the species is present; however, small fragments of grassland and forested habitat in the Specific Plan Area may provide habitat for the species. Grassland habitat in the Specific Plan Area is dominated by nonnative grasses and forbs and may include flowering plants that could be used by bumble bees for foraging. Future development under the proposed Specific Plan that remove open and vegetated areas for development, such as new trail developments for the pedestrian trail system along Penitencia and Wrigley Ford creeks, may temporarily remove potential foraging habitat or permanently convert foraging habitat for Crotch’s bumble bee.

However, the Specific Plan proposes to introduce more native plantings along Penitencia Creek, and a minimum of 20 percent of the open space in common outdoor open spaces shall be planted with native plantings, trees, ground cover, or shrubs. The recommended planting palette for landscaped areas within the Specific Plan Area include species known

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.3-27 to be used by Crotch’s bumble bee, such as Salvia spp. and Buddleja davidii (see The Specific Plan, Table 6-2, page 139).

Any removal of foraging habitat would likely be temporary, and new, native vegetation would be introduced through revegetation and landscaping efforts. Therefore, implementation of the Specific Plan is not expected to result in a significant loss of foraging habitat for Crotch’s bumble bee and impacts would not be substantial.

Grassland within the Specific Plan Area may also provide habitat suitable for nesting, and nonnative forested areas may provide habitat for overwintering Crotch’s bumble bees. Vegetation removal, equipment laydown, vehicle and equipment operation, and other ground-disturbing activities in these areas from potential future development under the Specific Plan could result in direct mortality of Crotch’s bumble bees while they are foraging or within nesting colonies or overwintering sites (e.g., in underground rodent holes, loose soil, leaf litter, log or tree cavities, surface vegetation). The population status of Crotch’s bumble bee is poorly understood, and loss of a colony as a result of future development could have a substantial effect on the population.

Impacts on Crotch’s bumble bee were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and were determined to be less than significant because Action CON-3b of the General Plan requires that projects include appropriate mitigation measures identified by a qualified biologist, such as pre-construction surveys, protective barriers, and pre- construction training for contractors and sub-contractors to identify and avoid protected species and habitat.

Subsequent development projects under the proposed Specific Plan would be required to comply with the policies and actions of the General Plan Update and adopted state regulations for the protection of special- status wildlife and habitat, which would prevent injury to and disturbance and loss of Crotch’s bumble bee s. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR and impacts on Crotch’s bumble bee would remain
less than significant.

Monarch
Impacts on monarch were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR; however, the EIR did not disclose that monarch was petitioned to be listed under the ESA in 2014 and remains a candidate for listing under ESA. The Specific Plan Area is outside of the monarch overwintering range; however, it is within the breeding and foraging range of the species. Monarchs require milkweed (Asclepias spp.) as a structure for egg laying and a food source for caterpillars, and floral resources for foraging adults. There are no documented occurrences of monarchs in the Specific Plan Area and the nearest documented sighting of a monarch is approximately 0 .5 mile west of the Specific Plan Area along Coyote Creek, and the closest documented breeding monarch is over 4 miles west in Sunnyvale (Western Monarch Milkweed Mapper 2024).

Milkweed and other floral resources suitable for monarch foraging may be present in the Specific Plan Area in grasslands, landscaped areas, and other open space areas. Vegetation removal, equipment laydown, vehicle and equipment operation, and other ground-disturbing activities from future potential development could crush or bury floral resources during construction, temporarily removing potential foraging and breeding habitat. Habitat conversion to urban use from the construction of trails (i.e., the proposed pedestrian trail system) or other potential future development could permanently remove floral resources that could be used by monarch for foraging or egg laying. However, the Specific Plan Area is dominated by developed land cover types and it is unlikely that it supports a high concentration of floral resources for foraging or breeding monarchs. In addition, the Specific Plan proposes to introduce more native plantings along Penitencia Creek, and a minimum of 20 percent of the open space in common outdoor open spaces shall be planted with native plantings, trees, ground cover, and/or shrubs. Therefore, any removal of vegetation associated with foraging would likely be temporary, and new, native vegetation suitable for foraging would be introduced. Therefore, implementation of the Specific Plan is not expected to result in a significant loss of overall foraging habitat for monarch.

Milkweed species are not included on the planting list so permanent loss of milkweed plants could reduce breeding habitat for monarch. In addition, potential direct loss of individual monarch butterfly eggs and caterpillars may occur if they are present on milkweed plants in potential development areas during construction. While future development associated with implementation of the Specific Plan could result in loss of individual monarchs and loss of breeding habitat for the species, the Specific Plan Area is not expected to support large numbers of monarch butterflies due to the lack of documented occurrences nearby and the disturbed nature of the Specific Plan Area. As a result,

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.3-28 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR implementation of the Specific Plan is not expected to substantially reduce the number of monarchs, restrict the range of the species, or cause the population to drop below self-sustaining levels. Further, the Specific Plan Area is relatively small compared to natural habitat areas surrounding the Specific Plan Area, and future development under the Specific Plan is not expected to result in a significant loss of foraging or breeding habitat for the local and statewide populations of monarchs. Therefore, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR and impacts on monarch would remain less than significant.

Special-Status Bats
Pallid bats may roost in tree cavities or within buildings and structures in the Specific Plan Area, especially in buildings with stucco, or abandoned or infrequently used buildings, and structures such as under bridges. Western red bat may roost in trees within the riparian areas along Wrigley Ford and Penitencia creeks. Future tree removal, construction of new buildings or infrastructure, or changes to existing buildings or infrastructure under the Specific Plan could adversely affect potential bat roosting sites, especially if they involve the removal of larger trees, or removal or alteration of buildings or bridges. These activities could also result in increased noise and human disturbance to roosts, which could affect the reproductive success of pallid and western red bat.

Impacts on pallid bat were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and were determined to be less than significant because Action CON-3b of the General Plan requires that projects include appropriate mitigation measures identified by a qualified biologist, such as preconstruction surveys, protective barriers, and pre-construction training for contractors and sub-contractors to identify and avoid protected species and habitat. Western red bat was not analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, however, Action CON-3b would still apply to this species because it is a CDFW Species of Special Concern. In addition, pursuant to CON 2-3 of the General Plan, removal of large, mature trees that provide wildlife habitat will be avoided through appropriate project design and building siting. If complete avoidance is not feasible, replacement trees will be prioritized for on-site locations rather than off-site, and will typically be of a similar species, providing comparable habitat functionality, where suitable site conditions allow. Subsequent development projects under the proposed Specific Plan would be required to comply with the policies and actions of the General Plan Update and adopted state regulations for the protection of special-status wildlife and habitat, which would prevent injury to and disturbance and loss of special- status bats. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR and impacts on special-status bats would remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Impact 3.3-3: Substantially Affect any Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community Identified in Local or Regional Plans, Policies, or Regulations or by CDFW or USFWS General Plan Update EIR Impact 3.4-2 identified less than significant impacts on riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities through compliance with existing local, state and federal regulations and General Plan Update actions and policies. Implementation of future development under the Specific Plan could result in the degradation or loss of riparian habitat, other sensitive natural communities, or the reduction in the function of these habitats, if present .

Adherence to General Plan Action CON-3b would provide protection for riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities by requiring protective barriers for any sensitive habitats identified, reducing soil compaction, and providing pre-construction training for contractors and sub-contractors to identify and avoid protected species and habitat. Further protections under Policies CON 3-1, CON 3-2, CON 3-3, and CON 3-5 and Actions CON-3c, CON-3d, CON-3e, CON-3f, CON-3g, and CON-3h from the General Plan would minimize impacts on riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impacts on these resources would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

Sensitive natural communities are identified at the alliance level using the Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009). Sensitive natural communities are defined by unique assemblages of vegetation that may include, or even be dominated by, relatively common species, but it is the assemblage of species that is rare. Goodding's willow - red willow riparian woodland and forest, which is considered a sensitive natural community, is present within the Specific

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.3-29 Plan Area along the eastern perimeter near the known occurrence of Congdon’s tarplant (Figure 3.3 -1). Additionally, other plant communities in the grassland sections of the Specific Plan Area may qualify as sensitive natural communities, if the species assemblage, percent cover, and patch size are sufficient to meet membership rules and sensitive natural community requirements. Riparian habitat is also present within the Specific Plan Area along Wrigley Ford Creek and portions of Penitencia Creek (Figure 3.3-1). The dominant species along Wrigley Ford Creek is arroyo willow, and nonnative vegetation is prevalent along Penitencia Creek (Figure 3.3-1).

