Milpitas City Council
October 28, 2025

Ascent Public Services and Recreation
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.10-5  Policy PROS 1-9: Prioritize funding and City resources to improve the condition, maintenance, and upkeep of existing City parks and recreational facilities.
 Policy PROS 1-10: Require publicly-accessible parks and recreational facilities that are owned and operated by homeowner’s associates (HOAs) and special assessment districts to be maintained in a safe and aesthetically - pleasing manner.
 Policy PROS 1-11: Pursue opportunities for cooperation and partnerships with other agencies to develop and enhance publicly-accessible trails and linear parks along local drainages, creeks, and utility corridors.  Policy PROS 1-12: Encourage and support the expansion of an integrated trail network that connects users to neighboring local and regional trail systems and to community amenities such as schools, open space areas, park and recreation facilities, commercial and job centers and residential areas to encourage both recreational and utilitarian travel.
 Policy PROS 2-1: Emphasize and prioritize public outreach and educational programs that inform the community of available parks, trails, and recreation facilities, programs, and services available in order to increase and enhance community use of these facilities, programs, and services.  Policy PROS 2-2: Emphasize and prioritize public participation and workshops when developing new park facilities, and/or substantially renovating existing parks, trails, and other recreation facilities. Provide diverse outreach resources that enable close collaboration with a variety of members of the community in the design, and programming, of parks and recreation facilities to ensure that these facilities meet community needs.  Policy PROS 2-3: Ensure that the City continues to offer a wide range of programs to serve diverse populations of all ages, abilities, income levels and cultural backgrounds. Develop programs, activities, and facilities that appeal to a broad audience, including but not limited to youth, young adults, and seniors and those of varying ethnicities, backgrounds, and abilities.
 Policy PROS 2-4: Support recreational activities, events, organized sports leagues, and other programs that serve broad segments of the community.
 Policy PROS 2-5: Encourage the development of private/commercial recreation facilities that are open to the public to help meet existing and future recreational demands.  Action PROS 1k: During subsequent updates to key Specific Plans within Milpitas, such as the Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP) and Midtown Specific Plan, review established park standards and explore opportunities to increase requirements for publicly-accessible parks and recreation facilities within these Plan Areas to more closely match the adopted City-wide standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents.

Milpitas Trails, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
The Trails, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan, adopted in May 2022, provides a vision and actin plan for the city to improve safe and convenient travel by active modes. The plan aims to support connectivity and access to destinations; improve safety for all modes; create an all ages and abilities active transportation network that supports all users, including vulnerable and historically disadvantaged populations; integrate active transportation networks with BART and other transit options; and increase access to recreational opportunities. The Plan builds upon the City’s previous Bikeways Master Plan from 2002 that the City’s Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Commission produced. The Master Plan categorizes the City’s bikeways into five groups: Paved Shared Use Paths, Bike Lanes, Buffered Bike Lanes, Bike Boulevards, and Cycle Tracks and evaluates potential bicycle facility needs throughout the City, as well as potential programs and projects (with potential funding sources for implementation). Unpaved trails and paved shared use paths are vital components of Milpitas’s transportation system and recreation opportunities. The existing network is primarily comprised of paved shared use paths. However, the trail network also includes unpaved paths and/or soft surface trails, located primarily within parks.

Public Services and Recreation Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.10-6 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR City of Milpitas Municipal Code
Title XI, Chapter 1, Section 9, Improvements: Dedication of Land or Payment of Fee or Both, for Recreational Purposes, of the City’s Municipal Code establishes, as a condition of approval of any final subdivision map or parcel map, that the subdivider must dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or both, at the City’s option, for park or recreational purposes.

The current land requirement within the Specific Plan Area is 3.5 acres per 1,000 residents. Specific acreage requirements based on residential unit density in a subdivision vary according to the type of development. The amount of land required to be provided as park land pursuant to this Section XI -1-9.06 in the Specific Plan Area is the result of multiplying the project's estimated population (as calculated in Section 9.05) and 152.46 square feet (3.5 acres/1,000 people).

Milpitas Unified School District
The Milpitas School District (MUSD) collects fees, authorized by Education Code Section 17620, on residential and commercial construction within the boundaries of MUSD. The purpose of the fees is to provide adequate school facilities for the students of MUSD. The fees are used to finance construction and reconstruction. MUSD is currently collecting Level I fees. The Level I fees provide a statutorily designated level of fees that districts may assess if they ar e able to support them through a justification study. Level I fees are subject to an inflationary increase to be authorized by the State Allocation Board in every even year. (Government Code Section 65995). MUSD Developer Fees were approved by the MUSD Board of Education on March 12, 2024 and will go into effect on March 13, 2024. The next adjustment will be in 2026. MUSD currently levies fees of $5.17 per square foot for residential units and $0.84 per square foot for commercial/industrial office space (MUSD 2024a).

3.10.2 Environmental Setting

FIRE PROTECTION
The Milpitas Fire Department (MFD) provides fire prevention and protection services to the entire city, including the Specific Plan Area evaluated in this EIR. The MFD operates four fire stations within its service area. Fire Station 1 is located within the Specific Plan Area at 777 South Main Street, while Fire Station 4 is located across I-880 from the Specific Plan Area at 775 Barber Lane. MFD currently employs 82 full-time equivalent staff across all stations (MFD 2024). At Station 1, there is a current daily staffing level of 10, and the station is equipped with a command vehicle, one engine, one truck, and two rescue ambulances (Santa Clara County LAFCO 2023).

The MFD also retains a Bureau of Prevention who is responsible for the inspection of all buildings, structures, and properties in the City with the exception of single and multi-family dwellings in which the owner of the property resides. The Bureau’s primary responsibility is enforcement of the California Fire Code and other local fire safety regulations. This includes the inspection of all Life Hazard Use Properties (i.e., gas stations, schools, nursing homes, daycare facilities, auto repair/auto body shops, places of assembly, and large retail operations) and the inspection of Non-Life Hazard businesses, offices, and multi-family residences.

Per the City’s General Plan (refer to Policy SA 4-9), the recommended standard for response to an emergency call for service is to arrive within 4 minutes of fire dispatch receiving the 911 call (for 90 percent of the calls). The MFD current average response time is 6.8 minutes for a priority call (Santa Clara County LAFCO 2023).

An important requirement for fire suppression is adequate fire flow, which is the amount of water, expressed in gallons per minute, available to control a given fire and the length of time this flow is available. The total fire flow needed to extinguish a structural fire is based on a variety of factors, including building design, internal square footage, construction materials, dominant use, height, number of floors, and distance to adjacent buildings. Minimum requirements for available fire flow at a given building are dependent on standards set in the California Fire Code.

Ascent Public Services and Recreation
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.10-7

LAW ENFORCEMENT
Milpitas Police Department
Police protection services are provided by Milpitas Police Department (MPD) for areas within the city. Patrol units to the Specific Plan Area originate from the MPD station located at 1275 N. Milpitas Boulevard, which is located approximately 0.5 mile north of the Specific Plan Area (City of Milpitas 2020). The department uses a variety of data that include geographic information systems (GIS)–based data, call and crime frequency information, and available personnel on an annual basis to meet the changing law enforcement demands of the city.

In terms of staffing, there are 94 funded positions and 34 professional staff positions, not including crossing guards or temporary employees. The City reports that response time for in-progress emergency calls averaged 2 minutes and 51 seconds in 2023. The City’s goal for response time for in-progress emergency calls is under 3 minutes (MPD 2023).

In 2023, the MPD handled 23,477 events/calls for service, made 2,302 arrests, issued 3,078 traffic citations, and investigated 798 traffic collisions (MPD 2023).

SCHOOLS
The Milpitas Unified School District (MUSD) provides educational services throughout the city, including residences within the Specific Plan Area. Based on information from the California Department of Education (CDE), MUSD serves approximately 10,200 students across 15 schools (CDE n.d.). Current remodeling and renovation projects being worked on by MUSD using funding from Measure AA include Milpitas High School Performing Arts Center, MUSD Innovation Campus Phase II. Measure E generated $95 million to renovate and repair Milpitas schools, ensuring all students have access to safe and modern classrooms. Bond Measure E completed projects include program and infrastructure improvements at Mabel Mattos Elementary School, Randall Elementary School, Rose Elementary School and Milpitas High School.

The schools that serve the Specific Plan Area include Pearl Zanker Elementary School (K-6), Mabel Mattos Elementary School (K-6), Anthony Spangler Elementary School (K-6), Rancho Milpitas Middle School (7-8), Thomas Russell Middle School (7-8), and Milpitas High School (9-12). As shown in Table 3.10-1, enrollment numbers have generally decreased since the 2019-2020 academic year. However, MUSD considers the district as a whole as needing to provide additional capacity to serve existing students across the district, which includes nine additional schools beyond those shown below (MUSD 2024b).

Table 3.10-1 Schools Serving the Specific Plan Area and Enrollment School 2019-2020 Enrollment 2023-2024 Enrollment Percent Change in Enrollment Pearl Zanker Elementary School (K-6) 637 578 -9%
Mabel Mattos Elementary School (K-6) 170 6661 292%
Anthony Spangler Elementary School (K-6) 634 623 2%
Rancho Milpitas Middle School (7-8) 719 654 9%
Thomas Russell Middle School (7-8) 839 769 8%
Milpitas High School (9-12) 3,132 3,029 3%
Notes: 1 The capacity of Mabel Mattos Elementary School is estimated to be 800 students (spaces4learning 2024).

Source: City of Milpitas 2020; CDE n.d.

RECREATION
Parks, trails, and recreational facilities in the City of Milpitas are managed by the Recreation and Community Services Department and maintained by the Public Works Department. The City of Milpitas categorizes each park into separate categories: Community Parks, Neighborhood Parks, Special-use Parks, Urban Parks, Linear Parks, Regional

Public Services and Recreation Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.10-8 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Parks and Private Recreation Facilities. Each type of park is characterized by scale, varying amenities, and the neighborhoods they serve. Approximately 180 acres of park facilities, distributed across 38 parks, are currently provided within the City. In addition, 183 acres of open space that are owned by the City are publicly accessible. The City also operates one community center, one sports center, one senior center, one satellite recreation facility, three swimming pools, and numerous sports fields (City of Milpitas 2020).

OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES
The Milpitas Public Library is the only public library located in the City of Milpitas. The Milpitas Public Library is part of the Santa Clara County Library District (SCCLD) system. This enables the relatively small Milpitas Public Library to access all of the other libraries that are part of the SCCLD system to obtain information not found in the Milpitas Public Library, which has been requested by customers. The Milpitas Public Library is located at 160 N. Main Street.

The library is open from 1 PM to 9 PM on Mondays through Wednesdays, 10 AM to 6 PM on Thursdays through Saturday, and on Sundays from noon to 6 PM. The library collection includes materials in both Spanish and English.

It also offers a wide variety of media, including DVDs, CDs and audiobooks, as well as a large print collection. The library offers a number of programs for all ages, including story times for babies and toddlers. The library, grounds and garage are owned by the City of Milpitas and operated by the SCCLD through agreement between the two agencies.

3.10.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
Evaluation of potential public service impacts are based on applicable City standards policies and a review of documents pertaining to the public service provision of the City. Impacts on public services that would result from the project were identified by comparing existing service capacity and facilities against future, new, or renovated facilities, the construction of which could have physical effects on the environment in comparison to the impact analysis of the General Plan Update EIR.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
A public services and recreation impact is considered significant if implementation of the Specific Plan would do any of the following:
 Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
 fire,
 police protection,
 schools,
 parks, and
 other public facilities;
 increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; and/or  include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

Ascent Public Services and Recreation
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.10-9

ISSUES NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
The Milpitas Public Library is the only public library located in the City of Milpitas. The Milpitas Public Library is part of the Santa Clara County Library District system. This enables the relatively small Milpitas Public Library to access all of the other libraries that are part of the Santa Clara County Library system to obtain information not found in the Milpitas Public Library, which has been requested by customers. The Specific Plan does not propose the construction of library facilities and is therefore no further analysis is included below.

All other thresholds discussed above are evaluated in this SEIR.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.10-1: Result in Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts Associated with the Provision of New Fire Facilities
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.13-1) determined that impacts related to the need for additional fire facilities would be less than significant. Similarly, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would alter the level of development within the Specific Plan Area, including the creation of additional housing opportunities that would increase the population in the area. All new development would be required to meet MFD standards and code requirements, such that substantial additional demand for service within the Specific Plan Area is not anticipated.

Further, the current level of calls for service at local fire stations does not indicate the potential need for an add itional fire station. As a result, the anticipated increase in population and development within the Specific Plan Area would not trigger the need for additional fire facilities. 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.

Impact 3.13-1 of the General Plan Update EIR identified that growth under the General Plan would trigger new public facilities (including fire facilities) to serve growth contemplated in the General Plan. The environmental impacts of building these facilities were programmatically evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR as part of overall development of the City. The General Plan includes a range of policies and actions to ensure that public services adequately accommodate growth, maintain community services and facilities, and that new development funds its fair share of services.

Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan could result in the redevelopment of existing land uses with denser and predominantly residential development. This would likely result in additional residents within the Specific Plan Area, which could increase the demand for fire protection services. The potential increase in activity in the Specific Plan Area and new uses in the area could result in an increase in calls for fire and emergency services beyond the amount currently experienced by the MFD. As stated above, Station 1 would be primarily responsible for responding to calls within the Specific Plan Area. All new development would be subject to review and approval by MFD prior to development to ensure adequate provision of fire protection within and around proposed structures. Further, growth associated with the proposed Specific Plan would not result in an expansion of the overall service area for MFD . As a result, growth under the Specific Plan would not exceed the demand of fire stations already anticipated within the General Plan Update EIR. Station 1 would receive assistance from the other surrounding stations (including Station 4 which is the next closest) that would accommodate the additional calls and activities needed to serve the Specific Plan Area’s population and uses.

Funding for fire protection services would come from a number of different sources, in a similar manner as police protection. All new development associated with implementation of the Specific Plan would be required to pay applicable development fees and property taxes that fund the City’s General Fund to assist in funding public services and facilities, including fire protection. Additionally, all development associated with implementation of the Specific Plan would be required to meet MFD standards related to access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, water flow, and other requirements. As noted above, MFD would review project construction plans and inspect the construction work as it progresses to ensure that future projects in the Specific Plan Area meet State

Public Services and Recreation Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.10-10 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR and local Building and Fire Code requirements. The proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with General Plan Policy SA 4-1 and Action SA 4b regarding adequate fire services, access, and fire prevention measures.

The proposed Specific Plan aims to provide fire and emergency services and facilities that support growth in the Specific Plan Area, while maintaining an adequate level of service in accordance proposed provisions identified in Section 7.7.1 of the Specific Plan, including conducting a “standards of cover” analysis to determine the Specific Plan’s precise impact on the Fire Department’s staffing and equipment, and any required facility needs. Standards would require the City to identify and evaluate potential sites for an expanded or new fire station near the Specific Plan Area if the standards of cover analysis determines it is warranted. This SEIR programmatically evaluated the construction impacts of potential public service facilities in regard to air quality, noise, and transportation as part of over development of the Specific Plan Area. Any additional public facilities constructed by the City would be proposed by the City at the time they are needed and would undergo separate environmental review .

Because additional facilities are not anticipated to be required to meet the fire protection needs of the Specific Plan Area in the future, there would be no physical environmental effects associated with facility construction or operation beyond what is analyzed in this SEIR. 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.

Impact 3.10-2: Result in Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts Associated with the Provision of New Police Facilities
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.13-1) determined that impacts related to the need for additional police facilities would be less than significant. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would increase the density of development within the Specific Plan area, including the creation of additional residential uses that would increase the population in the Specific Plan Area. While this could lead to an increased demand for police services, all new development would be required to contribute appropriate fees to the City’s General Fund for any potential expansion of staffing or facilities. Additionally, new development would contribute property tax revenues that would be allocated through the City’s General Fund for police protection services, both maintenance and expansion. As a result, the anticipated increase in population and development within the Specific Plan Area would not trigger the need for additional police facilities. 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.

Impact 3.13-1 of the General Plan Update EIR identified that growth under the General Plan would trigger new public facilities (including police facilities) to serve growth contemplated in the General Plan. The environmental impacts of building these facilities were programmatically evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR as part of overall development of the City. The General Plan includes a range of policies and actions to ensure that public services adequately accommodate growth, maintain community services and facilities, and that new development funds its fair share of services.

Implementation of the Specific Plan would increase residential development in the area. This would likely lead to an increase in residents, employees, and visitors to the area which could lead to an increased need for police protection services. As noted above, the Specific Plan Area is currently located less than 0.5 mile from the MPD station. MPD maintains a response time goal of under 4 minutes for any emergency calls for service, which it is currently achieving .

With the increase in population as a result of the Specific Plan, the police department might be required to hire more officers to meet that goal if calls for service increase. However, the growth anticipated as part of the Specific Plan would not increase the service area for MPD and would be located proximate to existing MPD facilities. The proposed Specific Plan’s provisions, identified in Section 7.8.1 of the Specific Plan, aim to provide adequate police services and facilities that ensure the safety of the community, through standards that require the MPD to hire additional police staff and purchase equipment to provide an adequate level of service—as determined by City Council—for the residents, workers, and visitors of the Specific Plan Area, as well as surrounding areas. New equipment is required to

Ascent Public Services and Recreation
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.10-11 be funded by the Community Facilities District and new staff paid from the City’s General Fund. All future projects within the Specific Plan Area would be required to pay the appropriate taxes and fees to finance the City’s General Fund. The General Fund would provide the necessary funding for personnel increases described above in order to maintain acceptable service ratios. As a result, no additional facilities, the construction of which could result in significant environmental impacts, are anticipated. The proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with General Plan Policy SA 4-1 law enforcement facility needs.

This SEIR programmatically evaluated the construction impacts of potential public service facilities in regard to air quality, noise, and transportation as part of over development of the Specific Plan Area. Any additional public facilities constructed by the City would be proposed by the City at the time they are needed and would undergo separate environmental review. 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.

Impact 3.10-3: Result in Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts Associated with the Provision of New School Facilities
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.13-1) determined that impacts related to the need for additional school facilities would be less than significant. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would increase the level of development within the Specific Plan Area, including additional residences that would increase population within the Specific Plan Area. This would result in potential additional students that would attend school in the area. With respect to the schools that currently serve the Specific Plan Area, none of the schools are considered at capacity or beyond prior service levels. Further, all development within the Specific Plan Area would be required to pay applicable school fees, which are deemed full and complete mitigation for impacts on schools. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact related to school facilities would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain
less than significant.

Impact 3.13-1 of the General Plan Update EIR identified that growth under the General Plan would trigger new public facilities (including public schools) to serve growth contemplated in the General Plan. The environmental impacts of building these facilities were programmatically evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR as part of overall development of the City. The General Plan includes a range of policies and actions (listed above) to ensure that public services adequately accommodate growth, maintain community services and facilities, and that new development funds its fair share of services.

Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in the development of future residential dwelling units where families with school age children could live. School facilities that currently serve the Specific Plan Area and the surrounding area include the six schools (Zanker Elementary School, Mabel Mattos Elementary School, Anthony Spangler Elementary School, Rancho Milpitas Middle School, Thomas Russell Middle School, and Milpitas High School) identified in Table 3.10-1. These schools provide education from K-12 for students in the area. Based on recent enrollment trends and noted capacities for these schools, there appears to be additional enrollment capacity at each of these schools; however, as also noted above, MUSD considers the district as a whole to be operati ng above capacity (MUSD 2024b). As mentioned above, current remodeling and renovation projects are being conducted by MUSD using funding from Measures AA and E, which is improving facilities to address needs at Milpitas High School Performing Arts Center, MUSD Innovation Campus, Mabel Mattos Elementary School, Randall Elementary School, Rose Elementary School and Milpitas High School.

MUSD has student generation numbers for the district divided by school level and single or multi -family (Table 3.10- 2). The numbers presented for student generation rates are based on the entire district and can vary based upon the size of the development. Development that may occur with implementation of the Specific Plan would lead to additional student generation that, based on current student generation rates, could exceed the remaining capacity of existing neighborhood schools in addition to further contributing to existing over-enrollment within MUSD. MUSD

Public Services and Recreation Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.10-12 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR incorporates a wide range of temporary measures to respond to changes in student enrollment at city schools that include but are not limited to splitting grade levels, temporarily transferring students to other schools with additional capacity, installation of temporary classrooms, and sending students to other neighboring school districts when appropriate. In addition, the proposed Specific Plan contains standards identified in Section 7.9.1 of the Specific Plan, that have been developed to ensure adequate school facilities are provided to accommodate the increase in new students. Standards include coordination with the MUSD on facilities needed to accommodate new students and define actions the City can take to assist or support them in their efforts; ensure that all school impact fees are paid from individual projects prior to the issuance of any building permits; and continue to monitor school enrollment numbers to ensure the existing schools have the resources they need to provide quality education to MUSD students.

As new development is proposed within the Specific Plan Area, all development within the Specific Plan Area would be required to pay applicable school fees, which are deemed full and complete mitigation for impacts on schools.

The most recent update to the MUSD School Facility Fees was approved in March 2024. Government Code Section 65995(h) states that the payment or satisfaction of a fee, charge, or other requirement levied or imposed under Section 17620 of the Education Code is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impact for the planning, use, development, or provision of adequate school facilities.

