Milpitas City Council
October 28, 2025

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.4-20 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Although neither of the consulting tribes, the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the SF Bay Area and Tamien Nation, have specifically identified any of these archaeological sites as a tribal cultural resource as defined in PRC Section 21074, the tribe(s) have expressed great concern for these resources and have identified the Specific Plan A rea as highly sensitive for tribal cultural resources.

California law recognizes the need to protect tribal cultural resources from inadvertent destruction and the procedures for the treatment of tribal cultural resources are contained in PRC Section 21080.3.2 and Section 21084.3 (a). Within 14 days of the City determining that it may undertake a project, the City must provide formal notification, in writing, to the California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project that have requested notification of proposed projects in the lead agency’s jurisdiction. If any affiliated tribe wishes to engage in consultation on the project, the tribe must respond to the City within 30 days of receipt of the formal notification. The City would be required to 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 after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.

If the City determines that a subsequent project may cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource, and measures are not otherwise identified in the consultation process, new provisions in the PRC describe measures that, if determined by the lead agency to be feasible, could be implemented to reduce potential effects of development on tribal cultural resources, although no specific resources were identified through AB 52 compliance for the Specific Plan. Compliance with PRC Section 21080.3.2 and Section 21084.3 (a) would provide an opportunity to avoid or minimize the disturbance of tribal cultural resources, and to appropriately treat any remains that are discovered.

Although the Specific Plan Area is largely developed and past construction activities have damaged or removed some subsurface elements, past investigations have demonstrated that there is the high potential for presence of subsurface resources, including artifacts, features, and human remains that contribute to the t ribal cultural resource.

Construction activities for future projects under the Specific Plan, including earth-moving, excavation, and use of heavy equipment that may cause ground compaction, may disturb or destroy any previously undistur bed and significant tribal cultural resources or deposits, which was not accounted for in the General Plan Update EIR .

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.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.4-3a: Conduct Tribal Cultural Resources Awareness Training During project-specific environmental review for development under the Specific Plan, the City shall coordinate with California Native American tribe(s) to prepare tribal cultural resource awareness and sensitivity training. All crew members and contractors shall be trained in the protection of tribal cultural resources and sensitive archaeological resources that the tribe(s) deems important. Workers will be trained to halt work if tribal cultural resources or sensitive archaeological resources are encountered and the construction method consists of physical disturbance of land surfaces (e.g., soil disturbance). The program will also underscore the requirement for confidentiality and culturally-appropriate treatment of any find of significance to Native Americans and protocols, consistent, to the extent feasible, with Native American Tribal values. The tribe(s) shall determine the most appropriate method of training (e.g., in person, brochure, or archaeological consultant).

Mitigation Measure 3.4-3b: Identify and Protect Unknown Tribal Cultural Resources During project-specific environmental review under the Specific Plan, if the City in consultation or coordination with the tribe(s) determines that a project activity may cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource, and measures to protect the resource are not otherwise identified in the consultation process, the pr oject applicant shall implement the following steps to identify and protect tribal cultural resources or archaeological resources significant to the tribe that may be present in the project’s area of effects.

Ascent Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.4-21 1) If a tribal cultural resource is identified, the project lead shall consult with the tribe(s) to consider means of avoiding or reducing ground disturbance within the resource boundaries, including minor modifications of building footprint, landscape modification, the placement of protective fill (e.g., capping), the establishment of a preservation easement, or other means that will avoid or substantially preserve the resource in place. Similar to Mitigation Measure 3.4-2b(iv).
2) If avoidance or substantial preservation in place of tribal cultural resources is not possible, the project lead shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.4-3(c).
3) For projects that require subsurface testing of archaeological sites that contain indigenous materials, the project applicant shall retain the Native American tribe(s) to monitor the subsurface testing of the project area that is required under Mitigation Measure 3.4-2c. The type of subsurface testing (e.g., ground-penetrating radar, core, forensic dogs, excavation) shall be coordinated with the consulting tribe(s).

Mitigation Measure 3.4-3c: Identify and Protect Known Tribal Cultural Resources If the City determines that avoidance or preservation in place of a tribal cultural resource is not feasible and ground disturbance cannot be avoided, the project lead and Native American tribe(s) as applicable, shall develop a treatment plan. The treatment plan shall include, but not be limited to testing, excavation strategy, research design, resource significance assessment methods, a burial treatment agreement (if applicable), reporting requirements and health and safety procedures. The burial treatment agreement (if applicable) shall include a discussion of reburial options, locations, and potential easements, considering tribal preferences. This may be developed in conjunction with Mitigation Measure 3.4-2c.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-3d: Retain a Native American Monitor Irrespective of pedestrian survey or subsurface testing findings, the project lead shall notify the appropriate Native American tribe(s) and retain a representative for tribal cultural resource monitoring prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet from all known tribal and archaeological resources (containing indigenous materials) that have been determined eligible or listed in the CRHR and NRHP, as well as California Historical Landmarks, and any archaeological resources that have not been evaluated for its significance . The project applicant shall contact the tribal representatives a minimum of seven days prior to beginning earthwork or other ground disturbing activities; construction activities will proceed if no response is received 48 hours prior to ground disturbing activities. The tribal monitor shall only be present onsite during the construction phases that involve ground disturbing activities, including but not limited to tree removals, boring, excavation, drilling, and trenching. The tribal monitor shall complete daily monitoring logs that describe each day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The onsite monitoring shall end when the site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the tribal representatives and monitor have indicated that the site has a low potential for impacting tribal cultural resources.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-3e: Implement Native American Response and Treatment Protocol During project-specific environmental review under the Specific Plan, for projects where no archaeological materials have been identified as part of Mitigation Measures 3.4-3b and 3.4 -3c, in the event that any tribal cultural resources and/or precontact 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. The project applicant shall contact the appropriate Native American tribe(s) for their input on the preferred treatment of the find. Mitigation Measure 3.4-3b (1) or Mitigation Measure 3.4-3c and Mitigation Measure 3.4-3d shall be implemented. If artifacts are recovered from significant tribal cultural resources, the first option shall be to transfer the artifacts to an appropriate tribal representative. If possible, accommodations shall be made to reinter the artifacts at the project site or another mutually agreed upon (with the Native American representative) location within the Specific Plan Area. Only if no other options are available will recovered precontact archaeological material be housed at a qualified curation facility, if approved by the consulting tribe (s).

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.4-22 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4-3a through 3.4-3e would reduce potentially significant impacts to tribal cultural resources because it would require: a tribal cultural resource awareness; steps to protect known and unknown tribal cultural resources; tribal monitoring; and stop work in case of a discovery. 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, because it some resources may not be able to be avoided during future projects, the Specific Plan’s impact on tribal cult ural resources would be more severe compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Impact 3.4-4: Disturb Human Remains
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.5-2) determined that impacts related to the disturbance of human remains, including the Gateway-Main Specific Plan, would be less than significant. Based on documentary research, there is ample evidence that suggests that un-marked human interments are present within or in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Area. While known burials can be avoided, ground-disturbing construction activities could uncover previously unknown human remains. Compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097 would be required. 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.

Based on documentary research, there is ample evidence that suggests that un- marked human interments are present within or in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Area. While known burials can be avoided it is not certain that the extent of these locations is known. Also, the location of grave sites and Native American remains can occur outside of identified cemeteries or burial sites. Therefore, there is a possibility that unmarked, previously unknown Native American or other graves could be present within the Specific Plan Area and could be uncovered by project-related construction activities.

California law recognizes the need to protect Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials from vandalism and inadvertent destruction. The procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains are contained in California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.

These statutes require that, if human remains are discovered, potentially damaging ground- disturbing activities in the area of the remains shall be halted immediately, and the appropriate County coroner shall be notified immediately. If the remains are determined by the coroner to be Native American, NAHC shall be notified within 24 hours and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. Following the coroner’s findings, the NAHC-designated Most Likely Descendant, and the landowner shall determine the ultimate treatment and disposition of the remains and take appropriate steps to ensure that additional human interments, if present, are not disturbed. The responsibilities for acting upon notification of a discovery of Native American human remains are identified in PRC Section 5097.94.

Compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097 would provide an opportunity to avoid or minimize the disturbance of human remains, and to appropriately treat any remains that are discovered. Therefore, 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 Energy
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.5-1

3.5 ENERGY
This section was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 and Appendix F of the CEQA guidelines, which require that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of projects. The analysis considers whether the proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (Specific Plan) would result in inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy.

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

3.5.1 Regulatory Setting
Energy conservation is required by many federal, State, and local statutes and policies. At the federal level, energy standards apply to numerous products (e.g., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s [EPA] EnergyStar ™ program) and transportation (e.g., fuel efficiency standards). At the State level, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations sets forth energy standards for buildings. Further, the State provides rebates/tax credits for installation of renewable energy systems, and offers the Flex Your Power program, which promotes conservation in multiple areas. At the local level, individual cities and counties establish policies in their general plans and climate action plans (CAPs) related to the energy efficiency of new development and land use planning and to the use of renewable energy sources.

FEDERAL
Energy Policy and Conservation Act, and CAFE Standards
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 established nationwide fuel economy standards to conserve oil.

Pursuant to this Act, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), is responsible for revising existing fuel economy standards and establishing new vehicle economy standards.

The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program was established to determine vehicle manufacturer compliance with the government’s fuel economy standards. Compliance with the CAFE standards is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the country. EPA calculates a CAFE value for each manufacturer based on the city and highway fuel economy test results and vehicle sales. The CAFE values are a weighted harmonic average of the EPA city and highway fuel economy test results. Based on information generated under the CAFE program, DOT is authorized to assess penalties for noncompliance. Under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (described below), the CAFE standards were revised for the first time in 30 years.

The CAFE Standards, which were first enacted by Congress in 1975, set fleet -wide averages that must be achieved by each automaker for its car and truck fleet. The purpose of the CAFE Standards is to reduce energy consumption by increasing the fuel economy of cars and light trucks. On April 1, 2022, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg unveiled new CAFE standards for 2024–2026 model year passenger cars and light-duty trucks, requiring new vehicles sold in the US to average at least 40 miles per gallon.

Energy Policy Act of 1992 and 2005
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) was passed to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign petroleum and improve air quality. EPAct includes several parts intended to build an inventory of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) in large, centrally-fueled fleets in metropolitan areas. EPAct requires certain federal, state, and local government and private fleets to purchase a percentage of light-duty AFVs capable of running on alternative fuels each year. In addition, financial incentives are also included in EPAct. Federal tax deductions are allowed for businesses and individuals to cover the incremental cost of AFVs. States are also required by the act to consider a variety of incentive programs to help promote AFVs. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides ren ewed and expanded tax credits for

Energy Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.5-2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR electricity generated by qualified energy sources, such as landfill gas; provides bond financing, tax incentives, grants, and loan guarantees for clean renewable energy and rural community electrification; and establishes a federal purchase requirement for renewable energy.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is designed to improve vehicle fuel economy and help reduce U.S. dependence on oil. It represents a major step forward in expanding the production of renewable fuels, reducing dependence on oil, and confronting global climate change. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 increases the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022, which represents a nearly five- fold increase over 2007 levels; and reduces U.S. demand for oil by setting a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020— an increase in fuel economy standards of 40 percent.

By addressing renewable fuels and the CAFE standards, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 builds upon progress made by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in setting out a comprehensive national energy strategy for the 21st century.

STATE
CEQA Guidelines Appendix F
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix F requires that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects. Furthermore, it provides a list of items that may be considered in the energy analysis, as described below in Section 3.5.3, “Impacts and Mitigation Measures,” under the “Thresholds of Significance” subheading.

Warren-Alquist Act
The 1975 Warren-Alquist Act established the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, commonly known as the California Energy Commission (CEC). The Act established State policy to reduce wasteful, uneconomical, and unnecessary uses of energy by employing a range of measures. The California Public Utilities Commission regulates privately owned utilities in the energy, rail, telecommunications, and water fields.

State of California Energy Action Plan
CEC is responsible for preparing the State Energy Plan, which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The previous plan was the 2003 Energy Action Plan (2008 update), which calls for the State to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assisting public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for zero-emission vehicles and addressing their infrastructure needs, as well as encouraging urban design that reduces vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and accommodates pedestrian and bicycle access.

The 2008 update has been supplemented by the 2019 California Energy Efficiency Action Plan, which includes three goals to drive energy efficiency: doubling energy efficiency savings by 2030, removing and reducing barriers to energy efficiency in low-income and disadvantaged communities, and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the buildings sector (CEC 2019).

Assembly Bill 2076: Reducing Dependence on Petroleum
Pursuant to AB 2076 (Chapter 936, Statutes of 2000), CEC and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) prepared and adopted a joint agency report in 2003, Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence. Included in this report are recommendations to increase the use of alternative fuels to 20 percent of on -road transportation fuel use by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030, significantly increase the efficiency of motor vehicles, and reduce per capita VMT (CEC and

Ascent Energy
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.5-3 CARB 2003). Further, in response to the CEC’s 2003 and 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Reports , Governor Davis directed CEC to take the lead in developing a long-term plan to increase alternative fuel use.

A performance-based goal of AB 2076 was to reduce petroleum demand to 15 percent below 2003 demand by 2030.

Integrated Energy Policy Report
SB 1389 (Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002) required CEC to “conduct assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices. The Energy Commission shall use these assessments and forecasts to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the State’s economy, and protect public health and safety” (PRC Section 25301[a]). This work culminated in preparation of the first Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR).

CEC adopts an IEPR every 2 years and an update every other year. The 2022 IEPR Update Report, which is the most recent IEPR, was adopted on November 9, 2022. The 2022 IEPR Update Report provides a summary of priority energy issues currently facing the State, outlining strategies and recommendations to further the State’s goal of ensuring reliable, affordable, and environmentally responsible energy sources. Energy topics covered in the report include progress toward Statewide renewable energy targets and issues facing future renewable development; efforts to increase energy efficiency in existing and new buildings; progress by utilities in achieving energy efficiency targets and potential; improving coordination among the State’s energy agencies; streamlining power plant licensing processes; results of preliminary forecasts of electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel supply and demand; future energy infrastructure needs; the need for research and development efforts to Statewide energy policies; and issues facing California’s nuclear power plants (CEC 2022).

Legislation Associated with Electricity Generation
The State has passed multiple pieces of legislation requiring the increasing use of renewable energy to produce electricity for consumers. California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program was established in 2002 (SB 1078) with the initial requirement to generate 20 percent of their electricity from renewable by 2017, 33 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2020 (SB X1-2 of 2011), 52 percent by 2027 (SB 100 of 2018), 60 percent by 2030 (also SB 100 of 2018), and 100 percent by 2045 (also SB 100 of 2018). More detail about these regulations is provided in Section 3.6, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change.” Senate Bill 350: Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350) requires doubling of the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas for retail customers through energy efficiency and conservation by December 31, 2030.

Assembly Bill 1007: State Alternative Fuels Plan
AB 1007 (Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005) required CEC to prepare a state plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California. CEC prepared the State Alternative Fuels Plan (SAF Plan) in partnership with CARB and in consultation with other State, federal, and local agencies. The SAF Plan presents strategies and actions California must take to increase the use of alternative non-petroleum fuels in a manner that minimizes the costs to California and maximizes the economic benefits of in-State production. The SAF Plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuel use, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and increase in-State production of biofuels without causing a significant degradation of public health and environmental quality.

California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) The energy consumption of new residential and nonresidential buildings in California is regulated by the California Energy Code. The code was established by CEC in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption and provide energy-efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. CEC updates the California Energy Code every 3 years, typically including more stringent design requirements for reduced energy consumption, which results in the generation of fewer GHG emissions.

Energy Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.5-4 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR The 2022 California Energy Code went into effect on January 1, 2023. The 2022 California Energy Code advances the on-site energy generation progress started in the 2019 California Energy Code by encouraging electric heat pump technology and use, establishing electric-ready requirements when natural gas is installed, expanding solar photovoltaic (PV) system and battery storage standards, and strengthening ventilation standards to improve indoor air quality. CEC estimates that the 2022 California Energy Code will save consumers $1.5 billion and reduce GHGs by 10 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent over the next 30 years (CEC 2021).

California Green Building Standards (Title 24, Part 11) The California Green Building Standards, also known as CALGreen, is a reach code (i.e., optional standards that exceed the requirements of mandatory codes) developed by CEC that provides green building standards for Statewide residential and nonresidential construction. The current version is the 2022 CALGreen Code, which took effect on January 1, 2023. As compared to the 2019 CALGreen Code, the 2022 CALGreen Code strengthened sections pertaining to electric vehicle (EV) and bicycle parking, water efficiency and conservation, and material conservation and resource efficiency, among other sections of the CALGreen Code. The CALGreen Code sets design requirements equivalent to or more stringent than those of the California Energy Code for energy efficiency, wat er efficiency, waste diversion, and indoor air quality. These codes are adopted by local agencies that enforce building codes and used as guidelines by State agencies for meeting the requirements of Executive Order B-18-12.

Legislation Associated with Greenhouse Gas Reduction
The State has passed legislation that aims to reduce GHG emissions. The legislation often has an added benefit of reducing energy consumption. SB 32 requires a Statewide GHG emission reduction of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by no later than December 31, 2030. AB 1279 requires carbon neutrality and a Statewide GHG emission reduction of 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045.

SB 375 aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG emission reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation. The Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) program, approved by CARB, combines the control of GHG emissions and criteria air pollutants and the increase in the number of zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) into a single package of standards. The program’s zero-emission vehicle regulation requires battery, fuel cell, and/or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to account for up to 15 percent of California’s new vehicle sales by 2025. In August 2022, CARB adopted the ACC II program, which sets sales requirements to reach the goal of 100 percent ZEV sales in the State by 2035. Additionally, in April 2023, CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation, which sets a goal of achieving a fully zero-emission truck and bus fleet within the State by 2045. Implementation of the State’s legislation associated with GHG reduction will have the co-benefit of reducing California’s dependency on fossil fuel and making land use development and transportation systems more energy efficient.

More details about legislation associated with GHG reduction are provided in the regulatory setting of Section 3. 6, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change.”
LOCAL
Milpitas General Plan
The Community Design, Conservation and Sustainability, and Utilities and Community Services elements of the 2040 Milpitas General Plan contain policies that address energy usage (Milpitas 2021):
 Policy CD 11-2: Encourage passive solar design and energy-efficient concepts, including, but not limited to natural heating and/or cooling, sun and wind exposure and orientation, and other solar energy opportunities.  Policy CD 11-5: Encourage the use of building materials that conserve energy and material resources.  Policy CD 11-11: Continue to apply and expand the Climate Action Plan to increase the energy efficiency of development.

Ascent Energy
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.5-5  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 1-1: Ensure that new development is consistent with the energy objectives and targets identified by the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP).
 Policy CON 1-2: Ensure all development projects comply with the mandatory energy efficiency requirements of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).  Policy CON 1-3: Support innovative green building best management practices including, but not limited to, LEED certification, and encourage project applicants to exceed the most current “green” development standards in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, as feasible.  Policy CON 1-4: Require large-scale industrial and manufacturing energy users to implement an energy conservation plan as part of the project review and approval process.  Policy CON 1-5: Consider lifecycle costs when identifying opportunities for the replacement and retrofit of energy efficient technologies when upgrading or maintaining City facilities.  Policy CON 1-6: Reduce the City’s energy demand by pursuing the use of alternative energy and fuel -efficient City vehicles and equipment, and strive for a zero-emission City vehicle fleet to the extent feasible and practical.  Policy CON 1-9: Encourage site planning and building techniques that promote energy conservation. Where feasible, encourage projects to take advantage of shade, prevailing winds, landscaping, sunscreens, building orientations, and material choices that reduce energy use.  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 7-13: Implement energy policies and actions that have co-benefits of reduced air pollution and greenhouse gases by increasing energy efficiency, conservation, and the use of renewable resources.  Policy UCS 1-3: Require all future development projects to analyze their infrastructure and service impacts and either demonstrate that the City’s existing infrastructure, public services, and utilities can accommodate the increased demand for services, and that service levels for existing users will not be diminished or impaired, or make the necessary improvements to mitigate all potential impacts.  Policy UCS 6-1: Work cooperatively with utility providers to ensure the provision of adequate electric power and natural gas services and facilities to serve the needs of existing and future residents and businesses.

Milpitas Climate Action Plan
The City of Milpitas updated its Climate Action Plan (CAP) in August 2022. The CAP builds upon previous versions of the City’s CAPs to align with the reduction targets established in SB 32. The City’s CAP sets a mitigation- only target of reducing the City’s GHG emissions by 36 percent below 2019 levels by 2030 (reduction to 283,817 MTCO 2e in 2030),
79 percent below 2019 levels by 2040 (a reduction to 94,606 MTCO2e in 2040), as well as a goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 (Milpitas 2022). The CAP Update meets the requirements under Section 15183.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines as a qualified plan for the reduction of GHG emissions for use in cumulative impact analysis pertaining to new development projects. CAP energy efficiency measures relevant to the proposed Specific Plan include:
 BE-1.1: Achieve 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2030 in all existing and new development.  BE-1.2: Facilitate innovative approaches to energy generation, distribution, and storage.

Energy Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.5-6 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR  BE-1.3: Strengthen community awareness of energy efficiency, energy conservation, electrification, and clean energy.
 BE-2.1: Adopt updated "reach" building codes with each building and energy code cycle to accelerate all- electric new development.
 BE-2.2: Facilitate all-electric development projects for industrial buildings.  BE-2.3: Expand the City's Green Building Program.
 BE-2.4: Retrofit existing residential and nonresidential buildings and municipal facilities to improve energy efficiency and facilitate fuel switching.

3.5.2 Environmental Setting

PHYSICAL SETTING
Energy Facilities and Services in the Project Area
Electricity and natural gas are supplied to the County from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). See Section 3.12, “Utilities and Service Systems,” for more detailed information on electrical and natural gas infrastructure specifically serving the Specific Plan area. PG&E-delivered electricity generated from eligible renewable energy sources is anticipated to increase over the next three decades to comply with the SB 100 goals described in Section 3.5.1, “Regulatory Setting.” Energy Types and Sources
California relies on a regional power system composed of a diverse mix of natural gas, renewable, hydroelectric, and nuclear generation resources. One-third of energy commodities consumed in California is natural gas. In 2022 , approximately 36 percent of natural gas consumed in the State was used to generate electricity. Large hydroelectric powered approximately 9 percent of electricity and renewable energy from solar, wind, small hydroelectric, geothermal, and biomass combustion totaled 36 percent (PG&E 2023). In 2022 PG&E provided its customers with 38 percent eligible renewable energy (i.e., biomass combustion, geothermal, small scale hydroelectric, solar, and wind); 49 percent from nuclear power; 8 percent, from large scale hydroelectric, and 5 natural gas (PG&E 2023). The contribution of in- and out-of-State power plants depends on the precipitation that occurred in the previous year, the corresponding amount of hydroelectric power that is available, and other factors.

The City is a member of Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE), a local community -choice aggregator, that partners with PG&E and supplies carbon-free electricity to its members. The City supports the development and maintenance of electricity generation and storage at City-owned sites (i.e., on-site solar panels and battery storage at City facilities).

Alternative Fuels
A variety of alternative fuels are used to reduce demand for petroleum-based fuel. The use of these fuels is encouraged through various statewide regulations and plans (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard, AB 32 Scoping Plan).

Conventional gasoline and diesel may be replaced (depending on the capability of the vehicle) with many transportation fuels, including:
 biodiesel,
 electricity,
 ethanol (E-10 and E-85),
 hydrogen,
 natural gas (methane in the form of compressed and liquefied natural gas),  propane,

Ascent Energy
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.5-7  renewable diesel (including biomass-to-liquid),
 synthetic fuels, and
 gas-to-liquid and coal-to-liquid fuels.

California has a growing number of alternative fuel vehicles through the joint efforts of CEC, CARB, local air districts, federal government, transit agencies, utilities, and other public and private entities. As of October 2024 , California contained nearly 18,000 alternative fueling stations (AFDC 2024).

A goal of the Milpitas CAP is to transition the City’s fleet vehicles to fully electric vehicles and identify alternative fuel options for other vehicles and equipment (MVF-1.1.3). Additionally, the CAP states that over half of all GHG emissions in the city comes from the consumption of gasoline and diesel in internal combustion engines and thus the city supports increasing EV charging infrastructure, facilitating EV adoption, and other low -emission alternative fuels such as renewable diesel (TR-2).

ENERGY USE FOR TRANSPORTATION
In 2022, the transportation sector comprised the largest end-use sector of energy in the state, 42.6 percent, followed by the industrial sector totaling 22.5 percent, the residential sector at 17.6 percent, and the commercial sector at 17.4 percent (EIA 2024). On-road vehicles use about 85 percent of the petroleum consumed in California. CEC reported retail sales of 423 million and 45 million gallons of gasoline and diesel, respectively, in Santa Clara County in 2023 (the most recent data available) (CEC 2024).