Future development under the Specific Plan that would occur in riparian habitat or any sensitive natural community, such as trail developments for the pedestrian trail system along Penitencia Creek, may include ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or land development. These activities could result in degradation (e.g., reduction of vegetation cover, trampling, alteration of root structure) or removal of sensitive natural communities or riparian habitat or reduction in the function of these habitats, if they are present within or adjacent to a particular project site.

Impacts on riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and were determined to be less than significant because, as described above in Impact 3.3-2, Policies CON 3-1, CON 3-2, CON 3- 3, and CON 3-5 and Actions CON 3-b, CON-3c, CON-3d, CON-3e, CON-3f, CON-3g, and CON-3h from the General Plan and the Specific Plan’s proposed Objective Design Standards would protect riparian habitats and sensitive natural communities, such as the riparian habitat along Lower Wrigley Ford and Penitencia creeks in the Specific Plan Area. The policies focus on preserving and enhancing biological communities, particularly riparian corridors, by minimizing disturbances to water bodies and protecting these areas from pollutants and urban runoff. Action CON-3b ensures that projects near sensitive habitats include mitigation measures, such as protection barriers, to prevent damage. The Actions promote compliance with riparian protection by collaborating with SCVWD and following SCVWRPC guidelines to maintain riparian corridors, manage erosion, and establish riparian buffers; implementing low-impact development and stormwater programs to reduce runoff and pollution; preserving the natural state of creeks; and promoting the use of native plants and removing invasive species to enhance riparian habitats. Additionally, Objective Design Standards in Section 4.1.3 “Special Conditions and Adjacencies” in the proposed Specific Plan would ensure that development, such as creek crossings, shall be required to obtain applicable permits from SCVWD, and would require building and side yard setbacks adjacent to creeks and drainage channels. Subsequent development projects under the proposed Specific Plan would be required to comply with these policies and actions of the General Plan Update, Specific Plan design standards, and adopted local, state, and federal regulations for the protection of sensitive habitats, which would reduce impacts on riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR and impacts on riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities would remain
less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Impact 3.3-4: Interfere With or Impede the Use of Wildlife Nurseries General Plan Update EIR Impact 3.4-4 identified less-than-significant impacts on wildlife nurseries through compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations and General Plan Update actions and policies.

Construction of new buildings or infrastructure, or changes to existing buildings or infrastructure under the Specific Plan could adversely affect potential bat maternity roosts, especially if they involve the removal of large or riparian trees, older buildings, or bridges. Adherence to General Plan Action CON-3b would provide protection for bat roosts, and CON 2-3 would minimize impacts on bat roosts by requiring future development to avoid removing large, mature trees that provide wildlife habitat, and, if avoidance is not feasible, replacement trees w ould be prioritized on- site and chosen to provide similar habitat benefits. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

As described in Impact 3.3-2, trees and buildings located in and adjacent to the Specific Plan Area may provide roosting habitat potentially suitable for common and special-status bat species. Construction of new buildings or infrastructure, or changes to existing buildings or infrastructure under the Specific Plan could adversely affect potential bat roosting sites, especially if they involve the removal of large or riparian trees, older buildings, or bridges.

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.3-30 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Future development implemented under the Specific Plan would adhere to the policies and actions in the General Plan Update. Action CON 2-3 of the General Plan would minimize impacts on bat roosts by preventing the removal of large, mature trees that provide wildlife habitat through appropriate project design and building siting. If complete avoidance is not feasible, replacement trees would be prioritized for on-site locations rather than off-site, and would typically be of a similar species, providing comparable habitat functionality, where suitable site conditions allow and in adherence with the Specific Plan’s proposed Objective Design Standards for Open Space, identified in Section 3.9.2 “Common Outdoor Open Space”. This design standard includes replacement requirements required by the City of Milpitas Tree Removal Checklist and Application and ensures that a minimum of 20 percent of open space area shall be planted with native trees. Where sensitive biological habitats have been identified, Action CON-3b requires that projects include appropriate mitigation measures identified by a qualified biologist, such as avoidance and protective barriers, and pre-construction training for contractors and sub-contractors to identify and avoid protected species and habitat. As a result, no substantial adverse effects on bat maternity roosts are expected as a result of implementation of the Specific Plan. No new significant or substantially more severe impact s on wildlife nursery sites (i.e., bat roosts) would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than
significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Impact 3.3-5: Have A Substantial Adverse Effect on State or Federally Protected Wetlands and Waters
General Plan Update EIR Impact 3.4-3 identified less-than-significant impacts on wetlands through compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations and General Plan Update actions and policies. Future development implemented under the Specific Plan may include ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and land development, which could result in adverse effects to water quality, or in fill or discharge into wetlands, Penitencia Creek, and Wrigley Ford Creek if present within or adjacent to the development. Implementation of existing federal, state, and local regulations and General Plan actions and policies would reduce significant impacts on state and federally protected wetlands as a result of ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and construction because they would require a biological resources evaluation to identify sensitive habitats, avoidance of wetlands and riparian areas, and implementation of appropriate mitigation to preserve and enhance these habitats as required by local, state, and federal law. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain
less than significant.

As described above, one potential wetland feature is present in the Specific Plan Area that may meet the state and federal definition of wetlands (See Section 3.3.2, “Environmental Setting”). It is also possible that other wetlands exist that have yet to be identified due to their small size or subtle nature, such as small seeps or wetlands abutting creek margins. In addition, two aquatic features, Penitencia Creek and Wrigley Ford Creek, are present in the Specific Plan Area that meet the definition of waters of the United States because they are connected to the San Francisco Bay.

Future projects developed under the Specific Plan may include ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and land development, and could result in fill or discharge to wetlands or waters. These impacts were identified in Impact 3 .4.3 of the General Plan Update EIR.

In addition, construction-related erosion and sediments could enter nearby aquatic features in close proximity to work areas or staging areas, which could result in adverse effects to water quality, of wetlands, Penitencia Creek, and Wrigley Ford Creek. However, as discussed in Section 1.3.4, current regulatory requirements that govern water quality and enforce the Basin Plan are designed to prevent water quality degradation. Th ese regulatory requirements include obtaining approval from the Regional Water Quality Control Boards for NPDES permits, other discharge permits, Water Quality Management Plans, and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans; as well as implementing Best Management Practices. Adhering to mandatory federal and state regulations as discussed below, along with compliance with the existing regulations under the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program,

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.3-31 General Plan policies, the Specific Plan’s proposed Objective Design Standards, and the Milpitas Municipal Code, would ensure that impacts on drainage patterns, erosion, and water quality remain less than significant.

Policies CON 3-1, CON 3-2, CON 3-3, CON 3-5, and CON 3-7 and Actions CON-3c, CON-3d, CON-3f, and CON-3j of the General Plan minimize impacts on aquatic habitat in the Specific Plan Area. The policies directly target the preservation and enhancement of wetlands and riparian corridors along creeks, limiting disturbances to natural water bodies, conserving open space and protecting creek channels from urban runoff and pollutants, and requiring collaboration with the SCVWD to enforce land-use guidelines near streams and encourage the use of Green Stormwater Infrastructure to prevent runoff from harming creeks. Action CON -3c requires cooperation with state, local, and federal agencies to comply with their regulations, such as through implementation of the Specific Plan’s proposed Objective Design Standard 7.1.2 “Recommended Stormwater Infrastructure Improvements”, which would ensure future development fulfills the most current requirements set forth by the San Francisco Bay Reg ional Water Quality Control Board Municipal Stormwater Permit, known as MRP 3.0. Cooperation and compliance with state, local, and federal agencies and their regulations also includes the requirement of a biological resources evaluation to identify sensitive habitats, avoidance of wetlands and riparian areas, and implementation of appropriate mitigation to preserve and enhance these habitats as required by local, state, and federal law. This may include CDFW imposing mitigation for habitat impacts as part of its authority in issuing Streambed Alteration Agreements under Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code, or USFWS imposing mitigation for projects requesting permits to fill federally regulated wetlands under Section 404 of the CWA. Action CON-3d mandates that new developments incorporate LID measures to prevent creek pollution. Action CON-3f restricts future piping and channelization of creeks, favoring natural flood control methods. Action CON-3j promotes collaboration to establish riparian management guidelines to protect creeks from urban impacts.