Table 3.10-2 Student Generation in the Specific Plan Area Beyond General Plan Buildout School Type Generation Rate Net Increase in Households
under the Specific Plan
Students Generated by Development
under the Specific Plan
Elementary (K-6) 0.224 5,176 848
Middle School (7-8) 0.059 5,176 223
High School (9-12) 0.132 5,176 500
Source: MUSD 2024b.

The schools that would serve the Specific Plan Area have the ability to accommodate the students generated from the proposed Specific Plan. The Specific Plan would not generate more students than those calculated by the MUSD student generation rates, and all future development within the Specific Plan Area would contribute appropriate funds towards school improvements. 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.

Impact 3.10-4: Result in Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts Associated with the Demand for or Provision of New Parks and Other Recreational Facilities The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.13-2) determined that impacts related to the need for additional parks or recreational facilities would be less than significant. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would increase the level of development within the Specific Plan Area, including increased residential dwelling units that would increase the population in the area, which would result in an increased demand for recreational facilities, including public parks. However, all development under the Specific Plan would be required to comply with General Plan Policies PROS 1-3 and 1-4, which requires provision of or submittal of in-lieu fees for park and recreational facilities, in order to maintain acceptable parkland ratios. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact related to parks and recreation would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than
significant.

Impact 3.13-2 of the General Plan Update EIR identified that growth under the General Plan would trigger the need for new park and recreation facilities to serve growth contemplated in the General Plan. The environmental impacts of building these facilities were programmatically evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR as part of overall development of the City. The General Plan includes a range of policies and actions to ensure that public services

Ascent Public Services and Recreation
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.10-13 adequately accommodate growth, maintain community services and facilities, and that new development funds its fair share of services.

Implementation of the Specific Plan would allow for redevelopment of the Specific Plan Area. New development that could occur as a result of implementation the Specific Plan include residential uses that would increase local population and could result in an increased demand for recreational opportunities in the area. However, the Specific Plan identifies new parks and plazas to support existing and future development in the Specific Plan Area for use by residents and to serve as district focal points for activity. Section 6.3.1 of the proposed Specific Plan identifies the proposed parks and plazas within the Specific Plan Area. The proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with General Plan Policy PROS 1-2 regarding the provision of diverse park facilities.

Based on a projected total population of 16,384 within the Specific Plan Area and based on the service level goal standards for the Specific Plan (3.5 acres/1,000 residents), 58 acres of community-serving and neighborhood-serving parks would be needed to meet the goals for the Specific Plan Area. Several acres of new parks and plazas are proposed as part of the plan (refer to Chapter 2, “Project Description”), including North Main Street Park, Crossroads Square, Carlo Park, Serra Center, Tom Evatt Park expansion, and South Railyards Park. The proposed Specific Plan supports creative solutions to providing neighborhood park and recreational facilities for urban areas, where land dedication is not reasonably feasible, such as providing community-serving recreational facilities in regional parks.

Therefore, because future development within the Specific Plan Area would be required to pay City park dedication fees and/or provide park land, impacts would be less than significant. 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.

Public Services and Recreation Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.10-14 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR This page is intentionally left blank.

Ascent Transportation
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.11-1

3.11 TRANSPORTATION
This section describes existing federal, state, and local transportation regulations and policies and discusses the existing roadway network and transportation facilities in the vicinity of the Specific Plan Area. The section summarizes transportation impacts in the Specific Plan Area, as described in the certified General Plan Update EIR and analyzes the potential transportation impacts from implementation of the proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (Specific Plan). Mitigation measures that would reduce impacts, where applicable, are also discussed. Information contained within this section is provided in the Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for the Environmental Review (VMT Report) (Fehr & Peers 2024), which is included as Appendix D and incorporated herein.

Pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 743, CEQA Section 21099, and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a), generally, a project’s effect on automobile delay is no longer considered when identifying impacts under CEQA. Instead, VMT has been identified as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. Therefore, the transportation analysis herein evaluates impacts using VMT and does not include a level of service (LOS) analysis .

The Draft EIR for the Milpitas General Plan Update (General Plan Update EIR) included Section 3.14, “Transportation,” which evaluated the potential effects of the adopted General Plan. The General Plan Update EIR concluded that there would be a less-than-significant impact related to bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, and transit facilities; emergency access; and transportation hazards (Impacts 3.14-1, 3.14-3, and 3.14-4, respectively). The General Plan Update EIR concluded that impacts related to VMT would be significant and unavoidable with implementation of all proposed General Plan policies and feasible mitigation measures.

Comments received regarding transportation in response to the Notice of Preparation included requests to consider fair share contributions toward multi-modal and regional transit improvements and consistency with applicable transportation plans, as well as the potential impacts to State right-of-way (ROW) related to construction. Because a project’s effects on automobile delay no longer constitute a significant impact under CEQA, comments related to automobile delay (e.g., LOS, congestion) are not addressed in this draft SEIR. All other comments are addressed in the analysis below. Comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation are presented in Appendix A of this SEIR. See Appendix A for all comments received.

3.11.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
Americans with Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides comprehensive rights and protections to individuals with disabilities. The goals of the ADA are to ensure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency. ADA guidelines address various issues, including roadway design practices; slope and terrain issues; and pedestrian access to streets, sidewalks, curb ramps, street furnishings, pedestrian signals, parking, and other components of public right-of-way.

STATE
California Department of Transportation
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the state agency responsible for the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of the California State Highway System, as well as the segments of the Interstate Highway System within California. Caltrans District 4 is responsible for the operation and maintenance of highways in the Specific Plan Area. Caltrans requires a transportation permit for any transport of heavy construction equipment or materials that necessitates the use of oversized vehicles on State highways, and an encroachment permit for any work within Caltrans ROW.

Transportation Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.11-2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Part 6: Temporary Traffic Control The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), Part 6: Temporary Traffic Control provides principles and guidance for the implementation of temporary traffic control to ensure the provision of reasonably safe and effective movement of all roadway users (e.g., motorists, bicyclists, pedestr ians) through or around temporary traffic control zones while reasonably protecting road users, workers, responders to traffic incidents, and equipment. Additionally, this document notes that temporary traffic control plans and devices shall be the responsibility of the public body or official having jurisdiction to guide road users (Caltrans 2024: 1029).

California Transportation Impact Study Guide
The Caltrans Transportation Impact Study Guide was prepared to provide guidance to Caltrans districts, lead agencies, tribal governments, developers, and consultants regarding Caltrans review of a land use project or plan’s transportation analysis using a VMT metric. The Transportation Impact Study Guide is intended to be a reference and informational document, and its guidance is not binding on public agencies (Caltrans 2020a: 3).

Interim Local Development Intergovernmental Review Safety Practitioners Guide The purpose of the Interim Local Development Intergovernmental Review (LDIGR) Safety Review Practitioners Guidance is to provide instructions to Caltrans personnel, lead agencies, developers, and consultants conducting safety reviews for proposed land use projects and plans affecting the state highway system. The LDIGR guidance establishes the safety impact review expectations for Caltrans and lead agencies to comply with CEQA; however, it does not establish thresholds of significance for determining safety impacts (Caltrans 2020b). The LDIGR guidance can also be used by lead agencies, developers, and consultants as a model for analyzing the safety impacts of proposed land use projects and plans on local roadways. The LDIGR guidance prioritizes vulnerable users and communities; enhances safety for pedestrians, bicycle, transit, and vehicular modes; and applies both reactive and systemic perspectives.

Encroachment Permits Manual
The Caltrans Encroachment Permits Manual provides information on the permitting process, describes departmental policies, and maintains uniform methods and procedures related to the issuance of encroachment permits. Section TR-0045 of the Encroachment Permits Manual describes the general provisions of a Caltrans encroachment permit including standards of construction, pedestrian and bicyclist safety, and requirements for public traffic control (Caltrans 2022).

California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications The Caltrans Standard Specifications provide detailed requirements and guidelines for the construction of transportation projects in California. These specifications cover a wide range of topics, including materials, construction methods, testing procedures, and quality assurance measures. They are intended to ensure that transportation projects in the state are built to high standards and meet the necessary safety and performance criteria. Contractors, engineers, and other stakeholders involved in transportation projects funded or managed by Caltrans must adhere to these specifications during the planning, design, and construction phases. The specifications are periodically updated to reflect changes in technology, industry best practices, and regulatory re quirements.

District 4 Bike Plan
Some state highways allow bicycling though many lack low-stress facilities and crossings that meet the needs of a wide range of cyclists. The Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan adopts the overall vision, goals, objectives, and strategies of the State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan; identifies infrastructure improvements that can enhance bicycle safety and mobility throughout District 4; and aims to remove barriers to bicycling in the region (Caltrans 2018: 1).

District 4 Pedestrian Plan
The Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan identifies the challenges and needs related to walking along and across Caltrans roadways in District 4. The plan implements the vision statement and goals in the State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and complements the District 4 Bike Plan (Caltrans 2021a: 5). The plan includes a prioritized list and map of location-based pedestrian needs and a toolkit with strategies to address identified needs.

Ascent Transportation
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.11-3 California Transportation Plan
The California Transportation Plan 2050 is a roadmap for achieving a safe, resilient, and universally accessible transportation system and includes goals, objectives, and performance measures to guide state and regional transportation planning (Caltrans 2021b). The following goals and objectives are relevant to the analysis of the project:
 Accessibility: Improve multimodal mobility and access to destinations for all users.  Objective 1: Increase access to destinations. Accessibility can be improved not only through transportation system enhancements, but through compact, diverse land uses that support multiple modes and facilitate shorter and more convenient trips.
 Objective 3: Provide integrated and seamless travel connections. Many Californians use multiple modes of transportation to reach their destinations. Integrating and connecting these modes, as well as addressing gaps in the existing transportation network, is essential to improving the convenience and reliability of travel throughout the state.  Quality of Life & Public Health: Enable vibrant, healthy communities.  Objective 1: Expand access to healthy transportation options. This objective seeks to reduce dependence on the single occupant vehicle and ensure that people have access to safe and healthy travel options such as biking, walking, and transit.

California Code of Regulations Section 15064.3
On December 28, 2018, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 was introduced to address the determination of significance for transportation impacts. This amendment mandates that transportation analyses be based on VMT rather than congestion metrics, such as level of service. The shift in focus was a direct response to legislation, notably SB 743, passed in 2013, that required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop new State CEQA Guidelines that address traffic metrics under CEQA. As stated in the legislation, upon adoption of the new guidelines, “automobile delay, as described solely by LOS or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to this division, except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.” Following approval by the Office of Administrative Law, the updated State CEQA Guidelines took effect statewide on July 1, 2020, implementing the provisions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. As a result, VMT analysis has become a crucial component of project evaluations under CEQA. Therefore, VMT is considered in the analysis of the proposed Specific Plan.

In December 2018, OPR published the most recent version of the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory), which provides guidance for VMT analysis. The OPR Technical Advisory provides guidance related to screening thresholds for small projects to indicate when detailed analysis is needed or if a project can be presumed to result in a less-than-significant VMT impact. The OPR Technical Advisory notes that projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less- than- significant transportation impact, absent substantial evidence indicated otherwise (OPR 2018). Section 15064.3(b)(3), Qualitative Analysis, states that if existing models or methods are not available to estimate the VMT for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project’s VMT qualitatively. Additionally, as detailed in the OPR Technical Advisory, “active transportation projects generally reduce VMT and therefore are presumed to cause a less-than-significant impact on transportation” (OPR 2018: 23).

California Fire Code
The 2022 California Fire Code, which is codified at Part 9 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), incorporates by adoption the 2021 International Fire Code and contains regulations related to construction, maintenance, access, and use of buildings. Topics addressed in the California Fire Code include design standards for fire apparatus access (e.g., turning radii, minimum widths), standards for emergency access during construction, provisions intended to protect and assist fire responders, and several 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. The California Building St andards Code, including the California Fire Code, is revised and published every 3 years by the California Building Standards Commission.

Transportation Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.11-4 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR

REGIONAL
Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is a regional planning agency that includes the nine- county Bay Area region and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the metropolitan planning organization governing the nine-county Bay Area region consisting of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties, and their 101 cities, including the City of Milpitas . ABAG and MTC are jointly responsible for the preparation of, and updates to, the metropolitan transportation plan/sustainable communities strategy (MTP/SCS) and the associated Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP).

Adopted in October 2021, the Plan Bay Area 2050 MTP/SCS provides a vision for growth and investment in the Bay Area region through 2050. The three primary transportation strategies of the MTP/SCS fall into three themes:
maintain and optimize the existing transportation system; create healthy and safe streets; and build a next-generation transit network (MTC 2021).

Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program
MTC, the federally designated metropolitan planning organization for the region, prepares and adopts the MTIP every four years. The MTIP is a short-term listing of surface transportation projects that receive federal funds, are subject to a federally required action, or are regionally significant. MTC adopted the 2023 -2026 MTIP, which covers four years of programming, in September 2022. The project listing in the MTIP provides a detailed description for each individual project in the 2023-2026 MTIP, including those in Santa Clara County and the City of Milpitas.

Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) operates light rail, bus, and paratransit services throughout Santa Clara County and serves as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA).

Congestion Management Program
As the CMA for Santa Clara County, VTA is responsible for maintaining the County’s Congestion Management Program (CMP). The CMP’s goal is to develop a transportation improvement program to improve multimodal transportation system performance, land use decision-making, and air quality among local jurisdictions (VTA 2021).

The primary elements of the 2021 CMP are as follows:
 a system definition and traffic LOS standard element,  a multimodal performance measures element,
 a transportation demand management and trip reduction element,  a land use impact analysis element,
 a Capital Improvement Program,
 development of a countywide transportation model, and  development of Multimodal Improvement Plans (VTA 2021).

Valley Transportation Plan
The VTA Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2040 was adopted in October 2014. The VTP provides a long-range vision for the Santa Clara County transportation system (VTA 2014). The VTP describes all major projects, programs, and initiatives expected to occur over the next 25 years and will help the County achieve the goals established in the regional transportation plan. It prioritizes complete streets, express lanes, light rail effectiveness upgrades, bus rapid transit, and bicycle and pedestrian improvements.

Ascent Transportation
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.11-5 Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan
The Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan was adopted in May 2018. The plan envisions a safe, convenient, and connected network of bikeways across Santa Clara County and establishes a network of cross county bikeway corridors that would provide continuous and complete bike connections across the county (VTA 2018).

Bus Stop and Facility Criteria and Standards
The VTA Bus Stop & Passenger Facility Design Criteria and Standards provides uniform criteria and standards for the design and construction of bus-related facilities (e.g., bus shelters, bus stop signs) and amenities (e.g., lighting, seating) in the VTA transit service area (VTA 2020: 3). The design criteria for bus stop and passenger facility includes design for safety, accessibility, ease of operation, positive transit experience, traffic compatibility, and ease of maintenance (VTA 2020: 6).

LOCAL
City of Milpitas
General Plan
The City of Milpitas General Plan 2040 (General Plan 2040) (City of Milpitas 2021a) is the guiding long-term plan and policy document for physical development in the city through 2040. General Plan 2040 provides goals and policies for the Gateway-Main Street Area to create a mixed-use neighborhood with a variety of residential, commercial, civic, and cultural uses in a compact, walkable, and centralized setting. The General Plan 2040 includes the following policies and actions related to transportation that are applicable to the project:
 Policy LU 3-2: Continue to utilize planning tools (including specific plans and overlay districts) that promote transit-oriented and mixed-use development near the Milpitas Transit Center.  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 support 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.
 Action SA-3e: As part of the development review process, consult with the police and fire departments in order to ensure that the project provides adequate emergency access.  Policy CIR 1-1: Prioritize and measure infrastructure and facility safety on streets and public rights -of-way.  Policy CIR 1-2: Ensure that the City’s transportation system supports planned land uses and removes barriers to all types of transportation options as envisioned in the Land Use Element.  Policy CIR 1-3: Promote interconnectivity of the transportation network in existing and new developments and actively measure the quality of conditions in neighborhoods to better understand what barriers exist in order to support use of and access to the network.
 Policy CIR 1-4: Coordinate development of safe, inclusive, and health-promoting transportation infrastructure with local, county, regional, and state agencies to optimize efficiency of the transportation network for all users and increase opportunities for physical activity for all types of users.  Policy CIR 1-5: Encourage reduced block size in new developments to develop a grid or modified grid network to enhance walkability.

Transportation Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.11-6 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR  Policy CIR 1-11: Maintain acceptable service standards for all major streets and intersections for all modes of transportation, with an emphasis on comfort and safety to increase choices for pedestrians and people who ride bicycles. Examples of multimodal evaluation considerations may include tradeoffs between addition of turn lanes and the resulting impacts to continuity of bike lanes or increases in pedestrian crossing distance and delay.  Policy CIR 1-12: Identify strategies to maximize person throughput to support the efficient and safe mobility of people, regardless of transportation mode. Approaches to achieving this may include transportation systems management (TSM), intelligent transportation systems (ITS), traffic signal coordination, and transit signal priority.  Policy CIR 2-1: Promote multimodal transportation options by developing an interconnected system of streets, roads, bridges, and highways that provides continuous, efficient, safe, and convenient travel for all users regardless of mode, age, or ability, and encourage users to walk, ride a bicycle, or use transit for shorter, local trips.  Policy CIR 2-2: Design intersections to safely and comfortably accommodate all transportation modes and users, especially those who are disproportionately impacted by health, income, or access disparities.  Policy CIR 2-3: Seek opportunities to implement and assess traffic calming strategies that reduce vehicle speeds and establish a safer, more comfortable environment for pedestrians and bicyclists.  Policy CIR 2-4: To enhance the City’s multimodal network in a cost-effective and forward-thinking manner, view all public capital improvement projects as opportunities to enhance mobility, access, health and safety for all modes of transportation, especially for those who are more vulnerable.  Policy CIR 2-7: Provide inclusive and diverse wayfinding measures to provide directional guidance for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders.
 Policy CIR 3-1: Coordinate with VTA and [Bay Area Rapid Transit] BART to design and implement capital improvements that support safety and access to rail stations and bus stops.  Policy CIR 3-2: Coordinate transit planning and provision of transit-supportive infrastructure with Caltrans, VTA, BART, and other service providers to provide seamless service for users across transit modes and to facilitate transfers.
 Policy CIR 3-3: Work with local stakeholders and VTA to ensure that paratransit services adequately meet the needs of people with disabilities in Milpitas.
 Policy CIR 3-4: Ensure that all transit-supportive infrastructure, sidewalks, and bike lanes are adequately maintained to provide high-quality facilities for users.  Policy CIR 4-1: Encourage a shift to active transportation modes by expanding and enhancing current pedestrian and bicycle facilities to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists of all ages and abilities and encourage all users to reduce vehicle trips and utilize active transportation options with an increase in density of pedestrian and bicycle-supportive infrastructure.
 Policy CIR 4-2: Link and expand City pedestrian and bicycle circulation facilities to existing and planned local and regional networks with an emphasis on expanding infrastructure options near transit.  Policy CIR 4-3: Encourage walking, biking, and transit use by prioritizing and implementing “first-mile/last -mile” improvements, wayfinding and education efforts in the vicinity of the Great Mall transit center, light rail stations, the BART station, and heavily used bus stops.
 Policy CIR 4-4: Provide secure bicycle parking and end-of-trip support facilities (publicly accessible lockers, changing rooms, and showers) at centers of civic, retail, recreation, education, and work activity.  Policy CIR 4-5: Support building bridges or under-crossings across creek channels, railroad lines, and roadways in a manner that will enhance safety, improve network connectivity, and facilitate bicycling and walking between high-density residential developments, retail centers, civic buildings, and recreational centers.  Policy CIR 4-6: Eliminate gaps in the pedestrian and bicycle network, especially between neighborhoods, trails that access schools, and areas with higher health disparities.

Ascent Transportation
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.11-7  Policy CIR 5-4: Encourage developers to provide enhanced Transportation Demand Management programs and alternative transportation infrastructure that exceeds minimum requirements in exchange for reduced parking requirements, with a focus on priority development areas and locations in proximity to high -capacity transit.  Policy CIR 6-2: Support development of healthier communities through the use of lower- or non-polluting modes of transportation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) vehicle emissions and local air pollution levels.  Policy CIR 6-3: Encourage walking and bicycling as strategies to promote public health and reduce the long -term transportation costs of owning and maintaining a vehicle.  Policy CIR 6-7: Develop impact fees to provide revenues to be used to construct pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure that will support new development.
 Policy CIR 7-4: Ensure that construction detour routes provide safe and convenient access for users of all modes of transportation, including people with disabilities.

Climate Action Plan Update
The City of Milpitas Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted in 2022 and identifies the near- and long-term strategies for reducing community-wide greenhouse gas emissions and meeting State climate goals. The CAP Update includes the following measures related to transportation (City of Milpitas 2022a).  Measure TR-1.1: Reduce VMT from new development in compliance with SB 743.  Measure TR-1.2: Reduce VMT from existing development.  Action TR-1.2.3: Require employers of 50 or more employees to implement vehicle trip reduction programs and limit car commutes to 40 percent of their workforce by 2030.  Measure TR-1.3: Continue to implement and adopt policies that support high-density, mixed-use, and transit- oriented development and housing near jobs.
 Action TR-1.3.4: Support high levels of ridership at the Milpitas BART station by encouraging higher density, mixed uses, and connectivity along transit corridors and at transit nodes. Promote the increase of density and mixed uses in key opportunity areas.
 Measure TR-3.1: Enhance and expand transit facilities and infrastructure.  Action TR-3.1.2: Ensure a pedestrian-friendly environment around the Milpitas BART and light rail stations.  Measure TR-3.3: Improve active transportation options.  Action TR-3.3.1: Require all new development other than single family to provide short-term and long-term bicycle parking facilities to meet peak season maximum demand.  Action TR-3.3.3: Require new nonresidential development projects to provide “end-of-trip” facilities for cyclists, including showers, secure bicycle lockers, and charging spaces.