In 2019 in Milpitas, the transportation sector also comprised the largest end -use sector of GHG emissions, 59 percent, followed by building energy at 32 percent, solid waste at 5 percent, off-road vehicles and equipment at 4 percent, with the remaining GHG emissions coming from wastewater treatment and the water supply ( Milpitas 2022).

ENERGY USE AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Scientists and climatologists have produced evidence that the burning of fossil fuels by vehicles, power plants, industrial facilities, residences, and commercial facilities has led to an increase of the earth’s temperature. For an analysis of greenhouse gas production and the project’s impacts on climate change, refer to Section 3. 6, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change.”

3.5.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
Levels of operation-related energy consumption associated with implementation of Specific Plan, are measured in megawatt-hours of electricity, therms of natural gas, gallons of gasoline, and gallons of diesel fuel. Energy consumption estimates were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1.1.28 computer program. Project-specific inputs were included in the modeling such as land use types, SF, and acreage, annual VMT and trip generation, etc. Where project-specific information was not known CalEEMod default values based on the proposed Specific Plan Area location and size were used. The proposed Specific Plan was evaluated and compared to the General Plan Update EIR (Milpitas 2020) with changes to the adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan to the proposed Specific Plan.

This change includes a decrease in non-residential SF and increase in residential SF development.

Efficiency of the two scenarios were determined by dividing the total energy consumption within the Specific Plan Area (buildout under the General Plan and buildout under the proposed Specific Plan) and divided by the service population provided in Fehr & Peers traffic impact analysis. Tables 3.5-1 and 3.5-2 summarize the building energy consumption and Tables 3.5-3 and 3.5-4 summarize the transportation energy consumption for the first year of operation during the buildout year of 2040.

Energy Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.5-8 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following significance criteria area based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix F (energy), under which implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would have a potentially significant adverse impact if the project would:
 result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, during project construction or operation ;  conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency .

ISSUES NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
All the issues identified in the preceding list of thresholds are addressed in the following impact analysis.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.5-1: Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy, During Plan Construction or Operation
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.7-3) concluded that buildout of the General Plan would be in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations regulating energy usage and would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to project energy requirements, energy use inefficiencies, and/or the energy intensiveness of materials by amount and fuel type for during buildout of the General Plan, including during construction, operations, maintenance, and/or removal. Because of this, the General Plan Update EIR concluded that the impact would be less- than-significant. Since the adoption of the General Plan Update EIR, building energy efficiency has improved, vehicles and offroad equipment have become cleaner and more efficient, and VMT will continue to decrease. The proposed Specific Plan would continue to be consistent with relevant federal, state, and local regulations and thus, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would not consume energy in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner during construction or operation of future development allowed under the proposed Specific Plan. This impact would remain
less than significant.

The General Plan Update EIR concluded that buildout of the General Plan would be in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations regulating energy usage and would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to project energy requirements, energy use inefficiencies, and/or the energy intensiven ess of materials by amount and fuel type for during General Plan buildout, including during construction and operation.

Buildout of the proposed Specific Plan includes residential, commercial, office, industrial, mixed-use, open space, and other land uses and would contain more residential and less non-residential development under than identified in the General Plan Update EIR. The amount of energy used in the Specific Plan Area at buildout would directly correlate to the type and size of development, the energy consumption associated with unit appliances, outdoor lighting, and energy use associated with other buildings and activities. Other major sources of energy consumption include fuel used by vehicle trips generated during construction and operational activities, and fuel used by off -road and on-road construction vehicles during construction. The following discussion provides a breakdown of the energy uses in the Specific Plan Area upon buildout of the proposed Specific Plan.

Construction-Related Energy
Construction of future development under the proposed Specific Plan would generate on-road vehicle trips during construction activities from worker trips, vendors, hauling trips. The proposed Specific Plan would also use diesel fuel during construction activities through the use of typical off-road construction equipment. Since adoption of the General Plan Update EIR, construction equipment has become more fuel efficient and will continue to become more fuel efficient during buildout of the proposed Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan would continue to be consistent with General Plan policies regarding construction energy usage such as Policies CD 11-5, CON 1-6, CON 1-9 which encourage the use of building materials that conserve energy and material resources, reduce the

Ascent Energy
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.5-9 City’s energy demand by encouraging alternative energy and fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment, and encouraging site planning and building techniques that promote energy conservation. Because vehicles and equipment would continue to become more fuel efficient during build out of the proposed Specific Plan and the proposed Specific Plan would continue to be consistent with the relevant general plan policies, this impact will not create a more severe impact than that identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

Building Energy
At buildout of the proposed Specific Plan, electricity and natural gas consumption would be used primarily to power buildings (all types of buildings, including residential, commercial, office, industrial, public, etc.). Electricity would primarily come from the electricity utility provider (PG&E) or through SCVE, though potential on-site solar generation could generate energy. Electrical and natural gas usage were evaluated at buildout (2040) for both the General Plan and the proposed Specific Plan. Results can be found below in Tables 3.5-1 and 3.5-2.

Table 3.5-1 General Plan Annual Operation-Related Building Energy Consumption (2040) Energy Sector Energy Consumption Units
Area Sources 70,920,025 KWh
Energy Sources 156,176,855 kBTU
Area Source Consumption per Service
Population
3,465 KWh/SP
Energy Source Consumption per Service
Population
7,631 kBTU/SP
Note: kWh = kilowatt hours, kBTU/year = British thermal units per year; SP = Service Population Service population = 20,466 (Fehr & Peers 2024).

Source: Calculations prepared by Ascent in 2024.

Table 3.5-2 Proposed Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Annual Operation-Related Building Energy Consumption (2040)
Energy Sector Energy Consumption Units
Area Sources 49,282,575 KWh
Energy Sources 119,870,521 kBTU
Area Source Consumption per Service
Population
2,248 KWh/SP
Energy Source Consumption per Service
Population
5,467 kBTU/SP
Note: kWh = kilowatt hours, kBTU/year = British thermal units per year; SP = Service Population Service population = 21,925 (Fehr & Peers 2024).

Source: Calculations prepared by Ascent in 2024.

As shown in Tables 3.5-1 and 3.5-2, operations of the proposed Specific Plan would reduce energy consumption and energy consumption per service population within the Specific Plan Area. The proposed Specific Plan would increase residential density throughout the Specific Plan Area while also decreasing the development and operations of non- residential land uses such as commercial, industrial, and manufacturing land uses. Because the proposed Specific Plan would reduce energy consumption and increase energy efficiency in the Specific P lan Area, the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with General plan Policies CD 11-2, CD 11-11, CON 1-1 through CON 1-5, CON 1-9 and CON 7-13. Each of these policies pertain to making the City a more energy efficient city through renewable energy sources, building energy efficiency, building best management practices such as LEED certification and Title 24 standards, implementing energy efficiency practices and materials, support the use of alternative and renewable energy, and promoting green energy initiatives. The proposed Specific Plan would incorporate design standards such as selecting energy-efficient roofing materials that would reduce building heat gain and provide natural sunlight, using smart light fixtures in streetscapes that will dim or turn off when not in use to converse energy, and complying with the California Green Building Standards Code to reduce energy consumption, increase energy efficiency in the Specific

Energy Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.5-10 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Plan Area. Thus, the proposed Specific Plan would continue to be consistent with the relevant general plan policies, this impact would not be a more severe impact than that identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

Transportation Energy
Buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would generate fewer operational VMT and more vehicle trips throughout the Specific Plan Area than that previously associated with buildout of the General Plan. Based on the traffic impact assessment conducted by Fehr & Peers (Fehr & Peers 2024), implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would reduce VMT throughout the Specific Plan area from 685,920 to 536,440 daily VMT or 250,360,800 to 195,800,600 annual VMT, while increasing annual trips from 13,782,035 to 20,703,895. The increase in trips but decrease in VMT is due to the increased service population in the Specific Plan Area but decrease in the trip lengths. Tables 3.5-3 and

3.5-4 below show the transportation energy in the Specific Plan area associated with buildout of the General Plan and proposed Specific Plan.

Table 3.5-3 General Plan Annual Transportation Energy Consumption (2040) Metric Consumption Units
VMT 250,360,800 Annual Miles
Trips Generated 13,782,035 Annual Trips
VMT per Service Population 12,233 Annual VMT/SP
Gallons of Gasoline 7,248,350 Gallons
Gallons of Diesel 1,871,142 Gallons
Gallons of Gasoline per Service Population 354.2 Gallons/SP Gallons of Diesel per Service Population 91.4 Gallons/SP Note: kWh = kilowatt hours, kBTU/year = British thermal units per year; SP = Service Population Service population = 20,466 (Fehr & Peers 2024).

Source: Fehr & Peers 2024. Calculations prepared by Ascent in 2024.

Table 3.5-4 Proposed Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Annual Transportation Energy Consumption (2040)
Metric Consumption Units
VMT 195,800,600 Annual Miles
Trips Generated 20,703,895 Annual Trips
VMT per Service Population 8,930 Annual VMT/SP
Gallons of Gasoline 5,668,744 Gallons
Gallons of Diesel 1,463,371 Gallons
Gallons of Gasoline per Service Population 258.6 Gallons/SP Gallons of Diesel per Service Population 66.7 Gallons/SP Note: kWh = kilowatt hours, kBTU/year = British thermal units per year; SP = Service Population Service population = 21,925 (Fehr & Peers 2024).

Source: Fehr & Peers 2024. Calculations prepared by Ascent in 2024.

As shown in Tables 3.5-3 and 3.5-4, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would reduce VMT, VMT per service population, gasoline and diesel consumption, and gasoline and diesel consumption per service population. As a result, the proposed Specific Plan would not have a more severe impact than that identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

Summary
The General Plan Update EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy during construction or operation of future development. The proposed Specific Plan would continue to be consistent with general plan policies, would decrease total energy

Ascent Energy
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.5-11 consumption and energy consumption per service population, decrease VMT, and VMT per service population throughout the Specific Plan Area, and decrease the total usage of gasoline and diesel fuel and gasoline and diesel fuel consumption per service population throughout the Specific Plan Area. Thus, this impact would not have a more severe impact than that identified in the General Plan Update EIR and this impact would remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Impact 3.5-2: Conflict with or Obstruct a State or Local Plan for Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency
The General Plan Update EIR did not evaluate the General Plan for consistency with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. For the proposed Specific Plan to have a less than significant impact, the proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with general plan policies, the Milpitas CAP, and Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan. Each of these documents have various policies, strategies, measures, and standards the proposed Specific Plan would need to align with to expand renewable energy and energy efficiency in the Specific Plan area. Because the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with each of these documents and it would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, this impact would be less-than-significant.

The proposed Specific Plan would need to align with general plan policies listed above in S ection 3.5.1, “Regulatory Settings.” Specifically, the proposed Specific Plan would need to be consistent with general plan policies CD 11-2, 11-5, and 11-11, CON 1-1 through 1-6, 1-9, and 7-13, and UCS 1-3 and 6-1. Policies CD 11-2, 11-5, and 11-11 encourage passive solar design and energy-efficient concepts, the use of building materials that conserve energy and material resources, and applying and expanding the Milpitas CAP to increase energy efficiency in the Specific Plan area. Policies CON 1 -1 through 1-6 would ensure that future development under the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the energy objectives and targets identified in the Milpitas CAP and with the standards of CALGreen code, support green building best management practices, require large-scale industrial and manufacturing energy users to implement an energy conservation plan as part of the project review and approval process , consider lifecycle costs when identifying opportunities for the replacement and retrofit of energy efficient technologies, pursue the use of alternative energy and fuel-efficient City vehicles and equipment to reduce energy demand within the Specific Plan Area. Policies CON 1-9 and 7-13 encourage site planning and building techniques that promote energy conservation, and i mplement energy policies and actions that have co-benefits of reduced air pollution and greenhouse gases by increasing energy efficiency, conservation, and the use of renewable resources. Policies USC 1-3 and 6-1 require all future development projects to analyze their infrastructure and service impacts and to work with utility providers to ensure the provision of adequate electric power and natural gas services and facilities to serve the needs of existing and future residents and businesses.

The proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with the City’s CAP, which would result in reduced energy demand and GHG emissions. The CAP, although designed to reduce GHG emissions, also plays a role in improving energy efficiency and enhancing renewable energy resources and therefore serves as the renewable energy or energy efficiency plan applicable to the proposed Specific Plan. Specifically, the proposed Specific Plan would align with the following applicable measures:
 BE-1.1: Achieve 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2030 in all existing and new development.  BE-1.2: Facilitate innovative approaches to energy generation, distribution, and storage.  BE-1.3: Strengthen community awareness of energy efficiency, energy conservation, electrification, and clean energy.  BE-2.1: Adopt updated "reach" building codes with each building and energy code cycle to accelerate all- electric new development.
 BE-2.2: Facilitate all-electric development projects for industrial buildings.  BE-2.3: Expand the City's Green Building Program.

Energy Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.5-12 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR  BE-2.4: Retrofit existing residential and nonresidential buildings and municipal facilities to improve energy efficiency and facilitate fuel switching.

The proposed Specific Plan would comply with the applicable CAP measures identified above and would reduce the overall energy demand and would contribute to the citywide energy reductions identified in the CAP. Additionally, these measures are generally consistent with the direction provided to local governments in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan, which directs projects to be promote renewable energy and energy efficiency. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. This impact would be less than significant.

Ascent Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.6-1

3.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
This section presents a summary of statutes, regulations, and plans applicable to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; a summary of climate change science and GHG sources in California; quantification of project -generated GHGs and discussion about their contribution to global climate change; and analysis of the project’s resiliency to climate change-related risks.

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

3.6.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
Supreme Court Ruling – Carbon Dioxide is an Air Pollutant In Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that carbon dioxide (CO2) is an air pollutant as defined under the federal Clean Air Act and that the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate GHG emissions.

In 2010, EPA started to address GHG emissions from stationary sources through its New Source Review permitting program, including operating permits for “major sources” issued under Title V of the federal Clean Air Act.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration – Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulates vehicle emissions through the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards. On April 1, 2022, the Secretary of Transportation unveiled new CAFE standards for 2024– 2026 model year passenger cars and light-duty trucks. These new standards require new vehicles sold in the US to average at least 40 miles per gallon and apply to all states except those that enforce stricter standards.

STATE
Plans, policies, regulations, and laws established by the state agencies are generally presented in the order they were established.

Statewide GHG Emission Targets and Climate Change Scoping Plan Reducing GHG emissions in California has been the focus of the State government for nearly two decades. GHG emission targets established by the State Legislature include reducing statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (AB 32 of 2006) and reducing them to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (SB 32 of 2016). Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, signed by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, calls for statewide GHG emissions to be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This target was superseded by AB 1279, which codifies a goal for carbon neutrality and the reduction of emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. These targets are in line with the scientifically established levels needed in the U.S. to limit the rise in global temperature to no more than 2 degrees Celsius, the warming threshold at which major climate disruptions, such as super droughts and rising sea levels, are projected; these targets also pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius (United Nations 2015).

On December 16, 2022, CARB adopted the Final 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan), which traces the State’s pathway to achieve its carbon neutrality and an 85 percent reduction in 1990 emissions goal by 2045 using a combined top-down, bottom-up approach under various scenarios. It identifies the reductions needed by each GHG emission sector (e.g., transportation [including off-road mobile source emissions], industry, electricity generation, agriculture, commercial and residential, pollutants with high global warming potential, and recycling and waste) to achieve these goals.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.6-2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR The state has also passed more detailed legislation addressing GHG emissions associated with transportation, electricity generation, and energy consumption, as summarized below.

Transportation-Related Standards and Regulations
As part of its Advanced Clean Cars program, CARB established more stringent GHG emission standards and fuel efficiency standards for fossil fuel–powered on-road vehicles than EPA has done. In addition, the program’s zero- emission vehicle (ZEV) regulation requires battery, fuel cell, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (EVs) to account for up to 15 percent of California’s new vehicle sales by 2025 (CARB 2018a). In August 2022, CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II program, which sets sales requirements for ZEVs to ultimately reach the goal of 100 percent ZEV sales in the state by 2035.

EO B-48-18, signed by former Governor Jerry Brown in January 2018, requires all State entities to work with the private sector to have at least 5 million ZEVs on the road by 2030, as well as 200 hydrogen -fueling stations and 250,000 EV-charging stations installed by 2025. It specifies that 10,000 of these charging stations must be direct - current fast chargers.

CARB adopted the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) in 2007 to reduce the carbon intensity (CI) of California’s transportation fuels. Low-CI fuels emit less CO
2 than other fossil fuel–based fuels such as gasoline and fossil diesel.

The LCFS applies to fuels used by on-road motor vehicles and off-road vehicles, including construction equipment (Wade, pers. comm., 2017).

In addition to regulations that address tailpipe emissions and transportation fuels, the state Legislature has passed statutes to address the amount of driving by on-road vehicles. Since passage of SB 375 in 2008, CARB requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to develop and adopt sustainable communities strategies (SCSs) as a component of the federally-prepared regional transportation plans (RTPs) to show reductions in GHG emissions from passenger cars and light-duty trucks in their respective regions for 2020 and 2035 (CARB 2018b). These plans link land use and housing allocation to transportation planning and related mobile -source emissions. The Metropolitan Transportation Association/Association of Bay Area Governments (MTC/ABAG) serves as a combined entity fulfilling the MPO requirements for the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma. The project site is in Marin County. Under the most recent targets of SB 375 (i.e., achieve a 10-percent and 19-percent below 2005 per capita reduction in automobile emissions by 2020 and 2035, respectively), MTC/ABAG completed and adopted its most recent RTP/SCS, Plan Bay Area 2050, in 2021 (MTC/ABAG 2021). CARB’s technical evaluation of Plan Bay Area 2050 confirmed that the plan was sufficient to meet the reduction targets of SB 375 (CARB 2022).

Legislation Associated with Electricity Generation
The State has passed legislation requiring the increasing use of renewables to produce electricity for consumers.

California utilities are required to generate 33 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2020 (SB X1 -2 of 2011); 44 percent by 2024 (SB 100 of 2018); 52 percent by 2027 (also SB 100 of 2018); 60 percent by 2030 (also SB 100 of 2018);
90 percent by 2035 (SB 1020 of 2022); 95 percent by 2040 (also SB 1020 of 2022); and 100 percent by 2045 (also SB 100 of 2018). By 2035, 100 percent of electricity procured by state agencies shall be from renewables (also SB 1020 of 2022).

Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) The energy consumption of new residential and nonresidential buildings in California is regulated by the California Energy Code. The code was established by the California Energy Commission (CEC) in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption and provide energy - efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. CEC updates the California Energy Code every 3 years, typically including more stringent design requirements for reduced energy consumption, which results in the generation of fewer GHG emissions.

The 2022 California Energy Code went into effect on January 1, 2023. The 2022 California Energy Code advances the onsite energy generation progress started in the 2019 California Energy Code by encouraging electric heat pump

Ascent Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.6-3 technology and use, establishing electric-ready requirements when natural gas is installed, expanding solar photo voltaic (PV) system and battery storage standards, and strengthening ventilation standards to improve indoor air quality. CEC estimates that the 2022 California Energy Code will save consumers $1.5 billion and reduce GHGs by 10 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO 2e) over the next 30 years (CEC 2021).

California Green Building Standards (Title 24, Part 11) The California Green Building Standards, also known as CALGreen, is a reach code (i.e., optional standards that exceed the requirements of mandatory codes) developed by CEC that provides green building standards for statewide residential and nonresidential construction. The current version is the 2022 CALGreen Code, which took effect on January 1, 2023. As compared to the 2019 CALGreen Code, the 2022 CALGreen Code strengthened sections pertaining to EV and bicycle parking, water efficiency and conservation, and material conservation and resource efficiency, among other sections of the CALGreen Code. The CALGreen Code sets design requirements equivalent to or more stringent than those of the California Energy Code for energy efficiency, water efficiency, waste diversion, and indoor air quality. These codes are adopted by local agencies that enforce building codes and used as guidelines by state agencies for meeting the requirements of EO B-18-12.

REGIONAL
Plan Bay Area 2050
Plan Bay Area 2050 prioritizes the preservation and improvement of land, air and water in Bay Area communities through strategies that conserve and better use current resources, mitigate the effects of climate change, adapt to hazardous climate events, or minimize the impacts of disastrous seismic episodes or events. Chapter 5, “Environment” contains near-, medium-, and long-term strategies to create a more resilient natural environment. Each strategy falls under the three themes of expanding access to parks and open spaces, reduce climate emissions from vehicles, and reducing hazard risks. Plan Bay Area 2050 proposes strategies to expand and modernize the Bay Area’s open spaces, to mitigate emissions and reduce future climate impacts at the employer level by expanding commute trip reduction programs at major employers, encourages Bay Area residents to drive less through transportation demand management initiatives, and puts forward strategic adaptation measures to address climate change and other natural hazards.

LOCAL
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the primary agency responsible for addressing air quality concerns in the San Francisco Bay Area. Its role is discussed further in Section 3.3, “Air Quality.” BAAQMD also recommends methods for analyzing project-related GHG emissions in CEQA analyses and recommends multiple GHG reduction measures for land use development projects. The BAAQMD’s 2022 CEQA Guidelines (CEQA Guide) provides a qualitative approach to assessing a project’s cumulative contribution to climate change for CEQA analyses (BAAQMD 2022). The CEQA Guide is intended to be used to uniformly evaluate the significance of operation- related emissions from land use development projects. For land use development projects, BAAQMD recommends that, either as a project design feature or recommended mitigation, projects include the following measures:
 The elimination of on-site natural gas infrastructure to power appliances;  The installation of EV charging stations meeting the Tier 2 requirements of the most recent version of Part 11 of the Title 24 California Building Code (CALGreen);
 No impacts from the unnecessary, wasteful, or inefficient use of energy resources; and  Achievement of the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reductions established by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research for residential (15 percent below a regional average), commercial (15 percent below a regional average), and retail projects (no net increase from a regional average).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.6-4 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR The CEQA Guide also provides guidance for assessing the significance of climate change impacts through a climate action plan (CAP) or greenhouse gas reduction plan (GHGRP) consistency analysis using a qualified CAP or GHGRP. (A “qualified CAP” is one prepared in compliance with CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5.) BAAQMD makes the direct connection between these two qualitative, performance-based options to a project’s ability to demonstrate that it is doing its “fair share” in assisting the state in meeting the long-term GHG reduction target of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045, as mandated by AB 1279.

Milpitas General Plan
The Circulation, Community Design, Conservation and Sustainability, and Safety chapters of the 2040 Milpitas General Plan contain policies and goal that address climate change:
 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 6-2: Support development of healthier communities through the use of lower- or non-polluting modes of transportation to reduce GHG vehicle emissions and local air pollution levels.  Action CIR-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.
 Action CIR-6b: Develop requirements for new commercial and multifamily residential development to provide electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
 Policy CD 11-11: Continue to apply and expand the Climate Action Plan to increase the energy efficiency of development.
 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 1-1: Ensure that new development is consistent with the energy objectives and targets identified by the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP).
 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: 3 Support innovative green building best management practices including, but not limited to, LEED certification, and encourage project applicants to exceed the most current “green” development standards in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, as feasible.  Policy CON 1-9: Encourage site planning and building techniques that promote energy conservation. Where feasible, encourage projects to take advantage of shade, prevailing winds, landscaping, sunscreens, building orientations, and material choices that reduce energy use.  Policy CON 1-10: Encourage distributed energy resources including solar, fuel cells etc. to provide environmental benefits, as well as energy security, and the support of the grid during peak energy use periods.  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

Ascent Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.6-5 places of employment, encourages alternative modes of transportation, supports efficient parking strategies, reduces vehicle miles traveled, and requires projects to mitigate significant air quality impacts.  Policy CON 7-13: Implement energy policies and actions that have co-benefits of reduced air pollution and greenhouse gases by increasing energy efficiency, conservation, and the use of renewable resources.  Policy SA 6-1: Consider climate change impacts and adaptive responses in long-term planning and current development decisions.
 Policy SA 6-3: Encourage and support private sector investment in climate adaptation through climate -resilient infrastructure such as onsite renewable energy, integrated stormwater management and water conservation.

Milpitas Climate Action Plan
The City of Milpitas updated its CAP in August 2022. The CAP builds upon previous versions of the City’s CAPs to align with the reduction targets established in SB 32. The City’s CAP sets a mitigation-only target of reducing the City’s GHG emissions by 36 percent below 2019 levels by 2030 (reduction to 283,817 MTCO2e in 2030), 79 percent below 2019 levels by 2040 (a reduction to 94,606 MTCO2e in 2040), as well as a goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 (Milpitas 2022). The CAP Update meets the requirements under Section 15183.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines as a qualified plan for the reduction of GHG emissions for use in cumulative impact analysis pertaining to new development projects. CAP GHG reduction measures relevant to the proposed Specific Plan include:
 Measure OT-1.2: Reduce construction-related emissions.  Measure TR-1.1: Reduce VMT from new development in compliance with SB743.  Measure TR-1.2: Reduce VMT from existing development.  Measure TR-1-3: Continue to implement and adopt policies that support high-density, mixed-use, and transit- oriented development and housing near jobs.
 Measure MBL-2.2: Increase energy efficiency.