Future development implemented under the Specific Plan would adhere to the policies and actions in the General Plan Update and comply with federal, state, and local regulations to protect state and federally protected wetlands and waters. The policies and actions described above are specifically aimed at safeguarding wetlands and waters of the United States from potential adverse effects of future development. Although development could adversely affect protected water features, implementing the policies and actions outlined in the General Plan, along with f ederal and state regulations, would minimize these impacts. As a result, no substantial adverse effects on state and federally protected wetlands and waters are expected as a result of implementation of the Specific Plan. No new significant or substantially more severe impacts on these resources would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain
less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Impact 3.3-6: Conflict with Local Policies and Ordinances General Plan Update EIR Impact 3.4-5 related to a conflict with local policies and ordinances was identified as less than significant because the General Plan Update, as a foundational policy document, inherently aligns with the local policies and ordinances that are established from it. Future development implemented under the Specific Plan could result in the removal of trees, which would conflict with the City Milpitas Tree Protection Regulations (Municipal Code Title X, Chapter 2). City of Milpitas ordinance codes and policies are developed to reflect and support the goals of the General Plan Update. Future development under the Specific Plan would comply with Objective Design Standards related to removal of trees, and the measures outlined in the General Plan Update, therefore, they will inherently comply with local ordinance codes and policies, including City of Milpitas Tree Protection Regulations. In addition, projects would adhere to General Plan Action CON-2b, which aims to strengthen City of Milpitas Tree Protection Regulations by establishing stricter criteria for tree removal, detailed tree replacement requirements, enhanced penalties for unpermitted removals, and additional protections for high-value trees. It also proposes expanding the list of protected tree species and setting construction guidelines to minimize impacts on significant trees. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain
less than significant.

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.3-32 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Applicable local policies and ordinances in the Specific Plan Area include the General Plan and City of Milpitas Ordinance Code (see Section 3.3.1, “Regulatory Setting”). The General Plan includes policies intended to protect aquatic resources, riparian areas, sensitive habitats, and rare, threatened, and endangered species and their habitats.

City of Milpitas Tree Protection Regulations includes natural resources regulations that apply to street trees, heritage trees, and protected trees.

Riparian areas and sensitive habitats are present in the Specific Plan Area, and special-status species occur or have potential to occur. As discussed above for Impacts 3.3-1, 3.3-2, and 3.3-3, although future development under the Specific Plan may affect special-status plants, special-status wildlife, riparian areas and sensitive habitat, mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts. In addition, the implementation of these measures would avoid any conflict with the General Plan policies protecting these resources. Therefore, there would be no conflict with General Plan policies as a result of implementation of the Specific Plan.

City of Milpitas Ordinance codes and policies are developed to reflect and support the goals of the General Plan.

Development under the Specific Plan would comply with the measures outlined in the General Plan, therefore, they will inherently comply with local ordinance codes and policies, including the City of Milpitas Tree Protection Regulations. While the Specific Plan does not directly authorize individual projects, any future projects under it would align with these regulations through their compliance with the General Plan. In addition, projects would adhere to General Plan Action CON-2b, which aims to strengthen the City of Milpitas Tree Protection Regulations by establishing stricter criteria for tree removal, detailed tree replacement requirements, enhanced penalties for unpermitted removals, and additional protections for high-value trees. It also proposes expanding the list of protected tree species and setting construction guidelines to minimize impacts on significant trees. In addition, the Specific Plan proposed Objective Design Standards detail protections to minimize tree removals. For example, Design Standard 3.9.2 “Common Outdoor Open Space” includes replacement requirements required by the City of Milpitas Tree Removal Checklist and Application and Design Standards identified in Section 4.3.4 “Landscape Design" of the Specific Plan describes specific requirements for protection and replacement of mature trees, such as setbacks to protect tree root and canopy growth. As a result, no conflicts with local ordinances are expected as a result of the implementation of the Specific Plan. No new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Ascent Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.4-1

3.4 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section analyzes and evaluates the potential impacts of the project on known and unknown cultural resources.

Cultural resources include districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects generally older than 50 years and considered to be important to a culture, subculture, or community for scientific, traditional, religious, or other reasons. They include pre-historic resources, historic-period resources, and “tribal cultural resources” (the latter as defined by Assembly Bill [AB] 52, Statutes of 2014, in Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21074).

Archaeological resources are locations where human activity has measurably altered the earth or left deposits of prehistoric or historic-period physical remains (e.g., stone tools, bottles, former roads, house foundations). Historical (or built-environment) resources include standing buildings (e.g., houses, barns, outbuildings, cabins) and intact structures (e.g., dams, bridges, roads, districts), or landscapes. A cultural landscape is defined as a geographic area (including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife therein), associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values. Tribal cultural resources are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places and objects, with cultural value to a tribe.

One comment letter regarding cultural resources was received in response to the Notice of Preparation (see Appendix A). The letter was from the Native American Heritage Commission and it laid out the requirements under CEQA, AB52, and SB18 as well as recommended that consultation occur with California Native American tribes.

3.4.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
National Register of Historic Places
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the nation ’s master inventory of known historic properties . It is administered by the National Park Service and includes listings of buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level.

The formal criteria (36 CFR 60.4) for determining NRHP eligibility are as follows:

1. The property is at least 50 years old (however, properties under 50 years of age that are of exceptional importance or are contributors to a district can also be included in the NRHP);

2. It retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and associations; and

3. It possesses at least one of the following characteristics:

Criterion A Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history (events).

Criterion B Is associated with the lives of persons significant in the past (persons).

Criterion C Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant, distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction (architecture).

Criterion D Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (information potential).

For a property to retain and convey historic integrity, it must possess most of the seven aspects of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where a historic event occurred. Integrity of location refers to whether the property has

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.4-2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR been moved since its construction. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property that illustrates the character of the place. Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period. This intangible quality is evoked by physical features that reflect a sense of a past time and place. Association is the direct link between the important historic event or person and a historic property. Continuation of historic use and occupation help maintain integrity of association.

Listing in the NRHP does not entail specific protection or assistance for a property, but it does guarantee consideration in planning for federal or federally assisted projects, eligibility for federal tax benefits, and qualification for federal historic preservation assistance. In addition, project effects on properties listed in the NRHP must be evaluated under CEQA.

The National Register Bulletin series was developed to assist evaluators in the application of NRHP criteria. For example, National Register Bulletin #36 provides guidance in the evaluation of archaeological site significance. If a property cannot be placed within a particular theme or time period, and thereby lacks “focus,” it will be unlikely to possess characteristics that would make it eligible for listing in the NRHP.

STATE
California Register of Historical Resources
All properties in California that are listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are also listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The CRHR is a listing of State of California resources that are significant in the context of California’s history. It is a Statewide program with a scope and with criteria for inclusion similar to those used for the NRHP. In addition, properties designated under municipal or county ordinances are also eligible for listing in the CRHR.

California Historical Landmarks—buildings, structures, sites, or places that have been determined to have statewide historical significance—are also automatically listed in the CRHR. California Points of Historical Interest are sites, buildings, features, or events that are of local (city or county) significance. Points of Historical Interest designated after December 1997 and recommended by the State Historical Resources Commission are also listed in the CRHR.

A historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the criteria defined in CCR Title 15, Chapter 11.5, Section 4850 to be included in the CRHR. The CRHR criteria are tied to CEQA because any resource that meets the criteria listed below is considered a significant historical resource under CEQA. As noted above, all resources listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR.

The CRHR uses four evaluation criteria:

Criterion 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or to the cultural heritage of California or the United States.

Criterion 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.

Criterion 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of a master; or possesses high artistic values.

Criterion 4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.

Similar to the NRHP, a historical resource must meet one of the above criteria and retain integrity to be listed in the CRHR. The CRHR uses the same seven aspects of integrity used by the NRHP.

Ascent Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.4-3 California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires public agencies to consider the effects of their actions on “ historical resources,” “unique archaeological resources,” and “tribal cultural resources.” Pursuant to PRC Section 21084.1, a “project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” Section 21083.2 requires agencies to determine whether projects would have effects on unique archaeological resources. PRC Section 21084.2 establishes that “[a] project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment."
Historical Resources
“Historical resource” is a term with a defined statutory meaning (PRC Section 21084.1; State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5[a] and [b]). Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), historical resources include the following:
1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in, the CRHR is considered a historical resource (PRC Section 5024.1). 2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g), will be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. 3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource will be considered by the lead agency to be historically significant if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1).
4) The fact that a resource is not listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to PRC Section 5020.1[k]), or not identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in PRC Section 5024.1[g]) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in PRC Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

Unique Archaeological Resources
CEQA also requires lead agencies to consider whether projects would affect unique archaeological resources. PRC Section 21083.2(g) states that “unique archaeological resource” means an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

Tribal Cultural Resources
CEQA also requires lead agencies to consider whether projects would affect tribal cultural resources. PRC Section 21074 states:
a) “ Tribal cultural resources” are either of the following:
1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:

A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.