Transportation Analysis Guidelines
The City of Milpitas Transportation Analysis Guidelines (TAG) are intended to assist applicants with assessing the potential transportation impacts of proposed projects within the city (City of Milpitas 2022b). The TAG establishes screening criteria, thresholds for VMT impacts, guidelines for mitigation to reduce VMT consistent with SB 743. The TAG recommends the following thresholds of significance (City of Milpitas 2022b: 9-10, 25):
 Conflicts with a plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system. A significant impact could be identified if proposed projects fail to conform to the policies in the following guiding documents:
 Milpitas General Plan;
 Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan;
 Milpitas Transit Area Specific Plan;

Transportation Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.11-8 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR  Milpitas Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plan; and  Congestion Management Program.
 VMT Impacts:
 The Santa Clara County Areawide reference average VMT baseline and a 15 percent threshold of significance for both residential and office projects.
 Retail projects which would result in a net increase in total VMT is a significant VMT impact; however, retail projects determined by the City to be local service are exempt from VMT analysis. In all cases, retail projects larger than 100,000 square feet may be considered regional-serving and would be subject to the retail threshold of significance.
 Mixed-use and all other project types: Each land use within a mixed-use project, and all other project types, shall be evaluated independently by applying the most appropriate threshold of significance to each land use type being proposed.
 Transportation Hazard Impact: Consistency with this item can be demonstrated in transportation conditions that are consistent with adopted geometric design practices (e.g., Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Complete Streets, CA-MUTCD for traffic control devices and signage). In addition, the City of Milpitas has adopted transportation standards in the Municipal Code.
 Emergency Access Impact: A project may result in inadequate emergency access if it includes modifications to the existing transportation network, which would potentially impact emergency access response times. However, a project could demonstrate compliance with requirements contained in the City’s Design and Construction Standards, which include requirements for emergency access.

In addition to thresholds of significance, the City TAG also establishes four tiers of mitigation to reduce VMT. Projects that do not meet applicable screening criteria are required to evaluate VMT and must demonstrate that the project VMT meets the applicable thresholds. If mitigation is required, a project must propose mitigation from Tier 2 and then propose any additional mitigation from Tier 3 and Tier 4 (City of Milpitas 2022b: 17). To mitigate from Tier 1, further coordination with City staff would be required. The four tiers of mitigation are detailed below (City of Milpitas 2022b: 16):
 Tier 1: Project Characteristics. Although it may be difficult to revise a project during environmental review, Tier 1 strategies allow the user to increase the project density, diversity of land uses, and add affordable and/or below market rate housing to the residential and employment projects to reduce VMT.  Tier 2: Multimodal Network Improvements. These improvements include implementing bicycle lanes, improving the pedestrian network, implementing traffic calming, increasing transit accessibility, and improving network connectivity. These improvements require coordination with Mountain View staff and additional studies (signal warrant studies, traffic calming studies, etc.) to determine feasibility. Ideally, consultants should use the City’s approved plans which contain various transportation improvements to bicycle, pedestrian, and roadway facilities as VMT mitigation.
 Tier 3: Parking. Parking strategies shown to effectively reduce VMT include reduced parking, increased bike parking, or end-of-trip bike facilities. To be most effective, the areas surrounding the projects with reduced parking should have parking permit programs.
 Tier 4: Travel Demand Management (TDM). There are a multitude of TDM measures to reduce VMT. The Santa Clara County VMT Evaluation Tool (the tool) assesses a project’s potential VMT based on the project description, location, and attributes and can be used to evaluate most residential and employment projects. The tool includes all allowable TDM measures and their relative effectiveness. Based on the percentage participation selected by the user, the tool calculates the resulting VMT reduction. The various TDM measures in the tool include school carpool programs, bike-sharing programs, car-sharing programs, trip reduction marketing/educational campaign, parking cash-out, subsidized transit, telecommuting, alternative work schedules, shuttles, pay to park, ridesharing, unbundled parking, and subsidized vanpool.

Ascent Transportation
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.11-9 Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Milpitas Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan (TPBMP) provides a vision and action plan to improve safety and provide convenient modes of active transportation. Specifically, the TPBMP aims to create a complete, interconnected system of paved shared-use paths, on-street bikeways, and pedestrian improvements to support travel in and around the city (City of Milpitas 2021b: 19). The TPBMP is consistent with and supports the goals and policies included in the General Plan Circulation Element.

3.11.2 Environmental Setting
This section describes the existing environmental setting, which is the baseline scenario upon which project -specific impacts are evaluated. The environmental setting for transportation includes baseline descriptions for roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

ROADWAY SYSTEM
The Specific Plan Area encompasses a network of state, county, and city roadways. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) classifies urban and rural roadways by road function. The functional classification of roadways defines the role each element of the roadway network plays in serving the transportation system (FHWA 2023).

FHWA defines each roadway classification as follows:
 Interstates: Interstates are the highest classification of arterials and were designed and constructed with mobility and long-distance travel in mind.
 Other Freeways and Expressways: Roadways in this functional classification category look very similar to interstates. While there can be regional differences in the use of the terms “freeway” and “expressway,” for the purpose of functional classification, the roads in this classification have directional travel lanes, are usually separated by some type of physical barrier, and their access and egress points are limited to on - and off-ramp locations or a very limited number of at-grade intersections.  Other Principal Arterials: These roadways serve major centers of metropolitan areas, provide a high degree of mobility, and can also provide mobility through rural areas. Unlike their access -controlled counterparts, abutting land uses can be served directly.
 Minor arterials: Minor arterials provide service for trips of moderate length, serve geographic areas that are smaller than their higher arterial counterparts, and offer connectivity to the higher arterial system. In an urban context, they provide intra-community connectivity and may carry local bus routes.  Major and Minor Collectors: Collectors serve a critical role in the roadway network by gathering traffic from local roads and funneling them to the arterial network.
 Local Roads: Locally classified roads account for the largest percentage of all roadways in terms of mileage. They are not intended for use in long distance travel, except at the origin or destination end of the trip, due to their provision of direct access to abutting land (FHWA 2023).

Access to the Specific Plan Area is provided by a network of State, County, and City roadways. Major roadways in the vicinity of the Specific Plan Area are described below (Fehr & Peers 2022).

Freeways/State Highways:
 I-680 connects the City of San José to I-80 through the Cities of Milpitas, Dublin, Walnut Creek, and Fairfield. I- 680 is fully grade separated with at least three lanes per direction through the City of Milpitas. A high -occupancy toll lane is present in the southbound direction for most of the roadway in Milpitas. Interchanges with Calaveras Boulevard and Montague Expressway provide direct access to the Specific Plan Area.  I-880 is a north-south interstate highway extending north from the I-280/I-880/SR 17 interchange in San José to Oakland. The interstate has three general purpose lanes. Between Oakland and Milpitas, it has one high-

Transportation Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.11-10 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR occupancy toll lane in each direction and between Milpitas and San José, one high -occupancy vehicle lane. I-880 provides access to the Main Campus via First Street.
 State Route (SR) 237/Calaveras Boulevard is an east-west highway that connects I-680 to I-880, continuing west to connect to US 101 in the City of Mountain View. Between I-680 and I-880, SR 237 is a six-lane arterial roadway (Calaveras Boulevard) which transitions into a fully grade separated highway west of I-880, at the western edge of the Specific Plan Area. On the eastern side of the Specific Plan Area, SR 237/Calaveras Boulevard is grade- separated due to the presence of railroad tracks.

County Expressways:
 Montague Expressway is an east-west express way that connects US 101 and the San Tomas Expressway in the City of San José to McCarthy Boulevard, I-880, Great Mall Parkway, and I-680 in the City of Milpitas. Montague Expressway extends east of I-680 as Landess Road.

Arterial and Collector Roadways:
 Abel Street is a north-south arterial that connects North Milpitas Avenue, West Calaveras Boulevard/SR 237, the Great Mall Parkway, and South Main Street. It extends east of North Milpitas Avenue as Jacklin Road.  Great Mall Parkway is an east-west arterial roadway that connects I-880 to South Abel Street, South Main Street, and the Montague Expressway. Great Mall Parkway extends west of I-880 as East Tasman Drive and east of Montague Expressway as North Capitol Avenue.
 Calaveras Boulevard is designated as an arterial by the City of Milpitas and is also a part of SR 237, as detailed above.
 Main Street is a collector roadway from Serra Way to South Abel Road, where it transitions to an arterial roadway and connects to Montague Expressway.
 Serra Way is a collector roadway that connects West Calaveras Boulevard to South Abel Street and South Main Street.

Local Roadways:

Key local roadways in the Specific Plan Area include:
 Weller Lane,
 Carlo Street,
 Junipero Drive,
 Corning Avenue,
 Sylvia Avenue,
 Machado Avenue,
 Curtis Avenue,
 South Abbott Drive,
 Thompson Street,
 Railroad Avenue, and
 Hammond Way.

TRANSIT SYSTEM
Public transit service in the City is provided by various agencies. Local and regional transit organizations offer a variety of transit options including buses, on-demand rideshare services, passenger rail, paratransit, and light rail.

Service is provided with varying frequency and cost. Figure 3.11-1 shows the existing transit routes in the vicinity of the Specific Plan Area and Table 3.11-1 summarizes the existing hours of operation and headways for the existing transit services in the Specific Plan Area.

Ascent Transportation
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.11-11

Source: Fehr & Peers 2024.

Figure 3.11-1 Existing Transit Services

Transportation Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.11-12 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR VTA operates light rail transit, bus, and paratransit services throughout Santa Clara County. VTA Bus Routes 44/47, 66, 71, and Express 104 operate within the Specific Plan Area. In addition, the Specific Plan Area is located approximately 0.5 miles from the Milpitas Transit Center which serves VTA Routes 20, 60, 70, 77, and 104. The VTA orange light rail line operates along Great Mall Parkway south of the Specific Plan Area. The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) orange light rail transit line (Richmond to Berryessa/North San José) and green light rail transit line (Daly City to Berryessa/North San José) also operate alongside the eastern frontage of the Specific Plan Area (BART 2023).

Alameda-Contra Costa and Altamont Commuter Express Transit District also offer transit services near the Specific Plan Area.

In addition to fixed-route transit services, the Specific Plan Area is also served by on-demand transit. Simple Mobile Access to Reliable Transit (SMART) provides on-demand rideshare service from various pick-up/drop-off locations and provides first- and last-mile connections to/from the Milpitas BART Station and VTA bus and light rail stations.

VTA also offers Access Paratransit, a reservation-based service that operates during the regularly scheduled operating hours of bus and light rail routes.

Table 3.11-1 Existing Transit Services within the Vicinity of the Specific Plan Area Route From To
Weekdays
Operating
Hours1
Weekdays
Peak
Headway
Saturday
Operating
Hours1
Saturday
Headway
Sunday
Operating
Hours1
Sunday
Headway
VTA
Route 20 Milpitas Transit
Center
Sunnyvale
Transit Center
5:45 a.m. -
8:20 p.m.
30 minutes No Weekend
Services
No Weekend
Services

Route 44 Milpitas Transit
Center
McCarthy Ranch
Shopping
Center
6:00 a.m. -
8:30 p.m.
30 minutes 7:30 a.m. –
8:00 p.m.
45 minutes 8:15 a.m. –
6:15 p.m.
60 minutes
Route 47 Milpitas Transit
Center
McCarthy Ranch
Shopping
Center
7:00 a.m. –
8:00 p.m.
30 minutes 7:50 a.m. –
6:50 p.m.
60 minutes 8:45 a.m. –
5:45 p.m.
60 minutes
Route 60 Milpitas Transit
Center
Winchester
Station
5:30 a.m. –
11:30 p.m.
15 minutes 6:30 a.m. –
11:30 p.m.
30 minutes 7:15 a.m. –
11:30 p.m..
30 minutes
Route 66 North Milpitas Kaiser San José 5:15 a.m. –
11:00 p.m.
15 minutes 6:00 a.m. –
10:45 p.m.
20 minutes 6:00 a.m. –
11:00 p.m.
20 minutes
Route 70 Milpitas Transit
Center
Capital Station 6:00 a.m. –
10:30 p.m.
30 minutes 6:30 a.m. –
9:30 p.m.
40 minutes 7:00 a.m. –
9:00 p.m.
30 minutes
Route 71 Milpitas Transit
Center
Eastridge
Transit Center
5:25 a.m. –
11:45 p.m.
15 minutes 6:30 a.m. -
11:45 p.m.
30 minutes 7:30 a.m. -
10:45 p.m.
30 minutes
Route 77 Milpitas Transit
Center
Eastridge
Transit Center
5:45 a.m. –
11:45 p.m.
15 minutes 7:15 a.m. -
11:45 p.m.
20 minutes 7:20 a.m. –
10:45 p.m.
30 minutes
Route 104 Milpitas Transit
Center
Stanford
Research Park
6:10 a.m. –
7:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m. –
4:30 p.m.
30 minutes No Weekend
Services
No Weekend
Services

VTA Light Rail
Orange Line Mountain View Alum Rock 5:30 a.m. –
10:55 p.m.
20 minutes 6:00 a.m. –
10:55 p.m.
30 minutes 6:00 a.m. –
10:55 p.m.
30 minutes
AC Transit
Route 217 Fremont BART Milpitas Transit
Center
6:10 a.m. –
9:40 p.m.
30 minutes 7:00 a.m. –
9:30 p.m.
30 minutes 7:00 a.m. –
9:30 p.m.
30 minutes

Ascent Transportation
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.11-13 Route From To
Weekdays
Operating
Hours1
Weekdays
Peak
Headway
Saturday
Operating
Hours1
Saturday
Headway
Sunday
Operating
Hours1
Sunday
Headway
ACE Shuttle
Purple Shuttle Great America
ACE Amtrak
Station
McCarthy Ranch
Shopping
Center
6:10 a.m. –
9:30 a.m.,
3:10-6:15 p.m.
60 minutes No Weekend
Services
No Weekend
Services

Violet Shuttle Great America
ACE Amtrak
Station
North East
Medical Services
6:10 a.m. to
9:30 a.m.,
3:10 p.m. to
5:00 p.m.
60 minutes No Weekend
Services
No Weekend
Services

BART
Berryessa-
Richmond Line
(Orange)
Berryessa/
North San José
Richmond 5:00 a.m. –
11:45 p.m.
15 minutes 6:00 a.m. to
11:50 p.m.
20 minutes 8:00 a.m. –
11:50 p.m.
20 minutes
Berryessa-Daly
City Line
(Green)
Berryessa/
North San José
Daly City 4:45 a.m. to
6:45 p.m.
20 minutes 5:45 a.m. –
6:45 p.m.
20 minutes 7:45 a.m. –
6:45 p.m.
20 minutes
Notes: VTA = Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority; AC = Alameda-Contra Costa Transit; ACE = Altamont Commuter Express; BART = Bay Area Rapid Transit.
1 Times rounded up to 5 nearest 5-minute increment.

Sources: VTA 2024; BART 2024; AC Transit 2024.

BICYCLE SYSTEM
Bicycle facilities (e.g., designated bicycle lanes, routes, and paths) are located along many of the city roads in the vicinity of the Specific Plan Area. Caltrans classifies bicycle facilities into the following types (Caltrans 2020c):
 Class I Shared-Use Paths: Paths completely separated from motor vehicle traffic used by people walking and biking, making them comfortable for people of all ages and abilities. Typically located immediately adjacent and parallel to a roadway or in its own independent ROW.
 Class II Bicycle Lanes: A dedicated lane for bicycle travel adjacent to traffic. A painted white line separates the bicycle lane from motor vehicle traffic.
 Class III Signed Bicycle Routes: Streets with signs and/or pavement markings that indicate people biking share the travel lane with motor vehicles.
 Class IV Bikeways: A bikeway for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation between the separated bikeway and the through vehicular traffic. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible barriers, or on-street parking.

As of 2021, the existing bicycle network in the City included nearly 50 miles of bicycle lanes, including 8 miles of paved shared use paths (Class I), 25 miles of bike lanes (Class II), and 15 miles of designated bike routes (Class III) (City of Milpitas 2021b: Table 7). Figure 3.11-2 shows the existing and proposed bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the Specific Plan Area. There is an existing Class I path adjacent to Machado Avenue between Thompson Street and Main Street. There are Class II bike lanes present along Main Street between Calaveras Boulevard and Great Mall Parkway, along Abel Street between Corning Avenue and Great Mall Parkway, and along Great Mall Parkway on the southern border of the Specific Plan Area. In addition, there are Class III bike routes along Abel Street, north of Corning Avenue (City of Milpitas 2021b: Figure 27).

Transportation Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.11-14 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR

Source: Fehr & Peers 2024.

Figure 3.11-2 Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network

Ascent Transportation
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.11-15

PEDESTRIAN NETWORK
The pedestrian network in the City of Milpitas includes trails, park paths, sidewalks, crosswalks, crossing signals, pedestrian signal heads, and other features that support the safety and comfort of people walking and rolling (City of Milpitas 2021b: 31). Most streets within the Specific Plan Area provide sidewalks on both sides of the roadway; however, roadway segments with missing sidewalks or sidewalks on only one side include: Carlo Street (no sidewalk along the southern side), Serra Street (sidewalk gaps on the southern side), and Calaveras Boulevard (no sidewalk between Carlo Street and Milpitas Boulevard). There is also a pedestrian-activated flashing beacon on Main Street at Tom Evatt Park (Fehr & Peers 2022).

3.11.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section describes the analysis techniques, assumptions, and results used to identify potential significant impacts of the project on the transportation system. Transportation impacts are described and assessed, and mitigation measures are recommended for impacts identified as significant or potentially significant.

METHODOLOGY
The following methodologies were used to evaluate the impacts of the proposed Specific Plan.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Analysis
The bicycle and pedestrian analyses evaluate if the Specific Plan would, either directly or indirectly, disrupt existing bicycle or pedestrian programs or facilities; interfere with the implementation of a planned facility; or create a physical or operational transportation outcomes that conflict with applicable bicycle or pedestrian system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards.

Transit Analysis
The transit analysis evaluates if the Specific Plan would, directly or indirectly, disrupt existing transit services or facilities or interfere with the implementation of a planned transit facility.

Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
This analysis is based on the VMT Report prepared by Fehr & Peers (Appendix D). Consistent with the City’s TAG, the City of Milpitas Travel Model was used to develop the VMT forecasts for this analysis. The analysis used the City of Milpitas Travel Model received from Kittelson & Associates for the Milpitas Metro Specific Plan, which is based on the VTA/City/County of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) Bi-County Travel Model. This version of the City of Milpitas Travel Model uses 2015 as its base year, and 2040 as its cumulative horizon year. To reflect 2020 as the base year for the analysis, the model was interpolated between 2015 and 2040. Kittelson had updated the model to include the full buildout of the Milpitas General Plan (which includes the Midtown Specific Plan) and Milpitas Metro Specific Plan in 2040.

The City of Milpitas Travel Model extends south beyond the Bay Area regional boundary into the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments region (i.e., Santa Cruz County, Monterey County, and San Benito County) and east into San Joaquin County. However, the City of Milpitas Travel Model stops at the Bay Area regional boundary and does not include inter-regional travel to Mendocino County, Lake County, Yolo County, and Merced County, resulting in shortened vehicle travel to those counties. This truncation results in a lower total project generated VMT estimate for the region and Santa Clara County affecting baseline regional and/or county baseline VMT values used to establish VMT thresholds. Therefore, the California statewide travel demand model was used to estimate and forecast trip lengths that occur outside the City of Milpitas Travel Model boundary. These trip lengths have been appended to the external stations and are reflected in the VMT estimates and forecasts contained in this analysis. See Appendix D for details.

Transportation Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.11-16 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Consistent with City TAG, the VMT Report analyzed both project-generated VMT and the project effect on VMT as described below:
 Project-generated VMT presents trips and trip distances of specific trips associated with the Specific Plan.  Project effect on VMT is an estimate of how VMT within a specified boundary would change once the Specific Plan is implemented.

VMT estimates are presented on a per service population basis (sum of residents and employees) to account for both the effects of population and/or employment growth and the effects of changes in personal travel behavior. For example, population growth could result in an increase in overall VMT; however, travelers changing their behavior with the use of alternative transportation or decreasing their trip lengths (such as a higher percentage of people living and working in the Specific Plan Area) would reduce in the amount of VMT each person generates.

Additionally, the analysis herein focuses on the VMT for all trip purposes and vehicle types and does not separate VMT by land use.

Project-Generated Vehicle Miles Traveled
The analysis of project-generated VMT studies the project’s direct effect on VMT. Therefore, project-generated VMT is calculated by summing the VMT “within,” “from,” and “to” a specified geographic area. Consistent with the City TAG, and as detailed in Table 3.11-2, implementation of the Specific Plan would result in a significant project- generated VMT impact if the total VMT per service population would exceed 25.40 (i.e., 15 percent below the existing County total VMT per service population), the home-based VMT per resident would exceed 11.87 (i.e., 15 percent below the existing County VMT per resident), or the home-based work VMT per employee would exceed 14.31 (i.e., 15 percent below the existing County VMT per employee). Table 3.11-2 presents calculations for the project-generated VMT thresholds identified above.