3.6.2 Environmental Setting

THE PHYSICAL SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface, and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected toward space. The absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature. The earth has a much lower temperature than the sun; therefore, the earth emits lower frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth.

Prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are CO 2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Human-caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are found to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a tr end of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming. The Sixth Assessment Report contains IPCC’s strongest warnings to date on the causes and impacts of climate change. Importantly, the report notes that, in terms of solutions, “We need transformational change operating on processes and behaviors at all levels: individual, communities, business, institutions, and governments. We must redefine our way of life and consumption” (IPCC 2021).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.6-6 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas most pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (approximately 1 day), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (1 year to several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere long enough to be dispersed around the globe. Although the lifetime of any GHG molecule depends on multiple variables and cannot be determined with any certainty, it is understood that more CO
2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, vegetation, and other forms of sequestration. Of the total annual human-caused CO2 emissions, approximately 55 percent are estimated to be sequestered through ocean and land uptake every year, averaged over the last 50 years, whereas the remaining 45 percent of human-caused CO
2 emissions remain stored in the atmosphere (IPCC 2013:467).

The quantity of GHGs in the atmosphere responsible for climate change is not precisely known, but it is enormous.

No single project alone would measurably contribute to an incremental change in the global average temperature or to global or local climates or microclimates. From the standpoint of CEQA, GHG impacts relative to global climate change are inherently cumulative.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION SOURCES
As discussed previously, GHG emissions are attributable in large part to human activities. The City conducted the most recent GHG inventory in the 2022 CAP update for GHG emission inventories for 2019 as a baseline and forecasted business-as-usual emissions for 2030, 2040, and 2045 (Milpitas 2021). Table 3.6-1 summarizes the GHG inventory for the Milpitas by MMTCO
2e.

As shown in Table 3.6-1, the on-road transportation sector comprises the greatest sources of GHGs in the City of Milpitas.

Emissions of CO2 are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a highly potent GHG, primarily results from off - gassing (the release of chemicals from nonmetallic substances under ambient or greater pressure conditions) and is largely associated with agricultural practices, landfills, and forest fires. Nitrous oxide is also largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management. CO
2 sinks, or reservoirs, include vegetation and the ocean, which absorb CO2 through sequestration and dissolution (CO2 dissolving into the water) and are two of the most common processes for removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

Table 3.6-1 City of Milpitas Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory for 2015, 2019, and Building-as-Usual Forecast Years (MTCO2e)
Emissions Sector 2019 2030 2040 2045
On-Road Transportation 259,627 236,310 218,898 221,388
Nonresidential Building Energy 98,319 93,467 82,288 77,177 Residential Building Energy 42,218 42,660 43,399 43,658 Solid Waste 23,566 25,026 27,215 28,074
Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment 15,554 21,139 22,984 23,421 Water Supply 694 421 153 0
Wastewater Treatment 1,578 1,612 1,692 1,713
Total 441,557 420,636 396,629 395,432
Percent Change from 2019 — -5% -10% -10%
Notes: Totals may not equal the sum of the numbers because of independent rounding.

MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Source: Milpitas 2021.

Ascent Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.6-7

EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE ENVIRONMENT
The global average temperature is expected to increase by 3 to 7 °F by the end of the century, depending on future GHG emission scenarios (IPCC 2007). According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, depending on future GHG emissions scenarios, average annual maximum daily temperatures in California are projected to increase between 3.6 and 5.8°F by 2050 and by 5.6 to 8.8°F by 2100 (OPR, CEC, and CNRA 2018).

Other environmental resources could be indirectly affected by the accumulation of GHG emissions and resulting rise in global average temperature. In recent years, California has been marked by extreme weather and its effects.

Climate model projections for California demonstrate that impacts will vary throughout the state and show a tendency for the northern part of the state to become wetter while the southern portion of California to become drier (Pierce et al. 2018).

According to California Natural Resources Agency’s report, Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update (CNRA 2018), California experienced the driest four-year statewide precipitation on record from 2012 through 2015; the warmest years on average in 2014, 2015, and 2016; and the smallest and second smallest Sierra snowpack on record in 2015 and 2014 (CNRA 2018). Climate model projections included in California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment demonstrate that seasonal summer dryness in California may be prolonged due to earlier spring soil drying and would last longer into the fall and winter rainy season. Increases in temperature are also predicted to result in changes to California’s snowpack. Based on climate model projections, the mean snow water equivalent , a common measurement which indicates the amount of water contained within snowpack, in California is anticipated to decline to two-thirds of its historic average by 2050 and between less than half and less than one- third of historic average by 2100, depending on future emissions scenarios (OPR, CEC, and CNRA 2018).

Climate model projections demonstrate that California will experience variation in precipitation patterns as well. The Northern Sierra Nevada range experienced its wettest year on record in 2016 (CNRA 2018). With a shifting climate, California has been more susceptible to the adverse effects of atmospheric rivers, which are large scale, high- precipitation events that deposit above-average levels of rainfall to California’s coasts within a short duration. These events have the capacity to overwhelm existing stormwater systems leading to localized flooding impacts.

Climate change is also projected to result in tertiary impacts on energy infrastructure throughout California. Changes in temperature, precipitation patterns, extreme weather events, and sea -level rise have the potential to affect and decrease the efficiency of thermal power plants and substations, decrease the capacity of transmission lines, disrupt electrical demand, and threaten energy infrastructure with the increased risk of flooding (CNRA 2018).

According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, climate change will create impacts on the state’s transportation network that will have ‘ripple effects,’ including direct and indirect impacts on interdependent infrastructure networks as well as negative impacts on the economy. Without appropriate adaptations strategies for roadway materials (i.e., asphalt and pavement), researchers estimate that the median total cost to California for 2040 - 2070 will be between $1 billion and $1.25 billion (OPR, CEC, and CNRA 2018). The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) owns and operates more than 51,000 miles along 265 highways, as well as three of the busiest passenger rail lines in the nation. Sea level rise, storm surge, and coastal erosion are imminent threats to highways, roads, bridge supports, airports, transit systems and rail lines near sea level and seaports. Shifting precipitation patterns, increased temperatures, wildfires, and increased frequency in extreme weather events also threaten transportation systems across the state. Temperature extremes and increased precipitation can increase the risk of road and railroad track failure, decreased transportation safety, and increased maintenance costs (CNRA 2018).

Modeling for flood events in California demonstrates that approximately 370 miles of highways are susceptible to flooding in a 100-year storm event by the year 2100 (OPR, CEC, and CNRA 2018).

Water availability and changing temperatures affect the prevalence of pests, disease, and species, which will directly impact crop development, forest health, and livestock production. Other environmental concerns include decline in water quality, groundwater security, and soil health (CNRA 2018). Vulnerabilities of water resources also include risks to degradation of watersheds, alteration of ecosystems and loss of habitat, (OPR, CEC, and CNRA 2018).

California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment also identifies the impacts climate change will have on public health and social systems. Average temperature increases in California are estimated to have impacts on human mortality, with 6,700 to 11,300 additional annual deaths in 2050, depending on higher or lower emissions scenarios ( Ostro et al.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.6-8 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 2011). Studies have also shown that impacts from climate change can also have indirect impacts on public health, such as increased vector-borne diseases, and stress and mental trauma due to extreme events, economic disruptions, and residential displacement (Gould and Dervin 2012; McMichael and Lindgren 2 011; US Global Change Research Program 2016).

With respect to the Specific Plan Area, by the end of the century, average daily maximum temperatures are projected to increase from 1.5–4.3 degrees Fahrenheit. Wildfire impacts are anticipated to increase moderately into the future in very high and high wildfire zones. Sea level rise is a particular concern to the Bay Area, where many homes, businesses, roads, utilities, and natural resources are at risk for flooding. Sea level has already risen 4-8 inches along the California Coast in the past century and is expected to rise another 1.41 meters by the end of the century. (Milpitas 2021).

3.6.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
GHG emissions from the proposed Specific Plan would be generated during future construction and operations associated with future development within the Specific Plan Area. Estimated levels of operation-related GHGs are presented below.

Similar to the Milpitas 2040 General Plan Update EIR (Milpitas 2020), the proposed Specific Plan is evaluated for its consistency with adopted regulations, plans, and policies aimed at reducing GHG emissions, including the 2022 Scoping Plan, the City of Milpitas General Plan, CAP (updated after the adoption of the General Plan), and Plan Bay Area 2050.

The proposed Specific Plan was evaluated and compared to the General Plan Update EIR with changes to the adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan to the proposed Specific Plan. This change includes a decrease in non - residential SF and an additional residential development beyond what is allowed under the General Plan through increases in density and implementation through an incentive program. Construction impacts were evaluated qualitatively, similar to the methods used in the General Plan Update EIR.

Operation-related emissions of GHGs were estimated for the following sources: area sources (e.g., landscape maintenance equipment), energy use (i.e., electricity and natural gas consumption), water use, solid waste generated, and mobile sources. Operation-related mobile-source GHG emissions for both the scenarios were modeled based on the estimated VMT associated with associated VMT and average daily trips (ADT). VMT estimates were derived from data generated during the traffic impact analysis conducted by Fehr & Peers for the cumulative and cumulative plus project scenarios within the Specific Plan Area. Mobile-source emissions were calculated using CalEEMod. Indirect emissions associated with electricity and natural gas consumption were estimated using GHG emissions factors for the Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E). Levels of electricity and natural gas use for both scenarios was based on 2019 Title 24-adjusted consumption rates provided by CalEEMod for both scenario’s land use types.

To determine whether the proposed Specific Plan would be more efficient than the General Plan, GHG emissions, energy usage, and VMT were modeled and divided by service population provided by the VMT Report prepared by Fehr & Peers (Appendix D).

Detailed model assumptions and inputs for these calculations are presented in Appendix B .

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The issue of global climate change is inherently a cumulative issue because the GHG emissions of individual projects cannot be shown to have any material effect on global climate. Thus, the proposed Specific Plan ’s impact on climate change is addressed only as a cumulative impact.

The 2022 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines has adopted plan-level thresholds of significance to assist lead agencies with determining significance for long-range local and regional plans. Local long-range plans are discretionary, program- level planning activities, such as general plans and general plan elements, specific plans, area plans, community plans, congestion management plans, and annexations of lands and service areas.

Ascent Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.6-9 Under Section 3 of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, implementing a project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to climate change if it would:
 not meet the State’s goals to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045, or;
 not be consistent with the local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).

As noted above, the City’s current CAP meets the requirements under Section 15183.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines as a qualified plan for the reduction of GHG emissions for use in cumulative impact analysis pertaining to new development projects.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.6-1: Generate GHG Emissions, Either Directly or Indirectly, That May Have a Significant Impact on the Environment
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.7-1) concluded that implementation of the General Plan would reduce VMT per service population and would be consistent with the then 2013 Milpitas CAP and thus the General Plan Update EIR concluded the impact to be less than significant. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would further reduce VMT per service population and would reduce GHG emissions in the Specific P lan Area and would be subject to the updated CAP. Thus, the proposed Specific Plan would not result in a more severe impact than that identified in the General Plan Update EIR, would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, and would meet the State’s goals to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045. This impact would remain less than significant.

Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Therefore, the cumulative global emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to every nation, region, and city, and virtually every individual on Earth. A project’s GHG emissions are at a micro-scale relative to global emissions but could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro- scale impact. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would contribute to increases of GHG emissions that are associated with global climate change. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development under the Specific Plan would be primarily associated with increases of CO 2 and other GHG pollutants, such as methane (CH4)
and nitrous oxide (N2O), from mobile sources and utility usage.

Future development that would occur as a result of implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would include activities that emit greenhouse gas emissions over the short and long term. A summary of short - and long-term emissions and the analysis for each are included below.

The major projected impacts of climate change in the Specific plan Area are expected to be more days of extreme heat over longer periods, as well as potential for flooding. According to the C ity’s CAP, major sources of GHGs in the city include on-road transportation (59 percent), non-residential energy (22 percent), and residential building energy (10 percent). Short-term and long-term emissions typically associated with the construction and operation of future development under the proposed Specific Plan, are further described below.

Short Term Emissions
Short-term GHG emissions would occur during construction of future development from construction equipment and worker and haul trips to and from the proposed Specific Plan Area during construction. Chapter 7 of the 2022 BAAQMD CEQA Guidance does not recommend a threshold for evaluating construction GHG emissions.

However, similar to the General Plan, the proposed Specific Plan would align with the Milpitas CAP measures and General Plan policies to mitigate the impact from construction-generated GHG emissions. Specifically, the proposed

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.6-10 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Specific Plan would be consistent with Milpitas CAP Measure OT-1.2 and General Plan Policy CON 7-13, which reduce construction-related emissions, by requiring projects to reduce idling of construction vehicles and equipment, prohibits the use of fossil fuel-powered generators at construction sites in all new discretionary projects, and require all construction projects to use renewable diesel in diesel-powered construction equipment. This CAP measure is consistent with the guidance provided by the BAAQMD in Section 8.2: Construction-Related GHG Impacts in the 2022 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines.

Therefore, there is no new significant effect, and the impact is not more severe than the impact identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

Long Term Emissions
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would directly generate GHG emissions from vehicle trips throughout the Specific Plan Area, through the use of on-site natural gas and electric to power residential uses from stoves, heaters, air conditioning units, etc., use of landscaping equipment, water usage and wastewater disposal, disposal of solid wastes, and the use of refrigerants. These sources combine to define the long- term greenhouse gas inventory for typical development projects.

The General Plan Update EIR concluded that the General Plan would reduce VMT per service population and would be consistent with the then 2013 Milpitas CAP and would result in a less than significant impact. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would lead to higher residential density, shorter commutes, and less VMT overall .

Additionally, future development associated with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would u tilize green or low carbon building materials where feasible, including low carbon concrete; recycled or reclaimed materials that can reduce emissions associated with manufacturing new building material. Thus, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would further reduce VMT per service population in the Specific Plan Area and would also reduce GHG emissions and GHG emissions per service population in the Specific Plan area, as shown below in Tables 3.6-2, 3.6-3, and 3.6-4.

Table 3.6-2 Project Generated VMT and Population
Project Annual VMT Service Population VMT per Service Population 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.

Table 3.6-3 General Plan Annual Operational GHG Emissions for Specific Plan Area Emissions Sector MTCO2e
Mobile Source 68,317
Area Sources 292
Energy 14,937
Water Consumption and Wastewater Treatment 1,506
Solid Waste Disposal 1,948
Refrigerants 53
Total Operational GHG Emissions 87,053
Total Operational GHG Emissions Per Service Population 4.25 Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding.

MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Source: Modeled by Ascent Environmental in 2024.

Ascent Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.6-11 Table 3.6-4 Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Annual Operational GHG Emissions Emissions Sector MTCO2e
Mobile Source 54,1963
Area Sources 358
Energy 10,983
Water Consumption and Wastewater Treatment 1,168
Solid Waste Disposal 1,895
Refrigerants 52
Total Operational GHG Emissions 68,618
Total Operational GHG Emissions Per Service Population 3.13 Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding.

MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Source: Modeled by Ascent Environmental in 2024.

As shown in Tables 3.6-2, 3.6-3, and 3.6-4, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would increase population in the Specific Plan area and decrease VMT, VMT per service population, overall GHG emissions, and GHG emissions per service population. As shown above, the decrease in VMT within the Specific Plan Area would reduce mobile source GHG emissions and the increase in residential units and decrease in non-residential development would result in increased area source emissions, decreased energy emissions, decreased GHG emissions overall, and a more efficient development overall. Because implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would further reduce VMT per service population and decrease operational GHG emissions in the Specific Plan area, the proposed Specific Plan would not result in a more severe impact than that identified in the General Plan U pdate EIR.

Summary
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) GHG emissions. However, the proposed Specific Plan would continue to align with policies in the Milpitas CAP and General Plan policies to decrease this impact. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan would reduce VMT and VMT per service population and reduce GHG emissions throughout the Specific Plan area. Thus, this impact would not be a more severe impact than that identified in the General Plan Update EIR and would meet the State’s goals to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045. Therefore, there is no new significant effect, and the impact is not more severe than the impact identified in the General Plan Update EIR. This impact would remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Impact 3.6-2: Consistent with Local Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies and Plans The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.7-1) concluded that the General Plan would be consistent with the qualified local GHG reduction plan (the Milpitas 2013 CAP), CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan, ABAG’s Plan Bay Area 2040, and with relevant general plan policies. Since the certification of the General Plan Update EIR, the Milpitas 2013 CAP was updated to the current Milpitas 2022 CAP and the Plan Bay Area 2040 was updated to the Plan Bay Area 2050. The proposed Specific Plan would be consistent and implement all applicable CAP GHG reduction strategies and would not create a more severe impact than that identified in the General Plan Update EIR. This impact would remain less than significant.

The General Plan Update EIR concluded that since the General Plan would reduce VMT per service population, that the project would be consistent with goals outlined in the Milpitas 2013 CAP, which was the qualified GHG reduction plan at the time. The General Plan Update EIR also identified that the General Plan would not conflict with the implementation of regional transportation-related GHG targets outlined in ABAG’s Plan Bay Area 2040 because the land use modifications contained in the General Plan, and the corresponding reduction in vehicle miles traveled result

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.6-12 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR in lower emissions than those forecasted in the Plan Bay Area 2040. The General Plan Update EIR also concluded that the General Plan would not conflict with any of the other provisions of the Scoping Plan or applicable regulations related to GHG reductions.

Since certification of the General Plan Update EIR, the Milpitas 2013 CAP was updated to the current Milpitas 2022 CAP and the Plan Bay Area 2040 was updated to the Plan Bay Area 2050. The updated 2022 CAP outlined new goals to further reduce GHG emissions in Milpitas and now aims to reduce community GHG emissions by 36 percent by 2030 and 80 percent by 2040 from 2019 levels achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The Plan Bay Area 2050 has been updated from the Plan Bay Area 2040 and refined its 35 strategies including GHG reduction strategies across the elements of transportation, housing, the economy, and the environment. The Plan Bay Area 2050 contains GHG reduction strategies as discussed above in the section “Regulatory Settings” that the proposed Specific Plan would incorporate to reduce GHG emissions.

As outlined under Impact 3.6-1, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would reduce VMT, VMT per service population, and operational-generated GHG emissions throughout the Specific Plan Area. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with the Milpitas 2022 CAP goal of reducing GHG emissions by 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with CAP measure TR 1.1 through 1.3 for transportation and land uses because the proposed Specific Plan would reduce VMT from future development in compliance with SB 743 and support the development of high- density and mixed-use development in the Specific Plan Area. The proposed Specific Plan would also be consistent with CAP measure MBL-2.2 because the proposed Specific Plan would increase energy efficiency in the Specific Plan Area by increasing density and population, decreasing VMT, and thus GHG emissions per service population, as shown in Tables 3.6-2, 3.6-3, and

3.6-4. Because the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with goals and measures outlined in the 2022 CAP, the proposed Specific Plan would also be consistent with the GHG reduction targets provided in the CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan, which were developed by the CARB to ensure compliance with AB 32, SB 32, and consistent with Executive Order S-03-05. These laws established a statewide reduction in GHG emissions to 15 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 (under AB 32), 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (under SB 32), and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 (under AB 32 and consistent with Executive Order S-03-05).

Because the proposed Specific Plan would reduce VMT, VMT per service population, and plan-generated GHG emissions the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with General Plan Policies CIR 5-1 and CIR 6-2 which all pertain to reducing VMT and mobile-generated GHG emissions. The proposed Specific Plan would also align with General Plan policies CD 11-11 and CON 1-1 because the proposed Specific Plan would continue to apply and expand the CAP to increase energy efficiency in the Specific Plan Area and ensure new developments are consistent with energy targets outlined in the CAP because the implementation of the CAP would increase density in the Specific Plan Area and decrease VMT, VMT per service population, and GHG emissions per service population. Thus, the proposed Specific Plan would align with the Milpitas 2022 CAP.

The proposed Specific Plan would also align with theme two of the environmental elements of the Plan Bay Area 2050. Theme two of the Plan Bay Area 2050 aims to reduce climate emissions from vehicles by encouraging individuals to drive less often through transportation demand initiatives. Because the proposed Specific Plan would increase density and shorten trip lengths throughout the Specific Plan area, the proposed Specific Plan would reduce VMT throughout the Specific Plan Area. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan would incorporate VMT reduction Mitigation Measures 3.11-2a through 3.11-2f, as discussed in Section 3.11, “Transportation,” to further reduce VMT per employee, which would further reduce VMT in the Specific Plan area. Thus, the proposed Specific Plan would align with the Plan Bay Area 2050 goals and themes.

The proposed Specific Plan would further reduce GHG emissions than those identified in the General Plan Update EIR while also increasing population and decreasing VMT and VMT per service population. Overall, the proposed Specific Plan would increase efficiency throughout the proposed Specific Plan Area and thus would align with the local GHG reduction strategies and plans such as the Milpitas 2022 CAP, the General P lan policies, the 2022 Scoping Plan, and the Plan Bay Area 2050. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would not be a more severe impact than that identified in the General Plan Update EIR and would not conflict with the local GHG reduction strategies and plans.

Thus, this impact would remain
less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Ascent Land Use and Planning
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.7-1

3.7 LAND USE AND PLANNING
This section assesses the potential for environmental impacts related to land use changes associated with the adoption and implementation of the proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (Specific Plan or project). In order to evaluate the Specific Plan’s potential to impact land use and planning, this section describes the existing land uses and zoning within the Specific Plan Area and provides a comparison of the land use changes proposed under the Specific Plan with applicable land use plans, policies, and ordinances.

Two comment letters were received in response to the Notice of Preparation that pertained to land use and planning (see Appendix A). Comments received related to land use and planning requested the land use policies established in the California Transportation Plan (CalSTA 2021), and by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) be included within the analysis of the Draft SEIR. Please refer to Section 3.11, “Transportation,” for a discussion on the potential for conflicts with transportation policies with implementation of the Specific Plan.

3.7.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to land use are applicable to the project.

STATE
General Plans and Land Use Regulations
State planning law as established in California Government Code (CGC) Section 65300 requires every city and county in California to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the jurisdiction and of any land outside its boundaries that, in the planning agency's judgment, bears relation to its planning (sphere of influence). State law gives cities and counties authority in how a jurisdiction may create a general plan, but there are fundamental requirements that must be met. State law requires that a general plan address a minimum of seven elements or topics (land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety), but allows some discretion on the arrangement and content. Additionally, each of the specific and applicable requirements in the state planning law should be examined to determine if there are environmental issues within the community that the general plan should address, such as hazards or flooding.

Cities and counties are also required to comply with the Subdivision Map Act ( CGC Section 66410 et seq.). The Subdivision Map Act sets forth the conditions for approval of a subdivision map and requires enactment of subdivision ordinances by which local governments have direct control over the types of subdivision projects to be approved and the physical improvements to be installed.

California Government Code, Section 65450 et seq.

CGC Sections 65450–65457 govern the content and consistency of specific plans with the adopted general plan of the jurisdiction within which they are located. Specific plans shall include text and a diagram(s) that include the following in detail: (1) the distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan; (2) the proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan; (3) standards and criteria by which development will proceed and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable; and (4) a program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out the above - mentioned details.

Land Use and Planning Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.7-2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR State Density Bonus Law
The State Density Bonus Law was enacted in 1979 and was codified in CGC Section 65915. The law requires jurisdictions to provide applicants with a density bonus and incentives or concessions for the production of housing development in which affordable housing is also provided. Eligible projects include housing developments with a minimum of 10 percent housing for lower income households, five percent of the housing for very low -income households or senior citizen housing, and 10 percent of the total dwelling units provided as affordable housing in condominium projects.

Assembly Bill 2222
On September 27, 2014, former Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 2222, which amended sections of the State Density Bonus Law. AB 2222 requires that density bonus projects resulting in a loss of existing affordable and otherwise locally regulated (i.e., rent-stabilized) housing units replace those units one-for-one. It also extends the affordability period from 30 to 55 years and expands the use of equity sharing in for-sale units.

CEQA Streamlining for Infill Projects Senate Bill 226
The CEQA Streamlining for Infill Projects (SB 226) sets forth a streamlined review process for infill projects and includes performance standards that will be used to determine an infill project’s eligibility for streamlined review. The purpose of SB 226 and updated State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3 is to streamline the environmental review process by “limiting the topics subject to review at the project level where the effects of infill development have been addressed in a planning level decision or by uniformly applicable development policies.” Residential, commercial and retail, public office buildings, transit stations, and schools are eligible for this streamlining provided they meet the following requirements:

1. Are located in an urban area on a site that has been previously developed or adjoins existing qualified urban uses on at least 75 percent of the site’s perimeter;

2. Satisfy the performance standards provided in Appendix M of the CEQA Guidelines; and

3. Are consistent with the General Plan’s land use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in either a sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy, with some exceptions.