B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.4-4 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. b) A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape. c) A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “nonunique archaeological resource” as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a).

Public Resources Code Section 21080.3
AB 52, signed by the California Governor in September of 2014, established a new class of resources under CEQA:
“tribal cultural resources,” defined in PRC Section 21074. Pursuant to PRC Sections 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, and 21082.3, lead agencies undertaking CEQA review must, upon written request of a California Native American Tribe, begin consultation before the release of an EIR, negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration. CEQA Sections 21080.3.1 and 21080.3.2 state that within 14 days of determining that a project application is complete, or to undertake a project, the lead agency must provide formal notification, in writing, to the tribes that have requested notification of proposed projects in the lead agency’s jurisdiction. If it wishes to engage in consultation on the project, the tribe must respond to the lead agency within 30 days of receipt of the formal notification. The lead agency must begin the consultation process with the tribes that have requested consultation within 30 days of receiving the request for consultation. Consultation concludes when either: 1) the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource, or 2) a party, acting in good faith and af ter reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.

If the lead agency determines that a project may cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource, and measures are not otherwise identified in the consultation process, provisions under PRC Section 21084.3 (b) describe mitigation measures that may avoid or minimize the significant adverse impacts. Examples include:
(1) Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to, planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context, or planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria. (2) Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following:
(A) Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource (B) Protecting the traditional use of the resource
(C) Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.
(3) Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. (4) Protecting the resource.

Public Resources Code Section 21083.2
Treatment options under PRC Section 21083.2(b) to mitigate impacts to archaeological resources include activities that preserve such resources in place in an undisturbed state. PRC Section 21083.2 states:
(a) As part of the determination made pursuant to Section 21080.1, the lead agency shall determine whether the project may have a significant effect on archaeological resources. If the lead agency determines that the project may have a significant effect on unique archaeological resources, the environmental impact report shall address the issue of those resources. An environmental impact report, if otherwise necessary, shall not address the issue

Ascent Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.4-5 of nonunique archaeological resources. A negative declaration shall be issued with respect to a project if, but for the issue of nonunique archaeological resources, the negative declaration would be otherwise issued. (b) If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts to be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. Examples of that treatment, in no order of preference, may include, but are not limited to, any of the following:
(1) Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites. (2) Deeding archaeological sites into permanent conservation easements. (3) Capping or covering archaeological sites with a layer of soil before building on the sites. (4) Planning parks, greenspace, or other open space to incorporate archaeological sites. (c) To the extent that unique archaeological resources are not preserved in place or not left in an undisturbed state, mitigation measures shall be required as provided in this subdivision. (d) Excavation as mitigation shall be restricted to those parts of the unique archaeological resource that would be damaged or destroyed by the project.
(e) In no event shall the amount paid by a project applicant for mitigation measures required pursuant to subdivision (c) exceed the following amounts:
(1) An amount equal to one-half of 1 percent of the projected cost of the project for mitigation measures undertaken within the site boundaries of a commercial or industrial project. (2) An amount equal to three-fourths of 1 percent of the projected cost of the project for mitigation measures undertaken within the site boundaries of a housing project consisting of a single unit. (3) If a housing project consists of more than a single unit, an amount equal to three -fourths of 1 percent of the projected cost of the project for mitigation measures undertaken within the site boundaries of the project for the first unit plus the sum of the following:
(A) Two hundred dollars ($200) per unit for any of the next 99 units. (B) One hundred fifty dollars ($150) per unit for any of the next 400 units. (C) One hundred dollars ($100) per unit in excess of 500 units. (f) Unless special or unusual circumstances warrant an exception, the field excavation phase of an approved mitigation plan shall be completed within 90 days after final approval necessary to implement the physical development of the project or, if a phased project, in connection with the phased portion to which the specific mitigation measures are applicable. However, the project applicant may extend that period if he or she so elects.

Nothing in this section shall nullify protections for Indian cemeteries under any other provision of law.

California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act The California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act (PRC Section 5097.9) applies to both State and private lands. The act requires, upon discovery of human remains, that construction or excavation activity cease and that the county coroner be notified. If the remains are those of a Native American, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which notifies and has the authority to designate the most likely descendant (MLD) of the deceased. The act stipulates the procedures the descendants may follow for treating or disposing of the remains and associated grave goods.

Health and Safety Code, Sections 7050.5
Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If they are determined to be those of a Native American, the coroner must contact NAHC.

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.4-6 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Public Resources Code, Section 5097
PRC Section 5097 specifies the procedures to be followed if human remains are unexpectedly discovered on nonfederal land. The disposition of Native American burials falls within the jurisdiction of NAHC. Section 5097.5 of the code states:

No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

CITY OF MILPITAS GENERAL PLAN 2040
Conservation and Sustainability Element
The City of Milpitas General Plan (City of Milpitas 2021) includes a Conservation and Sustainability Element which includes sections Cultural and Historical Resources and Architectural Resources.  Policy CON 4-1: Review proposed developments and work in conjunction with the California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, to determine whether project areas contain known archaeological resources, either prehistoric and/or historic- era, or have the potential for such resources.
 Policy CON 4-2: If found during construction, ensure that human remains are treated with sensitivity and dignity, and ensure compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
 Policy CON 4-3: Work with Native American representatives to identify and appropriately address, through avoidance or mitigation, impacts to Native American cultural resources and sacred sites during the development review process.
 Policy CON 4-4: Consistent with State, local, and tribal intergovernmental consultation requirements such as SB 18 and AB 52, the City shall consult as necessary with Native American tribes that may be interested in proposed new development and land use policy changes.
 Action CON-4a: Require a cultural and archaeological survey prior to approval of any project which would require excavation in an area that is sensitive for cultural or archaeological resources. If significant cultural or archaeological resources, including historic and prehistoric resources, are identified, appropriate measures shall be implemented, such as documentation and conservation, to reduce adverse impacts to the resource.  Action CON-4b: Require all development, infrastructure, and other ground-disturbing projects to comply with the following conditions in the event of an inadvertent discovery of cultural resources or human remains:
• If construction or grading activities result in the discovery of significant historic or prehistoric archaeological artifacts or unique paleontological resources, all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease, the Planning Department shall be notified, the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian for appropriate protection and preservation measures; and work may only resume when appropriate protections are in place and have been approved by the Planning Department.
• If human remains are discovered during any ground disturbing activity, work shall stop until the Planning Department and the County Coroner have been contacted; if the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and the most likely descendants have been consulted; and work may only resume when appropriate measures have been taken and approved by the Planning Department.
 Policy CON 5-1: Protect significant historic resources and use these resources to promote a sense of place and history in Milpitas through implementation of the Milpitas Cultural Resources Preservation Program (Municipal

Ascent Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.4-7 Code, Title XI, Chapter 4), the Conceptual Historic Resources Master Plan, the conservation and preservation of the City’s historical collection at the Milpitas Community Museum, and other applicable codes, regulations, and area plans.
 Policy CON 5-2: Evaluate the condition of historical buildings, the costs of rehabilitation, and the feasibility of preservation or conservation alternatives when considering the demolition or movement of historic structures; when possible, encourage the adaptive re-use of the historic structure.  Policy CON 5-3: Provide readily available public information on the Mills Act and encourage people to renovate historic homes in disrepair using property tax savings available through the Mills Act.  Action CON-5a: Periodically update the City’s Cultural Resources Register with new sites or buildings that are of local, State or federal significance.
 Action CON-5b: Require recordation of the designation of a Milpitas Cultural Resources Register property on the property title.
 Action CON-5c: Create incentives to promote historic preservation, maintenance and adaptive reuse by property owners, such as, expedited permits, lower permit fees, Mills Act Contracts for tax benefits, tax credits, and zero or low interest loans for income-qualified residents.  Action CON-5d: Continue to implement the City’s Conceptual Historic Resources Master Plan and periodically review and modify the Plan as necessary in order to ensure that it continues to meet the City’s historic preservation goals.
 Action CON-5e: Develop an annual work plan in coordination with the City Council, the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Commission, and the Milpitas Historical Society to further preservation goals.  Action CON-5f: Continue to provide educational resources and public outreach efforts that inform citizens of ways to become involved with local historical preservation efforts including:
• School age programs, adult lectures, on-line exhibits; • Partnerships with other cultural and historical institutions to promote local awareness and appreciation of Milpitas’ rich history; and
• Collaboration among community groups, educational institutions, the Milpitas Library and the Milpitas Historical Society.
 Action CON-5g: Use amenities such as signs and historical lighting in key public access areas. Consider incorporating public art to reflect historical elements.  Action CON-5h: Leverage public and private resources to further preservation goals.  Action CON-5i: Consider creation of a City Council policy establishing criteria and standards for new Mills Act contracts.