Table 3.11-2 Project-Generated Vehicle Miles Traveled Threshold Project-Generated VMT Threshold
Total VMT per Service Population Threshold
Total VMT (A)1 92,685,100
Service Population (B)1,2 3,101,410
Total VMT per Service Population (C=A/B) 29.88
Total VMT per Service Population Threshold (D = C * 85%) 25.40 Home-Based VMT per Resident Threshold
Home-Based VMT (A)1 27,937,530
Residents (B)1,2 1,999,110
Home-Based VMT per Resident (C = A/B) 13.97
Home-Based VMT per Resident Threshold (D = C*85%) 11.87 Home-Based Work VMT per Employee Threshold
Home-Based Work VMT (A)1 18,561,410
Employees (B)1,2 1,102,300
Home-Based Work VMT per Employee (C = A/B) 16.84
Home-Based Work VMT per Employee Threshold (D = C*85%) 14.31 Notes: VMT = vehicle miles traveled; % = percent
1 Rounded service population and VMT to nearest 10.
2 Service population is defined as the sum of all residents and employees.

Source: Fehr & Peers 2024.

Ascent Transportation
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.11-17 Project’s Effects on Vehicle Miles Traveled
The project’s long-term effect on VMT involves an evaluation of the change in total vehicle travel within a defined geographic area boundary, compared between the “with project” and “without project” conditions. A project’s effect on VMT is evaluated using the boundary VMT which captures all VMT on the roadway network within a specified geographic area, including local trips plus inter-regional travel that does not have an origin or destination within the study area. The geographical boundary method does not include the impact of vehicles once they travel outside the area limits because it only considers travel within the physical limits of the selected study area. The boundary VMT is also divided by the service population (sum of residents and employees) to account for the effects of population and/or employment growth and the effects of changes in personal travel behavior within the specified geographic area. The use of boundary VMT is a more comprehensive evaluation of the potential effects of a project because it captures the combined effect of new VMT, shifts in existing VMT to/from other neighborhoods, and/or shifts in existing vehicular traffic to alternate travel routes or modes. The threshold of significance for assessing cumulative impacts is no net increase in the Cumulative Conditions boundary VMT per service population for 2040. Therefore, the project would result in a significant cumulative VMT impact if the cumulative regionwide daily boundary VMT per service population is greater than 13.40 with implementation of the Specific Plan.

Transportation Hazards and Emergency Access
The transportation hazards and emergency access analyses evaluate if the Specific Plan would directly or indirectly, substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); or result in inadequate emergency access.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Milpitas TAG. A transportation-related impact would be significant if implementation of the Specific Plan would:
 conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities;
 result in a VMT-related impact defined as:
 a total VMT per service population greater than 25.40 miles (i.e., 15 percent below existing Santa Clara County VMT per service population);
 a home-based VMT per resident greater than 11.87 miles (i.e., 15 percent below existing Santa Clara County VMT per resident); or
 a home-based work VMT per employee greater than 14.31 miles (i.e., 15 percent below existing Santa Clara County VMT per employee).
 substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); or
 result in inadequate emergency access.

ISSUES NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
All potential transportation issues identified in the significance criteria are evaluated below.

Transportation Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.11-18 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.11-1: Conflict with a Program, Plan, Ordinance, or Policy Addressing the Circulation System, Including Transit, Roadway, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.14-1) identified that the policies included in the General Plan would help further the implementation of City transportation plans, support interjurisdictional coordination, and link the development of transportation facilities to surrounding land uses and result in less-than-significant impact.

Implementation of the Specific Plan would develop a transportation network for users of all modes of transportation including pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders. The standards and policies proposed under the Specific Plan would support multi-modal transportation, improve non-vehicular access throughout the Specific Plan Area, and encourage transit-oriented land use development, consistent with policies and standards in relevant transportation plans. In addition, new project-generated demand for transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be satisfied by the multimodal improvements proposed under the Specific Plan. For these reasons, 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.

Under Impact 3.14-1, the General Plan Update EIR concluded that the policies included in the General Plan help further the implementation of City transportation plans including the BPTMP, support interjurisdictional coordination, and link the development of transportation facilities to surrounding land uses. The General Plan Update EIR determined that with adherence to these policies, implementation of the General Plan would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system.

Implementation of the Specific Plan would change the Specific Plan Area boundaries and result in an increase in dwelling units and a decrease in nonresidential square footage compared to what was evaluated under the General Plan. Implementation of the Specific Plan would increase the population by 6,827 and reduce employment by 6,014 from what was analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR for the Midtown Specific Plan Area.

Transit Facilities and Service
As detailed in Section 3.11.2 “Environmental Setting,” several transit operators provide service to and within the Specific Plan Area including VTA and BART. Additionally, the City offers the SMART shuttle program that provides on- demand rideshare service from various pick-up and drop-off locations. As discussed, although implementation of the Specific Plan would decrease employment, it would also result in an increase in the residential population which would generate additional demand for transit facilities and services. However, a ccording to the OPR Technical Advisory, when evaluating impacts to multimodal transportation networks, the addition of new transit users generally should not be treated as an adverse impact (OPR 2018). In addition, the Specific Plan proposes a Public Transit Framework and Transit Design Standards that would enhance the transit network and provide a comfortable and safe experience for transit users.

The Specific Plan proposes a shuttle loop along Main Street, Weller Lane, North / South Abel Street, Thompson Street, and Great Mall Parkway to connect the Specific Plan Area to existing transit services and that could build upon existing bus stop facilities and serve underserved locations in the Specific Plan Area. In accordance with Transit Design Standards proposed under the Specific Plan, the shuttle service would be implemented in coordination with existing services, and thus would only enhance, not interfere with, existing transit facilities or service. In addition to new transit service, the Specific Plan proposes new bus stop amenities including shelters, benches, and lighting at all existing bus stops and existing and new transit hubs within the Specific Plan Area; curb extensions at all existing bus stops along South Main Street; and bus boarding islands along Serra Way. These new transit facilities would be constructed and maintained in a manner consistent with the VTA Bus Stop and Facility Criteria and Standards.

Therefore, implementation of the Specific Plan would result in enhanced transit amenities and improved connectivity and access to existing transit in accordance with General Plan policies such as Policy CIR 1-3, which aims to promote interconnectivity of the transportation network; Policy CIR 3-2 which encourages coordination with transit service providers to provide seamless service for transit users; and Policy CIR 3-4, which requires that all transit-supportive infrastructure are adequately maintained to provide high-quality facilities for users. In summary, implementation of

Ascent Transportation
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.11-19 the Specific Plan would enhance existing transit facilities and services in a manner consistent with applicable plans and any new demand for transit facilities and service would be accommodated by the existing transit services and transit improvements proposed under the Specific Plan. For these reasons, the Specific Plan would not disrupt existing or planned transit facilities and services and would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing such facilities.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in an increase in the residential population as compared to what was evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR; and thus, would presumably result in an increase in demand for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The Specific Plan would encourage the shift to active modes of transportation (e.g., walking and biking) by enhancing existing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, constructing new bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and establishing design standards for these facilities.

The proposed bicycle infrastructure network would provide a continuous bicycle connection from local neighborhoods to the commercial and mixed-use zones within the Specific Plan Area. As shown in Figure 3.11-2, the Specific Plan proposes Class I, Class II, and Class IV bicycle facilities along several roadways within the Specific Plan Area and a Class III separated bikeway proposed along Main Street. The Class III separated bikeway proposed along Main Street deviates from the Class IIB bicycle facilities proposed in the TPBMP; however, the TPBMP would be amended to include the Class III bicycle facilities. Thus, the facilities proposed in the Specific Plan would align with, and further the recommendations included in the TPBMP. In addition to proposed bicycle facilities, the Specific Plan also includes bicycle parking requirements for new development, signal and intersection improvements benefit ing bicyclists and pedestrians (e.g., curb extensions, high-visibility crosswalks), and pedestrian level design standards (e.g., lighting, signage, and landscaping) that would enhance the pedestrian network. The proposed improvements and design standards included in the Specific Plan are aligned with the goals and policies of the General Plan, PTBMP, Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan and Pedestrian Plan, and the City of Milpitas CAP. For example, Measure TR-3.3 of the City of Milpitas CAP aims to improve active transportation options, and the mobility goal of Caltrans District 4 Bike and Pedestrian Plan intends to increase walking and bicycling in the district. General Plan Policy CIR 4-1 seeks to encourage a shift to active transportation modes by expanding and enhancing current pedestrian and bicycle facilities, Policy CIR 4-4 aims to provide secure bicycle parking at various land uses, and Policy CIR 4- 6 proposes to eliminate gaps in the pedestrian and bicycle network. The Specific Plan supports these and other related policies as its objective is to create a network of complete streets that provide a safe, comprehensive, and integrated system of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Additionally, the Specific Plan for shared-use micro-mobility infrastructure provides strategically located micro-mobility hubs that provide a safe alternative transportation means within the Specific Plan Area. As detailed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the Specific Plan proposes micro-mobility hubs at 10 locations throughout the Specific Plan Area. In summary, the implementation of the Specific Plan would only enhance the environment for bicyclists and pedestrians, not disrupt any existing or planned bicycle or pedestrian facilities and would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing such facilities. In addition, any new demand for bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be accommodated by the multimodal improvements required of new development under the Specific Plan.

Summary
Implementation of the Specific Plan would include the construction of enhanced transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities. In addition, the Specific Plan establishes standards that support a complete streets network that prioritizes a safe and integrated system of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. Therefore, implementation of the Specific Plan would result in improvements to these facilities consistent with the policies included in applicable plans, including the General Plan, City of Milpitas CAP, and the TPBMP identified above. For these reasons, the Specific Plan would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy that addresses transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. 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.

Transportation Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.11-20 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Impact 3.11-2: Conflict or Be Inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) Regarding Vehicle Miles Traveled
General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.14-2) determined that the VMT generated by residential development under the General Plan would not exceed the applicable significance threshold; however, the VMT generated by employment - based development under the General Plan would exceed the applicable threshold. The General Plan Update EIR concluded that because it could not be guaranteed that VMT would be reduced to below the applicable threshold with adherence to General Plan policies and all feasible mitigation measures, the VMT impact would be significant and unavoidable. Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in increased residential development and decreased non-residential development as compared to what was analyzed for the General Plan buildout. Consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update EIR, implementation of the Specific Plan would not exceed the significance thresholds of 25.40 VMT per service population or 11.87 VMT per resident. However, employment-based development proposed by the project would exceed the threshold of 14.31 VMT per employee. Therefore, consistent with the conclusion in the General Plan Update EIR, VMT per employee would exceed the applicable threshold with implementation of the Specific Plan. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.11 -2a through 3.11-2f would help reduce VMT from employee commutes as well as at the plan area level; however, it cannot be guaranteed how effective these measures would be. For these reasons, 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 significant and
unavoidable.

Under Impact 3.14-2, the General Plan Update EIR determined that the VMT generated by residential development associated with the proposed General Plan would be below the applied significance threshold of 11.48 VMT per capita; however, the VMT generated by employment-based development associated with the General Plan would exceed the threshold of 14.31 VMT per employee. Therefore, the General Plan VMT impact was determined to be significant. The General Plan Update EIR identified that individual development projects under the General Plan would be required to complete VMT analyses and implement VMT reducing measures (e.g., TDM) designed to reduce employment based VMT. However, the General Plan Update EIR concluded that because it could not be guaranteed that VMT would be reduced to below the applicable threshold (i.e., 14.31 VMT per employee), the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Proposed uses within the Specific Plan Area include residential facilities, public spaces, mobility hubs, and commercial land uses. Implementation of the Specific Plan would change the Specific Plan Area boundaries and result in an increase in dwelling units and a decrease in nonresidential square footage compared to what was evaluated under the General Plan. Implementation of the Specific Plan would increase the population by 6,827 and reduce employment by 6,014 from what was analyzed in the General Plan for the Midtown Specific Plan Area. Additionally, the Specific Plan seeks to promote and encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation by improving and increasing opportunities to bike, walk, and roll in the Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan Bicycle and Micro-Mobility Framework proposes bicycle infrastructure improvements and micro-mobility hubs (see Figure 3.11-2) that would be strategically located to provide a safe alternative means of transportation within and around the Specific Plan Area.

The Specific Plan also establishes design standards to ensure that the bicycle and micro-mobility network is comfortable, safe, and efficient. In addition to bicycle and micro-mobility design standards, the Specific Plan also includes district-wide parking design standards, identified in Section 5.8.2 of the Specific Plan, including a standard to establish a Parking District and Parking Management Plan which would establish parking fees and fines, and identify a strategy for short-term on-street parking space (City of Milpitas 2024). Implementation of these standards would encourage biking, walking, and transit use in the Specific Plan Area.

As detailed in the Methodology section, the project-generated VMT impacts of the Specific Plan were evaluated using VMT per service population, home-based VMT per resident, and home-based work VMT per employee under “Cumulative with Project” conditions. The results of the project-generated VMT are presented in Table 3.11-3.

Ascent Transportation
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.11-21 Table 3.11-3 Total Project-Generated Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment Total Project-Generated VMT
Total VMT per Service Population
Total Project-Generated VMT (A)1 536,440
Service Population (B)1,2 21,925
Project-Generated VMT per Service Population (C=A/B) 24.47 Total VMT per Service Population Threshold 25.40
Home-Based VMT per Resident
Home-Based VMT (A)1 171,770
Residents (B)1,2 16,384
Project-Generated Home-Based VMT per Resident (C = A/B) 10.49 Home-Based VMT per Resident Threshold 11.87
Home-Based Work VMT per Employee
Home-Based Work VMT (A)1 107,360
Employees (B)1,2 5,541
Home-Based Work VMT per Employee (C = A/B) 19.38
Home-Based Work VMT per Employee Threshold 14.31
Notes: VMT = vehicle miles traveled; % = percent
1 Rounded service population and VMT to nearest 10.
2 Service population is defined as the sum of all residents and employees.

Source: Fehr & Peers 2024.

As shown in Table 3.11-3, implementation of the Specific Plan would generate 24.47 VMT per service population, which is approximately 4 percent below the VMT threshold of 25.40 total VMT per service population (i.e., 15 percent below countywide VMT per service population) and 10.49 VMT per resident, approximately 12 percent below the VMT threshold of 11.87 home-based VMT per resident (i.e., 15 percent below countywide VMT per resident). However, implementation of the Specific Plan would generate 19.38 VMT per employee exceeding the threshold of 14.31 home- based work VMT per employee by approximately 35 percent. These impact conclusions are c onsistent with the findings of the General Plan Update EIR VMT impact analysis. Thus, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in new significant effect, and the impact is not more severe than the impact identified in the General Plan Update EIR. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures
A description of the individual effects of each mitigation measure’s impact on VMT reduction is provided below.

Although the information on the potential reduction in VMT from each measure is provided, it should be noted that the VMT-reducing benefits of implementing each measure are considered the maximum VMT benefit and are not additive when multiple measures are applied. There may be diminishing returns when certain measures are implemented together to reduce VMT. For each measure applied, it is likely that a lesser effect would be observed (CAPCOA 2021: 36).

Mitigation Measure 3.11-2a: Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program Future employers shall develop and implement a commute trip reduction program and shall present the strategy to the City of Milpitas for review and approval. The following elements, or equally effective alternatives, shall be provided as part of the Commute Trip Reduction program:
 ridesharing program,
 subsidized or discounted transit passes,

Transportation Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.11-22 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR  end-of-trip bicycle facilities,
 employer-sponsored vanpool, and
 guaranteed ride home program.

Additionally, the Commute Trip Reduction Program must be complimented with Commute Trip Reduction Marketing to share information, facilitate coordination, and implement marketing for services, infrastructure, and incentives provided by the Commute Trip Reduction Program. The following features, or similar alternatives, shall be implemented to satisfy the Commute Trip Reduction Marketing strategy.  On-site or online commuter information services,
 Employee transportation coordinators, and
 On-site or online transit pass sales
Potential Reduction in VMT: Commute Trip Reduction programs discourage single- occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT. A voluntary commute trip reduction program can reduce employee commute VMT by up to 4.0 percent with full participation of all eligible employees (CAPCOA 2021).

Mitigation Measure 3.11-2b: Require Employers to Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool or Shuttle Service The project applicant shall require building occupants or tenants (i.e., employer) to implement an employer-based shuttle or vanpool service. For large employers with corporate campuses, this may include running private shuttles to and from neighborhoods where employees live. For smaller employers, or buildings with multiple employer tenants, it may involve a shuttle connecting to regional transit, such as a Caltrain station, funded through an organization such as a transportation management association.

Potential Reduction in VMT: Vanpooling is a flexible form of public transportation that provides groups of five to 15 people with a cost-effective and convenient rideshare option for commuting, thus reducing single-occupancy trips and VMT. Employer-sponsored vanpool can reduce employee commute VMT by up to 7 percent (Fehr & Peers 2024).

Mitigation Measure 3.11-2c: Provide a Ridesharing Program Building occupants or tenants who provide employment for 50 people or more shall develop and implement ridesharing programs. The following strategies provide examples of a multifaceted approach for promoting a rideshare program:
 designating a certain percentage of desirable parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles,  designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles, and  providing an app or website for coordinating rides.

Potential Reduction in VMT: Ridesharing encourages carpooled vehicle trips in place of single-occupancy vehicle trips, thereby reducing the number of trips and VMT. Ridesharing programs can reduce employee commute VMT by up to 8 percent (CAPCOA 2021).

Mitigation Measure 3.11-2d: Implement Carshare Program
The project applicant shall increase carshare access in the user’s community by deploying conventional carshare vehicles.

Potential Reduction in VMT: Carsharing offers people convenient access to a vehicle for personal or commuting purposes. This helps encourage transportation alternatives and reduces vehicle ownership, thereby reducing VMT.

Carsharing can reduce VMT by up to 0.15 percent in the plan area (CAPCOA 2021).

Ascent Transportation
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.11-23 Measure 3.11-2e: Establish a Bikeshare, Electric Bikeshare, and Scootershare Program Establish a bikeshare and scootershare program that provides users with on -demand access to bicycles, electric pedal assist bicycles, and electric scooters for short-term rentals.

Potential Reduction in VMT: This encourages a mode shift from vehicles to active modes of transportation, displacing VMT. Establishing bikeshare, electric bikeshare, and scootershare programs can result in up to 0. 02 percent, 0.06 percent, and 0.07 percent VMT reduction in plan area, respectively (CAPCOA 2021).

Measure 3.11-2f: Implement On-Street Market Price Parking The City shall establish pricing all on-street parking in central business districts, employment centers, and retail centers within the Specific Plan area.

When pricing on-street parking, best practice is to allow for dynamic adjustment of prices to ensure approximately 85 percent occupancy, which helps prevent induced VMT due to circling behaviors as individuals search for a vacant parking space. In addition, this method should primarily be implemented in areas with available alternatives to driving, such as transit availability within 0.5. mile or areas of high residential density nearby (allowing for increased walking/biking). If the measure is implemented in a small area, residential parking permit programs should be considered to prevent parking intrusion on nearby streets in residential areas without priced parking.

Potential Reduction in VMT: Increasing the cost of parking increases the total cost of driving to a location, incentivizing shifts to other modes and thus decreasing total VMT to and from the priced areas. On-street market price parking can reduce VMT by up to 30 percent in the plan area (CAPCOA 2021).

Significance After Mitigation
The implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.11-2a through 3.11-2f would reduce VMT per employee as well as community VMT in the Specific Plan Area consistent with General Plan Policy CIR 4-1. However, the project cannot demonstrate definitively that the mitigation measures would reduce VMT per employee below the applicable threshold of 14.31 (i.e., 15 percent below existing countywide VMT per employee) because the feasibility and effectiveness is either insufficient or unknown at this time. There is no new significant effect and the impact is not more severe than the impact identified in the General Plan Update EIR. For these reasons, the project’s impact on VMT would remain significant and unavoidable.

Impact 3.11-3: Substantially Increase Hazards Due to a Geometric Design Feature or Incompatible Uses
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.14-3) determined that implementation of the General Plan would result in a less-than-significant impact on transportation hazards because future development would be required to meet applicable federal, state, and City design standards. All new transportation infrastructure and improvements under the proposed Specific Plan would improve multimodal circulation and access and minimize the potential for transportation hazards (e.g., conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians). Future development associated with the Specific Plan would be designed in accordance with applicable design and safety standards a nd subject to review by City staff ensuring implementation of the Specific Plan would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. 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.

Impact 3.14-3 of the General Plan Update EIR evaluated the potential for the General Plan to result in increased transportation hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use. The General Plan Update EIR concluded that because future development under the General Plan would be required to meet applicable federal, state, and City design standards, implementation of the General Plan would not result in a substantial increase in transportation hazards and the impact would be less than significant.