In addition, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, may exempt certain residential, commercial, and mixed -use projects that are consistent with a specific plan from further CEQA review.

California Transportation Plan 2050
The California Transportation Plan (CTP) 2050 was adopted in February 2021 by the California State Transportation Agency and was prepared by the California Department of Transportation. The CTP 2050 is a policy framework that provides a common vision for the future of our transportation system, including land use goals and policie s. The CTP 2050 is a roadmap for making effective, equitable, transparent, and transformational transportation decisions in California.

Senate Bill 375
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, also known as SB 375 (2008) requires the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to adopt a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) or alternative planning strategy to address greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets from cars and light -duty trucks in the context of its regional transportation plan (RTP). SB 375 requires the SCS to show how GHG reduction targets could be achieved; and recommended the integration of transportation and residentia l land use as one of the most impactful strategies for reducing GHG emissions from vehicles. Higher-density infill development located near transit that emphasizes proximity and connectivity to public transit, employment and service centers, walkable areas , and amenities, can reduce vehicle GHG emissions by reducing vehicle trip number and length (assuming travelers are using some other form of non-vehicle mobility).

Ascent Land Use and Planning
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.7-3

REGIONAL
Association of Bay Area Governments
ABAG is the Council of Governments or Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Bay Area, which encompasses Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma counties. ABAG is comprised of these nine counties and the 97 cities within these counties. ABAG is part regional planning agency and part local government service provider and helps local governments absorb growth and adapt to change while addressing sustainability, resilience and equity issues. ABAG has the authority to enact certain legislation on behalf of the Bay Area, including the State-mandated Regional Housing Needs Assessment and RTP/SCS.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
On October 21, 2021, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and ABAG adopted the 2021 RTP/SCS (hereinafter referred to as Plan Bay Area 2050). Plan Bay Area 2050 provides the long-range regional framework for the Bay Area centered around affordable, connected, diverse, healthy, and vibrant communities for all residents through the planning horizon of 2050. Plan Bay Area 2050 connects the elements of housing, the economy, transportation and the environment through 35 strategies that will make the Bay Area more equitable for all residents and more resilient in the face of unexpected challenges. Refer to the analysis of the Specific Plan’s consistency with the Plan Bay Area 2050 under Impact 3.7-4 for the goals and policies applicable to the Specific Plan.

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SFPUC has the land use authority of the easements, rights-of-way (ROWs), and parcels purchased by the SFPUC to support utility services. The SFPUC has established land management, use policies, and management plans for the lands under its jurisdiction, where any public or private development requesting to affect such land must undergo the SFPUD project review process. As there are SFPUC ROWs within the Specific Plan Area , any future development proposed within these areas would be subject to the SFPUC project review to ensure such development complies with all applicable land use policies adopted by the SFPUC.

LOCAL
City of Milpitas 2040 General Plan
The City of Milpitas’ (City) General Plan (commonly referred to as the 2040 General Plan) was adopted in March 2021 and serves as the long-range blueprint for future planning and development efforts in order to achieve the City’s vision through 2040 (City of Milpitas 2021a). The 2040 General Plan is comprised of 12 elements, consisting of land use; housing; circulation; community design; economic development; conservation and sustainability; utilities and community services; safety; noise; parks, recreation, and open space; community health and wellness; and implementation. Each of these elements contains goals, policies, and/or implementation actions to help guide the City’s decision-making process to achieve the vision of the 2040 General Plan. Refer to the analysis of the Specific Plan’s consistency with the 2040 General Plan analysis under Impact 3.7-4 for the goals and policies applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.

City of Milpitas Zoning Ordinance
Title 11, Zoning, Planning, and Annexation, of the Milpitas Municipal Code (MMC) (City of Milpitas 2024a) contains the City’s adopted Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance is the legal mechanism that implements the vision of the City’s General Plan by classifying and regulating the uses of land and structures within the City consistent with the goal and policies and Land Use Map of the General Plan (City of Milpitas 2024b). Specifically, the Zoning Ordinance establishes regulations related to minimum lot size, building heights, setbacks, lot coverage, etc., for each zoning district as well as lists the allowable and prohibited uses of each district. The Zoning Ordinance also designates the permitting process that applies for approval of land uses in the zoning district.

Land Use and Planning Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.7-4 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR At the time of preparation of this SEIR, the City is undergoing a comprehensive update to its Zoning Ordinance and has published a first round of draft amendments to the current Zoning Ordinance. The City anticipates adoption of the updated Zoning Ordinance will occur in Fall 2025. Since the updated Zoning Ordinance is still in draft form, this Draft SEIR relies on the adopted Zoning Ordinance contained in Title 11 of the MMC.

3.7.2 Environmental Setting
The Specific Plan Area is in the western portion of the city, west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line. It encompasses Calaveras Boulevard, Main Street, and the former Midtown Milpitas area bordered by I -880 to the west, the UPRR tracks to the east, and Great Mall Parkway to the south (refer to Figure 2-2 in Chapter 2, “Project Description”). Two rail lines, the UPRR freight line and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) commuter rail lines, traverse the Specific Plan Area on the east. The Valley Transportation Authority operates light rail transit and interconnecting bus lines into the Specific Plan Area along the Great Mall Parkway.

Generally, existing land uses in the Specific Plan Area include a wide range of land uses, including single- and multi- family residential, retail, office, civic/institutional, park/open space, and industrial uses. Transportation and industrial uses between the two railroad lines occupy the largest portion of the Specific Plan Area, covering approximately 25 percent of the area. Residential and commercial uses account for approximately 21 and 17 percent of the Specific Plan Area, respectively. Public uses comprise about 20 percent of the Specific Plan Area, which is mostly accounted for by the Elmwood Correctional Facility. Preserved open space and parks account for roughly 3 percent of the Specific Plan Area. Under existing conditions, nearly 15 percent of the Specific Plan Area is currently vacant or underutilized land and is primarily occupied by parking
1 or storage. There are currently 2,403 residential units and 1,858,642 square feet of nonresidential uses in the Specific Plan Area.

As described in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the boundaries of the Specific Plan Area would be amended with adoption of the Project and as a result, include areas under the land use authority of the General Plan in addition to the Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan (Midtown Plan) (Figure 3.7-1). A description of the land use designations and zoning specific to the General Plan and the Midtown Plan are provided below.

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING
As shown in Figure 3.7-1, the General Plan designates residential (single and multi-family), commercial, town center, industrial park, and open space uses within the northwest quadrant and southeastern corner of the Specific Plan Area. The existing General Plan land use designations and zoning, including maximum density or floor area ratio (FAR), of these areas are summarized in Table 3.7-1.

Table 3.7-1 Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning within the Proposed Specific Plan Area General Plan Land Use Designation Existing Zoning Maximum Density or FAR Residential
LDR – Low Density Residential R1 3-5 du/ac
MDR – Medium Density Residential R2 6-15 du/ac
HDR – High Density Residential R3 16-30 du/ac
Commercial/Industrial
GNC – General Commercial C2 – General Commercial 0.5 FAR INP – Industrial Park M2 – Heavy Industrial 1.0 FAR
Other
POS – Permanent Open Space POS – Parks and Open Space District - Source: City of Milpitas 2022.

1 Note this figure does not include parking lots supporting commercial and other uses.

Ascent Land Use and Planning
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.7-5

Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2024.

Figure 3.7-1 Existing General Plan Land Use

Land Use and Planning Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.7-6 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR

EXISTING MIDTOWN PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING
The adopted Midtown Plan land use designations and zoning are identified in Table 3.7-2 and are shown in Figure 3.7-2. In addition to the Midtown Plan land use designations and base zoning, the Midtown Plan includes two overlay zones, the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay and the Gateway Office Overlay (OO). The TOD Overlay zone provides special development standards for multi-family residential in proximity to the Great Mall Station. The OO Overlay zone provides an increase in intensity, or FAR, to areas with an underlying commercial designation where “gateway” higher intensity office development was desired. The FAR increase applies to Class A office buildings only and is not applicable to retail or other office buildings. Areas where the overlays apply have already been built out and are proposed to be removed from the Specific Plan Area with project implementation.

Table 3.7-2 Existing Midtown Plan Land Use and Zoning within the Proposed Specific Plan Area Specific Plan Land Use Designation Zoning Maximum Density or FAR Low Density Residential (LDR) Single-Family Residential (R1-6), One-, Two-Family Residential (R2)
R1: 1 du per lot or 3-15 du/ac
R2: 7-11 du/ac
Multi-Family High Density (MFH) Multi-Family High Density Residential (R3) 12-20 du/ac Multi-Family Very High Density (VHD) Multi-Family Very High Density Residential (R4) 31-40 du/ac Retail Subcenter (C1) Neighborhood Commercial (C1) 0.35 FAR General Commercial (C2) General Commercial (C2) 0.50 FAR Mixed-Use (MXD) Mixed Use (MXD) 21-30 du/ac; 0.75 FAR
Manufacturing and Warehouse (M2) Heavy Industrial (M2) 0.40 FAR Industrial Park (MP) Industrial Park (MP) 0.50* FAR
Institutional (I) Institutional (I) —
Parks and Recreation Parks and Open Space (POS) —
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay 41-60 du/ac; 0.50 FAR Gateway Office Overlay (OO) Gateway Office Overlay (OO) 1.50 FAR Notes: du/ac = dwelling units per acre; FAR = floor area ratio Source: City of Milpitas 2002, City of Milpitas 2022.

SURROUNDING LAND USES
Existing land uses that surround the proposed Specific Plan Area consist of low -, medium- and high-density residential, general commercial, public facilities, industrial park, manufacturing, town center, and permanent open space uses. Berryessa Creek and Arroyo De Los Coches run along the eastern boundary of the proposed Specific Plan Area while Penitencia Creek traverses the western portion. In addition, the Milpitas Metro Specific Plan area is adjacent to the proposed Specific Plan Area to the south.

Ascent Land Use and Planning
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.7-7

Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2024.

Figure 3.7-2 Existing Midtown Plan Land Use

Land Use and Planning Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.7-8 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR

3.7.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
The land use analysis in this section evaluates the potential for the project to physically divide a community or to cause an inconsistency with applicable land use plans and policies or to introduce incompatible land uses relative to existing surrounding land uses, which could result in environmental impacts. It should be noted that a conflict between a project and an applicable land use plan or policy is not necessarily considered a significant environmental impact under CEQA unless the inconsistency would result in an adverse physical change to the environment that is a “significant environmental effect” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15382. An inconsistency between a proposed project and an applicable land use plan or policy is a legal determination that may or may not indicate the likelihood of a physical environmental impact. In some cases, an inconsistency may be evidence that an underlying physical impact is significant and adverse.

In order to determine whether the project conflicts with an applicable land use plan or policy, a consistency analysis with the applicable land use plans and policies is included under Impact 3.7-2. Under State Planning and Zoning law (Gov’t Code Sections 65000, et seq.) strict conformity with all aspects of a plan is not required. Generally, plans reflect a range of competing interests and agencies are given great deference to determine consistency with their own plans. A proposed project should be considered consistent with a general plan or elements of a general plan if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. Generally, given that land use plans reflect a range of competing interests, a project should be compatible with a plan’s overall goals and objectives but need not be in perfect conformity with every plan policy.

For the purpose of identifying significant environmental impacts related to land use, impacts can be either direct or indirect. Direct impacts are physical land use impacts that affect the environment, such as the construction of a new road, freeway, or railway which would result in the division or isolation of existing neighborhoods or communities or interference with land use plans that result in significant physical environmental effects, such as a direct conflict with a wildlife conservation plan. Land use compatibility is typically addressed based on direct physical environmental impacts – primarily noise and air quality but also aesthetics, traffic, hazards, water quality and other physical environmental issues (i.e., where one land use generates physical impacts that could significantly adversely affect another land use).

Indirect land use impacts are secondary effects resulting from land use policy implementation and are generally addressed in other topical sections of this SEIR. These issues are generally addressed through existing regulations and policies and are comprehensively addressed in each environmental issue area throughout this Draft SEIR. For example, indirect land use impacts would be increased traffic volumes due to the change in development capacity proposed in the Specific Plan. While these are indirect land use impacts, these impacts would be discussed as direct impacts in their associated sections of this Draft SEIR. The following land use impact analysis focuses only on direct land use impacts.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
A land-use impact is considered significant if implementation of the Specific Plan would do any of the following:
 physically divide an established community; and/or
 cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Ascent Land Use and Planning
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.7-9

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.7-1: Physically Divide an Established Community The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.10-1) determined that impacts related to physically dividing an established community would be less than significant. Similarly, adoption and implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would not physically divide an established community as the Specific Plan aims to foster growth within targeted areas while preserving existing neighborhoods, establish unique districts with specific characteristics and development standards, improve connectivity through its mobility framework, and create complete streets that incorporate both the built and pedestrian environments. All future development under the proposed Specific Plan would be developed on established parcels within the City’s current land use pattern. Future roadways are envisioned to be built to connect to existing roadways, such as Main Street, to improve transportation mobility and would not extend into new, undeveloped areas of the city that could physically divide or isolate other areas of the city. 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.

The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.10-1) determined that impacts related to physically dividing an established community would be less than significant as the 2040 General Plan establishes the City’s vision for future growth and development. Specifically, the Milpitas 2040 General Plan Land Use Map designates sites for a range of developed uses as well as open space and does not include any new areas designated for urbanization or new roadways, infrastructure, or other features that would divide existing communities (City of Milpitas 2021b). In addition, the Milpitas 2040 General Plan also included goals and policies in the Land Use Element to ensure new ensure that new development is compatible with existing development.

Similar to the Milpitas 2040 General Plan, the proposed Specific Plan includes a Land Use Framework, as detailed in Chapter 3, “Land Use and Zoning” of the Specific Plan, which designates both land use and zoning within the Specific Plan Area. While the proposed Specific Plan would amend the Midtown Plan boundary and includes new land use designations and zoning, these new designations would be applied to already established parcels within the City’s land use pattern and would not include any new areas of the city or surrounding area. All future development would be located on demarcated parcels within the Specific Plan Area. Furthermore, the Specific Plan aims to foster growth within targeted areas while preserving existing neighborhoods, establish unique districts with specific characteristics and development standards, improve connectivity through its mobility framework, and create complete streets that incorporate both the built and pedestrian environments.

In addition, while the Specific Plan’s Mobility Framework (Chapter 5 of the Specific Plan) supports the construction of new roadways and service alleys, the Specific Plan envisions these roadway and alleys to improve mobility throughout the Specific Plan Area. For example, new roadways and alleys are envisioned to connect with Main and Abel Streets in order to provide business and neighborhood access while improving the bike and pedestrian environments of these main streets. The Specific Plan also supports new streets with redevelopment of the Serra Center and other large neighborhood blocks to connect to existing roadways and support a more walkable neighborhood grid pattern.

Therefore, while new roadway infrastructure could be developed under the proposed Specific Plan, the introduction of such infrastructure would not physically divide or obstruct any other parts of the Specific Plan Area or the city.

For these reasons, adoption and implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would not physically divide an established community. 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.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Land Use and Planning Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.7-10 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Impact 3.7-2: Conflict With any Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Avoiding or Mitigating an Environmental Effect
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.10-2) determined that impacts related to causing a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would be less than significant. Similarly, adoption and implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would not cause a significant environmental impact due to an inconsistency with an applicable State, regional, or local plan, policy, or ordinance. For this reason, 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 General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.10-2) determined that implementation of the Milpitas 2040 General Plan would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect as the Milpitas 2040 General Plan would not conflict with applicable State or City land use plans. As such, the General Plan Update EIR determined this impact to be less than significant.

In accordance with Section 15125(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, the following consistency analysis has been provided to discuss any potential land use inconsistencies between the proposed Specific Plan and applicable State, regional, and local land use plans and policies.

State Plans
The proposed Specific Plan was prepared in conformance with State laws and regulations associated with the preparation of specific plans, including requirements for environmental protection. Discussion of the proposed Specific Plan’s consistency with State regulations, plans, and policies associated with specific environmental issues (e.g., air quality, GHG emissions, traffic, water quality, etc.) is provided in the relevant sections of this Draft SEIR. Since the State regulations, plans, and policies do not raise any direct land use issues, no further land use consistency analysis has been provided.

Plan Bay Area 2050
As discussed in Section 3.7.1, “Regulatory Setting,” Plan Bay Area 2050 establishes the long-range regional framework for the Bay Area centered around affordable, connected, diverse, healthy, and vibrant communities for all residents through the planning horizon of 2050. The analysis of the proposed Specific Plan’s consistency with the applicable Plan Bay Area 2050 strategies are summarized in Table 3.7-3 below.

Table 3.7-3 Project Consistency with the ABAG Plan Bay Area 2050 Plan Bay Area 2050 Strategy Project Consistency
Housing Strategies
H2. Preserve existing affordable housing. Acquire homes currently affordable to low and middle-income residents for preservation as permanently deed-restricted affordable housing.

Consistent. The Specific Plan includes a mix of housing types, scales, and affordability, including mixed-use, housing for families, smaller units, live-work, senior housing, and affordable housing through out the Specific Plan Area. Future developments would be able to take advantage of an Affordable Housing Density Bonus as an incentive to provide more affordable housing within the Specific Plan Area.

Furthermore, in accordance with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the City requires future developments to pay an in-lieu affordable housing fees instead of providing affordable units within a project. The funds collected through the in- lieu fees may be a potential source of funding for some affordable housing initiatives within the Specific Plan Area. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this policy.

Ascent Land Use and Planning
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.7-11 Plan Bay Area 2050 Strategy Project Consistency
H3. Allow a greater mix of housing densities and types in Growth Geographies. Allow a variety of housing types at a range of densities to be built in Priority Development Areas, select Transit-Rich Areas and select High-Resource Areas
Consistent. The Specific Plan includes a mix of housing types, scales, and affordability, including mixed-use, housing for families, smaller units, live-work, senior housing, and affordable housing throughout the Specific Plan Area, especially within the four focus districts. The focus districts are located along main roadways, including Main and Abel Streets, where residents would be located close to transit and pedestrian transportation services. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this policy.

H4. Build adequate affordable housing to ensure homes for all.

Construct enough deed restricted affordable homes to fill the existing gap in housing for the unhoused community and to meet the needs of low-income households.

Consistent. The Specific Plan includes a mix of housing types, scales, and affordability, including mixed-use, housing for families, smaller units, live-work, senior housing, and affordable housing throughout the Specific Plan Area. Future developments would be able to take advantage of an Affordable Housing Density Bonus as an incentive to provide more affordable housing within the Specific Plan Area.

Furthermore, in accordance with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the City requires future developments to pay an in-lieu affordable housing fees instead of providing affordable units within a project. The funds collected through the in- lieu fees may be a potential source of funding for some affordable housing initiatives within the Specific Plan Area. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this policy.

H5. Integrate affordable housing into all major housing projects.

Require a baseline of 10-20% of new market-rate housing developments of five units or more to be affordable to low -income households.

Partially Consistent. While future development could utilize the Affordable Housing Density Bonus as an incentive to provide more affordable housing within the Specific Plan Area, the Specific Plan does not require future development projects to include affordable housing. However, in accordance with the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance, all new residential development projects of ten units or more designed and intended for permanent occupancy a re required to construct 15 percent of the total number of dwelling units within the development as affordable units. Future applicants may request to pay an in-lieu affordable housing fees in place of providing affordable units within a project, which requires City Council approval. The funds collected through the in-lieu fees may be a potential source of funding for some affordable housing initiatives within the Specific Plan Area. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan is partially consistent with this policy.

H7. Provide targeted mortgage, rental and small business assistance to Equity Priority Communities. Provide assistance to low -income communities and communities of color to address the legacy of exclusion and predatory lending, while helping to grow locally owned businesses
Consistent. The Specific Plan includes various business retention and economic incentives to help move existing businesses into more economical locations as well as to make space available for new businesses, including small businesses, especially along Crossroads and Main Streets. Such incentives could include rent subsidies, locked-in rents for predetermined periods, and buildout allowances to help with interior design. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this policy.

Transportation Strategies
T8. Build a Complete Streets network. Enhance streets to promote walking, biking and other micro-mobility through sidewalk improvements, car-free slow streets, and 10,000 miles of bike lanes or multi-use paths.

Consistent. As discussed in Chapter 5 of the Specific Plan, the Mobility Framework includes a Complete Streets Approach that will facilitate mobility for all roadway users and create an inviting public realm environment. Complete streets support a variety of mobility options, including automobiles, trucks, transit, bikes, and pedestrians and are accessible to people of all ages and abilities while supporting local land uses. The Specific Plan would be consistent with the City’s 2040 General Plan Circulation Element, which provides the

Land Use and Planning Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.7-12 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Plan Bay Area 2050 Strategy Project Consistency
framework for the City to provide a multimodal transportation system that allows residents, workers, and visitors to reach their destinations safely and efficiently. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this policy.

T9. Advance regional Vision Zero policy through street design and reduced speeds. Reduce speed limits to between 20 and 35 miles per hour on local streets and 55 miles per hour on freeways, relying on design elements on local streets and automated speed en forcement on freeways.

Consistent. The Specific Plan establishes allowable speed limits per each district within the associated development standards as a means to reduce speeds through heavily pedestrian areas to increase safety and improve the pedestrian experience. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this policy.

T10. Enhance local transit frequency, capacity and reliability. Improve the quality and availability of local bus and light rail service, with new bus rapid transit lines, South Bay light rail extensions, and frequency increases focused in lower-income communities.

Consistent. The Specific Plan includes a Public Transit Framework as part of its Mobility Chapter. The goal of the transit framework is to connect the Specific Plan Area to local and regional transit service directly and provide a comfortable, efficient, and safe experience for transit users. This goal is supported through various implementation actions that would help to increase existing transit services and stops within the Specific Plan Area. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this policy.

Environmental Strategies
EN3. Fund energy upgrades to enable carbon neutrality in all existing commercial and public buildings. Support electrification and resilient power system upgrades in all public and commercial buildings Consistent. The proposed Specific Plan encourages building design features that reduce energy consumption and increase renewable energy generation through a series of development incentives and objective design standards. In addition, development associated with the proposed Specific Plan would be required to comply with the California Green Building Standards Code, which includes green and sustainable building requirements to achieve energy effi ciency.

Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this policy.

EN4. Maintain urban growth boundaries. Using urban growth boundaries and other existing environmental protections, focus new development within the existing urban footprint or areas otherwise suitable for growth, as established by local jurisdictions Consistent. The proposed Specific Plan would replace the currently adopted Midtown Specific Plan as a means to revitalize the Specific Plan Area, which was not fully utilized under the current plan. While the Specific Plan boundary would be amended under the project, the Specific Plan would not extend into non-urban areas and would continue to guide development within the urban area of the city.

Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this policy.

EN6. Modernize and expand parks, trails and recreation facilities.

Invest in quality parks, trails and open spaces that provide inclusive recreation opportunities for people of all backgrounds, abilities and ages to enjoy
Consistent. The Specific Plan supports the development of new public realm streetscape improvements, urban parks, plazas, special gathering places and connected open space. In addition, the Specific Plan includes standards aimed at creating more urban parks and green spaces that serve as community activity hubs and urban greening outside of dedicated park areas. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this policy.

Source: ABAG 2021.

City of Milpitas 2040 General Plan
As discussed in Section 3.7.1, “Regulatory Setting,” the City’s 2040 General Plan serves as the long-range blueprint for future planning and development efforts in order to achieve the City’s vision through 2040. The analysis of the proposed Specific Plan’s consistency with the applicable 2040 General Plan land use policies are summarized in Table 3.7-4 below. The reader is referred to technical sections of this Draft SEIR for an analysis of consistency with General Plan policies that address environmental issues.

Ascent Land Use and Planning
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.7-13 Table 3.7-4 Project Consistency with the City of Milpitas 2040 General Plan General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Land Use Element
Goal LU-1: Accommodate a well-balanced mix of land uses that meets the diverse needs of Milpitas residents, businesses, and visitors with places to live, work, shop, be entertained and culturally enriched.  Policy LU 1-1: Support a full spectrum of conveniently located residential, commercial, public, and quasi-public uses that support and enhance business development, regional transportation objectives and promote the livability of residential neighborhoods.  Policy LU 1-3: Maintain a supply of developable lands sufficient to meet desired levels of housing, jobs, and economic needs over the planning period.
 Policy LU 1-4: Continue to provide for a variety of housing types and densities that meet the needs of individuals and families and offers residents of all income levels, age groups and special needs sufficient housing opportunities and choices for locating in Milpitas.
 Policy LU 1-5: Prohibit the conversion of designated Permanent Open Space lands to urban uses. This does not apply to the development or expansion of parks uses and amenities, which are considered open space uses.
 Policy LU 1-8: Maintain equitable land use patterns to ensure that all residents in neighborhoods have access to community amenities and transportation choices and have safe places to walk and bike.