CULTURAL RESOURCES PRESERVATION PROGRAM, CITY OF MILPITAS ZONING

ORDINANCE
The Cultural Resources Preservation Program is identified in Chapter 4 of the City’s Zoning, Planning, and Annexation Code and applies to all cultural resources in the City of Milpitas. Chapter 4 seeks to balance the needs of the community for preservation and the needs of the community for development by:
a. The creation of a Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Commission; b. A hearing procedure allowing the inventory of and classification of community cultural resources; c. A permit procedure to allow guidance to owners in the preservation of valuable cultural assets;

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.4-8 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR d. To provide provision for a reasonable time during which cultural assets (that might otherwise be lost) can be acquired for preservation by interested individuals or organizations; e. Utilizing statutes and ordinances heretofore or hereafter enacted providing for the preservation of cultural assets; f. The recognition of the right of a landowner to develop property on which cultural assets are located if there are no practical preservation alternatives available.

The program empowers the Cultural Resources Commission to identify potential cultural resources and to recommend designation of official cultural resources for consideration by the City Council. The program makes it unlawful for a person to alter a locally-designated cultural resource or cultural resource site without obtaining a permit from the City. The Commission is tasked with reviewing these permit application packets and making recommendations to the City Council to either grant the permit as-is, grant it with conditions, or deny it.

Milpitas Historical Sites Inventory
The City of Milpitas maintains a list of significant historical sites within the city boundaries called the Milpitas Historical Sites Inventory, previously known as the Register of Cultural Resources. The following are located within the Specific Plan area (City of Milpitas 2024):
 Milpitas Grammar School/Senior Center – 160 North Main Street,  DeVries Home/Dr. Renselaer Smith House – 163 North Main Street,  27 S. Main Street – craftsman residence,
 Venturini House/Pashote House – 99 South Main Street,  Cracolice Store/Pashote Bros. Store – 111-129 South Main Street,  Kozy Kitchen/Pashote Bros. Meat Market – 114 South Main Street,  Campbell’s Corner/Smith’s Corner – 167 South Main Street,  225 Bothelo Road – craftsman residence,
 Torres House – 155 Sinnott Lane,
 Harker Home/Silveria Home – 121 Sinnott Lane,
 87 Sinnott Lane – craftsman residence,
 69 Sinnott Lane – craftsman residence,
 Deniz Home/Crabb Home – 236 South Main Street,
 250 South Main Street - craftsman residence,
 Caudillo House/Silveria House – 280 South Main Street,  Evatt Home/Dr. Al Curlin Home and Office - 290 South Main Street,  St. Johns Church Chapel – 279 South Main Street,
 Milpitas Beauty Salon/Rose Home – 429 South Main Street,  Pimental Home/Almeida Home – 437 South Main Street,
 Davis Apartments/Dophna Home – 449 South Main Street,  Elm Alee – a double row of 33 elmwood trees – Main Street to Abel Avenue, and  Milpitas Historical Commercial District.

Ascent Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.4-9

CONCEPTUAL HISTORIC RESOURCES MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF MILPITAS In 2011, the City of Milpitas and Architectural Resources Group completed a Conceptual Historic Resources Master Plan for the city. The purpose of the document was to “outline appropriate preservation efforts that reflect a balance of public fiscal commitment, private property rights, historic resource priorities, and cultural and educational purposes” (City of Milpitas and ARG 2011).

3.4.2 Environmental Setting

REGIONAL PRECONTACT HISTORY
Precontact history of the southern San Francisco Bay area is complex due to the dramatic increase in human populations from middle to late Holocene times. Cultural chronology is quite variable spatially but is generally framed within a tripartite sequence that is commonly used in central California—Early (5,500– 2,500 before present [BP]), Middle (2,500–1,000 BP), and Late (1,000–500 BP). These temporal periods are preceded by early to middle Holocene occupation (9,000–5,500 BP), open characterized as the Millingstone Period (Milliken et al. 2007).

Millingstone Period (9,000–5,500 BP)
The Millingstone Period is characterized by small groups who travelled widely and practiced broad spectrum foraging of easily acquired plant and animal resources. Artifacts common to this time period are handstones and millingstones. Flaked stone implements, such as projectile points, are much less common than grinding and battering tools. Common foods are thought to have included a variety of small seeds, shellfish, and small mammals.

Early Period (5,500–2,500 BP)
The Early Period ranges encompasses an era where people are thought to still have practiced wide-ranging residential mobility but placed a greater emphasis on hunting larger game. Large pinnipeds, such as northern fur seal, are common to coastal archaeological sites during this time. Several styles of large projectile points correspond to this general time frame, which also marks the initial use of mortar and pestle technology.

Middle Period (2,500–1,000 BP)
The Middle Period appears to represent a time when people were somewhat more residentially stable and practiced more logistical (short-term) mobility. By this time, people apparently went on extended resource acquisition forays for the purpose of bringing subsistence or trade items back to residential base camps. Large, terrestrial mammals were hunted more often during this time and grinding implements became more common.

Late Period (1,000–500 BP)
The Late Period is characterized by increased sociopolitical complexity and settlement centralization. Large village sites in the northern Santa Clara Valley are often found in the valley center along perennial streams. There is continued prevalence of mortar and pestle technology, thought to signify a greater reliance on acorn than in earlier times. Other labor-intensive foods were also used with greater frequency during this latest time period. For example, sea otter and harbor seal were exploited more heavily. These animals are thought to be more labor-intensive to capture compared to other pinnipeds and large mammals, which were more commonly hunted in earlier times. Bow and arrow technology is also believed to have been adopted by aboriginal hunters during this latest precolonial interval (Milliken et al. 2007).

CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES
Aboriginal inhabitants of Santa Clara Valley have been classified by anthropologists as Costanoan. This is a Spanish word that translates to costanos, or coastal dweller. The term Costanoan, as applied by anthropologists, does not imply the existence of a politically unified entity, but rather, it refers to different groups of people who shared similar cultural traits and belonged to the same linguistic family, the Utian family. There are two sub -groups associated with

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.4-10 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR the Utian, the Miwokan and Costanoan. There are eight branches of the Costanoan family, and each branch has their own separate language. These eight languages consisted of the Tamien (Santa Clara), Karkin, Chochenyo (East Bay), Ramaytush (San Francisco), Awaswas (Santa Cruz), Mutsun (San Juan Bautista and the Pajaro River drainage), Rumsen (Carmel and the lower Salinas River), and Chalon (Soledad, farther up the Salinas River).

It is difficult to find an exact point time at which the following cultural descriptions of the Costanoan apply. This is due to the skewed information gathered by ethnographers that were interested in recording precontact culture as a stagnant culture, and not the continuous growth of Costanoan culture during and after European contact (Levy 1978).

The Costanoan people practiced a hunting, fishing and collecting economy focusing on the collection of seasonal plant and animal resources, including tidal and marine resources from San Francisco Bay. They traded with neighboring groups including the Yokuts to the east and exported salt, shells, and cinnabar among other items. The Costanoan obtained and sustained a surplus of plant and animal foods by carefully managing the land. Control burns of extensive areas of land was carried out each fall to promote the growth of seed- bearing annuals. Acorns were probably the most important plant food source for the Costanoan. Some of the animals eaten by the Costanoan included black-tailed deer, antelope, elk, grizzly bear, Roosevelt elk, sea lion, and whale. There were small animals eaten as well such as jackrabbit, raccoon, skunk, dog, tree squirrel, mole, and cottontail. The Costanoan also consumed a variety of bird and fish species (Levy 1978).

Effects of Spanish-Mexican Contact
The natives of Santa Clara County were disrupted with the arrival of the Europeans. This disruption had two main components. The first component brought lethal diseases for which the natives had no resistance against. The diseases brought by the Spaniards often swept through the Native American populations faster than Spanish settlement. As a result, Native American settlements were at times deserted or depopulated before the first Spaniards visited them. The second component involved the establishment of missions. Native Americans were brought into the missions for purposes of indoctrination, baptism, and labor. Native Americans of different languages and dialects were kept in forced proximity to other missions and each other. Consequently, disease was spread more rapidly and took a heavy toll in the Native American population (Hester 1974).

KNOWN ETHNOGRAPHIC VILLAGES AND ANCESTRAL HERITAGE CEMETERIES Two Costanoan village sites are within the Milpitas city limits, one of which is located in the S pecific Plan Area. It is a large shellmound site that was discovered in 1949 and dates to the 18th century (City of Milpitas 1994).