As detailed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the proposed Specific Plan aims to create a network of complete streets through proposed transit, pedestrian, bicycle, micromobility, and automobile circulation improvements. The Specific Plan also includes design standards for specific streets (i.e., South Main Street, South Abel Street, Calaveras

Transportation Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.11-24 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Boulevard, Serra Way, and South Abbott Avenue) and for future mixed-use and residential streets, future service alleys, and future paseos (City of Milpitas 2024: 98). In addition to street design standards, the Specific Plan includes pedestrian design standards intended to provide a safe, direct, and connected pedestrian network; bicycle design standards to create a comfortable, efficient, and safe experience for bicyclists; and micromobility design standards to provide first- and last-mile connections within the Specific Plan Area. Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in the modification of existing roadways and the construction of new roadways within the Specific Plan Area. New and modified roadways associated with the Specific Plan would be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable design and safety standards to allow for the safe and efficient movement of all modes of transportation. In addition, the types of transportation associated with operation of the land uses proposed in the Specific Plan Area are consistent with those currently utilizing the circulation network. The Specific Plan’s proposed O bjective Design Standards would also help minimize opportunities for transportation-related hazards. For example, Standards identified in Section 4.1.4 “Site Access and Parking” of the Specific Plan, would ensure that vehicular, service, and parking access is designed to limit conflicts with pedestrians, bicycles, and transit (City of Milpitas 2024: 78).

Additionally, the City of Milpitas requires an encroachment permit for any work that would occur within City ROW ; therefore, subsequent development under the proposed Specific Plan would be subject to review by City staff. In accordance with the City encroachment permit application, all permits would be required to provide a traffic control plan in compliance with the CA MUTCD and that would be subject to approval by the City Traffic Engineer (City of Milpitas 2024). Furthermore, in accordance with the Milpitas Zoning Ordinance, development review would be required for all new construction or site modifications, thus ensuring that future improvements and subsequent development would be designed in accordance with applicable City design and safety standards. For these reasons, the Specific Plan would not substantially increase transportation hazards. 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 3.11-4: Result in Inadequate Emergency Access
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.14-4) determined that implementation of the General Plan would result in a less-than-significant impact on emergency access because all future development would be subject to the City Design and Construction Standards, which include requirements for emergency access, and would be reviewed by public safety officials. The Specific Plan proposes streetscape improvements and standards that were developed in coordination with the Milpitas Fire Department (MFD). Future development under the Specific Plan would be required to adhere to the California Fire Code, as adopted by reference in Title V, Chapter 300 of the City Municipal Code.

Adherence to the California Fire Code would ensure that future developments provide adequate emergency access.

In addition, future development projects under the Specific Plan would be subject to review by the MFD to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided. For these reasons, implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in inadequate emergency access. The Specific Plan would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact on emergency access than identified in the General Plan Update EIR. This impact would remain less than significant.

Impact 3.14-4 of the General Plan Update EIR evaluated the potential for implementation of the General Plan to result in inadequate emergency access. The General Plan Update EIR concluded that implementation would result in a less- than-significant impact on emergency access because development proposed under the General Plan would be subject to City design standards and would be reviewed by public safety officials as part of the City’s entitlement process (City of Milpitas 2020: 3.14-37).

As described in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the Specific Plan proposes streetscape improvements designed to support a variety of mobility options including vehicles, bicycles, transit, and pedestrians. The building and streetscape standards established in the Specific Plan were developed in coordination with the MFD (City of Milpitas 2024: 161). In addition, the Specific Plan also proposes new roadways (e.g., streets and service alleys parallel to Main Street) to connect to existing roadways and support a more walkable neighborhood grid pattern. Construction of

Ascent Transportation
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.11-25 new streets in areas where limited access exists would result in better connectivity and access within the Specific Plan Area. Under the Specific Plan, all new development, new roadways, and modifications to existing streets would be required to meet all state and local regulations related to emergency access during construction and operations.

Additionally, future development would be required to comply with the California Fire Code of Regulations (Title 24, Part 9), adopted by reference in Title V, Chapter 300 of the Milpitas Municipal Code. The California Fire Code includes design standards for fire apparatus access (e.g., turning radii, minimum widths), standards for emergency access during construction, and other general and specialized fire-safety requirements for new and existing buildings and the surrounding premises. Adherence to the California Fire Code would ensure that subsequent development under the Specific Plan provides adequate emergency access during construction and operation. Furthermore, future development projects under the Specific Plan would be subject to review by the MFD to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided. Therefore, all future projects would be designed to meet applicable emergency access and design standards. For these reasons, implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in inadequate emergency access. For these reasons, the Specific Plan would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact on emergency access than identified in the General Plan Update EIR. This impact would remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Transportation Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.11-26 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR This page is intentionally left blank.

Ascent Utilities and Service Systems
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.12-1

3.12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
This section describes the applicable regulations that govern utilities and service systems, describes the existing utility and service systems (water, wastewater, stormwater, electricity, and natural gas) that serve the Specific Plan Area, and evaluates the availability of existing utility and infrastructure systems (water, wastewater, stormwater, electricity, and natural gas) to serve the proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and the potential for the Specific Plan to result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts on these systems compared to those identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

Two comment letters were received in response to the Notice of Preparation from Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System and Santa Clara Valley Water District regarding the City and County of San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s ownership of parcels and easements within the Specific Plan Area and the need to prepar e a water supply assessment (WSA) for the Specific Plan. A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared for the Gateway- Main Street Specific Plan and is provided in Appendix E. Comments received in response to the notice of preparation are presented in Appendix A of this SEIR.

3.12.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) employs a variety of regulatory and nonregulatory tools to reduce direct pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established primary drinking water standards in Section 304 of the CWA.

States are required to ensure that the public’s potable water meets these standards.

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program was established under the CWA to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States. NPDES permit regulations have been established for broad categories of discharges including point source waste discharges and nonpoint sources.

Each NPDES permit identifies limits on allowable concentrations and mass loadings of pollutants contained in t he discharge. Sections 401 and 402 of the CWA contain general requirements regarding NPDES permits. Section 307 of the CWA describes the factors that EPA must consider in setting effluent limits for priority pollutants.

NPDES permits cover various industrial and municipal discharges, including discharges from storm sewer systems in larger cities, stormwater generated by industrial activity, runoff from construction sites disturbing more than 1 acre, and mining operations. Point source dischargers must obtain a discharge permit from the proper authority (usually a state, sometimes EPA, a tribe, or a territory). So-called “indirect” point source dischargers are not required to obtain NPDES permits. “Indirect” dischargers send their wastewater into a public sewer system, which carries it to the municipal sewage treatment plant, through which it passes before entering any surface water.

The CWA was amended in 1987 with Section 402(p) requiring NPDES permits for nonpoint source (i.e., stormwater) pollutants in discharges. Stormwater sources are diffuse and originate over a wide area rather than from a definable point. The goal of the NPDES stormwater regulations is to improve the water quality of stormwater discharged to receiving waters to the “maximum extent practicable” using structural and nonstructural best management practices (BMPs). BMPs can include educational measures (e.g., workshops informing the public of what impacts can result when household chemicals are dumped into storm drains), regulatory measures (e.g., local authority of drainage - facility design), public-policy measures (e.g., labeling storm-drain inlets as to impacts of dumping on receiving waters) and structural measures (e.g., filter strips, grass swales, and detention ponds).

Utilities and Service Systems Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.12-2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Safe Drinking Water Act
As mandated by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (Public Law 93 ‐523), passed in 1974, EPA regulates contaminants of concern to domestic water supply. Such contaminants are defined as those that pose a public health threat or that alter the aesthetic acceptability of the water. These types of contaminants are regulated by EPA primary and secondary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). MCLs and the process for setting these standards are reviewed every three years. Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act enacted in 1986 established an accelerated schedule for setting drinking water MCLs. EPA has delegated responsibility for California’s drinking water program to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Drinking Water. This division is accountable to EPA for program implementation and for adoption of standards and regulations that are at least as stringent as those developed by EPA.

STATE
California Green Building Standards Code
The State of California historically establishes progressive standards that serve as models for other states and even the federal government. With the adoption of the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code), California became the first state to incorporate green building strategies into its building code. The CalGreen Code comprises Part 11 of the California Buildings Standards Code in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.

CALGreen Code outlines mandatory and voluntary requirements for new residential and nonresidential buildings (e.g., retail, office, public schools, hospitals) throughout the state beginning on January 1, 2011.

The development and implementation of the CALGreen Code aims to (1) reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to directives by the Governor. Pursuant to the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), CALGreen Code provides strategies to reduce building- related sources of GHG to attain California’s 2020 and 2050 goals.

In implementing a statewide baseline for green building strategies, California recognized the adverse effects of anthropogenic climate change. CALGreen Code serves as a tool for California to reduce GHG emissions and physical waste, increase energy efficiency, and achieve water conservation and water efficiency.

Updated every 3 years, the CALGreen Code was last updated in 2022 and became effective in January 2023. The CALGreen Code was developed to enhance the design and construction of buildings, and the use of sustainable construction practices, through planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental air quality.

Chapter 4 (Division 4.3) of the 2022 CALGreen Code describes measures to reduce indoor demand for potable water and to reduce landscape water usage. Divisions 4.4 and 5.4 require a minimum of 65 percent of all non -hazardous construction and demolition waste for residential and non-residential development, respectively, to be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. Code requirements include preparing a construction waste management plan that identifies the materials to be diverted from disposal by efficient usage, recycling, reuse on the project, or salvage for future use or sale; determining whether materials will be sorted on-site or mixed; and identifying diversion facilities where the materials collected will be taken. In addition, CALGreen Code requires that 100 percent of trees, stumps, rocks, and associated vegetation and soils resulting primarily from land clearing be reused or recycled.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act) is the principal State law governing water quality regulation in California, and applies to surface waters, wetlands, and groundwater, as well as regulation of both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. The Porter-Cologne Act implements provisions of the CWA, such as the NPDES permitting program, through the SWRCB and nine regional water quality control boards (RWQCBs), which issue permits for point source discharges. Other State agencies with jurisdiction over water quality regulation in California include the California Department of Health Services (DHS) (for drinking water regulations), the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, and the Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment.

Ascent Utilities and Service Systems
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.12-3 San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) The San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) includes a summary of beneficial water uses, water quality objectives needed to protect the identified beneficial uses, and implementation measures.

The Basin Plan establishes water quality standards for all the ground and surface waters of the region. The term “water quality standards,” as used in the Federal Clean Water Act, includes both the beneficial uses of specific water bodies and the levels of quality that must be met and maintained to protect those uses. The Basin Plan includes an implementation plan describing the actions by the RWQCB and others that are necessary to achieve and maintain the water quality standards.

The RWQCB regulates waste discharges to minimize and control their effects on the quality of the region’s ground and surface water. Permits are issued under a number of programs and authorities. The terms and conditions of these discharge permits are enforced through a variety of technical, administrative, and legal means. Water quality problems in the region are listed in the Basin Plan, along with the causes, where they are known. For water bodies with quality below the levels necessary to allow all the beneficial uses of the water to be met, plans for improving water quality are included. The Basin Plan reflects, incorporates, and implements applicable portions of a number of national and statewide water quality plans and policies, including the California Water Code ( CWC) and the Clean Water Act.

California Department of Water Resources
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) is responsible, in cooperation with other agencies, for managing the water resources of the state. Most important is the operation of the State Water Project, which supplies water to public water systems that serve the majority of state residents (approximately 27 million people). DWR is also responsible for developing the California Water Plan, which serves as a guide to the development and management of the state’s water resources.

State Water Resources Control Board
The SWRCB oversees public water systems, and has oversight of water recycling projects, issuance of water treatment permits, and certification of drinking water treatment and distribution operators. In addition, through the Drinking Water Programs, the SWRCB regulates public water systems and enforces the federal and State Safe Drinking Water Acts, including performing field inspections, reviewing plans and specifications for new facilities, taking enforcement actions for noncompliance with laws and regulations, reviewing water quality monitoring results, and supporting and promoting water system security.

California Fire Code
The 2022 California Fire Code, which is codified in Part 9 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), incorporates by adoption the 2021 International Fire Code and 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. The California Building Standards Code, including the California Fire Code, is revised and published every 3 years by the California Building Standards Commission.

California Safe Drinking Water Act
The SWRCB Division of Drinking Water is responsible for implementing the federal SDWA and its updates, as well as California statutes and regulations related to drinking water. State primary and secondary drinking -water standards are promulgated in CCR Title 22, Sections 64431–64501 (described in greater detail below).

The California Safe Drinking Water Act (CA SDWA) was passed in 1976 to build on and strengthen the federal SDWA.

The CA SDWA authorizes DHS to protect the public from contaminants in drinking water by establishing MCLs that are at least as stringent as those developed by EPA, as required by the federal SDWA.

Utilities and Service Systems Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.12-4 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Title 22 Water Recycling Criteria
The California Department of Public Health (formerly the Department of Health Services) is responsible for establishing criteria to protect public health in association with recycled water use. The criteria issued by this department are found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3, entitled Water Recycling Criteria. Commonly referred to as Title 22 Criteria, the criteria contain treatment and effluent quality requirements that vary based on the proposed type of water reuse. Title 22 sets bacteriological water quality standards on the basis of the expected degree of public contact with recycled water. For water reuse applications with a high potential for the public to come into contact with the reclaimed water, Title 22 requires disinfected tertiary treatment. For applications with a lower potential for public contact, Title 22 requires three levels of secondary treatment, basically differing by the amount of disinfectant required.

Title 22 also specifies the reliability and redundancy for each recycled water treatment and use operation. Treatment plant design must allow for efficiency and convenience in operation and maintenance and provide the highest possible degree of treatment under varying circumstances. For recycled water piping, the department has requirements for preventing backflow of recycled water into the public water system and for avoiding cross - connection between the recycled and potable water systems. The Department o f Public Health does not have enforcement authority for the Title 22 criteria; instead, the RWQCBs enforce the criteria through enforcement of their permits containing the applicable criteria.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA)1 became law on January 1, 2015, and applies to all groundwater basins in the state (Water Code Section 10720.3). By enacting the SGMA, the Legislature intended to provide local or regional agencies with the authority and the technical and financial assistance necessary to sustainably manage groundwater within their jurisdiction (CWC Section 10720.1). The SGMA is a follow up to SB X7-6, adopted in November 2009, which mandated a statewide groundwater elevation monitoring program to track seasonal and long- term trends in groundwater elevations in California’s groundwater basins. In accordance with this amendment to the CWC, DWR developed the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program.

Pursuant to the SGMA, any local agency that has water supply, water management or land use responsibilities within a groundwater basin may elect to be a “groundwater sustainability agency” for that basin (CWC Section 10723). Local agencies were given until January 1, 2017 to elect to become or form a groundwater sustainability agency. In the event a basin is not within the management area of a groundwater sustainability agency, the county within which the basin is located is to be presumed to be the groundwater sustainability agency for the basin. However, the county may decline to serve in this capacity (CWC Section 19724).

The SGMA also requires DWR to categorize each groundwater basin in the state as high- , medium-, low-, or very low priority (CWC Sections 10720.7, 10722.4). All basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins must be managed by a groundwater sustainability agency under a groundwater sustainability plan that complies with Water Code Section 10727 et seq. If required to be prepared, groundwater sustainability plans were required to be prepared by January 31, 2020 for all high- and medium-priority basins that are subject to critical conditions of overdraft, as determined by DWR, or by January 31, 2022 for all other high- and medium-priority basins.

On December 15, 2014, DWR announced its official “initial prioritization” of the state’s groundwater basins for purposes of complying with the SGMA, and this priority list became effective on January 1, 2015. The subbasin is not subject to a groundwater sustainability plan as required under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act .

Urban Water Management Planning Act
In 1983, the California Legislature enacted the Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMPA) ( CWC Sections 10610–10656). The UWMPA states that every urban water supplier that provides water to 3,000 or more customers, or that provides more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually, should make every effort to ensure the appropriate level of reliability in its water service sufficient to meet the needs of its various categories of customers during normal, dry,

1 The SGMA is comprised of three separate bills: Senate Bill 1168, Senate Bill 1319, and Assembly Bill 1739. All three were signed into law by the Governor on September 16, 2014.

Ascent Utilities and Service Systems
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.12-5 and multiple dry years. This effort includes the adoption of an urban water management plan (UWMP) by every urban-water supplier and an update of the plan every 5 years on or before December 31, of every year ending in a five or zero. The UWMPA has been amended several times since 1983 with the most recent amendment occurring with the enactment of SB 318 in 2004. The UWMPA and SB 610, described below, are interrelated; the UWMP is typically relied upon to meet the requirements for SB 610.

Senate Bill 610
SB 610 (Stats. 2001, ch. 643) made changes both to the UWMPA and to the rules governing the preparation of “water supply assessments” (WSAs), as originally enacted in 1995 via SB 901 (Stats.1995, c. 881). The rules governing WSA preparation are set forth in Water Code sections 10910 through 10915, which are referenced in CEQA Guidelines Section 15155, promulgated in 2007 and amended in 2018. Pursuant to SB 610 and Section 15155, cities and counties acting as lead agencies are required to identify the public water system that would serve a defined “project” and to request that such public water system prepare a WSA addressing whether the public water system has a water supply is sufficient to provide for projected water demand associated with a project when existing and future uses are also considered (CWC Section 10910 [c] [3]). Where a city or county acts as its own public water system, the obligation to prepare the WSA falls onto the city or county. The definition of a water-demand project is the same as CEQA Guidelines Section 15155. Residential projects proposing more than 500 dwelling units come under the definition, as do office projects employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space.

Water Conservation Act of 2009
Requirements regarding per capita water use targets are defined in the Water Conservation Act of 2009, which was signed into law in November 2009 as part of a comprehensive water legislation package. Known as SB X7 -7, the legislation sets a goal of achieving a 20 percent reduction in urban per capita water use statewide by 2020. SB X7 -7 required that retail water suppliers define in their 2010 urban water management plans the gallons- per-capita-per- day targets for 2020, with an interim 2015 target. Water purveyors are required to select one of the four methods that the legislation defines for establishing a gallons-per-capita-per-day target.

California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Section 8007
CCR Title 17, Section 8007 requires the contents of chemical tanks to be disposed of by draining or pumping into a sanitary sewer, an approved septic tank of sufficient capacity to handle the wastes, a suitably sized and constructed holding tank, approved by the local health department, or by any other method approved by the local health department.

California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989
The California Integrated Waste Management Act (CIWMA) of 1989 created the California Integrated Waste Management Board, which was subsequently abolished, with its duties now carried out by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). CalRecycle is the agency designated to oversee, manage, and track California’s 92 million tons of waste generated each year. CalRecycle provides grants and loans to help cities, counties, businesses, and organizations meet the state’s waste reduction, reuse, and recycling goals. CalRecycle promotes a sustainable environment in which these resources are not wasted but can be reused or recycled. In addition to many programs and incentives, CalRecycle promotes the use of new technologies to divert resources away from landfills. CalRecycle is responsible for ensuring that waste management programs are carried out primarily through local enforcement agencies.

The CIWMA is the result of two pieces of legislation: AB 939 and SB 1322. The CIWMA was intended to minimize the amount of solid waste that must be disposed of through transformation and land disposal by requiring all cities and counties to divert 25 percent of all solid waste from landfill facilities by January 1, 1995, and 50 percent by January 1, 2000.

The 50 percent diversion requirement is measured in terms of per capita disposal expressed as pounds per day per resident and per employee. The per capita disposal and goal measurement system uses an actual disposal measurement based on population and disposal rates reported by disposal facilities, and it evaluates program implementation efforts.

Utilities and Service Systems Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.12-6 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Assembly Bill 341 (Mandatory Recycling Requirements)
AB 341 requires CalRecycle to issue a report to the Legislature that includes strategies and recommendations that would enable the state to recycle 75 percent of the solid waste generated in the state by January 1, 2020, requires businesses that meet specified thresholds in the bill to arrange for recycling services by July 1, 2012, and streamlines various regulatory processes.

Assembly Bill 827
AB 827, as approved in October 2019, requires businesses that either generates 4 cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste or 8 cubic yards or more of organic waste per week to provide accessible easily visible recycling receptacles clearly marked with educational signage next to all trash bins, except in restrooms.

Assembly Bill 1826 (Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling Requirements) AB 1826 requires a business that generates 4 cubic yards or more of organic waste per week to arrange for recycling services for that organic waste in a specified manner. The bill would also require a business that generates 4 cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week, on and after January 1, 2019, to arrange for organic waste recycling services and, if CalRecycle makes a specified determination, would decrease that amount to 2 cubic yards, on or after January 1, 2020. The bill would require each jurisdiction to report to CalRecycle on its progress in implementing the organic waste recycling program, and CalRecycle would be required to review whether a jurisdiction is in compliance with this act.

AB 1826 would require CalRecycle to identify and recommend actions to address permitting and siting challenges and to encourage the continued viability of the state’s organic waste processing and recycling infrastructure, in partnership with the California Environmental Protection Agency and /other specified State and regional agencies.

The bill also would require the department to cooperate with local jurisdictions and industry to provide assistance for increasing the feasibility of organic waste recycling and to identify certain State financing mechanisms and State funding incentives and post this information on its website.

Senate Bill 1374
SB 1374, Construction and Demolition Waste Materials Diversion Requirements, requires that jurisdictions summarize their progress realized in diverting construction and demolition waste from the waste stream in their annual AB 939 reports. SB 1374 required CalRecycle to adopt a model construction and demolition ordinance for voluntary implementation by local jurisdictions.

Senate Bill 1383 (Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy) The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 designates the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as the State agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gases. SB 1383 required CARB, no later than January 1, 2018, to approve and begin implementing that comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants to achieve a reduction in methane by 40 percent, hydrofluorocarbon gases by 40 percent, and anthropogenic black carbon by 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030, as specified. The bill also establishes specified targets for reducing organic waste in landfills.