Consistent. As described in Chapter 3, “Land Use and Zoning ,” of the Specific Plan, the land use framework of the plan is based on fostering targeted growth through redevelopment and infill within four focus areas (i.e., Main Street District, Crossroads District, Gateway District, and Abbott District); preserving and enhancing existing neighborhoods within the Specific Plan Area ; and identifying Urban Reserve Areas (i.e., Elmwood Correctional Facility, North Railyards, and South Railyards), which would retain their current land use designation and zoning but would be subject to further study and coordination with the Specific Plan to ensure their orderly development and integration with the community at the time of redevelopment in the future.

To support the proposed land use framework, the Specific Plan includes goals, strategies, and development standards to ensure high quality development specific to the unique characteristics envisioned for each district and area. The vision plan for the Specific Plan includes eight overarching strategies: 1) Redesign Main Street as a slow street and "shared street" with active, pedestrian -friendly spaces and outdoor dining; 2) Redevelop Serra Center and the Crossroads as a new center for the community, linking the Milpitas Gateway to Main Street; 3) Prioritize commercial activity and active building frontages along retail priority streets and activity streets , with an entertainment district focused along S. Main Street in the Crossroads District; 4) Enhance Calaveras Boulevard and Abel Street as multimodal complete street corridors, and incorporate a multi -use creek-side trail along Abel Street; 5) Create a connected network of new streets, paseos, alleys, and bike & pedestrian linkages to improve local access and walkability; 6) Develop a connected open space network with new urban parks and plazas as community activity hubs and district focal points; 7) Integrate streetscape, branding, and public art at plan area gateways, along activity streets , and in public spaces; and 8) Support district solutions including shared parking, mobility hubs, and coordinated infrastructure improvements.

Based on these eight overarching strategies, the Specific Plan aims to foster a mix of housing types, scales, and affordability, including mixed-use, housing for families, smaller units, live -work, senior housing, and affordable housing throughout the Specific Plan Area, especially within the four focus districts. Improvements to the pedestrian environment would help to improve connectivity throughout the Specific Plan Area and increase interest in public spaces. In addition, the Specific Plan includes stan dards aimed at creating more urban park and green spaces that serve as community activity hubs and urban greening outside of dedicated park areas and
supports the development of new public realm streetscape improvements, plazas, special gathering places and connected open space. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this goal and policies.

Land Use and Planning Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.7-14 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Goal LU-2: Promote land use objectives and development patterns in special planning areas consistent with adopted specific plans, overlay districts, and density bonus provisions.
 Policy LU 2-1: Utilize Specific Plans to guide development within Milpitas’s special planning areas. Properties located within Specific Plan areas shall conform to the underlying Specific Plan’s land uses, zoning, and development standards.
 Policy LU 2-2: Continue to utilize Overlay Zoning Districts as needed to supplement land use and zoning standards with additional allowances and regulations that reflect land use and policy objectives for a particular area.
 Policy LU 2-3: Allow densities and intensities which exceed the generally allowed ranges defined by the underlying land use for projects utilizing Density Bonus provisions (included within the Milpitas Affordable Housing Ordinance Title XII - HOUSING Chapter 1 - AFFORDABLE HOUSING ORDINANCE) including
bonuses for senior housing, affordable housing, and for projects within designated overlay districts included in Milpitas Municipal Code Section 12 - Overlay Districts and Standards.

Consistent. The proposed Specific Plan would replace the currently adopted Midtown Specific Plan as a means to revitalize the Specific Plan Area, which was not fully utilized under the current plan. A goal of the proposed Specific Plan is to encourage the type of development the City envisions for this area by adopting new goals, strategies, and development standards in order to attract desired development and targeted growth. The Specific Plan includes the creation of new mixed-use zones to focus and intensify growth within targeted areas as well as establishes the new Urban Reserve Overlay (URO) that provides long-term policy guidance for the identified areas that that would be subject to future study when these uses are ready for redevelopment.

In addition, while the Specific Plan does not require a mandated amount of affordable housing, future developments would be able to take advantage of an Affordable Housing Density Bonus as an incentive to provide more affordable housing within the Specific Plan Area. Furthermore, in accordance with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the City requires future developments to pay an in -lieu affordable housing fees instead of providing affordable units within a project. The funds collected through the i n-lieu fees may be a potential source of funding for some affordable housing initiatives within the Specific Plan Area. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this goal and policies.

Policy LU 2-5: Consistent with the Milpitas Municipal Code, the City should continue to utilize the following Overlay Districts in areas where special uses and development standards are desired.  XI-10-12.06 - Transit Oriented Development (-TOD) Overlay District  XI-10-12.02 - Gateway Office (-OO) Overlay District
 XI-10-12.07 - Recreation and Entertainment (-RE) Overlay District  XI-10-12.03 - High Rise (-HR) Overlay District
 XI-10-12.04 - Mobile Home Park (-MHP) Overlay District  XI-10-12.05 - Site and Architectural (-S) Overlay District  XI-10-12.08 – Freeway Corridor (-FC) Overlay District Partially Consistent. With adoption of the proposed Specific Plan, the TOD and OO overlays would be removed from the Zoning
Ordinance as the Specific Plan introduces new zoning and URO overlay for the Specific Plan Area. However, the new zoning and URO overlay would accomplish a similar purpose as the current TOD and OO overlays as they would help to foster targeted growth in both the short- and long-term. In addition, once the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update is adopted, the zoning mechanisms of the S pecific Plan (if adopted) would be incorporated into the City’s Zoning Ordinance and would serve as the zoning authority for the Specific Plan Area. Therefore, the intent of the new zoning and URO overlay would be consistent with this policy.

Goal LU-4: Coordinate and integrate land use and transportation objectives.
 Policy LU 4-1: Coordinate land use and development decisions with the capacity of the transportation system and plans for future transportation improvements.
 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 4-4: 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.

Consistent. As discussed in Chapter 5 of the Specific Plan, the Mobility Framework includes a Complete Streets Approach that will facilitate mobility for all roadway users and create an inviting public realm environment. Complete streets support a variety of mobility options, including automobiles, trucks, transit, bikes, and pedestrians and are accessible to people of all ages and abilities while supporting local land uses. The Specific Plan would be consistent with the City’s 2040 General Plan Circulation Element, which provides the framework for the City to provide a multimodal transportation system that allows residents, workers, and visitors to reach their destinations safely and efficiently. In addition, the Specific Plan aims to foster growth in proximity to commercial, retail, and other resident-serving uses to promote walkability and reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the Specific Plan Area . Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this goal and policies.

Ascent Land Use and Planning
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.7-15 General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Goal LU-5: Ensure that new development is compatible with existing development in order to maintain a high quality of life for residents, while supporting successful business operations.
 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 5-2: Prohibit incompatible uses and inappropriate development in and near residential neighborhoods. As feasible, promote gradual transitions from high density development to surrounding low density neighborhoods in both building forms and land use.
 Policy LU 5-3: Ensure new development is consistent with specific height limits established within the City’s Zoning Ordinance as applied through the zoning district for all properties within the City.  Policy LU 5-5: Require that new residential development be designed to protect residents from potential conflicts with adjacent land uses, and other features including rail corridors, high-voltage power lines and high-volume roadways.
 Policy LU 5-7: In considering land use change requests, consider factors such as compatibility with the residential surroundings, privacy, noise, and changes in traffic levels on residential streets.

Consistent. As described in Chapter 3, “Land Use and Zoning ,” of the Specific Plan, a component of the land use framework of the plan is to foster targeted growth through redevelopment and infill within four focus areas (i.e., Main Street District, Crossroads District, Gateway District, and Abbott District). To support this vision, the Specific Plan includes various goals, strategies, and development standards specific to each district to ensure high quality development that is consistent with the individual characteristics and purposes of each area. The proposed development standards would establish allowable heights, setbacks, design requirements, and uses as well as state prohibited uses. In addition, the Specific Plan also include development standards applicable to other areas of the Specific Plan Area, including the Library District Mixed-Use, streetscaping, open space/public gathering places, and lighting, to ensure development is consistent within each individual area as well as throughout the entire Specific Plan Area. Future development proposed within the Specific Plan Area would be required to comply with the land use and zoning of the Specific Plan as well as to adhere to the design requirements and development standards, which would ensure high quality, compatible development that would integrate with existing and surrounding land uses. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this goal and policies.

Community Development Element
Goal CD-1: Strengthen Milpitas’ identity and sense of place by reinforcing the community’s distinctive, high- quality community form, natural landscape, and character.
 Policy CD 1-1: Require development projects to: A. Preserve positive characteristics and unique features of the site; and B.

Incorporate a context-sensitive design approach that considers the scale and existing and desired character of adjacent uses and the surrounding neighborhood or district.
 Policy CD 1-2: Encourage infill development projects to accommodate contemporary uses and design and planning
approaches and requirements in manner that minimizes conflicts with the surrounding existing development.
 Policy CD 1-3: Emphasize, enhance, and expand the compact, cohesive, and walkable portions of the city.
 Policy CD 1-4: Recognize, enhance, celebrate and preserve, where possible, natural features and ecosystems, and protect cultural and historic resources.
 Policy CD 1-5: Maintain and enhance pedestrian and bicycle access and views to and from all local creek corridors.

Consistent. As discussed above, the Specific Plan would serve as the land use and zoning authority for the Specific Plan Area upon adoption, where all future development would be required to adhere to the development standards established within the plan. The new zoning and development standards have been developed to foster growth within targeted areas and preserve and enhance existing neighborhoods while also encouraging new development consistent with the City’s vision for the Specific Plan Area. Impleme ntation of the Specific Plan’s eight overarching strategies along with the development standards would aid in transforming the Specific Plan Area into an attractive, pedestrian-friendly environment where residents could work and be entertained.

In addition to high quality development, the Specific Plan supports improvements to the pedestrian environment to help improve connectivity throughout the Specific Plan Area and increase interest in public spaces. In addition, the Specific Plan includes goals and policies aimed at creating more urban park and green spaces that serve as community activity hubs and urban greening outside of dedicated park areas and
supports the development of new public
realm streetscape improvements, plazas, special gathering places and connected open space. Adoption and implementation of the

Land Use and Planning Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.7-16 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR General Plan Policy Project Consistency
 Policy CD 1-6: Emphasize landscaping as a fundamental design component, retaining mature landscaping when appropriate, to reinforce a sense of the natural environment and to maintain an established appearance.
 Policy CD 1-8: Support art installations in public and private development projects that support and enhance Milpitas’ image.  Policy CD 1-9: Ensure that all public structures, landscaping and other site improvements, and streets are adequately maintained.

Goal CD-2: Ensure project designs reinforce a sense of place, display design excellence, and are cohesive and sensitive to the surrounding build environment and natural landscape.

Specific Plan would aid in establishing a distinguished character for the Specific Plan Area while also promoting individual characteristics for each district. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with these goals and policies.

Goal CD-3: Maintain and enhance the character and distinct identities of Milpitas’ residential neighborhoods and commercial, mixed-use, and employment districts and centers.
 Policy CD 3-1: Strengthen the positive qualities of the City’s neighborhoods, districts, and centers.
 Policy CD 3-2: Support the development and preservation of unique neighborhoods, districts, and centers that exhibit a special sense of place and quality of design.
 Policy CD 3-3: Ensure that new development and redevelopment reinforces desirable elements of its neighborhood, district, or center, including architectural style, scale, and setback patterns.  Policy CD 3-4: Strengthen the identity of individual
neighborhoods, districts, and centers through the use of entry monuments, flags, street signs, themed streets, natural features, landscaping, and lighting
 Policy CD 3-5: Ensure that new residential development and substantial additions are designed to maintain and support the existing character and development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood, especially in historic neighborhoods and
neighborhoods with consistent design characteristics.
 Policy CD 3-6: Encourage the rehabilitation of older residential neighborhoods, districts, and centers to prevent blight and maintain the city’s character.

Consistent. Under the Specific Plan, existing neighborhoods within the Specific Plan Area would be preserved and enhanced through neighborhood-specific development standards as well as creating transitional areas between neighborhoods and higher density mixed - use and commercial zones. A goal of the Specific Plan is to integrate the existing neighborhoods with targeted growth areas and commercial zones in a manner that feels natural and consistent throughout the Specific Plan. In addition, the envisioned com mercial and retail opportunities would serve the existing neighborhoods by locating restaurants, grocery stores, and other resident -serving uses in proximity to the neighborhoods. Furthermore, the Specific Plan supports the creation of new roadways that connect to Main and Abel Streets as a means to improve connectivity between the neighborhoods and the focus districts. Adherence to the Specific Plan’s development standards for neighborhoods would create pedestrian-friendly environments with streetscaping and improved connectivity while preserving the existing neighborhood characteristics. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this goal and policies.

Goal CD-4: Enhance the existing character and strengthen the identity and unique qualities of Milpitas’ districts.
 Policy CD 4-1: Provide special attention to development within or adjacent to Specific Plan areas or special districts.
 Policy CD 4-2: Incorporate identifiable and consistent design themes through architecture, landscaping, public realm
improvements, historic references and signage within special districts.
 Policy CD 4-3: Support and seek surrounding land uses and development that correspond to or enrich special districts and Specific Plan areas.
 Policy CD 4-4: Strengthen the aesthetic, environmental and functional links between the city’s Specific Plan areas and other surrounding neighborhoods and districts
Consistent. The proposed Specific Plan would replace the currently adopted Midtown Specific Plan as a means to revitalize the Specific Plan Area, which was not fully utilized under the current plan. While the Specific Plan boundary would be amended under the project, the amended Specific Plan Area would be established as a more centralized area focused on growth and redevelopment. The proposed Specific Plan would guide development within the Specific Plan Area in a manner that would achieve the City’s vision for the area. To support this vision, the Specific Plan includes various goals, strategies, and development standards specific to each district to ensure high quality development that is consistent with the individual characteristics and purposes of each area. The proposed development standards would establish allowable heights, setbacks, design requirements, and uses as well as state prohibited uses. In addition, the Specific Plan also include development standards applicable to other areas of the Specific Plan Area, including the Library District Mixed-Use, streetscaping, open space/public gathering places, and lighting, to ensure development is

Ascent Land Use and Planning
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.7-17 General Plan Policy Project Consistency
consistent within each individual area as well as throughout the entire Specific Plan Area. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this goal and policies.

Goal CD-6: Enhance the corridors, pathways, and edges that form physical boundaries and provide transitions and connections throughout the community.
 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 6-5: Promote consistent development patterns along streets, particularly by how buildings relate to the street, to promote a sense of visual order, and provide attractive streetscapes.
 Policy CD 6-6: Require major arterial streets to feature a consistent landscape theme that includes primary street trees, groundcover, sidewalks, bike lanes, bus shelters where required, and lighting.

 Policy CD 6-7: Require the planting of street trees throughout the city to define and enhance walkability and the character of the street and adjacent development.

 Policy CD 6-10: Encourage enhancements to Abel Street, Calaveras Boulevard, (and others) that improve the corridors’ aesthetics, safety, and mobility for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders. Enhancements may include, but are not limited to, streetlights, street trees and landscaping, pedestrian amenities, bike racks, public art, bulb -outs and other traffic control devices, pedestrian refuge islands, and enhanced crosswalks.
 Policy CD 6-13: Increase neighborhood connectivity in new development by requiring access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles across natural barriers (e.g., creeks) and man -made barriers (e.g., cul-de-sacs, freeways, and railroad tracks).

Consistent. As discussed in Chapter 5 of the Specific Plan, the Mobility Framework includes a Complete Streets Approach that will facilitate mobility for all roadway users and create an inviting public realm environment. Complete streets support a variety of mobility options, including automobiles, trucks, transit, bikes, and pedestrians and are accessible to people of all ages and abilities while supporting local land uses. The Specific Plan would be consistent with the City’s 2040 General Plan Circulation Element, which provides the framework for the City to provide a multimodal transportation system that allows residents, workers, and visitors to reach their destinations safely and efficiently.

In addition, Chapter 6, “Public Realm” of the Specific Plan includes various frameworks for the public realm of the Specific Plan Area, including for parks and open space (e.g., Creekside Open Space Trail section), signage and wayfinding, public art, lighting, and streetscaping and landscaping. Implementation of these frameworks would aid in creating complete streets that are both pedestrian - friendly and serve as connections to the surrounding open space and natural features of the city. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this goal and policies.

Goal CD-8: Enhance gateways and wayfinding and identity and construct landmarks for an improved sense of arrival place and orientation for residents and visitors throughout Milpitas.  Policy CD 8-2: Identify entries to the city and special districts (California Circle, Civic Center, Midtown, McCarthy Ranch, Transit Area, and others) with special features. Install city identification signs including distinctive landscaping and lighting or other markers at community gateways to signify entry. Anchor gateway intersections with landmark buildings that incorporate distinctive architectural character and activate the area. Orient landmark buildings to face and frame the corners of intersection s.  Policy CD 8-3: Develop major gateway intersections such as I- 880/Calaveras Boulevard, I-680/Calaveras Boulevard, and Montague Expressway/Great Mall Parkway with signage,
distinctive lighting, and abundant landscaping, using tall trees and underplantings.

Consistent. As discussed above, Chapter 6, “Public Realm” of the Specific Plan includes various frameworks for the public realm of the Specific Plan Area, including for parks and open space (e.g., Creekside Open Space Trail section), signage and wayfinding, public art, lighting, and streetscaping and landscaping. Implementation of the development standards specific to wayfinding and signage would help to establish a strong sense of the boundaries of the Specific Plan Area as well as indications of the individual districts . Coupled with public art and murals and streetscaping, the Specific Plan envisions complete streets that create a sense of place and individuality while remaining consistent throughout the Specific Plan Area. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this goal and policies.

Land Use and Planning Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.7-18 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR General Plan Policy Project Consistency
 Policy CD 8-4: Develop wayfinding systems at local
(neighborhoods and districts) and citywide levels.
 Policy CD 8-5: Construct landmarks to support wayfinding at key locations throughout the city, such as entries to Midtown, the Transit Area and other districts, historic neighborhoods, points of interest, significant buildings, public and civic spaces, and natural features Goal CD-9: Enhance the quality and character of Milpitas’ Public Spaces to provide safe, comfortable, and enjoyable passive and active recreation opportunities for all users.
 Policy CD 9-1: Promote vibrant, publicly accessible spaces that encourage gathering and other active uses. Provide adequate shading through shade structures or trees and incorporate formal and informal seating to encourage both short -term and long- term use of public spaces. Place a variety of uses adjacent to public spaces at sufficient concentrations to encourage the use of the spaces throughout the day and night.
 Policy CD 9-2: Provide for community and neighborhood activity centers at appropriate locations that create recreational opportunities, encourage social interaction, and provide a sense of public space and centers for neighborhood gathering.  Policy CD 9-3: Encourage the incorporation of publicly accessible spaces, such as plazas and pocket parks, into new and existing commercial, multi-family, and mixed-use developments to encourage social interaction. The spaces should be appropriately scaled and programmed and compliment the characteristics of the district and/or neighborhood and the surrounding
development.
 Policy CD 9-4: Incorporate outdoor plazas or other common areas that provide space for special landscaping, public art, food service, outdoor retail sales, or seating areas for patrons in retail settings appropriate to such pedestrian activity. The plaza or other common area should be appropriately scaled to the retail use and shall be directly connected to the primary walkway.
 Policy CD 9-9: Create a high-quality, safe pedestrian experience in commercial and mixed use areas through the use of street trees, public art, street furniture, and public gathering spaces. Using signage, art, and unique uses, entice and encourage people to walk and explore the commercial cores of Milpitas.
 Policy CD 9-10: Support the conversion of on street parking spaces, located within and adjacent to commercial and mixed -use districts and activity centers, into parklets for outdoor and café seating, bicycle parking, and transit and rideshare stops.  Policy CD 9-11: Reinforce the distinctive public spaces with design elements reflected in the streetscape, landmarks, public art, and natural amenities.
 Policy CD 9-12: Continue to require the inclusion of art in public projects and encourage its placement in private development projects to improve the quality of life in the city. Emphasize art that draws upon the local history and is placed at locations accessible to the public.

Consistent. The Specific Plan includes open space development standards to ensure adequate open space is provided with private development as well as supports the development of new public realm streetscape improvements, urban parks, plazas, special gathering places and connected open space. In addition, the Specific Plan includes goals and policies aimed at creating more urban park and green spaces that serve as community activity hubs and urban greening outside of dedicated park areas. In addition to public art and murals, streetscaping, and wayfinding and signage, the Specific Plan envisions complete streets that create a sense of place and individuality while remaining consistent throughout the Specific Plan Area. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this goal and policies.

Ascent Land Use and Planning
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.7-19 General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Goal CD-10: Design Buildings, sites, and streets to enhance pedestrian and bicycle mobility
 Policy CD 10-1: Prioritize pedestrian and bicycle connections to transit, community facilities (including schools), commercial areas, and other areas serving daily needs. Ensure that the design of new facilities can accommodate significant anticipated future increases in bicycle and pedestrian activity.
 Policy CD 10-2: Integrate comfortable and convenient pedestrian elements into building design, including, but not limited to walkways, plazas, and terraces and protect pedestrians from extreme climatic conditions.
 Policy CD 10-4: Design sidewalks to create a safe, comfortable pedestrian experience by making sidewalks sufficiently wide to support circulation and outdoor activities related to adjacent land uses, planting a continuous trees canopy, and placing sidewalk furniture on regular, frequent intervals that do not impede travel or accessibility.
 Policy CD 10-5: Install pedestrian and bicycle path connections between residential neighborhoods, commercial centers, schools, parks and other key community activity nodes, where feasible.

Require these improvements to be made as part of new
development projects.
 Policy CD 10-12: Ensure that new development provides visual and pedestrian and bicycle linkages with local creeks
Consistent. As discussed in Chapter 5 of the Specific Plan, the Mobility Framework includes a Complete Streets Approach that will facilitate mobility for all roadway users and create an inviting public realm environment. Complete streets support a variety of mobility options, including automobiles, trucks, transit, bikes, and pedestrians and are accessible to people of all ages and abilities while supporting local land uses. The Specific Plan would be consistent with the City’s 2040 General Plan Circulation Element, which provides the framework for the City to provide a multimodal transportation system that allows residents, workers, and visitors to reach their destinations safely and efficiently.

In addition, Chapter 6, “Public Realm” of the Specific Plan includes various frameworks for the public realm of the Specific Plan Area, including for parks and open space (e.g., Creekside Open Space Trail section), signage and wayfinding, public art, lighting, and streetscaping and landscaping. Implementation of these frameworks would aid in creating complete streets that are both pedestrian - friendly and increase connectivity throughout the Specific Plan Area and the city. Therefore, the proposed Specific P lan is consistent with this goal and policies.

Goal CD-11: Enhance Milpitas’ commitment to sustainable design by minimizing negative environmental impacts and utilizing resources efficiently.
 Policy CD 11-2: Encourage passive solar design and energy- efficient concepts, including, but not limited to natural heating and/or cooling, sun and wind exposure and orientation, and other solar energy opportunities.
 Policy CD 11-5: Encourage the use of building materials that conserve energy and material resources.

Consistent. The proposed Specific Plan encourages building design features that reduce energy consumption and increase renewable energy generation through a series of development incentives and objective design standards. In addition, development associated with the proposed Specific Plan would be required to comply with the California Green Building Standards Code, which includes green and sustainable building requirements to achieve energy efficiency.

Conservation and Sustainability
Goal CON-1: Ensure a sustainable future for the city of Milpitas by promoting a carbon free energy future that increases renewable resources, conservation, and efficiency throughout the city.  Policy CON 1-2: Ensure all development projects comply with the mandatory energy efficiency requirements of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).
 Policy CON 1-3: Support innovative green building best management practices including, but not limited to, LEED certification, and encourage project applicants to exceed the most current “green” development standards in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, as feasible.
 Policy CON 1-9: Encourage site planning and building techniques that promote energy conservation. Where feasible, encourage projects to take advantage of shade, prevailing winds,
landscaping, sunscreens, building orientations, and material choices that reduce energy use
.

Consistent. As discussed above, the proposed Specific Plan encourages building design features that reduce energy
consumption and increase renewable energy generation through a series of development incentives and objective design standards. In addition, development associated with the proposed Specific Plan would be required to comply with the California Green Building Standards Code, which includes green and sustainable building requirements to achieve energy efficiency.

Land Use and Planning Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.7-20 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Goal CON-2: Protect and enhance native trees and vegetation throughout the city.
 Policy CON 2-4: Proactively work to incorporate tree and plant species into the community that provide vibrant greenery, are drought tolerant, and enhance the visual quality of the city  Policy CON 2-6: Encourage the inclusion of additional shade trees, vegetated stormwater treatment and landscaping to reduce the “heat island effect” in development projects.
 Policy CON 2-7: Facilitate planting and retention of street trees in landscaped street medians and along City streets.