In consultation with the Muwekma Ohlone tribe the city has been notified that there are three ancestral heritage cemetery sites within or near the project site, which makes the Specific Plan Area potentially highly sensitive (Muwekma Ohlone 2024).

CONTEMPORARY NATIVE AMERICAN SETTING
Tamien Nation
The Tamien Nation Tribal citizens have direct lineages to precontact villages of the Greater Santa Clara Valley. Some of these villages include the San Juan Bautista Rancheria, Santa Clara Rancheria, San Antonio Rancheria, San Francisco Solano Rancheria, and Ritocsi village. The Tamien Nation’s vision is to obtain lands within their aboriginal territory so they could live their lives with prosperity, peace, and dignity. The Tamien Nation’s mission is as follows:
1) To treat their citizens with equality, dignity, and respect, 2) To protect their Tribal cultural resources and environment, 3) To promote and preserve their culture, religion, and language, 4) To enhance the economic sustainability and quality of life for their citizens, 5) To promote their traditional values honoring their agreeing with the world,

Ascent Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.4-11 6) And to reacquire their unceded traditional homelands to secure their worldview and way of life.

The Tamien Nation’s relationship with the land is one of deep respect, reciprocity, and agreement. They continue to pass down thousands of years of intergenerational teachings to ensure the sustainability of their indigenous food sources. Hunting (payta), fishing (huyni), and harvesting (ruta) food sources is multifaceted as it manufactures and supports their culture, language, religion, and economy. The Tamien Nation also engages in language preservation by conducting a community-based language program that provides a safe space for their citizens to learn and engage with the larger Ohlone community. Another program they have is the cultural fire stewardship and prescribed burn program. Through this program, Tamien Nation citizens are trained to become cert ified qualified Type 2 Wildland Firefighters and mentor trainees for ultimate qualification as California Certified Prescribed Burn Boss to lead cultural prescribed burn projects.

The Tamien Nation hosts various community events throughout the year some of which involve community outreach.

On April 23, 2022, they hosted a virtual event to teach the community about the history of whose aboriginal homeland is located at Alum Rock Park. Tamien Nation Chairwoman, Quirina Luna Geary, discussed topics such as programming, efforts to protect their sacred lands, and other aspects of their culture (Tamien 2023).

Muwekma Ohlone
The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area region is comprised of all of the known surviving American Lineages aboriginal to the San Francisco Bay region who trace their ancestry through the Missions Dolores, Santa Clara, and San José. Their aboriginal land includes several counties such as San Mateo, San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Cruz, Solano, San Joaquin, portions of Napa, and most of Santa Clara. The Muwekma Ohlone participates in various aspects of their culture such as cultural resources by bridging their ancestral past and future.

They also engage in language revitalization (Muwekma Ohlone 2023).

In the mid-19
th century families established several rancherias in East Bay of the San Francisco Bay Area including: the Alisal in Pleasanton, El Molino in Niles, Del Mocho in Livermore, Sonol, and the Springs in San Leandro/ San Lorenzo.

In the early 20th century, the Muwekma Ohlone was federally recognized by the Indian Service Bureau identified as the Verona Band of Alameda County (Muwekma Ohlone 2024).

HISTORIC SETTING
Regional History
Initial Spanish contact with the local Native Americans probably began somewhat before the establishment of Mission Dolores in San Francisco in 1776 and Mission Santa Clara in San José in 1777. The missions’ goals of “civilizing” the local Native American community was accomplished by using them to provide the labor for building, construction, and daily operations of the missions. At first, the missions’ labor force was a medley of local Native Americans from the nearby area, but as they died off in alarming numbers from introduced diseases for which they had no resistance, groups from further afield were used. After secularization of the missions, vast areas of land were open for land grants
. Also in 1777, California’s first pueblo was founded in San José (EDAW 2001).

Milpitas
In 1769[,] the expedition of Gaspar de Portola passed through the Milpitas area, inaugurating the historic era. The Spanish presence in the South Bay region was initiated with the missions. Over the following half -century, the mission holdings were broken up by secularization, supplanted by private land grants such as the Rancho de Milpitas. The name Milpitas, meaning “little cornfields,” was given to the area by these early Spanish settlers.

The area that was to become Milpitas was established as a stopover point by the late 1840s when the Higuera Adobe welcomed travelers on the immigrant trail between Sutter’s Fort and San Jose, via Livermore Pass. In 1855, settlers in the Calaveras Valley petitioned for a county road across the flats to Alviso. The resulting intersection – where the Alviso Road crossed the Mission Road – encouraged the development of Milpitas. By the late 1850s, a stage line was operating between San Jose and Oakland, with stops at Milpitas, including on at the Higuera Adobe, operating as a hotel and stage depot. Soon businesses such as general stores, stables, saloons, hotels, blacksmiths, carriage shops,

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.4-12 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR and a post office catered to the needs of farming families. The first structures to be built in Milpitas were adobe houses located along the foothills east of town (now east of Piedmont and Evans Road) and along both sides of the Calaveras Road between Main Street and the foothills. During the 1850s to 1870s, many frame farmhouses were constructed.

Businesses that catered to travelers (saloons, restaurants, blacksmiths, service stations, and hotels) and those that supplied the local population (general stores, meat markets, and lumberyards) developed near the intersection of the Alviso-Milpitas Road (Calaveras Boulevard) and the San Jose-Oakland Road (Main Street). Clustered around this nucleus of commercial and service buildings were the homes of the merchants, railway employees, and working members of the community. In the latter part of the 19
th century, Milpitas emerged as a marketing center for farmers.

The Southern Pacific Railroad ran a line from Stockton to San Jose reaching Milpitas in 1869, which initiated new commercial enterprises and consolidation of Milpitas’ position as an important shipping point of the rapidly growing valley. In the 1920s, construction of the San Jose branch of the Western Pacific Railroad gave the community access to a second rail line. As late as the early 1950s, orchards and farms dotted the Milpitas landscape.

The Ford Motor Company began constructing an assembly plant south of downtown in a strip between the two railroad tracks in 1953, and the town was incorporated in the following year. When incorporated in 1954, Milpitas covered 2.9 square miles and had a population of 825 people. Over the next two decades Milpitas’ population grew at a rate of 38 percent each year, making it one of the fastest growing areas in Santa Clara County. During the City’s rapid expansion, any of the older buildings in the Midtown planning area [now the Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan], were demolished and replaced (EDAW, Inc. 2001).

RECORDS SEARCHES, SURVEYS, AND CONSULTATION
On September 12, 2024, a records search of the project site was conducted at the Northwest Information Center, at Sonoma State University. The following information was reviewed as part of the records search:
 NRHP and CRHR,
 California Office of Historic Preservation Historic Property Directory,  California Inventory of Historic Resources,
 California State Historic Landmarks,
 California Points of Historical Interest, and
 Historic properties reference map.

Nine previously recorded cultural resources were identified within the project site; this includes f ive archaeological sites (four precontact and one historic-period) and four built-environment features.

Archaeological Sites
P-43-000057/CA-SCL-38
P-43-000057 consists of lithic scatter, burials, and habitation debris. The original site record for this site was prepared in 1952 with updates in 1984 and, 1985. The resource is described as an extensive habitation site with artifacts from the Late Horizon occupation and possible Middle Horizon. The boundary is unknown. Muwekma Ohlone Tribe refers to this site as the Yukisma Mound, an ancestral heritage cemetery site (Muwekma Ohlone 2024). The resource has not been evaluated for the NRHP or CRHP.

P-43-000139/CA-SCL-126
P-43-000139 consists of shells, pestle fragments, pitted stone, and burnt rock. In 1973 when the site was recorded it was described as a distinct mound. Additional information was recorded in 1984. The resource has not been evaluated for the NRHP or CRHP.

Ascent Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.4-13 P-43-000624/CA-SCL-677
P-43-000624 consists of marine shell, fire cracked rock, and lithics deposit. The site was first recorded in 1989 with additional survey completed in 1995, 2014, and 2015. These subsequent efforts expanded the boundaries; discovered a human burial; and confirmed the presence of human bone, faunal bone, marine shell, and debitage. Muwekma Ohlone Tribe refers to this site as an ancestral heritage cemetery site (Muwekma Ohlone 2024).

P-43-001060/CA-SCL-678
P-43-001060 consists of burials, a chert flake, scapula saw, a mano, and other ground stone fragments. The site was recorded in 1989.

P-43-002275
P-43-002275 is a buried historic-period archaeological deposit that includes bottles, cans, boots, coal, and metal fragments. The site dates to the late 1950s to early 1960s.