SB 1383 requires CalRecycle, in consultation with CARB, to adopt regulations that achieve the specified targets for reducing organic waste in landfills. The bill authorizes local jurisdictions to charge and collect fees to recover the local jurisdiction’s costs incurred in complying with the regulations. SB 1383 requires, no later than July 1, 2020, for CalRecycle, in consultation with CARB, to analyze the progress that the waste sector, state government, and local governments have made in achieving the specified targets for reducing organic waste in landfills. The bill authorizes CalRecycle, depending on the outcome of that analysis, to amend the regulations to include incentives or additional requirements, as specified. By adding to the duties of local governments related to organic waste in landfills, SB 1383 imposes a State-mandated local program.

Ascent Utilities and Service Systems
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.12-7 Senate Bill 350 (Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act) 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.

LOCAL
Milpitas General Plan 2040
The City of Milpitas General Plan 2040 (City of Milpitas 2021a) includes 11 elements. The Utilities and Community Services Element contains policies relevant to utilities and service systems and applicable to the Specific Plan, as listed below.
 Policy UCS 1-1: Provide adequate public infrastructure (i.e., street, sewer, water, and storm drain systems) to meet the needs of existing and future development.
 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 1-4: The City shall prioritize infrastructure improvements in areas identified for economic growth in the next 5-10 years.
 Policy UCS 1-5: Require the payment of impact fees for all new development.  Action UCS-1b: As part of the development review process, determine the potential impacts of development projects on public infrastructure, and ensure that new development contributes its fair share toward necessary on and off-site infrastructure.
 Action UCS-1c: Through development review, ensure that infrastructure is adequately sized to accommodate the proposed development and, if applicable, allow for extensions to future developments.  Policy UCS 2-1: Ensure the water system and supply adequately meets the needs of existing and future development and is utilized in a sustainable manner.
 Policy UCS 2-3: Pursue additional water supply sources to supplement the City's existing supply as needed to meet projected future demand.
 Policy UCS 2-4: Ensure that all new development provides for and funds its fair share of the costs for adequate water distribution, including line extensions, easements, and dedications.  Policy UCS 2-5: Reduce potable water use and increase water conservation.  Policy UCS 2-7: Maintain existing groundwater wells as a source of emergency water supply and a resource for supplemental supply.
 Action UCS-2f: Require, as a condition of project approval, dedication of land and easements, or payment of appropriate fees and exactions, to help offset municipal costs of expansion of water conveyance and delivery systems.
 Policy UCS 3-1: Ensure safe and reliable wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure to serve existing and future development.
 Policy UCS 3-2: Maintain the existing wastewater system on a regular basis to increase the lifespan of the system and ensure public safety.

Utilities and Service Systems Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.12-8 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR  Policy UCS 3-3: Ensure that all new development provides for and funds its fair share of the costs for adequate sewer collection and treatment, including line extensions, easements, and dedications.  Action UCS-3b: Require new development to provide for and fund a fair share of the costs for adequate sewer distribution, including line extensions, easements, and plant expansions.  Policy UCS 4-1: Maintain and improve Milpitas's storm drainage facilities.  Policy UCS 4-2: Require all development projects to demonstrate how storm water runoff will be detained or retained on-site and/or conveyed to the nearest drainage facility as part of the development review process and as required by the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.
 Policy UCS 4-3: Require all future development projects to analyze their drainage and stormwater conveyance impacts and either demonstrate that the City’s existing infrastructure can accommodate increased stormwater flows, or make the necessary improvements to mitigate all potential impacts.  Policy UCS 4-4: Applicable projects shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Low Impact Development measures (LID) to treat stormwater before discharge from the site. The facilities shall be sized to meet regulatory requirements.
 Policy UCS 4-5 Applicable projects shall control peak flows and duration of runoff to prevent accelerated erosion of downstream watercourses.
 Policy UCS 4-6: Applicable projects shall minimize directly connected impervious areas by limiting the overall coverage of paving and roofs, directing runoff from impervious areas to adjacent pervious areas, and selecting permeable pavements and surface treatments.
 Policy UCS 4-7: Encourage dual-use detention basins for parks, ball fields, and other appropriate uses.  Policy UCS 4-9: Maintain drainage channels in a naturalized condition with riparian corridors and wetland where appropriate, incorporating recreational trails, parkway vegetation, and other amenities and ensuring that vegetation does not reduce channel capacity. Where possible, set back development from these areas sufficiently to maximize habitat values.
 Policy UCS 4-10: Where feasible, conform developments to natural landforms, avoid excessive grading and disturbance of vegetation and soils, retain native vegetation and trees, and maintain natural drainage patterns.  Policy UCS 4-12: Projects accommodating outdoor activities, including work areas, storage areas or other areas that are potential sources of stormwater pollutants, shall incorporate measures to control those pollutant sources to the maximum extent practicable.
 Policy UCS 4-13: Owners and operators of stormwater treatment facilities shall maintain those facilities and ensure they continue to be effective.
 Policy UCS 4-14: Construction sites shall incorporate measures to control erosion, sedimentation, and the generation of runoff pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. The design, scope and location of grading and related activities shall be designed to cause minimum disturbance to terrain and natural features. (Title II, Chapter 13 of the Municipal Code).
 Action UCS-4b: Continue to complete gaps in the drainage system in areas of existing development through the implementation of drainage improvement projects identified in the Storm Drain Master Plan.  Action UCS-4e: Continue to implement a comprehensive municipal stormwater pollution-prevention program in compliance with requirements of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) and the C.3 Stormwater Handbook.
 Policy UCS 5-2: Implement and enforce the provisions of the City’s Source Reduction and Recycling Program and update the program as necessary to meet or exceed the State waste diversion requirements.

Ascent Utilities and Service Systems
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.12-9  Policy UCS 5-3: Reduce municipal waste generation by increasing recycling, on-site composting, and mulching, where feasible, at municipal facilities, as well as using resource efficient landscaping techniques in new or renovated medians and parks.
 Policy UCS 5-4: Encourage residential, commercial, and industrial recycling and reuse programs and techniques.  Policy UCS 5-6: When feasible, minimize the potential impacts of waste collection, transportation, and the location of potential disposal facilities upon the residents of Milpitas.  Policy UCS 6-2: Coordinate with service providers in the siting and design of power facilities to minimize environmental, aesthetic, and safety impacts.
 Policy UCS 6-3: Require that all new power and gas lines and transformers are installed underground where feasible and promote the undergrounding of existing overhead facilities.  Action UCS-6c: Confer with utility providers regarding major development plans and participate in the planning of the extension of utilities.
 Action UCS-6d: Require the undergrounding of utility lines in new development, and as areas are redeveloped, except where infeasible for operational reasons  Policy UCS 7-1: Work cooperatively with utility providers to ensure the provision of adequate telecommunications services and facilities to serve the needs of existing and future residents and businesses. The City shall place emphasis on improving the quality of service in underserved areas.  Policy UCS 7-6: Coordinate with service providers in the siting and design of telecommunication facilities to minimize environmental, aesthetic, and safety impacts.
 Policy UCS 7-7: Require that all new telecommunication lines are installed underground where feasible and promote the undergrounding of existing overhead facilities.  Action UCS-7c: Require the undergrounding of telecommunication lines in new development, and as areas are redeveloped, except where infeasible for operational reasons.

City of Milpitas Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan The City of Milpitas City Council adopted its 2020 UWMP on June 15, 2021, in accordance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act (CWC Sections 10608 to 10656). The City’s UWMP provides information related to its existing water system, current and projected water demands and water supplies, water conservation efforts, projected water supply reliability during normal, dry, and multiple-year drought conditions, water shortage contingency planning, and demand management measures. The next 5-year UWMP update is anticipated by June 2026 and would include additional changes that have occurred since the 2020 UWMP.

The 2020 UWMP identifies that the City would have shortfalls in supply in 2025, 2030, and 2045 under single dry-year and multiple dry year conditions if contract water supply sources provided by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and Valley Water are reduced. During these conditions, the City would implement its 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) that consists of voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures that would address water supply shortfalls.

The 2020 WSCP contains documented processes and procedures, which are given legal authority through the Water Shortage Contingency Response Ordinance. The 2020 WSCP includes the steps to assess if a water shortage is occurring and how to respond to a water shortage. The 2020 WSCP has prescriptive elements, including an analysis of water supply reliability; the drought shortage actions for each of the six standard water shortage levels that correspond to water shortage percentages ranging from 10 percent to greater than 50 percent; an estimate of potential to close supply gap for each measure; protocols and procedures to communicate identified actions for any current or predicted water shortage conditions; procedures for an annual water supply and demand asse ssment; monitoring and reporting requirements to determine customer compliance; and reevaluation and improvement procedures for evaluating the WSCP.

Utilities and Service Systems Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.12-10 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR City of Milpitas Water Master Plan
The City’s Water Master Plan (WMP) was first developed in 2002 and comprehensively updated in 2009, and most recently updated in 2021. The current WMP evaluates the City’s existing water system infrastructure, addresses the effects of short-term and long-term planned growth, and provides a comprehensive road map for the City’s Water System Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The WMP conducted various analyses, including an assessment of the City’s distribution system's capacity to meet hydraulic performance criteria under different demand and outage scenarios. Both the existing (2019) and projected buildout (2040) systems were scrutinized, with the latter incorporating anticipated water demands from planned growth and development, including those outlined in the Specific Plan. Hydraulic evaluations of the City's buildout water distribution system encompassed peak -hour demand, maximum day demand with fire flow, as well as potential water supply and power outages.

City of Milpitas Storm Drain Master Plan
The City’s 2021 Storm Drain Master Plan (SDMP) is an update to the 2013 SDMP and is intended to help guide the City in implementing a prioritized CIP. The 2021 SDMP identifies the capital improvements needed to maintain recommended levels of protection against local flooding from stormwater runoff, the need for a revenue stream that will allow the necessary capital improvements made, and the need to keep the storm drain system in working order into the future. The 2021 SDMP relies on updated hydrologic modeling, specifically the Integrated Catchment Modeling (ICM) model, which integrates updated rainfall and different hydrologic methodology compared to prior versions of the SDMP. Additionally, the model accounts for surface storage within streets and other open spaces and the precise timing of coincident creek discharges, which was not directly accounted for in previous SDMPs. These updates generally suggest less flooding at the desired level of service and fewer CIP projects that would be needed to meet the City’s storm drainage criteria.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board’s San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit Order R2-2015-0049 (
NPDES Permit No. CAS612008)
November 2015
The City of Milpitas participates in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Prevention Program ( SCVURPPP) as a co- per
mittee under the California Regional Water Quality Control Board’s San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (Order R2-2015-0049),
also referred to as the “MS4 Permit.” Permit number CAS612008 became effective in November of 2015. The City has typical urban runoff water quality issues and is working on implementing a 70 percent reduction in trash load by July 1, 2017, focused around trash capture on 100 acres of high or very high trash generating land uses.

Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Prevention Program
The SCVURPPP is an association of 15 municipal agencies in the Santa Clara Valley that discharge stormwater to the lower South San Francisco Bay. Member agencies (Co-perm ittees) include the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los
Altos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale, the towns of Los Altos Hills and Los Gatos, the County of Santa Clara, and the SCVWD. The SCVURPPP and member agencies implement pollution prevention, source control, monitoring and outreach programs aimed at reducing pollutants in stormwater runoff, and protecting water quality and beneficial uses of the San Francisco Bay and Santa Clara Valley creeks and rivers. The SCVURPPP also promotes valuing stormwater as an important resource. The member agencies of the SCVURPPP share a common NPDES permit to discharge stormwater to the South San Francisco Bay. Total population within the SCVURPPP area is approximately 1.7 million people. The SCVURPPP incorporates regulatory, monitoring and outreach measures aimed at reducing pollution in urban runoff to the "maximum extent practicable" to improve the water quality of South San Francisco Bay and the streams of Santa Clara Valley.

City of Milpitas Sewer Master Plan
The City’s Sewer Master Plan was first developed in 2002 and comprehensively updated in 2009, and most recently updated in 2021. The current Sewer Master Plan includes a CIP based on existing (2020) and future (2040) planning horizons. The Sewer Master Plan describes the City’s service area and wastewater services it provides; describes the City’s existing wastewater collection system; provides the results of the condition assessment performed as part of the

Ascent Utilities and Service Systems
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.12-11 Sewer Master Plan; describes the hydraulic modeling developed as part of the Sewer Master Plan; provides the results of the wastewater flow monitoring program and analysis of corresponding data; identifies the hydraulic capacity- related deficiencies under existing (2020) and future (2040) modeled conditions; identifies the recommended improvements resulting from the condition assessment and basis for cost development; and identifies the recommended capital improvement projects, costs, and timeline for implementation.

City of Milpitas Sewer System Management Plan (2014)
In May 2006, SWRCB implemented Order No. 2006-000 3-DWQ . Any municipality that owns or operates a sanitary sewer system greater than 1.0 mile in length and that collects and/or conveys untreated or partially treated wastewater to publicly owned treatment plants in the State of California is required to comply with the terms of this order. This order requires the development and implementation of a system-specif ic sanitary sewer management
plan (SSMP). The City’s SSMP facilitates the overall management of the City of Milpitas’ sewer system.

Milpitas Municipal Code, Chapter 200: Solid Waste Management Chapter 200 of the Milpitas Municipal Code contains specific requirements related to:
 keeping or accumulating solid waste;
 collection and disposal;
 authorized contractors;
 manner of collection, removal, and transportation;
 solid waste disposal;
 enforcement and penalties; and
 disaster operations.

Milpitas Source Reduction and Recycling Element
Adopted in 1991, the Milpitas Source Reduction and Recycling Element provides a summary and analysis of existing and needed source reduction, recycling, and composting programs and facilities, strategies for handling special wastes, and for funding. Implementation measures for both short (next 5 years) and medium term (next 10 years) are specified and include multifamily residential and non-res idential recycling, public awareness, and regulatory
programs. Implementation measures outlined in the Element are expected to lead to diversion of an estimated 13.6 to 19.5 percent of the waste stream by 2000.

Goals ad
opted as part of the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element include:
 Meet or exceed state-mand ated solid waste disposition rates by maximizing source reduction, recycling and composting opportunities for Milpitas residents and businesses;  Motivate the residential and business sectors to reduce and recycle solid waste;  Ensure that all land development projects provide adequate space and design for waste reduction and management activities and equipment;
 Encourage the development and expansion of local and regional markets for diverted materials;  Provide solid waste management services that minimize environmental impacts, ensure public health and safety and facilitate waste reduction efforts; and
 Increase residents' awareness of proper disposal and reduction methods for wastes.

3.12.2 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting provided on pages 3.15-1 through 3.15-8 (water); 3.15-15 through 3.15-19 (wastewater);

3.15-24 and 3.15-25 (stormwater); and 3.15-32 and 3.15-33 (solid waste) of the General Plan Update EIR remains

Utilities and Service Systems Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.12-12 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR applicable to this analysis, unless noted otherwise. The following section provides updates to the environmental setting since certification of the General Plan Update EIR and includes additional information applicable to the impact analysis for the Specific Plan.

Public utilities in the Specific Plan Area are provided by various entities, as identified in Table 3.12-1 and discussed in detail below.

Table 3.12-1 Utilities Providers for the Specific Plan Area Utility Agency/Provider
Water Supply City of Milpitas
Wastewater Collection and Conveyance City of Milpitas
Wastewater Treatment San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility (Cities of San Jose and Santa Clara); West Valley Sanitation District; Cupertino Sanitation District Stormwater Conveyance City of Milpitas; Santa Clara Valley Water District Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Republic Services / Newby Island Solid Waste Facility Electrical Service Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) Natural Gas Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E)
Source: Data compiled by Ascent in 2024

WATER SUPPLY
As detailed in the General Plan Update EIR, the City is the water supplier for areas within its jurisdiction, including the Specific Plan Area. Since certification of the EIR, the City updated its UWMP and WSCP as part of the 5-year update review cycle required under the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The following describes the water supply conditions that have changed since certification of the EIR. Unless noted otherwise, the following information is summarized from the City’s 2020 UWMP (City of Milpitas 2021b).

Existing Water Supply Sources
As detailed in the WSA, water supplies within the city are provided via potable water purchased from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and Valley Water (formerly Santa Clara Valley Water District) and distributed to customers through the City’s potable water system. The existing water supply sources for each of these wholesale water suppliers as well as the City are described below based on the WSA prepared for the proposed Specific Plan (Appendix E).

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Approximately 60 percent of the City’s water supply is provided from SFPUC. The City receives imported water from the City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water System (RWS), operated by SFPUC. This supply is predominantly from the Sierra Nevada, delivered through the Hetch Hetchy aqueducts, but also includes treated water produced by the SFPUC from its local watersheds and facilities in Alameda and San Mateo Counties. Water from the RWS is treated before delivery and supplied to City from two connections, Bay Division Pipelines (BDPL) 1 and 2, and the Crystal Springs Bypass Tunnel.

The amount of imported water available to the SFPUC’s retail and wholesale customers is constrained by hydrology, physical facilities, and the institutional parameters that allocate the water supply of the Tuolumne River. Due to these constraints, the SFPUC is very dependent on reservoir storage to ensure ongoing reliability of its water supplies.

On June 2, 2009, the City entered into a 25-year Water Supply Agreement with SFPUC. This agreement affirms the City’s perpetual right to purchase up to 9.23 million gallons per day (mgd) of treated potable water unless SFPUC has a water shortage.

Ascent Utilities and Service Systems
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.12-13 Future Water Sources and Reliability
In December 2018, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay Delta Plan) to establish water quality objectives to maintain the health of the Bay-Delta ecosystem. The adopted Bay Delta Plan was developed with the stated goal of increasing salmonid populations in three San Joaquin River tributaries (the Stanislaus, Merced, and Tuolumne Rivers) and the Bay Delta. The Bay Delta Plan Amendment requires the release of 30 to 50 percent of the “unimpaired flow” on these tributaries from February through June in every year type. As noted above, SFPUC obtains surface water from the Tuolumne River.

The SFPUC has initiated an Alternative Water Supply Planning Program to ensure that San Francisco can meet its Retail and Wholesale Customer water needs, address projected dry years shortages, and limit rationing to a maximum 20 percent system-wide in accordance with adopted SFPUC policies. This program is intended to meet future water supply challenges and vulnerabilities such as environmental flow needs and other regulatory changes; earthquakes, disasters, and emergencies; increases in population and employment; and climate change.

Since the City’s water supply relies partially on the SFPUC RWS, impacts from the potential implementation of the Bay Delta Plan, is anticipated to impact the City’s service reliability. The City would be able to meet the projected water demands in normal years through 2045 but would experience supply shortages in single dry years and multiple dry years. Such implementation of the Bay Delta Plan would require rationing in all single dry years and multiple dry years.

For the preparation of local UWMPs, SFPUC provided two scenarios, using hydrologic models with and without the Bay Delta Plan Amendment. This included Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) drought cutback allocations based on the information about projected water supply availability for the wholesale customers from SFPUC. All of BAWSCA’s allocation tables assume that the wholesale customers can purchase up to 184 mgd from SFPUC’s RWS through 2045. In normal years 100 percent of the City’s ISG is available to the City, that is 9.232 mgd.

Valley Water
Valley Water began providing treated surface water from Valley Water in August 1993 under a September 1984 contract between the City and Valley Water (previously known as Santa Clara Valley Water District). The supply delivery is adjusted annually based on a binding 3-year annual delivery schedule. The City’s annual purchase must be at least 90 percent of the delivery schedule and the City’s monthly “supply guarantee” is at least 15 percent of the annual delivery schedule. Valley Water provides treated water from its Penitencia and Santa Teresa treatment plant via its Milpitas Pipeline which terminates in the City.

Although the City purchases are currently limited to surface water largely purchased by Valley Water from the State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project CVP (Valley Water has a contract for 152,500 acre- feet per year [AFY] from the CVP and 100,000 AFY from the SWP), Valley Water’s overall water supply comes from a variety of sources.

Nearly half is from local groundwater aquifers, and more than half is imported from the Sierra Nevada through pumping stations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Both groundwater and imported water are sold to retailers. Valley Water also manages the groundwater basin to the benefit of agricultural users and other independent users who pump groundwater. Local runoff is captured in Valley Water reservoirs for re charge into the groundwater basin or treatment at one of Valley Water’s water treatment plants. The total storage capacity of these reservoirs is about 170,000 acre-feet. According to the City’s Water Master Plan, a new Valley Water turnout near Piper Drive and a two mgd storage reservoir and 4,000 gallon per minute pump station in the Valley Water service area is anticipated to be constructed between 2031 and 2035 (Silveira 2025, pers comm). Further, according to the City’s Water Master Plan, a new emergency pressure reducing valve at the intersection of Cedar Way and South Main Street to allow flows between zone SF1 and zone VW1, as identified in Section 7.3 of the Specific Plan, is anticipated to be constructed between 2031 and 2035 (Silveira, pers. comm., 2025).

Future Water Sources and Reliability
To maintain water supply reliability and flexibility, Valley Water’s water supply includes a variety of sources including local groundwater, imported water, and local surface water. Valley Water has an active conjunctive water management program to optimize the use of groundwater and surface water, and to prevent groundwater overdraft and land subsidence.