Consistent. The Specific Plan includes open space development standards, which include standards for the inclusion and protection of trees and vegetation throughout the Specific Plan Area. In addition, the Specific Plan also includes street landscaping standards, including recommended street trees and plant palettes, to ensure the appropriate types of trees and vegetation are chosen specific to the area. The street landscaping standards promote green landscaping and stormwater standards to promote environmentally friendly design and measures into the Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan also supports the development of new public realm streetscape improvements, urban parks, plazas, special gathering places and connected open space/green spaces that serve as community activity hubs and urban greening outside of dedicated park areas. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this goal and policies.

Community Health and Wellness
Goal CHW-4: Protect the diversity, safety, and beauty of the City’s neighborhoods.
 Policy CHW 4-1: Ensure that there is a diversity of housing types to accommodate all income levels and provide housing for very low and extremely low-income populations in areas with high accessibility to public transportation.
 Policy CHW 4-3: Prioritize the aesthetic quality of the public realm in all city neighborhoods, including neighborhood parks, trails, plazas, corridors and entry-points.

Consistent. Under the Specific Plan, existing neighborhoods within the Specific Plan Area would be preserved and enhanced through neighborhood-specific development standards as well as creating transitional areas between neighborhoods and higher density mixed - use and commercial zones. A goal of the Specific Plan is to integrate the existing neighborhoods with targeted growth areas and commercial zones in a manner that feels natural and consistent throughout the Specific Plan Area. In addition, the envisioned commercial and retail opportunities would serve the existing neighborhoods by locating transit and other resident -serving uses in proximity to the neighborhoods. Furthermore, the Specific Plan supports the creation of new roadways that connect to Main an d Abel Streets as a means to improve connectivity between the neighborhoods and the focus districts. Adherence to the Specific Plan’s development standards for neighborhoods would create pedestrian-friendly environments with streetscaping and improved connectivity while preserving the existing neighborhood characteristics. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this goal and policies.

Source: City of Milpitas 2021a.

City of Milpitas Zoning Ordinance
Due to the nature of a specific plan, the proposed Specific Plan would serve as the land use and zoning authority for the Specific Plan Area upon adoption. At the time of project adoption, the General Plan Land Use Map and the City Zoning Map would be updated to include the proposed Specific Plan; however, no textual changes to the adopted Zoning Code would occur at the time of project adoption. As the City is currently in the process of preparing a comprehensive update to its Zoning Code, the textual changes to the Zoning Code for the proposed Specific Plan would be adopted as part of that process.

While some of the existing parcels within the Specific Plan Area would retain the development standards established in the adopted Zoning Ordinance (i.e., Urban Reserve Areas) with adoption of the Specific Plan, the Specific Plan would establish new development standards for the proposed focus districts and URO overlay. If the proposed Specific Plan is adopted prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update, the project would be inconsistent with the currently adopted Zoning Ordinance for the Specific Plan Area. However, this inconsistency would not lead to an environmental impact as the Specific Plan would serve as the zoning authority for the Specific Plan Area in the interim until the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update is adopted. Future development proposed during the interim period would still be required to comply with the development standards established in the proposed Specific Plan, which would in turn be consistent with the updated Zoning Ordinance upon adoption.

Ascent Land Use and Planning
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.7-21 Furthermore, the City Zoning Map would be amended upon adoption of the proposed Specific Plan, which would reinforce the Specific Plan’s zoning authority over the Specific Plan Area. Therefore, while the proposed Specific Plan would be inconsistent with the adopted Zoning Ordinance until the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update is adopted, no environmental impacts would occur due to this inconsistency.

Conclusion
As discussed above the proposed Specific Plan would be generally consistent with the ABAG Plan Bay Area 2050 and Milpitas 2040 General Plan but would be inconsistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance until the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update is adopted. While the proposed Specific Plan would be inconsistent with the adopted Zoning Ordinance until the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update is adopted, no environmental impacts would occur due to this inconsistency. Therefore, adoption and implementation of the Specific Plan would not cause a significant environmental impact due to an inconsistency with an applicable State, regional, or local plan, policy, or ordinance. For this reason, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur comp ared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain
less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Land Use and Planning Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.7-22 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR This page is intentionally left blank.

Ascent Noise and Vibration
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.8-1

3.8 NOISE AND VIBRATION
This section includes a summary of applicable regulations related to noise and vibration, a description of ambient-noise conditions, and an analysis of potential short-term construction and long-term operational-source noise impacts associated with the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (Specific Plan). Mitigation measures are recommended as necessary to reduce significant noise impacts. Additional data is provided in Appendix C, “Noise Modeling Calculations.” No comment letters were received in response to the Notice of Preparation that pertained to noise and vibration (see Appendix A).

3.8.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
Federal Transit Administration
To address the human response to ground vibration, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has set forth guidelines for maximum-acceptable vibration criteria for different types of land uses. These guidelines are presented in Table 3.8-1.

Table 3.8-1 Ground-Borne Vibration Impact Criteria for General Assessment Land Use Category Ground-Borne Vibration Impact Levels (VdB re 1 microinch/second) Frequent Events1 Occasional Events2 Infrequent Events3
Category 1: Buildings where vibration would interfere with interior operations. 65 4 65 4 65 4 Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. 72 75 80 Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime uses. 75 78 83 Notes: VdB re 1 microinch/second = vibration decibels referenced to 1 microinch/second and based on the root mean square (RMS) velocity amplitude.

1. “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day.

2. “Occasional Events” is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day.

3. “Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same source per day.

4. This criterion is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research would require detailed evaluation to define acceptable vibration levels.

Source: FTA 2018.

STATE
California Department of Transportation
In 2013, Caltrans published the Transportation and Construction Vibration Manual (Caltrans 2020). The manual provides general guidance on vibration issues associated with construction and operation of projects in relation to human perception and structural damage. Table 3.8-2 presents recommendations for levels of vibration that could result in damage to structures exposed to continuous vibration.

Table 3.8-2 Caltrans Recommendations Regarding Levels of Vibration Exposure PPV (in/sec) Effect on Buildings

0.4–0.6 Architectural damage and possible minor structural damage

0.2 Risk of architectural damage to normal dwelling houses

0.1 Virtually no risk of architectural damage to normal buildings

0.08 Recommended upper limit of vibration to which ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected

0.006–0.019 Vibration unlikely to cause damage of any type Notes: PPV = Peak Particle Velocity; in/sec = inches per second.

Source: Caltrans 2020.

Noise and Vibration Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.8-2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR LOCAL
Milpitas General Plan
The City of Milpitas General Plan 2040 includes 11 elements. The Noise Element contains policies relevant to noise and applicable to the Specific Plan, as listed below.
 Policy N 1-1: Consider the noise compatibility of existing and future development when making land use planning decisions. Require development and infrastructure projects to be consistent with the land use compatibility standards contained in Tables N-1 and N-2 [presented as Table 3.8-3 and Table 3.8-4 in this SEIR, respectively] to ensure acceptable noise exposure levels for existing and future development.

Table 3.8-3 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment

Note: Residential components of Mixed-Use developments are subject to the Multi-Family Residential Noise Standards unless otherwise allowed in conjunction with Policy N 2-2.

Source: City of Milpitas 2021: N-9.

Ascent Noise and Vibration
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.8-3 Table 3.8-4 Stationary (Non-Transportation) Noise Source Standards Land Use Receiving the Noise Hourly Noise-Level Descriptor Exterior Noise-Level Standard (dBA) Daytime (7 am to 10 pm) Nighttime (10 pm – 7 am)
Residential Leq 55 45
Lmax 70 65
Notes:

A. The residential standards apply to all properties that are zoned for residential use. The exterior noise level standard is to be applied at the property line of the receiving land use or at a designated outdoor activity area. For mixed-use projects, the exterior noise level standard may be waived in conjunction with Policy N 2-2 (at the discretion of the decision-making body) if the residential portion of the project does not include a designated activity area and mitigation of property line noise is not practical.

B. Each of the noise levels specified above shall be lowered by 5 dBA for tonal noises characterized by a whine, screech, or hum, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or recurring impulsive noises. In no case shall mitigation be required to a level that is less than existing ambient noise levels, as determined through measurements conducted during the same operational period as the subject noise source.

C. In situations where the existing noise level exceeds the noise levels indicated in the above table, any new noise source must include mitigation that reduces the noise level of the noise source to the existing level plus 3 dB.

Source: City of Milpitas 2021: N-10.
 Policy N 1-2: Require new development to mitigate excessive noise to the standards indicated in Tables N -1 and N-2 [presented as Table 3.8-1 and Table 3.8-2 in this SEIR, respectively] through best practices, including building location and orientation, building design features, placement of noise -generating equipment away from sensitive receptors, shielding of noise-generating equipment, placement of noise-tolerant features between noise sources and sensitive receptors, and use of noise-minimizing materials.  Policy N 1-3: Use sound walls for sound attenuation only when other measures are not practical, or when recommended by an acoustical expert as part of a mitigation measure. Sound walls shall be designed to be aesthetically pleasing, and should incorporate features such as vegetation, variations in color and texture, artwork, and other features deemed appropriate by the City.  Policy N 1-4: Ensure that new development does not result in indoor noise levels exceeding 45 dBA L dn for residential uses by requiring the implementation of construction techniques and noise reduction measures for all new residential development.
 Policy N 1-5: Require acoustical studies for new discretionary developments and transportation improvements that have the potential to affect existing noise-sensitive uses such as schools, hospitals, libraries, care facilities, and residential areas; and for projects that would introduce new noise-sensitive uses into an area where existing noise levels may exceed the thresholds identified in this element.  Policy N 1-6: For projects that are required to prepare an acoustical study to analyze noise impacts, the following criteria shall be used to determine the significance of those impacts:
 STATIONARY AND NON-TRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCES:
• A significant impact will occur if the project results in an exceedance of the noise level standards contained in this element. In instances where the ambient noise level is already above the standards contained in this element, a significant impact will occur if the project will result in an increase in ambient noise levels by more than 3 dB. This does not apply to temporary construction activities.  TRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCES:
• Where existing traffic noise levels are 60 dBA Ldn or less at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +5 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant; • Where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 60 dBA Ldn and up to 65 dBA Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +3 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant; and

Noise and Vibration Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.8-4 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR • Where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dBA Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise- sensitive uses, a + 1.5 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant.  Policy N 1-8: Require construction activities to comply with standard best practices to reduce noise exposure to adjacent sensitive receptors (see Action N 1d).
 Policy N 1-9: Implement a range of traffic control measures, including but not limited to, light timing, asphalt alternatives (such as rubberized asphalt), and speed reduction measures to reduce roadway noise.  Policy N 1-12: Require non-transportation related noise from site specific noise sources to comply with the standards shown in Table N-2.
 Policy N 1-13: Regulate the effects of operational noise from existing and new industrial and commercial development on adjacent sensitive uses through the enforcement of the City’s noise standards (see Title V, Chapter 213 of the Milpitas Municipal Code).
 Policy N 1-14: Temporary special events including, but not limited to, festivals, concerts, parades, sporting events, and other similar activities may be allowed to exceed the noise standards established in this element, at the discretion of the City on a case-by-case basis, through issuance of a special event permit (see Title XI, Chapter 10, Section 15 - Special Events of the Milpitas Municipal Code). In an effort to promote safe and comfortable noise levels throughout Milpitas, potential adverse noise impacts to communities adjacent to proposed special event locations will be considered as a part of the permit review process.  Action N-1a: Require that new development projects are reviewed for compliance with the noise requirements established in this element, including the standards established in Tables N - 1 and N-2, prior to project approval.
 Action N-1b: Require acoustical studies for new development projects which have the potential to generate noise impacts which exceed the standards identified in this element. The studies shall include representative noise measurements, estimates of existing and projected noise levels, and mitigation measures necessary to ensure compliance with the noise standards included in this element. Studies shall be conducted by a qualified acoustical professional.
 Action N-1c: Require developers to prepare a construction management/noise mitigation plan that defines best management practices to reduce construction noise, and includes proposed truck routes (that comply with Section 12 V-100-12.05 - Truck Routes of the Milpitas Municipal Code) as part of the entitlement process.  Action N-1d: During the environmental review process, determine if proposed construction will constitute a significant impact on nearby sensitive receptors and, if necessary, require mitigation measures in addition to the standard best practice controls. Suggested best practices for control of construction noise include:
• Noise-generating construction activities, including truck traffic coming to and from the construction site for any purpose, shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. No construction shall occur on National holidays.
• All equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
• The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. At all times during project grading and construction, stationary noise- generating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from residences.
• Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited for a duration of longer than five minutes.
• Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that will create the greatest distance between the construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction activities, to the extent feasible.

Ascent Noise and Vibration
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.8-5 • Neighbors located adjacent to the construction site shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing. • The construction contractor shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall be responsible for determining the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, poor muffler, etc.) and instituting reasonable measures as warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.  Action N-1k Update Title V, Chapter 213 – (Noise Abatement) of the Milpitas Municipal Code as necessary to comply with noise standards and criteria set by this element.  Policy N 2-2: The City may elect to allow new noise-sensitive land uses within activity centers (areas within the boundaries of an adopted Specific Plan)) that exceed the Land Use Compatibility Standards in Table N -1 [presented as Table 3.8-3 in this SEIR], and Stationary Noise Source Standards in Table N-2 [presented as Table

3.8-4 in this SEIR]. Noise mitigation, including an acoustical analysis, shall be required to reduce interior space noise levels to 45 dBA Ldn, or less, for sensitive receptors. Exterior noise levels shall be reduced to the extent feasible using building orientation, construction and design features; however ultimately, noise levels may exceed the noise standards identified in Table N-1 and N-2 [presented as Table 3.8-3 and Table 3.8-4 in this SEIR, respectively], but shall comply with standards identified in Table N-3 [presented in this report as Table 3.8-5 in this SEIR].
 Policy N 2-3: Consider groundborne vibration and noise nuisance associated with rail operations prior to approving the development of sensitive uses.
 Action N-2b: Review new developments within 100 feet of the rail line to ensure that vibration experienced by residents and sensitive uses would not exceed the Federal Transit Administration guidelines.

Table 3.8-5 Stationary (Non-Transportation) Noise Source Standards (Commercial Mixed -Use and Transit- Oriented Areas)
Land Use Receiving the Noise Hourly Noise-
Level Descriptor
Exterior Noise-Level Standard (dB)
Daytime (7am to 10pm) Late Night (10pm – 12am) Nighttime (12am – 7am) Residential Leq 60 55 50
(Sunday Night – Thursday Night) Lmax 70 65 65
Residential Leq 65 60 55
(Friday Night – Saturday Night) Lmax 75 70 65
Source: City of Milpitas 2021: N-11.

City of Milpitas Municipal Code
Section Code V-213-3.07 of the City of Milpitas Municipal Code contains construction noise regulations. No person shall engage or permit others to engage in construction of any building or related road or walkway, pool or landscape improvement or in the construction operations related thereto, including, delivery of construction materials, supplies, or improvements on or to a construction site except within the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and weekends. No construction work shall be conducted or performed on the hol idays indicated in Section V-213-2-2.07 of this Chapter. Section Code V-213-2.07 of the City of Milpitas Municipal Code defines "Holiday" as used in this Chapter means New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day.

Noise and Vibration Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.8-6 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR

3.8.2 Environmental Setting

ACOUSTIC FUNDAMENTALS
Prior to discussing the noise setting for the proposed Specific Plan, background information about sound, noise, vibration, and common noise descriptors is needed to provide context and a better understanding of the technical terms referenced throughout this section.

Sound, Noise, and Acoustics
Sound can be described as the mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a liquid or gaseous medium (e.g., air) to a human ear. Noise is defined as loud, unexpected, annoying, or unwanted sound.

In the science of acoustics, the fundamental model consists of a sound (or noise) source, a receiver, and the propagation path between the two. The loudness of the noise source and obstructions or atmospheric factors affecting the propagation path to the receiver determines the sound level and characteristics of the noise perceived by the receiver. The field of acoustics deals primarily with the propagation and control of sound.

Frequency
Continuous sound can be described by frequency (pitch) and amplitude (loudness). A low -frequency sound is perceived as low in pitch. Frequency is expressed in terms of cycles per second, or hertz (Hz) (e.g., a frequency of 250 cycles per second is referred to as 250 Hz). High frequencies are sometimes more conveniently expressed in kilohertz, or thousands of hertz. The audible frequency range for humans is generally between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz.

Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels
The amplitude of pressure waves generated by a sound source determines the loudness of that source. Sound pressure amplitude is measured in micro-Pascals (mPa). One mPa is approximately one hundred billionth (0.00000000001) of normal atmospheric pressure. Sound pressure amplitudes for different kinds of noise environments can range from less than 100 to 100,000,000 mPa. Because of this large range of values, sound is rarely expressed in terms of mPa. Instead, a logarithmic scale is used to describe sound pr essure level (SPL) in terms of decibels (dB).

Addition of Decibels
Because decibels are logarithmic units, SPLs cannot be added or subtracted through ordinary arithmetic. Under the decibel scale, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to a 3-dB increase. In other words, when two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness at the same time, the resulting sound level at a given distance would be 3 dB higher than if only one of the sound sources was producing sound under the same conditions. For example, if one idling truck generates an SPL of 70 dB, two trucks idling simultaneously would not produce 140 dB; rather, they would combine to produce 73 dB. Under the decibel scale, three sources of equal loudness together produce a sound level approximately 5 dB louder than one source.

A-Weighted Decibels
The decibel scale alone does not adequately characterize how humans perceive noise. The dominant frequencies of a sound have a substantial effect on the human response to that sound. Although the intensity (energy per unit area) of the sound is a purely physical quantity, the loudness or human response is determined by the characteristics of the human ear.

Human hearing is limited in the range of audible frequencies as well as in the way it perceives the SPL in that range.

In general, people are most sensitive to the frequency range of 1,000–8,000 Hz and perceive sounds within this range better than sounds of the same amplitude with frequencies outside of this range. To approximate the response of the human ear, sound levels of individual frequency bands are weighted, depending on the human sensitivity to those frequencies. Then, an “A-weighted” sound level (expressed in units of A-weighted decibels) can be computed based on this information.

Ascent Noise and Vibration
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.8-7 The A-weighting network approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary sounds. When people make judgments of the relative loudness or annoyance of a sound, their judgment correlates well with the A-scale sound levels of those sounds. Thus, noise levels are typically reported in terms of A-weighted decibels. All sound levels discussed in this section are expressed in A -weighted decibels. Table 3.8-6 describes typical A-weighted noise levels for various noise sources.

Table 3.8-6 Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dB) Common Indoor Activities — 110 — Rock band
Jet fly-over at 1,000 feet — 100 —
Gas lawn mower at 3 feet — 90 —
Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 miles per hour — 80 — Food blender at 3 feet, Garbage disposal at 3 feet Noisy urban area, daytime, Gas lawn mower at 100 feet — 70 — Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet, Normal speech at 3 feet Commercial area, Heavy traffic at 300 feet — 60 —
Quiet urban daytime — 50 — Large business office, Dishwasher next room Quiet urban nighttime — 40 — Theater, large conference room (background) Quiet suburban nighttime — 30 — Library, Bedroom at night Quiet rural nighttime — 20 —
— 10 — Broadcast/recording studio
Lowest threshold of human hearing — 0 — Lowest threshold of human hearing Source: Caltrans 2013: Table 2-5.

Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels
The doubling of sound energy results in a 3-dB increase in the sound level. However, given a sound level change measured with precise instrumentation, the subjective human perception of a doubling of loudness will usually be different from what is measured.

Under controlled conditions in an acoustical laboratory, the trained, healthy human ear can discern 1 -dB changes in sound levels when exposed to steady, single-frequency (“pure-tone”) signals in the mid-frequency (1,000–8,000 Hz) range. In general, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 and 5,000 Hz and perceives both higher and lower frequency sounds of the same magnitude with less intensity (Caltrans 2020:2 -18). In typical noisy environments, changes in noise of 1–2 dB are generally not perceptible. However, it is widely accepted that people can begin to detect sound level increases of 3 dB in typical noisy environments. Further, a 5dB increase is generally perceived as a distinctly noticeable increase, and a 10-dB increase is generally perceived as a doubling of loudness (Caltrans 2020:2-10). Therefore, a doubling of sound energy (e.g., doubling the volume of traffic on a highway) that would result in a 3-dB increase in sound would generally be perceived as barely detectable.

Vibration
Vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object with respect to a given reference point. Sources of vibration include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) and those introduced by human activity (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous, (e.g., operating factory machinery) or transient in nature (e.g., explosions). Vibration levels can be depicted in terms of amplitude and frequency, relative to displacement, velocity, or acceleration.

Vibration amplitudes are commonly expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV) or root-mean-square (RMS) vibration velocity. PPV and RMS vibration velocity are normally described in inches per second (in/sec) or in millimeters per second. PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal. PPV is typically used in the monitoring of transient and impact vibration and has been found to correlate well to the stresses experienced by buildings (FTA 2018:7-5, Caltrans 2020:6).

Noise and Vibration Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.8-8 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Although PPV is appropriate for evaluating the potential for building damage, it is not always suitable for evaluating human response. It takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. In a sense, the human body responds to average vibration amplitude. The RMS of a signal is the average of the squared amplitude of the signal, typically calculated over a 1-second period. As with airborne sound, the RMS velocity is often expressed in decibel notation as vibration decibels (VdB), which serves to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration (FTA 2018:7-4; Caltrans 2013:7). This is based on a reference value of 1 micro inch per second.

The typical background vibration-velocity level in residential areas is approximately 50 VdB. Ground vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibration-velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels (FTA 2018:7-8; Caltrans 2013:27).

Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground vibration are construction equipment, steel- wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the ground vibration is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration-velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur to fragile buildings. Construction activities can generate sufficient ground vibrations to pose a risk to nearby structures. Constant or transient vibrations can weaken structures, crack facades, and disturb occupants (FTA 2018:7-5).

Vibrations generated by construction activity can be transient, random, or continuous. Transient construction vibrations are generated by blasting, impact pile driving, and wrecking balls. Continuous vibrations are generated by vibratory pile drivers, large pumps, and compressors. Random vibration can result from jackhammers, pavement breakers, and heavy construction equipment.

Table 3.8-7 summarizes the general human response to different ground vibration-velocity levels.

Table 3.8-7 Human Response to Different Levels of Ground Noise and Vibration Vibration-Velocity Level Human Reaction
65 VdB Approximate threshold of perception.
75 VdB Approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible. Many people find that transportation-related vibration at this level is unacceptable. 85 VdB Vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day.

Notes: VdB = vibration decibels referenced to 1 microinch/second and based on the root mean square (RMS) velocity amplitude.

Source: FTA 2018:120.

Common Noise Descriptors
Noise in our daily environment fluctuates over time. Various noise descriptors have been developed to describe time- varying noise levels. The following are the noise descriptors used throughout this section.

Equivalent Continuous Sound Level (Leq): Leq represents an average of the sound energy occurring over a specified period. In effect, Leq is the steady-state sound level containing the same acoustical energy as the time-varying sound level that occurs during the same period (Caltrans 2020:2-48). For instance, the 1-hour equivalent sound level, also referred to as the hourly Leq, is the energy average of sound levels occurring during a 1-hour period and is the basis for noise abatement criteria used by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (Caltrans 2020:2-47; FTA 2018:2-19).

Maximum Sound Level (Lmax): Lmax is the highest instantaneous sound level measured during a specified period (Caltrans 2020:2-48; FTA 2018:2-16).

Day-Night Level (Ldn): Ldn is the energy average of A-weighted sound levels occurring over a 24-hour period, with a 10-dB “penalty” applied to sound levels occurring during nighttime hours between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. (Caltrans 2020:2-48; FTA 2018:2-22).

Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): CNEL is the energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring over a 24-hour period, with a 10-dB penalty applied to sound levels occurring during the nighttime hours between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. and a 5-dB penalty applied to the sound levels occurring during evening hours between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. (Caltrans 2020:2-48).

Ascent Noise and Vibration
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.8-9 Sound Propagation
When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. The manner in which a noise level decreases with distance depends on the following factors:

Geometric Spreading
Sound from a localized source (i.e., a point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source. Roads and highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path and hence can be treated as a line source, which approximates the effect of several point sources, thus propagating at a slower rate in comparison to a point source. Noise from a line source propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source.

Ground Absorption
The propagation path of noise from a source to a receiver is usually very close to the ground. Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective-wave canceling provides additional attenuation associated with geometric spreading. Traditionally, this additional attenuation has also been expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually sufficiently accurate for distances of less than 200 feet. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver, such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between the source and the receiver, such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), additional ground-attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the attenuate rate associated with cylindrical spreading, the additional ground attenuation results in an overall drop -off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance. This would hold true for point sources, resulting in an overall drop -off rate of up to 7.5 dB per doubling of distance.

Atmospheric Effects
Receivers located downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lowered noise levels, as wind can carry sound. Sound levels can be increased over large distances (e.g., more than 500 feet) from the source because of atmospheric temperature inversion (i.e., increasing temperature with elevation). Other factors such as air temperature, humidity, and turbulence can also affect sound attenuation.