Historic Features
P-43-002654/P-01-002190 – Western Pacific Railroad San Jose Branch – Warm Springs Yard to Santa Clara Street P-43-002654/P-01-002190 is a rail line and its associated features. The segment in the specific plan area was part of the Western Pacific Railway Company until it was acquired by the Union Pacific Core. The Western Pacific Railway Company began operation in 1903 and remains in operation as a commuter and freight carrier.

In 2002, the segment from Santa Clara Street in San Jose to just north of Warm Springs Blvd in Fremont (San Jose Branch) was recorded. It was recommended ineligible for the NRHP and deemed not a historical resource for CEQA.

In 2013, the Union Pacific Railroad Trestle at Berryessa Creek was rerecorded and recommended ineligible for the NRHP.

P-43-003543
P-43-003543 is the Milpitas Grammar School at 160 North Main Street. The school was built in 1916 in the Neoclassical style. It was nominated in 1993 and is currently listed on the NRHP and therefore is automatically included in the CRHR.

P-43-003548
P-43-003548 is a correctional facility called the Elmwood Rehabilitation Center located at 701 S. Abel Street. It was originally called the Santa Clara County Almshouse. The facility was first established in 1884; however, the original alms house was torn down in 1938. The earliest remaining buildings likely date to the late 1930s or early 1940s. It was evaluated in 1984 and recommended ineligible, but it is unclear which buildings and structures were included in this evaluation.

P-43-003554
P-43-003554 is Fire Station #1 located at 25 W. Curtis Street. It was documented in 1995. No evaluation was provided by the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University (NWIC).

Tribal Cultural Resources
Native American Consultation
On August 9, 2024, in compliance with AB 52 requirements, the City of Milpitas sent notification letters to all tribal representatives identified by the NAHC. The City met with both the Muwekma Ohlone and Tamien Nation tribes.

Consultation will continue through the SEIR review process.

The specific details of the consultations are confidential pursuant to California law; however, a summary of events related to communication between the tribes and the Board is provided below in Table 3.4- 1.

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.4-14 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Table 3.4-1 AB 52 Consultation
Native American Tribe and Contact Date of Initial
Response
City Follow-up
Response Comment
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Ed Ketchum, Vice-Chairperson NA NA Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Valentin Lopez, Chairperson NA NA Amah MutsunTribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson NA NA
Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation, Deja Gould, Language Program Manager NA NA
Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation, Cheyenne Gould, Tribal Cultural Resource Manager NA NA
Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation, Corrina Gould,
Chairperson NA NA
Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe, Carla Munoz, Tribal Council NA NA Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe, Desiree Munoz, Tribal Liaison NA NA Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson NA NA
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan , Kanyon Sayers- Roods, MLD Contact NA NA
Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the SF Bay Area , Richard Massiatt, Councilmember/MLD Tribal Rep. August 29, 2024* September 27, 2024 On October 2, 2024, the City held a
virtual meeting. Muwekma requested
the records search and reports for
the project area, and suggested
some mitigation measures
Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the SF Bay Area, Charlene Nijmeh, Chairperson August 29, 2024* See above.

Northern Valley Yokut / Ohlone Tribe, Timothy Perez, Tribal Compliance Officer NA NA
Northern Valley Yokut / Ohlone Tribe, Katherine Perez,
Chairperson NA NA
Tamien Nation, Johnathan Wasaka Costillas, THPO NA NA
Tamien Nation, Lillian Camarena, Secretary NA NA
Tamien Nation, Quirina Luna Geary, Chairperson September 10, 2024
October 15, 2024 – requested to
review the mitigation measures;
suggested some mitigation measures
The Ohlone Indian Tribe, Vincent Medina, Cultural Leader NA NA The Ohlone Indian Tribe, Andrew Galvan, Chairperson NA NA The Ohlone Indian Tribe, Desiree Vigil, THPO NA NA
Wuksachi Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band, Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson NA NA
Notes - *One letter sent from Charlene, Chairwoman; Richard Massiatt, Executive Director; Alan Leventhal, Tribal Archaeologist of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the SF Bay Area.

Source: Data compiled by Ascent in 2024.

Ascent Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.4-15

3.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
The impact analysis for archaeological and historical resources is based on the results of the NWIC records search completed on September 12, 2024, and information provided by the tribes. The analysis for tribal cultural resources is based on the tribal consultation under AB 52. The analysis is also informed by the provisions and requirements of federal, state, and local laws and regulations that apply to cultural resources. No site survey was conducted to verify the presence or condition of previously identified resources.

PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a “unique archaeological resource” as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets one or more of the following CRHR-related criteria: (1) that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; (2) that it as a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or (3) that it is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. An impact on a resource that is not unique is not a significant environmental impact under CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[c][4]). If an archaeological resource qualifies as a resource under CRHR criteria, then the resource is treated as a unique archaeological resource for the purposes of CEQA.

PRC Section 21074 defines “tribal cultural resources” as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” that are listed or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR, listed in a local register of historical resources, or otherwise determined by the lead agency to be a tribal cultural resource.

For the purposes of the impact discussion, “historical resource” is used to describe built -environment historic-period resources. Archaeological resources (both prehistoric and historic-period), which may qualify as “historical resources” pursuant to CEQA, are analyzed separately from built-environment historical resources.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the project would result in a significant impact on cultural resources if it would:
 cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines;
 cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines;
 cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PR C 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; or  disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

ISSUES NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
All potential archaeological, historical, and tribal cultural resources issues identified in the significance criteria are evaluated below.

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.4-16 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.4-1: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Historical Resource The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.5-1) determined that impacts related to historical resources, including the Gateway-Main Specific Plan, would be less than significant, requiring no mitigation. Implementing the Specific Plan would increase the maximum density of development which would increase development pressures and could result in more requests for the demolition of historical resources. This may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines resulting in a potentially significant
impact. As a result, a substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR.

Historical (or architectural) resources include standing buildings (e.g., houses, barns, cabins) and intact structures (e.g., dams, bridges). Over the years, historical resources in Milpitas have been identified through historic building surveys and cultural resource studies. These surveys and studies have led to the identification of 21 historic buildings and sites as listed on the Milpitas Historical Sites Inventory within the Specific Plan Area.

The Specific Plan proposes updates to the adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan (Midtown Plan) including changes to existing zoning and land use to allow for increased density. These zoning changes can increase the development pressure on those sites that would then be considered underdeveloped leading to the demolition of older buildings and structures.

An exhaustive survey and evaluation of historic age buildings in the specific plan area has not been conducted and projects could be proposed under the Specific Plan for many years during which time buildings and structures could become historic age (50 years old or older) and require evaluation. Activities proposed as a result of the Specific Plan could be in areas with known historical sites, or in areas where buildings and structures have not yet been evaluated for historical significance. Therefore, there is a potential that some of these buildings could be historically significant.

Damage to or destruction of a building or structure that is a designated historic resource, eligible for listing as a historic resource, or a potential historic resource that has not yet been evaluated, could result in a substantial adverse change in its historical significance. By changing the zoning to allow greater density the development pressure could increase and result in more requests for the demolition of historical resources. As a result, substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a: Conduct Project-Specific Level Surveys Prior to altering or otherwise affecting a building or structure 50 years old or older and has not been previously evaluated as a potential historic resource, the City shall require the project applicant to retain a qualified architectural historian to evaluated and record it on a California Department of Parks and Recreation DPR 523 form or equivalent documentation. Its significance shall be assessed by a qualified architectural historian and evaluated against NRHP, CRHR, and local criteria. The evaluation process shall include the development of appropriate historical background research as context for the assessment of the significance. For buildings or structures that do not meet significance and integrity criteria, no further mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b: Historical Resources Documentation Prior to the alteration or demolition of any building or structure that qualifies as a historical resource, a qualified architectural historian, the project applicant, and the City shall consult to consider measures that would enable the project to avoid direct or indirect impacts to the building or structure. If the project cannot avoid modifications to a historic building or structure that would result in a substantial adverse change the City shall ensure that the project applicant have a qualified architectural historian thoroughly documents the building and associated landscaping and setting. If the historic building or structure is eligible or listed on the NRHP, documentation shall include still and video photography and a written documentary record of the building to the standards of the Historic American Building Survey or Historic American Engineering Record, including accurate scaled mapping, architectural

Ascent Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.4-17 descriptions, and scaled architectural plans, if available. A copy of the record shall be deposited with the City, the Milpitas Historical Society, and the Milpitas Library. The record shall be accompanied by a report containing site- specific history and appropriate contextual information. This information shall be gathered through site specific and comparative archival research, and oral history collection as appropriate.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a and 3.4-1b would reduce potentially significant impacts on historic resources because actions would be taken to evaluate historic age buildings and record those that are determined to be historical resources under CEQA. These mitigation measures would be consistent with General Plan Policy CON 5- 1 and CON-5-2. However, the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.4[b][2]) note that in some circumstances, documentation of an historical resource will not mitigate the effects of demolition of that resource to a less- than- significant level because the historic resources would no longer exist. Therefore, because the potential for permanent loss of a historic resource or its integrity cannot be precluded, the Specific Plan’s impact on historical resources would remain
significant and unavoidable, which would be more severe compared to the General Plan Update EIR.