Utilities and Service Systems Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.12-14 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Long-term planning and modeling analysis performed by Valley Water as part of its Integrated Water Resources Planning Study (IWRP) indicates that if additional investments are made, future countywide demands can reliably be met. It is the intent of Valley Water to invest in accordance with the IWRP framework to develop a flexible resource mix. This flexibility will allow Valley Water to respond to uncertain future conditions. The 2003 IWRP developed a planning framework and supporting modeling tools to help Valley Water identify and select specific water resource investments. The 2003 IWRP evaluation was based on a best estimate of the water demand and water supply outlook through 2040. Future water demand was estimated based on data from ABAG, Department of Finance and general plans from cities and Santa Clara County. The demand projection for the cities in Santa Clara County did not distinguish between Valley Water or SFPUC supplies.

The key findings from the 2003 IWRP are: (1) securing baseline supplies is top priority for ensuring reliability, 2) a mix of three types of new water supply investments makes the best water supply portfolio, and 3) local supplies decrease vulnerability.

Modeling conducted for the Water Supply Master Plan 2040 (Master Plan) indicates shortages during droughts in all demand years, with shortages increasing in severity and frequency as demands increase and Delta -conveyed supplies decrease. By 2040, without new supplies or conservation savings, shortages could occur in about 40 percent of years.

The Master Plan identifies that 2040 available water supplies would range from 250,000 AFY to 399,000 AFY depending on the water year that could result in water supply shortfalls as high as 140,000 AFY during extended drought conditions.

To improve the reliability of water supplies, the Master Plan includes the Valley Water’s Ensure Sustainability water supply strategy that consists of securing existing supplies and infrastructure; increasing water conservation and water reuse; and optimizing the use of existing supplies and infrastructure. The following projects would be implemented as part of this strategy:
 Delta Conveyance Project,
 Additional Conservation and Stormwater Projects and Programs,  Potable Reuse Program,
 Pacheco Reservoir Expansion,
 Transfer-Bethany Pipeline, and
 South County Recharge.

Implementation of these projects would provide a reliable water supply that would meet 2040 demands during a non-drought year. During drought conditions, water supplies would be sufficient to meet 100 percent of demand during the first five years of drought and more than 90 percent in the last year.

Recycled Water
Recycled water is provided to the City by South Bay Water Recycling (SBWR). Currently, recycled water use consists of projects currently underway to convert potable users within the vicinity of the existing recycled water system, irrigation and conversion of cooling towers as identified through a SBWR Cooling Tower Initiative and extension of the recycled water system to capture additional irrigation use. Every year, the City purchases approximately 300 million gallons of recycled water from the San Jose/Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility, through SBWR. The recycled water undergoes an extensive tertiary treatment process (including filtration and disinfection) and is delivered to more than 220 recycled water customers in the City, for landscape irrigation and industrial uses.

The recycled water system is part of the South Bay Water Recycling Strategic Master Planning Report completed in 2014. The Strategic Plan was divided into two phases, near-term (2015-2020) and long term (2020-2035). Master Planning would provide basis for identifying alternative governance frameworks and associated funding strategies for non-potable water (i.e. recycled water). The SBWR system is currently developed to reflect near term recycled water demands. The long term plan is currently being studied, and future allocations have not been identified. Projected recycled water use is limited by the future supply allocations outlined by SBWR.

Ascent Utilities and Service Systems
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.12-15 City of Milpitas
As noted above, the City obtains its water supply from SFPUC, Valley Water, and recycled water from SBWR. The City owns, operates and maintains a potable water distribution system consisting of five turnouts, one emergency groundwater well, three emergency interties, five storage reservoirs, five pump stations, 17 pressure reducing valves (PRVs), and approximately 183 miles of pipeline. The City also operates and maintains a recycled water system owned by the City of San Jose SBWR program.

The City’s potable water supply system is divided into two distinct service areas, corresponding to the areas served by SFPUC and Valley Water. The Specific Plan Area is within the Valley Water service area. Under normal operating conditions, the City does not blend water from SFPUC and Valley Water; however, the two sources of water can be interconnected to provide an emergency water supply, if needed.

In ad
dition to the above water sources, the City has two existing groundwater wells; however, only one is active.

These groundwater wells are located within the Santa Clara Sub-basin of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin.

The McCandless Well is anticipated to have its construction complete by 2026 and operational in 2027 with a 0.58 mgd capacity. The 1.7 mgd capacity Pinewood Well, located at Pinewood Park, is connected to the City’s lowest water pressure zone (Zone SF1) and can supply up to 50 percent of the zone’s average daily water demand. The Pinewood Well was used for approximately three months in 1991, with many complaints about taste and odor. The City plans to add onsite iron and manganese treatment to prevent future complaints. The City is currently analyzing if the well can be converted into a production well and anticipates to determine the direction of the well in early 2026 based on the findings and recommendations.

The
City also maintains the Curtis Well, which is located along Curtis Avenue within Zone SF2 and has a 1.5 mgd capacity. This well is artesian, which means that the well flows by itself without the use of a pump. The well is currently inactive, but the City Water Master Plan identifies that this well will be improved and operational on or after 2035.

There is no plan for an additional well at this time. As mentioned in the UWMP, a fourth well is needed for a 5th dry year by 2035 or 3rd dry year by 2045. The City will continue to evaluate The need for a fourth well in future UWMPs and Water Master Plans will continue to be evaluated by the City (Silveira, pers. comm., 2025).

Emergency water interties are connections between water systems that allow for the exchange or delivery of water between those systems on a short-term emergency basis. As described in the General Plan Update EIR, the City entered into agreements with the San Jose Water Company (SJWC) (located south of Milpitas) in March of 1973 and the Alameda County Water District (ACWD) (located north of Milpitas) in December of 1995 for emergency water supply. If a short-term or emergency supply were needed, the City could activate interties with SJWC and ACWD and/or pump groundwater. ACWD interties, both of which are 8-inches in diameter, could each suffice to supply the City with approximately 2.3 mgd. This equates to 4.6 mgd, which is nearly half of Milpitas’s pre-drought average day demand. The primary supply for the two ACWD interties is the South Bay Aqueduct. Other sources include the SFPUC and local wells (City of Milpitas 2016).

The SJWC intertie is designed to function only when the City’s water distribution system pressure experiences a significant drop. The agreement allows the City to receive water from Valley Water’s Penitencia Water Treatment Plant if the SJWC is not also experiencing a water supply emergency. This intertie has never been used.

Current and Future Water Supply Sources and Demands
As mentioned, since certification of the General Plan Update EIR, the City adopted the 2020 UWMP as part of the 5 - year update review cycle required under the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The City’s 2015 UWMP discussed in the General Plan Update EIR provided projected water demand and estimated supply from 2020 through 2040. The 2020 UWMP provides updates to the projected water demand and estimated supply from what was disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR and includes projections for 2025 through 2045 under normal and dry year weather conditions (single and multiple), as shown in Table 3.12-2.

Utilities and Service Systems Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.12-16 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Table 3.12-2 City of Milpitas Normal, Single-, and Multiple-Dry Year Water Supply and Demand (2025–2045) (AFY) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Normal Year
Supply 4,325 4,475 4,626 4,776 4,917
Demand 4,325 4,475 4,626 4,776 4,917
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Single-Year Dry
Supply 3,460 4,475 4,626 4,776 4,917
Demand 4,325 4,475 4,626 4,776 4,917
Difference (865) 0 0 0 0
Multiple-Year Dry (First Year)
Supply 3,450 4,475 4,626 4,776 4,917
Demand 4,325 4,475 4,626 4,776 4,917
Difference (875) 0 0 0 0
Multiple-Year Dry (Second Year)
Supply 3,230 4,475 4,626 4,776 4,917
Demand 4,325 4,475 4,626 4,776 4,917
Difference (1,095) 0 0 0 0
Multiple-Year Dry (Third Year)
Supply 2,940 4,370 4,626 4,776 4,917
Demand 4,325 4,475 4,626 4,776 4,917
Difference (1,385) (105) 0 0 0
Multiple-Year Dry (Fourth Year)
Supply 2,940 4,370 4,626 4,776 4,870
Demand 4,325 4,475 4,626 4,776 4,917
Difference (1,385) (105) 0 0 (47)
Multiple-Year Dry (Fifth Year)
Supply 2,940 4,370 4,626 4,776 4,870
Demand 4,325 4,475 4,626 4,776 4,917
Difference (1,385) (105) 0 0 (47)
Source: City of Milpitas 2021b, Tables 7-2 through 7-4.

As shown in Table 3.12-2, future demand would be met by the supply in each 5-year increment through 2045 during normal year conditions. However, demand would not be met in 2025 under drought conditions, including single dry year and multiple dry years. Additionally, demand would not be met in 2030 under multiple dry year conditions (third through fifth years) or 2045 under multiple dry year conditions (fourth and fifth years). These water supply and demand projections are reevaluated for the reasonably foreseeable future (i.e., 20-year planning period) as part of the UWMP update process, which occurs every 5 years as required by the UWMPA.

WASTEWATER
The City owns, operates, and maintains the wastewater collection system within its jurisdiction, which includes main sewer connections, gravity pipes, force mains, and pump stations. All wastewater collected in the City is conveyed to

Ascent Utilities and Service Systems
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.12-17 the San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF), which treats approximately 110 mgd of wastewater and has a treatment capacity of 167 mgd. Eight tributary agencies contribute flow to the RWF including the City of Santa Clara, Cupertino Sanitary District, West Valley Sanitation District, the City of San Jose, County Sanitation District 2 -3, Burbank Sanitary District, and the City of Milpitas. The City has rights to discharge 14.25 mgd to the RWF under its current allotment (City of Milpitas 2021c).

The wastewater collection system consists of approximately 160 miles of gravity sewers, with pipe diameters ranging from 4- to 66-inches. The collection system generally flows from east to west and south to north towards the San Francisco Bay. Most of the collection system flows by gravity to the Milpitas Main Lift Station (Main LS) then is pumped to the San Jose-Santa Clara RWF through dual force mains. The Venus Way Lift Station (Venus Way LS) pumps sewage from a small portion of the City that is at a lower elevation up to a higher elevation where it then flows by gravity to the Main LS (City of Milpitas 2021c).

The City’s wastewater collection system includes pipelines and structures of varying age, size, and material. Most of the City’s wastewater collection system pipelines are vitrified clay pipe and 4- to 12-inches in diameter. Approximately 70 percent of all pipelines were built before 1990. The collection system also includes almost 3,000 manholes, of which approximately 60% were built before 1990. Of these manholes, 177 are flow splits, which are manholes that allow outflow via two or more pipes (City of Milpitas 2021c).

Since certification of the General Plan Update EIR, the City adopted a comprehensive update to its Sewer Master Plan in 2021. Within the 2021 Sewer Master Plan, system risk exposure was identified and classified using a 5-point scoring – ranking all segments of the existing system. Risks levels 1, 2, and 3 range from insignificant to medium risk, while significant risks are rated as 4 (high) and 5 (extreme). These are identified in various areas of the Specific Plan Area, particularly along Main Street. Consequently, a series of CIP projects have been identified for this area of the City. The 2021 Sewer Master Plan incorporates a capacity analysis of the citywide system, which accounts for anticipated land uses within the Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Area (as illustrated in Figure 5-2 of the 2021 Sewer Master Plan). Although the capacity analysis in the 2021 Sewer Master Plan did not identify any existing deficiencies in the Specific Plan Area, certain downstream segments are currently exceeding capacity; thus the 2021 Sewer Master Plan identifies CIP projects to address these existing deficiencies. The following streets within the Plan Area necessitate sewer CIPs: Curtis Avenue, South Main Street, Sinnot Lane, South Abel Street, East Calaveras Boulevard, Corning Avenue, and Machado Avenue. The sewer infrastructure improvements from the 2021 Sewer Master Plan identified within the Specific Plan Area are shown in Figure 7-2, “Stormwater Infrastructure Improvements,” of the proposed Specific Plan.

STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
Stormwater runoff is collected in a system of nearly 77 miles of storm drain pipelines ranging from 3 -inche s to 96- inche
s in diameter, with outfalls and pumping stations along the City’s major waterways that ultimately drain to the San Francisco Bay. Each of the city's storm drainage collection systems discharges into one of Coyote Creek's tributaries, whether by gravity or by pumping. Milpitas owns and operates 13 storm water pumping stations, but the Santa Clara Valley Water District manages most of the natural and urbanized waterways into which Milpitas discharges its stormwater.

Since
certification of the General Plan Update EIR, the City adopted a comprehensive update to its SDMP in 2021 (2021d). The 2021 SDMP relies on updated hydrologic modeling, specifically the ICM model, which integrates updated rainfall and different hydrologic methodology compared to prior versions of the SDMP. Additionally, the model accounts for surface storage within streets and other open spaces and the precise timing of coincident creek discharges, which was not directly accounted for in previous SDMPs. The 2021 SDMP identifies 14 CIP projects, consisting of both high and low priority projects, that would correct inadequate storm drain capacity caused primarily by undersized pipes during a 10-year design storm. The inundation areas that each of the CIP projects specifically address is shown in Figures 3-4 to 3-10 of the 2021 SDMP. High priority CIP projects are those that would be implemented within 20 years, while low priority projects would not begin until the high priority CIP projects are completed in their entirety, unless there is an opportunity for a low priority project to occur ancillary to or

Utilities and Service Systems Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.12-18 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR conditioned with a high priority project. The City may complete capital projects in any order and spread projects throughout the twenty-year CIP.

According to the 2021 SDMP, the identified 14 CIP projects do not resolve surcharges from high creek levels downstream of the storm drain network, nor do they address inlets or manholes at isolated low points with low ground cover. The inundated areas are areas not resolved by the fourteen CIP project s and would only be resolved by major creek projects (outside of the scope of SDMP) or by the installation of small, localized pump stations, all determined to be cost-prohibitive in the SDMP. These inundation areas are located mainly on roadways and empty lots; however, minor flooding also occurs on some residential and commercial properties (City of Milpitas 2021d).

The 2021 SDMP outlines proposed land uses for some portions of the Specific Plan Area but not others. Areas with no defined land uses were assigned sub-basin-specific hydrology parameters, based on the World Imagery Map. Of the 14 total CIP projects identified in the 2021 SDMP, three low-priority CIP projects are identified within the Specific Plan boundaries at Main Street and Serra Way, Comet Drive, and a short segment of Railroad Avenue. Additionally, the 2021 SDMP identifies four CIP storm drain main extensions along Main Street. These projects are not yet prioritized in the City’s 2025-2029 CIP. The stormwater infrastructure improvements from the 2021 SDMP identified within the Specific Plan Area are shown in Figure 7-2, “Stormwater Infrastructure Improvements,” of the proposed Specific Plan.

SOLID WASTE
Existing conditions related to solid waste have changed since certification of the General Plan Update EIR and the changes are described below. At the time of preparation of the General Plan Update EIR, the City had a franchise agreement with Republic Services for solid waste collection and disposal services, and solid waste was disposed of at Newby Island Landfill. Beginning on December 1, 2017, Milpitas Sanitation, Inc. (MSI) became the solid waste and collection services provider for the city, with a term of contract from September 6, 2017 to August 31, 2032. The City of Milpitas disposes solid waste at different facilities depending on the material waste stream (e.g. garbage, recyclables, food waste, yard trimmings, and construction and demolition) in accordance with the City’s franchise agreement with MSI. While collection is performed by MSI, the facilities where the waste streams are transported vary as listed below:
 Solid Waste. Solid waste is processed at the GreenWaste Recovery MRF with the end destination of the material at Kirby Canyon Landfill.
 Recyclables. The primary approved facility for recyclables is GreenWaste Recovery MRF. Alternate approved facilities include Alameda County Industries Material Recovery Facility and the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transport Station (SMaRT Station).
 Yard Trimmings. Yard trimmings are processed at GreenWaste Recovery MRF.  Food Scraps. The primary approved facility for food scraps is Sustainable Organic Solutions (SOS). Food waste is used to make animal feed. Alternate approved facilities include East Bay Municipal Utility District Treatment Plant and the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transport Station (SMaRT Station).  Construction and Demolition (C&D). The primary approved facility for C&D is Mission Trails Waste Systems (MTWS). Alternate approved facilities include Zanker Road Resource Management Facilities, Guadalupe C&D Recovery Facility, and the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transport Station (SMaRT Station).

Table 3.12-3 summarizes the permitted daily capacity, estimated remaining capacity, and estimated closure dates for the solid waste disposal facilities that would serve the proposed Specific Plan Area.

Ascent Utilities and Service Systems
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.12-19 Table 3.12-3 Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
Facility Permitted Daily
Throughput (tons/day)
Permitted
Capacity (CY)
Estimated Remaining
Capacity (CY)
Estimated
Closure Date
Kirby Canyon Landfill 2,600 36,400,000 16,191,600 2059
Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill 3,650 28,238,855 7,518,220 2043 SMaRT Station 1,500 N/A N/A N/A
Mission Trails Waste Systems 375 N/A N/A N/A
Zanker Material Processing Facility (Landfill) 350 640,000 640,000 2025 Sources: CalRecycle 2024a, 2024b, 2024c, 2024d, 2024e.

Hazardous waste is being managed through Santa Clara County’s household hazardous waste (HHW) program, which provides a drop-off site for residents and small generators through an appointment-based system. Milpitas continues to participate in this program. Santa Clara County and the City of Milpitas hold an annual HHW collection event within the city to encourage proper disposal of hazardous waste.

CalRe
cycle tracks and monitors solid waste generation rates on a per capita basis. Per capita solid waste generation rates and total annual solid waste disposal volumes for the City between 201 6 and 2022 are shown in Table 3.12-4.

These yea
rs provide updates to the data presented in the General Plan Update EIR, which included data between 2010 and 2015.

Tabl
e 3.12-4 Solid Waste Generation Rates
Year Per Capita Disposal (Population)
(lbs/person/day)
Per Capita Disposal (Employment)
(lbs/person/day)
Total Disposal Tonnage
(tons/year)
2016 5.10 8.10 69,713
2017 5.10 7.50 68,593
2018 4.70 6.60 63,826
2019 4.20 6.00 57,915
2020 3.70 5.80 52,245
2021 3.40 6.00 49,941
2022 3.20 5.50 47,107
Notes: lbs – pounds.

Source: CalRecycle 2022.

As shown in Table 3.12-4, the City disposed of 47,107 tons of solid waste in 2022, which is a decrease of 32 percent from 2016. The City offers green waste and yard trimming disposal and recycling of mixed paper, bottles, cans and other recyclable materials. In 2022, the City had a per capita disposal rate of 3.2 pounds of solid waste per person per day for its general population and 6.4 pounds of solid waste per person per day for employees.

ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS
The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity and natural gas services to the residents and businesses of the city, including the Specific Plan Area. PG&E serves a total of 5.5 million electric customers and 4.5 million natural gas customers within a service area extending from Eureka in the north to Bakersfield in the south, and from the Pacific Ocean in the west to Sierra Nevada in the east. The PG&E electricity distribution system consists of 106,681 circuit miles of electric distribution lines and 18,466 circuit miles of interconnected transmission lines. The natural gas system consists of 42,141 miles of natural gas distribution pipelines and 6,438 miles of transmission pipelines (PG&E 2023a). In 2021 PG&E provided its customers with 30 percent eligible renewable energy (i.e., biomass combustion, geothermal, small scale hydroelectric solar, and wind) and 18 percent and 52 percent from large scale

Utilities and Service Systems Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.12-20 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR hydroelectric and natural gas, respectively (PG&E 2023b). 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 Specific Plan Area is served by two electrical substations located outside of the plan area:
 The Montague Substation, located east of I-880 on Montague Expressway; and  Milpitas Substation, located on Milpitas Boulevard, north of Montague Expressway.

A majority of the electrical service in the Specific Plan Area is currently located underground, except for a section of South Main Street, between Corning Avenue and West Curtis Avenue, and within the existing single family residential neighborhood around Corning Avenue and Sylvia Avenue west of South Abel Street.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Telecommunication services involve the transmission of information and include phone services (landlines and/or wireless services), internet (dial-up, fiber optics, broadband), television (cable, etc.), AM/FM radio, and computer networking. As defined by Federal Standard 1037C, telecommunication facilities include the following:
 Any fixed, mobile, or transportable structure, including all installed electrical and electronic wiring, cabling, and equipment and all supporting structures, such as utility, ground network, and electrical supporting structures.  A network-provided service to users or the network operating administration; a transmission pathway and associated equipment.
 A real property entity consisting of one or more of the following: a building, a structure, a utility system, pavement, and underlying land.

Wireless telecommunication services in the City are provided by various private companies. Additionally, Comcast/Xfinity is the primary provider of cable television in the City. Some companies also provide cable television services either separately or bundled with telecommunication services.