Shielding by Natural or Human-Made Features
A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receiver attenuate noise levels at the receiver. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency content of the noise source. Natural terrain features (e.g., hills and dense woods) and human-made features (e.g., buildings and walls) can substantially reduce noise levels. A barrier that breaks the line of sight between a source and a receiver will typically result in at least 5 dB of noise reduction (Caltrans 2020:2-41; FTA 2018:5-6, 6-25). Barriers higher than the line of sight provide increased noise reduction (FTA 2018:2-12). Vegetation between the source and receiver is rarely effective in reducing noise because it does not create a solid barrier unless there are multiple rows of vegetation (FTA 2006:2-11).

EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
Existing Noise- and Vibration-Sensitive Land Uses
Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses where noise exposure could result in health- related risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. Residential dwellings and Anthony Spangler Elementary School located along North Abbott Avenue just north of the Specific Plan Area are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise levels, and because of the potential for nighttime noise to result in sleep disruption.

These land use types are also considered vibration-sensitive land uses in addition to commercial and industrial buildings where vibration would interfere with operations within the building, including levels that may be well below those associated with human annoyance.

Noise and Vibration Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.8-10 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR A community noise survey was conducted to document ambient noise levels at various locations throughout the City, four continuous 24-hour noise monitoring sites were conducted to record day-night statistical noise level trends in the General Plan Update EIR. Noise Monitoring Sites A, B, and C are located within the Specific Plan Area, and measured existing ambient noise levels ranging from 61 to 76 dBA Ldn.

Existing Noise Sources
Existing Roadway Noise Levels
The predominant noise source in the Specific Plan Area is vehicle traffic on the surrounding roadway network (e.g., Abel Street and SR 237 which transition into Calaveras Boulevard that travels through the Specific Plan Area connecting the two freeways, Interstate 680 and Interstate 880, and carries a significant amount of regional traffic.

Base roadway noise conditions within the Specific Plan Area are quantified in Table 3.12-12 of the Milpitas General Plan, recreated in Table 3.8-8. It should be noted that the projected noise levels under the General Plan assumed implementation of the Midtown Specific Plan. For further details on existing traffic noise, Figure 3.12-1 and Figure

3.12-3 shows the extent of the noise contours on the Specific Plan Area.

Table 3.8-8 Base and Future Traffic Noise Conditions Identified in the General Plan Update EIR Roadway Segment Noise Levels Base Conditions (Ldn, dBA) General Plan Buildout North Abel Str. W. of N. Milpitas Blvd. 65.2 67.3
W. Calaveras Blvd. W. of S. Abbott Ave. 68.1 70.1
W. Calaveras Blvd. E. of S. Abbott Ave. 71.2 73.4
W. Calaveras Blvd. W. of S. Abel St. 71.8 74.1
E. Calaveras Blvd. W. of S. Milpitas Blvd. 65.3 67.9
E. Calaveras Blvd. E. of S. Milpitas Blvd. 66.3 68.8
E. Calaveras Blvd. E. Of S. Park Victoria Dr. 66.9 70.4 Source: Milpitas 2020. Table 3.12-12.

Rail Noise
Two rail lines, the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) freight line and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) commuter rail lines, traverse the Specific Plan Area on the east. The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) operates light rail transit (LRT) and interconnecting bus lines into the Specific Plan Area along the Great Mall Parkway. The VTA line is adjacent to residential and industrial land uses that are within the Specific Plan Area. The UPRR and BART commuter lines border the eastern portion of the Specific Plan Area, traversing in a north–south orientation. This line is located adjacent to residential and industrial land uses within the Specific Plan Area. The General Plan Update EIR identifies UPRR freight line and BART commuter rail line generate noise levels of up to 76 dBA L dn (with warning horns) and 55 dBA Ldn at 100
feet, respectively.

Airport Noise Levels
The closest airport, San Jose Mineta International Airport, is located approximately 4 miles southwest of the Specific Plan Area. San Jose Mineta International airport noise contours do not extend into the Specific Plan Area, per the adopted Airport Land Use Commission Plan (ALUCP). The distance from the Specific Plan Area, indicates that noise generation within the Specific Plan from the San Jose Mineta International Airport is minimal. In addition, the Specific Plan Area is not within the designated flight path of the San Jose Airport, per the adopted ACLUP.

Construction Noise Sources
The noise levels generated by construction activities are generally isolated to the vicinity of a construction site and occur during daytime hours in accordance with City regulations. Construction activities also occur for relatively short - term periods of a few weeks to several months and upon completion of construction activity, noise exposure ceases.

Table 3.8-9 illustrates noise levels for common construction equipment and activities at 50 feet. According to the FTA, construction noise levels are highest for pile-driving activities and can reach as high as 107 dB (FTA 2018).

Ascent Noise and Vibration
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.8-11 Table 3.8-9 Noise Ranges of Typical Construction Equipment Construction Equipment Noise Levels at dBA Leq at 50 feet Front Loader 72–86
Truck 82–95
Crane (movable) 75–88
Crane (derrick) 86–89
Vibrator 68–82
Saw 72–82
Pneumatic Impact Equipment 83–88
Pile Driving (peaks) 95–107
Jackhammer 81–98
Pump 68–72
Generator 71–83
Compressor 75–87
Concrete Mixer 75–88
Concrete Pump 81–85
Backhoe 73–95
Tractor 77–98
Scraper/Grader 80–93
Paver 85–88
Source: FTA 2018.

Existing Vibration Sources
Construction Vibration Sources
Vibration generated by construction activities are generally isolated to the vicinity of a construction site and occur during daytime hours in accordance with City regulations. Table 3.8-10 illustrates vibration levels for common construction equipment and activities at 50 feet. According to the FTA, construction vibration levels are highest for pile-driving activities and can reach as high as 0.734 (FTA 2018).

Table 3.8-10 Vibration Ranges of Typical Construction Equipment Equipment PPV at 25 ft, in/sec Approximate LV at 25 ft
Pile Driver (impact - upper range) 1.518 112
Pile Driver (impact - typical) 0.644 104
Pile Driver (Sonic - upper range) 0.734 105
Pile Driver (Sonic - typical) 0.17 93
Clam Shovel 0.202 94
Hydromill (Slurry Wall) 0.008 66
Vibratory Roller 0.21 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large Bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson Drilling 0.089 86
Loaded Trucks 0.076 79
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58
Source: FTA 2018.

Noise and Vibration Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.8-12 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR

3.8.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
This impact analysis is based primarily on review of the analysis presented in the General Plan Update EIR associated with construction and operational noise and vibration impacts.

Construction Noise and Vibration
To assess potential short-term (construction-related) noise and vibration impacts, sensitive receptors and their relative exposure were identified. Construction noise and vibration levels associated with the implementation of the proposed Specific Plan were determined based on methodologies, reference emission levels, and usage factors from FTA’s Guide on Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment methodology (FTA 2018) and FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide (FHWA 2004). Reference levels for noise and vibration emissions for specific equipment or activity types are well documented and the usage thereof common practice in the field of acoustics.

Operational Noise and Vibration
With respect to non-transportation noise sources (e.g., stationary) associated with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan, the assessment of long-term (operational-related) impacts was based on reconnaissance data, reference noise emission levels, and measured noise levels for activities and equipment associated with project operation (e.g., heating, ventilation and air conditioning [HVAC] units, delivery docks), and standard attenuation rates and modeling techniques.

To assess potential long-term (operation-related) noise impacts due to project-generated increases in traffic, noise levels were estimated in using calculations consistent with the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5 (FHWA 2004) and average daily traffic volumes generated from the vehicle miles traveled analysis provided in Section 3.11, “Transportation,” (Appendix D). The analysis is based on the reference noise emission levels for automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and ground attenuation factors. Note that the modeling conducted does not account for any natural or human- made shielding (e.g., the presence of walls or buildings) or reflection off building surfaces.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
A noise impact is considered significant if implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in any of the following:

Short-Term Construction Noise
 Expose off-site noise-sensitive receptors to excessive levels of construction noise for an extended period.

Operational Transportation Noise
 Generate long-term, transportation noise levels exceeding the applicable normally acceptable noise standards for land use compatibility (Table 3.8-3);
 Generate an increase in ambient-noise levels exceeding interior noise standards (45 dB Ldn) at nearby existing noise-sensitive land uses;
 Generate a substantial long-term increase in traffic-generated noise levels already exceeding City standards for allowable incremental increases in transportation noise:
 where the ambient noise level is below 60 dB, increases of 5.0 dB or greater would be considered substantial;  where the ambient noise level ranges from 60 to 65 dB, increases of 3.0 dB or greater would be considered substantial;
 where ambient noise levels currently exceed 65 dB, increases of 1.5 dB or greater would be considered substantial.

Ascent Noise and Vibration
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.8-13 Operational Stationary Noise
 Generate a substantial permanent increase in stationary noise levels in the vicinity of the Specific Plan Area that exceeds the following noise standards established in the General Plan for Commercial Mixed-Use and Transit- Oriented Areas.
 Commercial Mixed-Use and Transit Oriented Areas (Table 3.8-5) • 60 dB Leq exterior daytime noise standard
• 55 dB Leq exterior late night noise standard
• 50 dB Leq exterior nighttime noise standard
• 70 dB Lmax exterior daytime noise standard
• 65 dB Lmax exterior late night noise standard
• 65 dB Lmax exterior nighttime noise standard
 Generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 3 dBA or greater.

Short-Term Construction Vibration
 Construction-generated vibration levels exceeding Caltrans’s recommended standards with respect to the prevention of structural building damage (0.2 and 0.08 in/sec PPV for normal and historical buildings, respectively) or FTA’s maximum-acceptable-vibration standard with respect to human response (80 VdB for residential uses) at nearby existing vibration-sensitive land uses.

Long-Term Operational Vibration
 Construction-generated vibration levels exceeding Caltrans’s recommended standards with respect to the prevention of structural building damage (0.2 and 0.08 in/sec PPV for normal and historical buildings, respectively) or FTA’s maximum-acceptable-vibration standard with respect to human response (80 VdB for residential uses) at nearby existing vibration-sensitive land uses.

Airport Land Use Compatibility
 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; or would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

ISSUES NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
Airport Land Use Compatibility
As described above, San Jose Mineta International Airport noise contours do not extend into the Specific Plan Area.

In addition, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would not result substantial population growth that would alter the operations of San Jose Mineta International Airport to an extent that would increase aircraft traffic that would expand airport noise contours. The General Plan Update EIR identified no significant airport noise impacts. As a result, noise impacts due to proximity to private and public airports is not discussed further.

Long-Term Operational Vibration
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would not introduce any major sources of long-term or permanent ground vibration such as commercial railways or passenger rail transit lines. Therefore, the Specific Plan would not result in long-term substantial levels of ground vibration. The General Plan Update EIR concluded that this impact would be less than significant through implementation of General Plan Policy N 2-3 and associated Action N-2b requires that individual development projects undergo project-specific environmental review and address potential vibration impacts associated with railroad operations. This issue is not discussed further.

Noise and Vibration Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.8-14 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.8-1: Generate Substantial Short-Term (Construction) Noise The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.12-4) determined that construction noise impacts as a result of General Plan implementation would be less than significant through implementation of General Plan Policy N 1-8 and Action N-1c and N-1d. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in the generation of construction noise.

However, future development under the Specific Plan would be subject to compliance with the specific requirements of Action N-1c and N-1d. 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 General Plan Update EIR Impact 3.12-4 identified a potentially significant impact regarding short-term noise generated by construction activities, due to the scope of the Milpitas General Plan and the proximity of many existing structures. However, General Plan Policy N 1-8 and Action N-1c and N-1d requires developers to create and implement construction noise reduction plans that defines best management practices (BMPs), including limiting the hours of construction to daytime periods, use of mufflers on construction equipment and equipment/management measures, and designation of a noise disturbance coordinator to implement additional noise control measures if needed to avoid adverse noise impacts. The General Plan Update EIR concluded the impact to be less than significant.

Construction noise associated with development facilitated by implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would be temporary in nature and vary depending on the characteristics of the construction activities being performed.

Noise generated during construction of buildings and related structures is typically associated with the operation of off-road equipment, with the loudest phases being grading, excavation, and demolition. A standard construction noise scenario was conducted for this analysis, using equipment typical of the loudest construction phase (e.g., site preparation), assuming a worst-case scenario for construction noise disturbance. Equipment used in the modeling included an excavator, dozer, dump truck, front end loader, and grader. Results show that the operation of these five pieces of equipment could result in an average noise level of 84 L eq dBA at 50 feet and a maximum noise level of 88
dBA Lmax at 50 feet. Thus, construction noise levels would be loud enough to potentially affect nearby se nsitive receivers. These construction activities would be similar to those addressed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Subsequent development projects under the Specific Plan would be required to implement Genera l Plan Actions N-1c and N-1d that would include measures to address these temporary noise impacts and avoid excessive noise levels that could generate public health impacts (e.g., sleep deprivation).

There is no significant new effect, and the impact is not substantially more severe than the impact identified in the General Plan Update EIR because, similar to what was identified in the General Plan Update EIR, the construction noise would be consistent with what is allowed in the General Plan Update EIR. This impact would remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Impact 3.8-2: Generate a Substantial Increase in Long-Term Transportation Noise Levels The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.12-1) determined that transportation noise increases as a result of General Plan implementation would be excessive and exceed noise standards. This impact was concluded to be significant and unavoidable. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would allow for additional residential development potential beyond what was assumed in the General Plan Update EIR, and a reduction in nonresidential development. Based on traffic noise modeling, the proposed Specific Plan would not result in an increase in traffic noise impacts beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR. 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 significant and unavoidable.

General Plan Update EIR Impact 3.12-1 identifies the buildout of the General Plan may contribute to an exceedance of the City’s transportation noise standards and/or result in significant increases at existing sensitive receptors.

Implementation of the General Plan was anticipated to increase traffic related noise by 0.5 to 3.5 dBA compared to

Ascent Noise and Vibration
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.8-15 existing conditions. The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.12-1) identified significant and unavoidable significant impacts regarding long-term noise generated by the implantation of the General Plan.

The proposed Specific Plan would allow additional residential development beyond what is allowed under the General Plan through increases in density and implementation through an incentive program. This would also include a reduction in nonresidential development potential through mixed-use development. A total of 1,338 additional units would be allowed under the Specific Plan beyond what is allowed under the General Plan. An increase in traffic volume due to the proposed residential uses is offset by the reduction of approximately one million square feet of non- residential land uses. The proposed Specific Plan would result in an overall reduction in average daily traffic volumes and an associated increase in traffic noise levels along the roadway network surrounding the Specific Plan Area. The City has established standards to evaluate substantial increases in noise that could lead to adverse health impacts (e.g., prolonged annoyance or sleep disruption) to nearby receptors. In accordance with the City’s long-term ambient increase standards, where existing noise levels are below 60 dBA L dn, a noise increase of +5-dB or greater would be
considered substantial, where noise levels are between 60 and 65 dBA Ldn, a traffic noise increase of +3-dB or greater would be considered substantial, and where existing noise levels are above 65 dBA Ldn, an increase of +1.5-dB or greater would be considered substantial. Table 3.8-11 shows the noise levels increases under the adopted General Plan (including the Midtown Specific Plan) and the General Plan buildout (replacing of the Midtown Specific Plan land uses with the proposed Specific Plan land uses) along study roadway segments (assuming buildout of the Specific Plan).

Table 3.8-11 Summary of Modeled Traffic Noise Levels under General Plan and Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Conditions
Segment
No. North-South East-West Roadway
Segment
General Plan
Noise Levels1
(dBA Ldn)
Gateway-Main Street+
Project Noise Levels2
(dBA Ldn)
Modeled
Change
(dBA)
Applicable
Increase
Threshold
Exceeds
Applicable
Threshold?
1 Park Victoria Dr Calaveras Dr. Calaveras West 67.8 67.8 0.0 1.5 No 2 Hillview Dr Calaveras Dr. Calaveras West 69.1 68.9 -0.2 1.5 No 3 Hillview Dr Calaveras Dr. Calaveras East 69.1 68.8 -0.4 1.5 No 4 Milpitas Blvd Calaveras Dr. Calaveras West 69.1 68.8 -0.3 1.5 No 5 Milpitas Blvd Calaveras Dr. Calaveras East 63.5 63.2 -0.2 1.5 No 6 Abel St Calaveras Dr. Abel North 59.1 58.6 -0.4 3 No
7 Abel St Sierra Way Abel South 64.1 63.7 -0.4 3 No
8 Abel St Calaveras Dr. Calaveras West 70.1 70.0 -0.2 1.5 No 9 Abel St Marylinn Dr Abel North 58.8 58.6 -0.3 5 No
10 Abel St Marylinn Dr Abel South 58.5 58.3 -0.3 5 No
11 Abbott Ave Calaveras Dr. Calaveras West 64.4 64.2 -0.2 1.5 No 12 Abbott Ave Calaveras Dr. Calaveras East 64.2 64.0 -0.2 1.5 No 13 Abel St Sierra Way Abel South 57.8 57.3 -0.4 5 No
14 Abel St Corning Ave Abel South 57.7 57.4 -0.2 5 No
15 Abel St Curtis Ave Abel South 58.9 58.5 -0.4 5 No
16 Main St Curtis Ave Main South 56.1 55.4 -0.7 5 No
Notes: Ldn = day-night noise level; dBA = A-weighted decibel; SR = State Route; 1 = represents Cumulative Conditions of the VMT for the Environmental Review; 2 = represents Cumulative with Project Conditions of the VMT for the Environmental Review.

All modeling assumes average pavement, level roadways (less than 1.5% grade), constant traffic flow, and does not account for shielding of any type or finite roadway adjustments. All noise levels are reported as A-weighted noise levels. For additional details, refer to Appendix C for detailed traffic data, and traffic-noise modeling input data and output results.

Source: Data provided by Fehr & Peers; 2024; Modeled by Ascent in 2024.

Noise and Vibration Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.8-16 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Subsequent development under the proposed Specific Plan would be subject to General Plan Policies N 1-2, N 1-4, and N 1-5 and Actions N-1a and N-1b which would require that new development address potential noise impacts through the incorporation of noise control treatments necessary to achieve acceptable noise levels associated with exposure to traffic and rail noise.

In summary, traffic noise associated with buildout of the Specific Plan Area would , as shown in Table 3.8-11, result in decreased traffic along most roadways within the Specific Plan Area, noise levels ranging from -0.7 dBA to 0.0 dBA Ldn. Therefore, there is no significant new effect, and the impact is not substantially more severe than the impact identified in the General Plan Update EIR. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures
As noted in the General Plan Update EIR, no feasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact .

Impact 3.8-3: Generate a Substantial Increase in Long-Term Stationary Operational Noise The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.12-3) determined that stationary noise impacts as a result of General Plan implementation would be less than significant through implementation of General Plan Policies N 1 -11 though N 1-14 and Actions N-1a and N-1b. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would allow future development that would create new stationary noise sources. However, future development under the Specific Plan would be subject to compliance with requirements of General Plan Policies N 1-11 though N 1-14 and Actions N-1a and N-1b. 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 General Plan Update EIR Impact 3.12-3 identifies potentially significant impacts regarding long-term noise generated by stationary noise sources, due to the scope of the General Plan Update EIR and the proximity of many existing structures. However, implementation of General Plan Policies N 1-11 through 14 and Actions N 1a and N 1b were identified to reduce noise associated with stationary sources by requiring the preparation of acoustical studies for proposed projects in the vicinity of sensitive noise receptors, and requiring project -specific mitigation in the form of noise attenuation to comply with the noise standards shown in Table N-2 of the General Plan that would be protective of public health.

Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan could result in future development that would generate noise levels in excess of applicable City noise standards for non-transportation noise sources. Such land uses may include commercial area loading docks, industrial uses, HVAC equipment, car washes, daycare facilities, auto repair, and recreational uses.

While the Specific Plan does not specifically propose any new noise generating uses, the Land Use Map includes industrial land use designations, which may result in new noise sources. Additionally, noise from existing stationary sources, would continue to impact noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity. Future development may include stationary noise sources such as automotive and truck repair facilities, tire installation centers, car washes, loading docks, corporation yards, parks, and play fields may create noise levels in excess of the City’s standards.

The land uses associated with implementation of the Specific Plan would be compatible with the General Plan , as no substantially different land uses are proposed by the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan. Subsequent development under the proposed Specific Plan would be subject to General Plan Policy N 1-12 through N 1-14 and Actions N-1a and N-1b would ensure that new development mitigates potential noise impacts through incorporating the noise control treatments necessary to achieve acceptable noise levels associated with exposure to stationary noise sources.

There is no significant new effect, and the impact is not substantially more severe than the impact identified in the General Plan Update EIR because, similar to what was identified in the General Plan Update EIR, the stationary noise would be consistent with what is allowed in the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, this impact would remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Ascent Noise and Vibration
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.8-17 Impact 3.8-4: Generate Substantial Short-Term (Construction) Vibration The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.12-5) determined that construction vibration impacts as a result of General Plan implementation would be less than significant through implementation of General Plan Action N -1d.

Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan could result in the generation of construction vibration impacts.

However, development under the Specific Plan would be subject to compliance with the specific requirements of Action N-1d and with Section 17.52.060.G of the City Municipal Code, which limits construction hours to the less sensitive hours of the day. 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 General Plan Update EIR Impact 3.12-5 identifies potentially significant impacts regarding short-term vibration impacts generated by construction activities, due to the scope of the Milpitas General Plan and the proximity of many existing structures. However, General Plan Action N-1d defines BMPs that would include limiting the hours of construction to daytime periods, use of mufflers on construction equipment and equipment/management measures, as well as designation of a noise disturbance coordinator to implement additional construction measures if needed to avoid adverse vibration impacts. Therefore, the General plan Update EIR concluded impacts associated with construction vibration to be less than significant. Construction activities associated with future development under the Specific Plan may involve the use of off-road equipment such as tractors, jackhammers, and haul trucks. The FTA vibration impact threshold of 85 VdB for construction, which is the vibration level that is considered by the FTA to be acceptable if there are an infrequent number of events per day, can be applied to construction activities.

Groundborne vibration levels associated with representative construction equipment are summarized in Table 3. 8-12.

Table 3.8-12 Representative Groundborne Vibration for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV at 25 ft, in/sec1 Approximate Lv (VdB) at 25 feet2 Pile Driver (impact) Upper Range 1.518 112
Typical 0.644 104
Pile Driver (sonic) Upper Range 0.734 105
Typical 0.170 93
Large Dozer 0.089 87
Caisson Drilling 0.089 87
Trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small Dozer 0.003 58
1 Where PPV is the peak particle velocity.
2 Where Lv is the root mean square velocity expressed in vibration decibels (VdB), assuming a crest factor of 4.

Source: FTA 2018.

Based on the vibration levels presented in the table, ground vibration generated by construction equipment are not anticipated to exceed 85 VdB at 50 feet. The majority of construction equipment does not result in VdB in excess of FTA thresholds, even at 50 feet. The proposed Specific Plan would result in future development, the construction of which could potentially occur adjacent to sensitive land uses, such as residential uses and historic buildings. The Caltrans vibration impact threshold of 0.08 PPV (in/sec) for historical buildings and 0.2 PPV (in/sec) for residential uses can be applied when construction activities occur adjacent to the sensitive uses. Groundborne vibration levels associated with representative construction equipment are summarized in Table 3. 8-12 Based on the vibration levels presented in the table, ground vibration generated by construction equipment is not anticipated to exceed 0.08 PPV (in/sec) at 50 feet. The majority of construction equipment would not result in PPV (in/sec) in excess of Caltrans thresholds, even at 50 feet. In addition, according to Municipal Section Code V-213-3.07, construction is not allowed between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and weekends. These hours are intended to mitigate temporary noise impacts, including groundborne vibration impacts, by avoiding construction during nighttime periods that would disturb noise-sensitive land uses (residential). Because construction vibration would be temporary,

Noise and Vibration Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.8-18 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR intermittent, short in duration, and would occur during the daytime, vibration impacts due to the development of future projects in the Specific Plan Area would be considered insubstantial. Subsequent development projects under the Specific Plan would be required to implement General Plan Policy N 2-3 and Action N-2b that would include measures to address these temporary vibration impacts and avoid excessive vibrations that could generate public health impacts (e.g., sleep deprivation). Therefore, there is no significant new effect, and the impact is not substantially more severe than the impact because, similar to what was identified in the General Plan Update EIR , the construction vibration would be consistent with what is allowed in the General Plan Update EIR This impact would remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Ascent Population, Employment, and Housing
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.9-1

3.9 POPULATION AND HOUSING
This section provides an overview of existing population and housing conditions in the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (Specific Plan) area and analysis in this section are based on information provided by the Milpitas General Plan and the California Department of Finance (DOF). The analysis includes a description of the methods used for assessment, as well as the potential direct and indirect impacts associated with implementation of the Specific Plan.