Impact 3.4-2: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of Unique Archaeological Resources
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.5-1) determined that impacts related to archaeological resources, including the Gateway-Main Specific Plan, would be less than significant, requiring no mitigation. However, additional information obtained since the General Plan Update EIR indicates that the area is highly sensitive for archaeological and tribal cultural resources. Project-related ground-disturbing activities could result in discovery or damage of yet undiscovered archaeological resources as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. As a result, a substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would be potentially significant.

The NWIC records search revealed five archaeological sites within the Specific Plan Area (P-43-000057, P-43-000139, P-43-000624, P-43-001060, and P-43-002275). P-43-000057, P-43-000139, P-43-000624, P-43-001060 are all precontact archaeological sites and P-43-002274 is a historic-era archaeological site. Some of these sites include human remains, which is specifically discussed under Impact 3.4-4 below.

None of these sites have been evaluated for information potential or possible eligibility for listing in the NRHP or CRHR. Therefore, none of the sites are considered “unique archaeological resources” for the purposes of CEQA.

However, it is possible that these sites could be evaluated in the future and be determined eligible for listing in the CRHR. Additionally, ground disturbance activities may encounter previously undiscovered or unrecorded archaeological sites and materials.

Implementation of the Specific Plan would include the development of several different types of uses to support population in the area and would include various levels of ground disturbance. The proposed Specific Plan would allow for additional residential development beyond what is allowed under the General Plan through increases in density and implementation through an incentive program. As ground disturbance could damage or destroy previously undiscovered archaeological resources and development would be more likely to occur, this impact would be more severe compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.4-2a: Prepare and Implement Worker Training Program A training program will be provided to all construction personnel active on a given project site prior to implementation of earth moving activities. A qualified archaeologist meeting the United States Secretary of Interior guidelines for professional archaeologists shall prepare the program and provide the training to all construction personnel. The program will include relevant information regarding archaeological resources, including protocols for resource avoidance, applicable laws regulations, and the consequences of violating them. The program will also underscore the requirement for confidentiality and culturally appropriate treatment of any find of significance as well as the actions that need to be taken after a find is made.

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.4-18 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4-2b: Identify and Protect Unknown Archaeological Resources During project-specific environmental review of development under the Specific Plan for any projects that include ground disturbance, the project applicant shall hire a qualified archaeologist to determine the potential for the project to result in significant impacts. At a minimum, the effort shall include the following steps:
(i) Record’s search – The qualified archaeologist shall request a record’s search of the entire project area plus a one - half mile buffer from the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University. (ii) Surface survey exposed soil – The qualified archaeologist shall complete a pedestrian survey of any exposed soils on the project site.
(iii) Reporting – The qualified archaeologist shall complete a report/memo that summarizes the results of the record search and pedestrian survey as well as provides recommendations for additional study and/or mitigation measures to protect and/or reduce significant impacts to archaeological resources, as needed. If indigenous materials are identified, the associated tribe(s) will be contacted by the City and will be given the opportunity to review the report and provide input for consideration.
(iv) Preservation in place – The project applicant shall consult with the qualified archaeologist to consider means of avoiding or reducing ground disturbance within the archaeological site boundaries, including minor modifications of building footprint, landscape modification, the placement of protective fill (capping), the establishment of a preservation easement, or other means that will avoid or substantially preserve the resource in place. If avoidance or substantial preservation in place is not possible, the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.4-2(e).

Mitigation Measure 3.4-2c: Identify and Protect Known Unique Archaeological Resources During project-specific environmental review of development under the Specific Plan for any projects that include ground disturbance, the project applicant shall define each project’s area of effect for archaeological resources. The project applicant shall determine the potential for the project to result in cultural resources impacts, based on the extent of ground disturbance and site modification anticipated for the project. The project applicant shall implement the following steps where it has been determined under Mitigation Measure 3.4-2b(iv) that avoidance or preservation in place is not feasible, a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the City , and Native American tribe(s) as applicable, shall:
1) Retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct a subsurface investigation of the archaeological site, to ascertain whether buried archaeological materials are present and, if so, the extent of the deposit relative to the project’s area of effects. The project applicant shall be responsible for facilitating access to the archaeological site if it is paved at the moment of testing. If an archaeological deposit is discovered, the archaeologist shall prepare a site record and a written report of the results of investigations and filed with the appropriate Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System. The archaeological resource shall be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist, who shall determine whether it qualifies as a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource under the criteria of CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5. 2) If the resource does not meet the criteria of CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5, then it shall be noted in the environmental document and no further mitigation is required unless there is a discovery during construction. In the event of a discovery Mitigation Measure 3.4-2e below shall be implemented. However, the archaeological resource may be identified as a tribal cultural resource regardless even if it is determined that it is not a unique archaeological resource (See Mitigation Measures 3.4-3b and 3.4-3c below for further information). 3) If archaeological material within the project’s area of effects is determined to qualify as a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource (as defined by CEQA), the project applicant shall consult with the qualified archaeologist to prepare a research design and archaeological data recovery plan for the recovery that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant and implement the data recovery plan prior to or during development of the site. The archaeologist shall prepare a written report of the results of the data recovery and filed with the appropriate Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System.

Ascent Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.4-19 4) If, in the opinion of the qualified archaeologist and tribe(s) as applicable and in light of the data available, the significance of the site is such that data recovery cannot capture the values of the resource, the project applicant shall reconsider project plans in light of the high value of the resource, and implement more substantial modifications to the project that would allow the site to be preserved intact, such as project redesign, placement of fill, or project relocation or abandonment. If no such measures are feasible, the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.4 2d.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-2d: Retain Archaeological Monitor During project-specific environmental review of development under the Specific Plan, the project applicant shall retain an archaeological monitor for projects where an archaeological resource cannot be preserved or avoided. The archaeological monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any ground -disturbing activities (e.g., tree removals, boring, excavation, drilling, and trenching) for the future projects within 100 feet from all known archaeological resources that have been determined eligible or listed in the CRHR and NRHP, California Historical Landmarks, and any archaeological resources that have not been evaluated for its significance. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the project applicant and the City prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground -disturbing activity.

The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground -disturbing activities, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered archaeological resource.

Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-2e: For All Ground-Disturbing Construction Activities, Halt Ground Disturbance Upon Discovery of Subsurface Archaeological Features
During project-specific environmental review under the Specific Plan, for projects where no archaeological materials have been identified as part of Mitigation Measures 3.4-2b and 3.4-2c, in the event that any precontact or historic era subsurface archaeological features or deposits, including locally darkened soil (“midden”), that could conceal cultural deposits are discovered during construction, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained to assess the significance of the find. If the qualified archaeologist determines the archaeological material to be Native American in nature, the project applicant shall contact the appropriate Native American tribe for their input on the preferred treatment of the find. Mitigation Measure 3.4-2b(iv) or Mitigation Measure 3.4-2c and Mitigation Measure 3.4-2d shall be implemented.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4-2a through 3.4-2e would require a workers awareness training, it would reduce impacts to known and unknown archaeological resources because it would seek to protect in place, recover information, record, or otherwise treat the discovered resource appropriately, and require monitoring within 100 of known unique archaeological resources and unevaluated resources. These mitigation measures would be consistent with General Plan Policy CON 4-3 and CON 4-4 and Actions CON-4a and CON-4b. However, due to the sensitivity of the area some archaeological resources may not be able to be avoided during future projects, the Specific Plan’s impact on archaeological resources would be more severe compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would be
significant and unavoidable.

Impact 3.4-3: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource The General Plan Update EIR did not analyze impacts related to tribal cultural resources. AB 52 went into effect in 2014 and prior to that, tribal consultation was not required as part of the EIR process. However, additional information obtained through tribal consultation since the General Plan Update EIR was completed indicates that the area is highly sensitive for tribal cultural resources. Consultation with the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the SF Bay Area and Tamien Nation has not resulted in specific resources being identified as tribal cultural resources as described under PRC Section 21074. Therefore, the Specific Plan’s impact on tribal cultural resources would be more severe compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would be potentially significant.