No comments pertaining to population and housing were received in response to the notice of preparation.

3.9.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws are applicable for the project.

STATE
State law requires each local government in California to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of its city or county, and the housing element is one of seven mandated elements of the general plan. Housing elements address the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The City of Milpitas Housing Update Element identifies the nature and extent of housing needs in incorporated and unincorporated areas, and the housing element itself i ncludes goals, policies, and implementation programs for the planning and development of housing.

State law sets out a process for determining each local jurisdiction’s fair share of regional housing needs. As a first step in the process, the California Department of Housing and Community Development assigns each regional council of governments a required number of new housing units for that region, including affordable housing. The council of governments, in turn, allocates the region’s share to cities and counties in the region.

LOCAL
The regulatory information provided on page 3.10-10 through 3.10-11 Milpitas General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the role of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in determining regional housing needs and preparation of the regional transportation plan and sustainable community strategy. As indicated on page 3.10-10 of the Milpitas General Plan Update EIR, ABAG has determined that the City of Milpitas had a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of 3,290 units distributed among the following income groups: 1,004 very low income; 570 low income; 565 moderate income; and 1,151 above-moderate income units. The City’s current Housing Element, which was prepared after the General Plan, was adopted in January 2023 and addresses the 2023-2031 RHNA requirements. As indicated on page 51 of the Housing Element, ABAG has determined that the City of Milpitas had a RHNA allocation of 6,713 units distributed among the following income groups: 1,685 very low income; 970 low income; 1,131 moderate income; and 2,927 above-moderate income units.

The General Plan is intended to accommodate the City’s fair share of housing needs.

Milpitas General Plan 2040
The City of Milpitas General Plan 2040 (City of Milpitas 2021, 2023) includes 11 elements. Policy provisions relevant to the project, as listed below.

Population, Employment, and Housing Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.9-2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Land Use
 Policy LU 1-1: Support a full spectrum of conveniently located residential, commercial, public, and quasi- public uses that support and enhance business development, regional transportation objectives and promote the livability of residential neighborhoods.
 Policy LU 1-3: Maintain a supply of developable lands sufficient to meet desired levels of housing, jobs, and economic needs over the planning period.
 Policy LU 1-4: Continue to provide for a variety of housing types and densities that meet the needs of individuals and families and offers residents of all income levels, age groups and special needs sufficient housing opportunities and choices for locating in Milpitas. (Additional policies specifically related to Housing are included in the General Plan’s Housing Element).

Housing Element
 Policy HE 1.1: Monitor residential development projects to ensure there is an adequate level of remaining development capacity through the housing sites inventory.  Policy HE 1.2: Prioritize development projects near the Milpitas transit center through incentives consistent with the specific plans.
 Policy HE 1.3: Require new residential development projects and mixed-use development projects with a residential component to meet or exceed minimum residential densities to ensure efficient use of remaining land available.
 Policy HE 1.4: Continue to facilitate housing production through implementation of specific plans and overlay zones, including the Milpitas Metro Specific Plan (TASP Update) and Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (Milpitas Midtown Update).
 Policy HE 1.5: Facilitate the development of housing through the adoption of new zoning districts consistent with the General Plan, zoning incentives or waivers, development process streamlining, and CEQA findings of consistency, especially affordable housing in high resource areas.  Policy HE 1.8: Regularly review the land use designations and zoning districts to encourage a variety of housing types to be developed at a range of densities to equitably serve households at all economic levels, and to meet the needs of large family households, the elderly, and people with disabilities.  Policy HE 1.9: Support introducing housing and mixed-use development in older commercial centers (located in C-2, TC, and HS zoning districts) while balancing the importance of preserving convenient neighborhood and community-serving retail uses.
 Policy HE 2.6: Maintain the existing stock of housing affordable to lower- and moderate-inco me households that is provided through the private market and provide tenant protections for apartment units at risk of condominium conversion through enforcement of the City’s condominium conversion ordinance.  Policy HE 2.7: Ensure that sites being redeveloped for housing do not result in a net reduction in housing units, consistent with Government Code Section 66300(d).
 Policy HE 3.6: Respond to changing market conditions and diverse housing needs, such as recognizing the need for limited term rentals (least than six months) for temporary employees and independent contractors or gig workers.
 Policy HE 3.7: Support the adaptive reuse, renovation, conversion, or redevelopment of economically underutilized properties or buildings for residential or mixed-use development.  Policy HE 4.1: Encourage mixed-income development projects citywide and especially in high opportunity, resource-rich, and transit accessible areas.
 Policy HE 4.5: Prioritize and facilitate the development of new housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, low, and moderate-inco
me households.

Ascent Population, Employment, and Housing
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.9-3

3.9.2 Environmental Setting

POPULATION AND POPULATION GROWTH
The population of the City of Milpitas was estimated to be 81,773 on January 1, 2024 (DOF 2024). The General Plan Update EIR estimated development capacity of 4,807 residents in the Specific Plan area while the Specific Plan would allow for a development capacity of 12,887 residents (City of Milpitas 2020). This figure reflects the maximum possible population, as determined by the number of residential units possible at the different maximum densities allowed for each land use designation and the amount of land area within those designations.

EMPLOYMENT AND EMPLOYMENT CENTERS
Milpitas has historically functioned as an agricultural town and a stopover between Oakland and San Jose and transitioned into a technology center with the advent of the semiconductor and the establishment of Silicon Valley (City of Milpitas 2020). The City has over 40,800 jobs with the two largest employers being Cisco Systems and KLA Tencor Corporation (City of Milpitas 2024). The General Plan Update EIR projected 11,555 jobs within the Specific Plan Area. By 2040, the buildout horizon of the General Plan, the number of jobs in the City is projected to be 84,333 with 47,737,536 square feet of non-residential building square footage (City of Milpitas 2022).

HOUSING UNITS AND VACANCY
The U.S. Census Bureau defines a housing unit as a house, an apartment, a group of rooms, or a single room occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters. College dormitories are considered noninstitutional group quarters and are excluded from the housing unit inventory. For the purpose of population surveys in the decennial census, individuals are counted at their “usual residence.” “Usual” is defined as the place where the person lives and sleeps most of the time, or the place he or she considers to be his or her usual residence. Therefore, most students living in dormitories would not be included (US Census Bureau 2021).

The total number of housing units in the City was 25,932 as of January 2024, with an average household size of 3.15 persons per unit, compared to an average household size of 2.70 persons in Santa Clara County (DOF 2024). In 2022, approximately 70 percent of the housing units in the City were single-family houses, compared to 61 percent countywide. At buildout of the General Plan, the City has the potential to accommodate 33,401 dwelling units (City of Milpitas 2022).

3.9.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
Impacts on population and housing were assessed by reviewing existing and anticipated population and housing projections prepared by the City of Milpitas General Plan, DOF, and ABAG. The Project’s impacts were evaluated by determining their consistency with these estimates and projections. Population and employment growth, as an economic or social change, is not considered a significant effect on the environment (pursuant to State CE QA Guidelines Section 15131). Growth that is consistent with planning documents that have undergone separate environmental evaluation would generally result in similar potential for environmental impacts and the requisite demand for infrastructure would typically be incorporated into the plans of the respective utilities. However , where growth could lead to physical changes, the potential for effects is evaluated. For further discussion of growth - inducing effects, see Chapter 6, “Other CEQA Sections.”

Population, Employment, and Housing Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.9-4 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
A population, employment, and housing impact is considered significant if implementation of the Specific Plan would do any of the following:
 induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure); and/or  displace substantial numbers of existing people or homes, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.9-1: Induce Substantial Population Growth
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.10-3) determined that impacts related to unplanned population growth as a result of General Plan implementation, including the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan, would be less than significant. Similarly, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would accommodate up to 5,176 new dwelling units, which is 1,338 units net new units beyond the General Plan. It would also result in a population of 16,384 residents, which is an increase of 3,816 people beyond the General Plan. This growth would exceed projections assumed under the City’s General Plan for the Specific Plan Area; however, it would not exceed population projections for the City of Milpitas as a whole. The proposed Specific Plan would also result in a reduction in nonresidential development as compared to the General Plan that would result in a 2,357 fewer jobs than the General Plan at buildout. Therefore, there is no new significant effect and the impact is not more severe than the impact identified in the General Plan Update EIR. Growth inducement impacts would be less than significant.

The General Plan serves as the long-term blueprint for the city through 2040 and guides growth within the city by establishing the land use plan to develop new residential uses, expansion of existing businesses as well as creation of new businesses, and the necessary associated infrastructure and services to accommodate future growth. Under the full buildout scenario, the General Plan was designed to accommodate to 33,401 housing units, a population of 113,530 people, 47,807,536 square feet of non-residential building square footage, and 84,333 jobs within the City of Milpitas.

Table 3.9-1 summarizes the difference between existing General Plan and the proposed Specific Plan forecasts for the Specific Plan Area. Full buildout of the proposed Specific Plan could accommodate up to 5,176 new dwelling units and 16,384 persons, which is an increase of 1,388 units and 3,816 persons compared to the current General Plan projections. This represents a 35 and 30 percent increase, respectively, compared to the General Plan projections for the Specific Plan Area. The proposed Specific Plan would allow for additional residential development beyond what is planned for under the General Plan through increases in density and implementation of an incentive program. This would also include changes to nonresidential development potential through mixed -use development.

Table 3.9-1 Changes in Population and Employment at Full Buildout Under Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan
Existing General Plan
Projections Specific Plan Projections Difference Percent Increase Residential Units 3,838 5,176 1,338 units 35
Population 12,568 16,384 3,816 persons 30
Source: City of Milpitas 2020, Table 2.0-4, data compiled by Ascent 2024.

In contrast, the proposed Specific Plan would reduce nonresidential development potential by 1,234,574 square feet and 2,357 jobs as compared to the General Plan at buildout.

Ascent Population, Employment, and Housing
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.9-5 While implementation of the proposed Specific Plan could increase residential units and in turn, generate population growth within the Specific Plan Area, this growth would not exceed the General Plan’s housing units or population projections for the city overall. Rather, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would focus growth within designated higher-density areas that are closer to transit services and resident-serving uses, which would centralize growth within the Specific Plan Area instead of sporadically throughout the city. In addition, the proposed Specific Plan would replace the current Midtown Specific Plan as a means to define the type and level of development the City intends for the Specific Plan Area as the envisioned growth under the Midtown Specific Plan was never realized (City of Milpitas 2002). As such the proposed Specific Plan would create a more efficient and beneficial use of the area by increasing densities and development potential in an area already planned for such development by the City.

Moreover, Table 3.9-1 provides the full buildout scenario of the proposed Specific Plan, which is a conservative approach as future development under the proposed Specific Plan would be driven by market conditions and economic constraints, which may not support full buildout of the densities allowed under the proposed Specific Plan.

Nevertheless, if the Specific Plan Area were to be built out to its maximum capacity, the associated growth would still be aligned with the General Plan’s projections for the city. Therefore, the population growth that could occur under the proposed Specific Plan would not exceed the overall growth anticipated by the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR for the city as a whole.

In addition to the General Plan, ABAG’s Plan Bay Area 2050 projects regional forecasts till 2050, which extends past the City’s current General Plan 2040 planning horizon (ABAG 2018). As part of the forecast process for Plan Bay Area 2050, ABAG complied jurisdictions’ data at the local and regional levels to project population, household, and jobs growth for the region through 2050 (ABAG 2018). The population projections from Plan Bay Area 2050 were used to determine ABAG and its member jurisdictions regional housing needs allocation (RHNA), which assigns proportional housing needs to help achieve the State’s housing goals. Through this process, the City was assigned an RHNA of 6,713 units for the 2023-2031 planning cycle. As stated in the addendum to the General Plan Update EIR for the 2023- 2031 Housing Element Update, the 2023-2031 Housing Element provides the City’s housing plan to achieve its 2023- 2031 RHNA (Rincon Consultants 2022). Adoption and implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would aid the City in achieving its current and future RHNAs through higher-density and mixed-use intensities, development incentives, and other programs to help foster targeted growth within the Specific Plan Area. As the growth projected under the proposed Specific Plan would be aligned with ABAG’s Plan Bay Area 2050 growth projections, development under the Specific Plan would not induce unplanned growth within the city or the region.

Furthermore, while the proposed Specific Plan includes improvements to the circulation system within the Specific Plan Area, which could include new roadways, these infrastructure improvements would not provide access to new areas of the city or surrounding area, which could result in new areas for residential development . Construction activities associated with future development under the Specific Plan would utilize construction workers from the local and surrounding areas as is typical in the construction industry and would not attract new residents to move to the city. Therefore, adoption and implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would not indirectly induce population growth within the city or region.

Project impacts would not be more severe than the impact identified in the General Plan Update EIR as analyzed throughout this SEIR. There would be no new significant growth effects within the City of Milpitas. The Project would not indirectly induce unplanned population growth or residential development beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and impacts would remain
less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No new mitigation is required.

Population, Employment, and Housing Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.9-6 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Impact 3.9-2: Displace Substantial Numbers of Existing People or Housing The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.10-4) determined that impacts related to displacement of existing people or housing as a result of General Plan implementation, including the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan, would be less than significant. Similarly, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would accommodate up to 5,176 new dwelling units, and support the development of increased densities and intensities of mixed uses, that would increase housing supply in the City. The Specific Plan would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing.

Therefore, there is no new significant effect and the impact is not more severe than the impact identified in the General Plan Update EIR. Impacts would be less than significant.

The purpose of the Specific Plan is to guide land use and development consistent with the General Plan. Buildout of the Specific Plan would add an additional estimated 5,176 new dwelling units, an increase in 35 percent over General Plan projections. The Housing Element includes Goal B that calls to maintain and preserve housing resources and high-quality residential neighborhoods and preserve existing housing resources, including units affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households and market rate units. This goal is supported by Housing Element Policy B.1 that calls for the enforcement of housing codes and regulations to correct code violations while minimizing the displacement of residents.

The proposed Specific Plan focuses on infill development opportunities in vacant and underutilized areas in Milpitas, as well as alterations of nonresidential development to mixed-use development. The General Plan Land Use Map was developed to preserve existing neighborhoods throughout the City and the Specific Plan would not change that.

Future development, including residential units would occur throughout the Specific Plan Area, and is intended to increase the overall number of dwelling units and provide housing to serve the diverse needs of the community at various socioeconomic levels. Additionally, the Land Use and Development Chapter includes standards to integrate a mix of housing types, scales, and affordability, including mixed-use, housing for families, smaller units, live-work, senior housing, and affordable housing.

Therefore, impacts of the proposed Specific Plan on the displacement of people or housing would not be greater than those analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR and would remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Ascent Public Services and Recreation
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.10-1

3.10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
This section provides an overview of existing public services in the City of Milpitas and evaluates the potential for implementation of the proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (Specific Plan) to affect availability, service level, and/or capacity of public services, including fire-protection services, police-protection services, solid waste disposal, parks and recreation, and public schools, and, if such an effect is determined to occur, whether new or expanded facilities would be required that could result in a potentially significant impact to the environment. Other publicly provided utility services, such as water and wastewater treatment, stormwater management, electricity, and natural - gas services, are addressed in Section 3.12, “Utilities and Service Systems.” No comment letters were received in response to the Notice of Preparation that pertained to public services or recreation (see Appendix A).

3.10.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws are applicable to the provision of public services or recreation for th e project.

STATE
California Fire Code
The 2022 California Fire Code, which incorporates by adoption the 2021 International Fire Code, contains regulations related to construction, maintenance, and use of buildings. Topics addressed in the California Fire Code include fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions intended to protect and assist fire responders, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized fire-safety requirements for new and existing buildings and the surrounding premises. The California Fire Code contains specialized technical regulations related to fire and life safety.

California Health and Safety Code
State fire regulations are set forth in Sections 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code, which includes regulations for building standards (as set forth in the California Building Code), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as extinguishers, smoke alarms, high-rise building and childcare facility standards, and fire-suppression training.

Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998
The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, also known as Senate Bill (SB) 50 Proposition 1A (Chapter 407, Statutes of 1998), governs a school district’s authority to levy school impact fees. This comprehensive legislation reformed methods of school construction financing in California. SB 50 instituted a new school facility program by which school districts can apply for State construction and modernization funds. It imposed limitations on the power of cities and counties to require mitigation of school facilities impacts as a condition of approving new development and provided the authority for school districts to levy fees based on justification studies, for the purposes of funding construction of school facilities, subject to established limits.

California Code of Regulations Title 5, Division 1, Chapter 13 CCR Title 5, Division 1, Chapter 13 details the regulations for School Facility Construction specifically the general standards for construction, standards, planning and approval for school facilities, and the sites of schools.

Public Services and Recreation Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.10-2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR State Public Park Preservation Act
The primary instrument for protecting and preserving parkland is the Public Park Preservation Act of 1971. Under the PRC section 5400-5409, cities and counties may not acquire any real property that is in use as a public park for any non-park use unless compensation or land, or both, are provided to replace the parkland acquired. This provides no net loss of parkland and facilities.

Quimby Act
The Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) states that “the legislative body of a city or county may, by ordinance, require the dedication of land or impose a requirement of the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a tentative or parcel map.” Requirements of the Quimby Act apply only to the acquisition of new parkland and do not apply to the physical development of new park facilities or associated operations and maintenance costs. The Quimby Act seeks to preserve open space needed to develop parkland and recreational facilities; however, the actual development of parks and other recreational facilities is subject to discretionary approval and is evaluated on a case- by-case basis with new residential development.

LOCAL
Milpitas General Plan
The City of Milpitas General Plan 2040 (City of Milpitas 2021) includes 11 elements. There are five elements (Circulation; Community Design; Utilities & Community Services; Safety; and Parks, Recreation & Open Space) that contain policies relevant to public services and recreation and applicable to the project, as listed below.

Circulation
 Policy CIR-1g: Street design should be undertaken through consultation among multiple departments, including Public Works, Planning, Police, and Fire departments, to ensure that the streets meet multiple City goals and serve the adjacent land uses.

Community Design
 Policy CD 2-6: Promote crime prevention through site and building designs that facilitate surveillance of communities by putting “eyes on the street,” And take care to avoid poor design that emphasizes security over essential design features. Design sites and buildings to promote visual and physical access to parks and open space areas. Support safe, accessible, and well-used public open spaces by orienting active use areas and building facades towards them.
 Policy CD 2-7: Include design elements during the development review process that address security, aesthetics and safety. Safety issues include, but are not limited to, minimum clearances around buildings, fire protection measures such as peak load water requirements, construction techniques, and minimum standards for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and other standards set forth in local, state, and federal regulations.

Utilities and Community Services
 Policy UCS 1-2: Require development and long-term planning projects to be consistent with all applicable City infrastructure plans, including the Water Master Plan, Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the Sewer Master Plan, the Sewer System Management Plan, the Green Infrastructure Plan, and the Capital Improvement Program.  Policy UCS 1-3: Require all future development projects to analyze their infrastructure and service impacts and either demonstrate that the City’s existing infrastructure, public services, and utilities can accommodate the increased demand for services, and that service levels for existing users will not be diminished or impaired, or make the necessary improvements to mitigate all potential impacts.  Policy UCS 1-5: Require the payment of impact fees for all new development.

Ascent Public Services and Recreation
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.10-3  Policy UCS 8-1: Continue to strongly support and encourage the maintenance of high quality public and private schools and diverse educational opportunities in Milpitas and work cooperatively with Milpitas Unified School District, Berryessa Union High School District, and East Side Union School District to explore all local and state funding sources to secure available funding for new school facilities.  Policy UCS 8-2: Encourage the planned financing of new school facilities concurrent with new development.  Policy UCS 8-3: Consider opportunities for joint-use of facilities with the local school districts. When feasible, a joint-use agreement will be pursued to maximize public use of facilities, minimize duplication of services provided, and facilitate shared financial and operational responsibilities.  Policy UCS 8-4: Encourage the location of school sites away from significant noise sources, significant generators of toxic air contaminants, and sensitive resource conservation areas, except where the proximity of resources may be of educational value and the protection of resources is reasonably assured.  Policy UCS 8-7: Support the provision of high quality civic, library, medical, and other community facilities in order to meet the broad range of needs within Milpitas.  Policy UCS 8-8: Support efforts by Santa Clara County Library District to provide library services that meet the evolving educational and social needs of Milpitas residents.  Policy UCS 8-9: Provide an environment in which community literacy and cultural opportunities are enhanced.  Policy UCS 8-10: Pursue additional funding sources for library operations that serve Milpitas.  Policy UCS 8-11: Explore opportunities to expand library services and funding to areas within Milpitas.  Policy UCS 8-12: Work with health care providers to provide a range of health-related facilities in Milpitas to meet the needs of the growing population.
 Policy UCS 8-14: Strive to make all community events accessible to the greatest number of people regardless of race or socioeconomic status.
 Policy UCS 8-15: Provide responsive and high-quality City government services to residents and businesses.  Action UCS-8c: Require new development to pay applicable school facility impact fees and work with developers and the school districts to ensure that adequate school and related facilities will be available.

Safety
 Policy SA 3-1: Ensure that new critical facilities in Milpitas are located in areas that minimize exposure to natural hazards.
 Policy SA 3-2: Ensure that critical facilities are properly supplied and equipped to provide emergency services.  Policy SA 3-4: Support local and regional disaster planning and emergency response planning efforts, and look for opportunities to collaborate and share resources with other municipalities in the region.  Policy SA 3-5: Continue to maintain the City’s Emergency Operations Center and conduct regular staff training exercises to ensure that all City staff members, in additional to emergency responders, are adequately trained to fulfill their duties in the event of an emergency.
 Policy SA 3-6: Maintain effective mutual aid agreements for fire, medical response, and other functions as appropriate.
 Policy SA 4-1: Provide adequate funding for police and fire facilities and personnel to accommodate existing and future citizens’ needs to ensure a safe and secure environment for people and property throughout the city.  Policy SA 4-2: Continue to support community-based crime prevention. Support existing programs and encourage expanded or new programs that focus on youth crime prevention, anti -gang programs, or other community programs that reduce crime throughout the city.

Public Services and Recreation Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.10-4 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR  Policy SA 4-4: Emphasize the use of physical site planning as an effective means of enhancing safety and preventing crime.
 Policy SA 4-9: Ensure that fire and emergency medical services meet existing and future demand by maintaining a response time of four minutes or less for all urban service areas.  Policy SA 4-10: Ensure that adequate water supplies are available for fire suppression throughout the city. Require development to construct and fund all fire suppression infrastructure equipment needed to provide adequate fire protection services to new development.
 Policy SA 4-11: Promote community safety through education by supporting and leading community events including National Night Out, neighborhood watch programs, increased community training opportunities, and expanding emergency preparedness outreach and opportunities to traditionally underserved/ underrepresented areas and communities within the city.
 Action SA 4b: As part of the development review process require applications to be reviewed by the Public Works Department and Fire Department in order to ensure that development projects facilitate adequate fire services, access, and fire prevention measures.

Parks, Recreation & Open Space
 Policy PROS 1-1: Provide a park and recreation system that is equitably distributed, safe, accessible, and designed to serve the needs of all residents of the community.
 Policy PROS 1-2: Develop and maintain a high-quality system of parks, trails, and recreation facilities to create diverse opportunities for passive and organized recreation.  Policy PROS 1-3: Achieve and maintain a minimum overall citywide ratio of 5 acres of park land for every 1,000 residents outside of the City’s adopted Specific Plan areas. Within adopted Specific Plan areas, achieve and maintain the parks standards and ratios specified in the Specific Plan, with an emphasis on publicly -accessible spaces and facilities. (Note: the establish ratio for the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan is 3.5 acres of park land per 1,000 residents.)
 Policy PROS 1-4: Park land acreage dedications and/or equivalent in-lieu fees shall be required for new development in accordance with the following standards:
 For areas within a Specific Plan, require land dedication or in-lieu fees equivalent to the park land standard established in the relevant Specific Plan, allowing credit for private recreation space for up to 1.5 acres/1,000 residents for private recreation space. Private recreation credit will be given at the discretion of the City and pursuant to the criteria specified in the City’s Subdivision Regulations (Title XI, Chapter 1, Section 9.08 of the Milpitas Municipal Code).
 Policy PROS 1-5: Encourage the provision and dedication of parkland within future development projects, rather than the payment of in-lieu fees, in order to ensure that the City maintains an extensive network of neighborhood parks that serve all areas of the community.  Policy PROS 1-6: Encourage private owners to permit public access to all private parks, trails, and recreation facilities to the greatest extent feasible.
 Policy PROS 1-7: Design parks to enhance public safety by providing visibility of all areas both to and from the street, adequate lighting, and access for public safety responders.  Policy PROS 1-8: Expand, renovate, and maintain high quality recreation facilities, programs, and services to accommodate existing and future needs; encourage traditional and non-traditional recreation; and support active and passive recreation, wellness, historic assets, cultural arts, environmental education, conservation, accessibility, inclusion, diversity, safety, and new technology that equitably serves the most vulnerable populations of the community.