3.12.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The analysis of utilities impacts (wastewater, water, stormwater, solid waste, natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications) from implementation of the Specific Plan were assessed and quantified, where applicable, using information available from the 2021 Water Master Plan, 2021 Sewer Master Plan, and 2021 SDMP, as well as the WSA prepared for the Specific Plan (Appendix E), the 2020 UWMP, and available information regarding the existing capacity of utilities and service systems. The analysis of utilities impacts considers whether new or expanded facilities would be required to meet the utility demand from implementation of the Specific Plan, and whether the construction of these utilities would result in significant environmental impacts.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
A utilities and service systems impact would be significant if implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would:
 require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects;
 have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years;

Ascent Utilities and Service Systems
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.12-21  result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand, in addition to the provider’s existing commitments;  generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals;  not comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

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 3.12-1: Construction Impacts of New or Expanded Water, Wastewater Treatment, or Storm Water Drainage, Electric Power, Natural Gas, or Telecommunications Facilities The General Plan Update EIR (Impacts 3.15-1 through 3.15-6) determined that impacts related to environmental impacts from utility improvements as a result of General Plan implementation would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan could require the construction of utility extensions to serve future development. Development within the Specific Plan Area could include retention of existing infrastructure as well as installation of new utility lines and infrastructure. Because these improvements are needed to accommodate the water demand, wastewater generation, stormwater runoff, and electricity and natural gas demand associated with buildout of the proposed Specific Plan, the potential impacts associated with construction of utilities have been analyzed throughout this SEIR. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would not itself trigger construction of new or expanded off-site utilities to serve the project’s demand that are not planned for under the City’s infrastructure master plans. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

As addressed in General Plan Update EIR Impacts 3.15-1 through 3.15-6, implementation of the General Plan could result in construction of new or expanded infrastructure improvements for water, wastewater, drainage, and other utility services. The EIR identified as future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, subsequent development would be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable regulations. Subsequent development and infrastructure projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA.

Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in an increase in the number of residential units that could be developed within the Specific Plan Area, resulting in additional new residents beyond the number anticipated in the General Plan Update EIR. However, this increase in residential density would decrease the amount of commercial development that could occur within the Specific Plan Area compared to what was evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR. Since certification of the General Plan Update EIR, the City adopted comprehensive updates to several utility master plans, including the 2021 Water Master Plan, 2021 Sewer Master Plan, 2021 Sewer System Management Plan, and 2021 SDMP. Each of these plans identify CIP projects to be implemented throughout the c ity, including the Specific Plan Area, and are intended to address existing deficiencies in the city’s utility infrastructure as well as accommodate projected growth in the city. The specific CIP projects identified in each of these plans for the Specific Plan Area are summarized in Chapter 7, “Infrastructure & Public Services,” of the proposed Specific Plan. As described in Chapter 7 and shown in Figures 7-2, 7-5, and 7-6 of the Specific Plan, the CIP projects identified within the Specific Plan Area include stormwater, water, and sewer infrastructure improvements and would accommodate future development and growth from buildout of the Specific Plan. Implementation of the Specific Plan would not require the construction of new or expanded offsite utilities beyond those already planned for in the 2021 Water Master Plan, 2021 Sewer Master Plan, 2021 Sewer System Management Plan, and 2021 Storm Drain Master Plan. These CIP projects would be implemented irrespective of the Specific Plan.

Utilities and Service Systems Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.12-22 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR The installation of any new utility lines to serve future development associated with the Specific Plan would require ground disturbing construction activities. However, because of the urbanized nature of the Specific Plan Area, the installation of any new utility lines would occur within developed areas, such as within joint trenches, existing roadways, or within the footprint of existing utility infrastructure and would not require construction across undisturbed ground. The installation of all utilities would comply with applicable requirements of the Milpitas Municipal Code. Because future utility improvements would be needed to accommodate the water demand, wastewater generation, stormwater runoff, and natural gas and electricity demand associated with the Specific Plan , the potential impacts associated with the construction of utility lines are programmatically analyzed throughout this SEIR as part of overall development of the Specific Plan area. For example, Section 3.2, “Air Quality,” Section 3.5, “Energy,” Section 3.6, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change,” and Section 3.8, “Noise and Vibration,” evaluate increases in air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions and noise levels associated with constructing, operating, and maintaining utility improvements needed to serve future development under the Specific Plan.

Section 3.4, “Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources,” evaluates the potential impacts that trenching and excavation for utility installation may have on buried resources. As required by law, utility connections would be constructed in accordance with all applicable building codes and standards to ensure that new transmission and conveyance systems are adequately sized and properly constructed. All necessary connections would be constructed prior to building occupancy and in a manner that would minimize the potential for utility ser vice disruption of existing uses.

Subsequent infrastructure projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA and the conclusions of this SEIR.

Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan includes several standards, identified in Sections 7.1.2, 7.2.2, 7.3.2, and 7.4.2 of the Specific Plan, intended to ensure that water, sewer, and stormwater infrastructure would be able to support future growth in the Specific Plan Area. Regarding stormwater infrastructure, provisions include providing storm drain infrastructure that is designed to serve new development and meet City standards; ensuring that that run- off in storm drains does not lower water quality within or outside of the Specific Plan Area by implementing Best Management Practices in new development; constructing the improvements within the Specific Plan Area that were identified in the 2021 SDMP. Additionally, in conjunction with plans for future streetscape improvements along Main Street as part of the Sense of Place Plan, a study to determine the stormwater infrastructure system improvements needed to address flooding along Main Street would be conducted, and to addressing gaps in the stormwater infrastructure system; improving public curb and gutter along the project frontage and eliminate ponding to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and, upgrading and expanding the storm drain system in accordance with the Storm Drain Master Plan, including conducting a study to determine the stormwater infrastructure system improvements needed to address flooding along Main Street, including addressing gaps in the stormwater infrastructure system, and as required along new roads within the Specific Plan Area, ensuring it meets the needs of new development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Regarding water infrastructure, standards include providing water supply for the Specific Plan Area from the City’s portfolio of water supplies and prohibiting the entitlement of development to municipal water until building permits are issued by the City; reducing overall potable water consumption through water conservation measures, including through the use of recycled water, water saving features, and drought-tolerant landscaping; upgrading, expanding, and looping the water distribution system in accordance with the Water Master Plan and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to ensure it can adequately serve new development within the Specific Plan Area; and developing parcel-by-parcel water models at the project level to evaluate project-specific effects on the City’s water infrastructure and identify necessary improvements and funding mechanisms for associated improvements.

Additionally, an update the City’s water model would be conducted as part of the Main Street Sense of Place Plan to reflect buildout of the Specific Plan and any necessary upgrades to the City’s water infrastructure system.

Regarding wastewater infrastructure, standards include requiring development to obtain a building permit issued by the City prior to being entitled to wastewater treatment capacity; require new development to participate in fair share contributions to downstream improvements that were identified as deficient in the 2021 Sewer Master Plan, and fair share contributions would be re-evaluated by the City with any significant updates to the Sewer Master Plan; and upgrading and expanding the sanitary sewer system in accordance with the Sewer Master Plan and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, ensuring it meets the needs of new development in the Specific Plan Area.

Ascent Utilities and Service Systems
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.12-23 All future development associated with the Specific Plan would be required to comply with the standards identified in Chapter 7 of the proposed Specific Plan. The full list of infrastructure provisions is provided in Chapter 7, Sections

7.1.2 (Stormwater Infrastructure), 7.2.2 (Flood Protection), 7.3.2 (Water Infrastructure), and 7.4.2 (Sewer Infrastructure) of the proposed Specific Plan. As demonstrated in the proposed Specific Plan, the utility needs of future development within the Specific Plan Area would be evaluated at the project-level as individual development projects are proposed, and should any infrastructure improvements be identified, they would be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan standards would ensure that adequate utility infrastructure would be available to serve future development within the Specific Plan Area. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with General Plan Policies USC 1-1 through 1-3 and associated Actions USC-1b and USC-1c.

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

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Impact 3.12-2: Have Sufficient Water Supplies Available to Serve the Project and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Development
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.15-1) determined that General Plan implementation would result in sufficient water supplies available to serve the City and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years and that this impact would be less than significant. Based on the WSA, implementation of the Specific Plan would decrease water demand by 105,875 gpd as compared to buildout under the General Plan.

However, the 2020 UWMP identifies that the City would have shortfalls in supply in 2025, 2030, and 2045 under single dry-year and multiple dry year conditions if contract water supply sources provided by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and Valley Water are reduced. This water supply shortage would apply city-wide and would not directly occur because of the proposed Specific Plan. Although the potential water demand would decrease under the proposed Specific Plan compared to the land uses assumed in the General Plan Update EIR, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would contribute to water supply shortages that would potentially trigger the need to construct additional groundwater wells, the construction and operation of which could result in significant environmental impacts. However, the City is implementing drought contingency measures identified in the UWMP through the construction of additional groundwater wells to offset water supply shortages identified for 2030 and 2045. Therefore, sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the Specific Plan and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

As discussed in the General Plan Update EIR, implementation of the General Plan would result in increased population and employment growth as well as a corresponding increase in demand for water supplies. However, the General Plan Update EIR determined that the City would have adequate water supplies available to accommodate buildout of the General Plan based on water supply and demand projections in the City’s 2015 UWMP . Additionally, the General Plan Update includes a range of policies designed to ensure an adequate water supply for development and to minimize the potential adverse effects of increased water use. The General Plan Update EIR concluded that potential impacts associated with water supply would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in an increase in the number of residential units that could be developed within the Specific Plan Area, resulting in additional new residents beyond the number anticipated in the General Plan Update EIR. However, this increase in residential density would decrease the amount of commercial development that could occur within the Specific Plan Area compared to what was evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR. The WSA prepared for the project calculated the change in water demand associated with the Specific Plan compared with the demand identified in the General Plan for the Specific Plan Area (Appendix E). Table 3.12-5 shows the changes in water demand between the adopted General Plan and proposed Specific Plan.

Utilities and Service Systems Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.12-24 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Table 3.12-5 Comparison of Adopted General Plan to the Specific Plan Water Demands Project
Land Use Type
Residential
(Dwelling units)
Non-Residential
Land Use Type
(Square feet)
Residential
Water Demand
Factors
(gpd/du)1
Residential
Water Demand
Factors Non-
(gpd/ksf)2
Residential Water
Demands
(Gallons Per Day)
Non-Residential
Water Demands
(Gallons Per Day)
Total
(Gallons Per
Day)
General Plan Land
Uses for Specific Plan
Area3
3,838 3,293,240 170 270 652,460 889,175 1,541,635
Proposed Specific
Plan
5,176 2,058,666 170 270 879,920 555,840 1,435,760
Increase 1,338 -1,234,574 - - 227,460 -333,335 -105,875

1. Assumed gallons per dwelling unit based on the City of Sunnyvale Lawrence Station Area Plan Update/Intuitive Surgical Corporate Campus Project Water Supply Assessment (City of Sunnyvale 2020) as the 2020 UWMP and the City of Milpitas Water Master Plan do not provide water demand factors on a per unit basis.

2. Assumed gallons per 1,000 square feet of non-residential use for a mix commercial, industrial and institutional uses based on the City of Sunnyvale Lawrence Station Area Plan Update/Intuitive Surgical Corporate Campus Project Water Supply Assessment (City of Sunnyvale 2020) as the 2020 UWMP and the City of Milpitas Water Master Plan do not provide water demand factors on a square footage basis.

3. The allowable development numbers under the General Plan include the development assumptions of the adopted Midtown Plan.

Source: Compiled by Ascent 2024.

As shown in Table 3.12-5, implementation of the Specific Plan would decrease water demand by 105,875 gpd, resulting in a decrease of 119 AFY compared to the land uses assumed for the Specific Plan Area in the General Plan Update EIR.

Since certification of the General Plan Update EIR, the City adopted the 2020 UWMP in June 2021, which provides updates to the water demand and supply projections for the city from the 2015 UWMP relied on in the General Plan Update EIR. The 2020 UWMP specifically includes the proposed land uses and development projections in the Specific Plan; thus, the water demand associated with the proposed Specific Plan has been accounted for in the 2020 UWMP. As detailed in the 2020 UWMP and shown in Table 3.12-2, estimated water demand in the city would be met by the supply in each 5-year increment through 2045 during normal year conditions. However, future water demand in the city would not be met in 2025 under drought conditions, including single dry year and multiple dry years.

Additionally, water demand would not be met in 2030 under multiple dry year conditions (third through fifth years) or 2045 under multiple dry year conditions (fourth and fifth years). This water supply shortage would apply citywide and would not directly occur because of the proposed Specific Plan; however, because the proposed land uses and development projections in the Specific Plan were accounted for in the 2020 UWMP, the Specific Plan would contribute to the water supply shortage during these dry year conditions.

During dry year conditions, the City would implement its 2020 WSCP that includes voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures to address water supply shortages. Specifically, Table 3-2 of the 2020 WSCP identifies water demand reduction actions that include a range of measures (e.g., restrictions on operation of water features, landscaping irrigation, public information campaigns, reductions of system water loss) that are identified to reduce the water supply shortage gap from 1 to 70 percent. The 2020 WSCP also includes Table 3 -3 that identifies water augmentation through the installation of five additional groundwater wells by 2025 and two additional groundwater wells by 2040, each with a 1.2 mgd production capacity. This could include involve a managed groundwater well extraction program similar to neighboring water agencies, ACWD to the north and City of Santa Clara and San Jose Water Company to the south. The south-western portion of the City of Milpitas overlays a groundwater aquifer that has been determined to be adequately productive. In-pipe blending of groundwater with SFPUC and Valley Water has been identified viable option for augmenting supply shortages. Four wells at an average withdrawal rate of 1.2 million gallons per day (450 million gallons per year) would produce up to 5 million gallons per day of supplemental water supply for the City. Based on the shortfalls identified in Table 3.12-2, groundwater production by four wells would be adequate to offset water supply shortages identified for 2030 and 2045. The construction of these additional groundwater wells would have the potential to result in direct environmental effects, including potential

Ascent Utilities and Service Systems
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.12-25 impacts on air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, water quality, and noise, as well as secondary environmental effects such as aquifer depletion, changes in groundwater flow, and subsidence.

As previously mentioned, the General Plan Update EIR concluded that the City would have adequate water supplies available to accommodate buildout of the General Plan based on water supply and demand projections in the City’s 2015 UWMP, resulting in a less-than-significant impact on water supply. However, based on updated water supply and demand projections in the 2020 UWMP, which accounted for the land uses and development projections of the proposed Specific Plan, water supply shortages have been identified during dry year conditions for 2025, 2030, 2045.

Therefore, although the potential water demand would decrease under the proposed Specific Plan compared to the land uses assumed in the General Plan Update EIR, implementation of the Specific Plan would contribute to water supply shortages that would potentially trigger the need to construct additional groundwater wells, the construction and operation of which could result in significant environmental impacts. However, the City is implementing drought contingency measures identified in the UWMP through the construction of additional groundwater wells to offset water supply shortages identified for 2030 and 2045. McCandless Well, located in Delango Manaong Park along McCandless Drive, is a production well that is currently under construction. The well casing was completed in 2021 with the remaining to facilities anticipated to begin construction in early 2025. The well would be available for use in 2027. Pinewood well is an existing standby well that may be converted into production. According to the City Water Master Plan, Curtis well, designated to be a production well, is anticipated to be constructed between 2031 and 2035 (Silveira, pers. comm., 2025). Operation of McCandless Well alone could provide approximately 649 AFY of supplemental water supply that would offset the UWMP projected dry year conditions through the year 2040.

Therefore, sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the Specific Plan and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.

The proposed Specific Plan includes several provisions intended to ensure a reliable, sustainable water supply that supports future growth projections within the Specific Plan Area. These provisions include providing water supply for the Specific Plan Area from the City’s portfolio of water supplies and prohibiting the entitlement of development to municipal water until building permits are issued by the City; reducing overall potable water consumption through water conservation measures, including through the use of recycled water, water saving features, and drought - tolerant landscaping; upgrading, expanding, and looping the water distribution system in accordance with the Water Master Plan and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to ensure it can adequately serve new development within the Specific Plan Area; and developing water models at the project level to evaluate project-specific effects on the City’s water infrastructure and identify necessary improvements and funding mechanisms for associated improvements. All future development associated with the Specific Plan would be required to comply with the standards identified in Chapter 7 of the proposed Specific Plan. The full list of water infrastructure provisions is provided in Chapter 7, Section 7.3.2 of the proposed Specific Plan. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with General Plan Policies USC 2-1 and USC 2-4 and associated Action USC-2f.

The proposed water infrastructure provisions would help to reduce water demand associated with buildout of the Specific Plan. Therefore, water supply impacts from implementation of the Specific Plan would be less than significant.

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.

Utilities and Service Systems Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.12-26 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Impact 3.12-3: Have Adequate Wastewater Treatment Capacity The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.15-3) determined that adequate wastewater treatment capacity would be available to accommodate General Plan implementation and that this impact would be less than significant. The proposed land use changes within the Specific Plan Area would result in a decrease in water demand by 105,875 gpd, as compared to buildout under the General Plan. Assuming a 1 to 1 ratio of water consumption to wastewater generation, the proposed Specific Plan would result in a corresponding decrease in wastewater of 105,875 gpd as compared to buildout under the General Plan. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan includes provisions intended to ensure that sewer infrastructure is able to support future growth in the Specific Plan Area. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain
less than significant.

As discussed in the General Plan Update EIR Impact 3.15-3, continued growth in the City would increase the need for water and wastewater services, including a reliable source of recycled water. These needs have been addressed in the three utility districts’ master plans and will require that the districts, in coordination with the City, continue to implement phased improvements to some pump stations, sewer mains, and the various wastewater treatment plants when triggered by growth. The General Plan Update EIR determined that estimated average dry weather flow from buildout of the General Plan would be below the City’s current treatment capacity rights. Additionally, the General Plan Update includes a range of policies that would further assist in ensuring that adequate wastewater treatment and conveyance infrastructure is available to serve new growth projected under the General Plan. The General Plan Update EIR concluded that impacts associated with wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in an increase in the number of residential units that could be developed within the Specific Plan Area, resulting in additional new residents beyond the number anticipated in the General Plan Update EIR. However, this increase in residential density would decrease the amount of commercial development that could occur within the Specific Plan Area compared to what was evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR. As discussed under Impact 3.12-2, the proposed land use changes within the Specific Plan Area would result in a decrease in water demand by 105,875 gpd as compared to buildout under the General Plan. Assuming a 1 to 1 ratio of water consumption to wastewater generation, the proposed Specific Plan would result in a corresponding decrease in wastewater of 105,875 gpd as compared to buildout under the General Plan.

Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan includes several provisions intended to ensure that sewer infrastructure is able to support future growth in the Specific Plan Area, including requiring development to obtain a building permit issued by the City prior to being entitled to wastewater treatment capacity; participating in fair share contributions to downstream improvements that were identified as deficient in the 2021 Sewer Master Plan, and any other improvements identified in subsequent updates to the Sewer Master Plan; and upgrading and expanding the sanitary sewer system in accordance with the Sewer Master Plan and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, ensuring it meets the needs of new development in the Specific Plan Area. All future development associated with the Specific Plan would be required to comply with the standards identified in Chapter 7 of the proposed Specific Plan. The full list of wastewater infrastructure provisions is provided in Chapter 7, Section 7.4.2 of the proposed Specific Plan.

Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with General Plan Policies USC 3- 1 through 3-3 and associated Action USC-3b.

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 Utilities and Service Systems
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.12-27 Impact 3.12-4: Solid Waste Facilities and Compliance with Solid Waste Statutes and Regulations The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.15-6) determined that General Plan implementation would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local in frastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals, and that this impact would be less than significant.

Future construction and demolition activities associated with development under the proposed Specific Plan would generate solid waste, including metals, plastics, wood, concrete, and other building materials. However, future construction activities would be required to comply with applicable waste diversion requirements, including CALGreen Divisions 4.4 and 5.4, which requires a minimum of 65 percent of all non-hazardous construction and demolition waste for residential and non-residential development, respectively, to be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. Additionally, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would generate approximately 8.3 fewer tons of operation-related solid waste per day and 3,037 fewer tons of operation-related solid waste per year compared to what was identified in the General Plan Update EIR. As such, Kirby Canyon Landfill would have sufficient capacity to accommodate solid waste generated from buildout of the Specific Plan, and the Specific Plan would not contribute to an exceedance of the landfill’s disposal capacity. Furthermore, future development under the Specific Plan would be required to comply with all applicable state and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including AB 939, AB 341, AB 1826, and the Milpitas Municipal Code, which would reduce the amount of operation-related solid waste that would be disposed of at Kerby Canyon Landfill. Finally, the proposed Specific Plan includes several provisions intended to ensure that solid waste facilities would be able to support future growth in the Specific Plan Area and that waste continues to be collected and disposed of safely. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain
less than significant.

As discussed in the General Plan Update EIR Impact 3.15-6, future development associated with buildout of the General Plan would result in an increase in population and associated solid waste generation within the City.

However, the General Plan Update EIR determined that the amount of solid waste generated by buildout of the General Plan would be well within the Newby Island Landfill’s permitted capacity of 57.5 million cubic yards.

Additionally, the General Plan Update includes policies and actions to further reduce effects on solid waste services.

The General Plan Update EIR concluded that impacts related to solid waste would be less than significant.

Construction
Construction and demolition activities associated with the proposed Specific Plan would generate solid waste, including metals, plastics, wood, concrete, and other building materials. C onstruction of future development under the Specific Plan would be required to comply with applicable waste diversion requirements. Although the City does not have a separate ordinance for construction and demolition debris recycling, it adopted the 2022 edition of CALGreen (CCR, Part 11 of Title 24) as part of its building code (Title II, Chapter 3). Divisions 4.4 and 5.4 of CALGreen require a minimum of 65 percent of all non-hazardous construction and demolition waste for residential and non- residential development, respectively, to be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. Code requirements include preparing a construction waste management plan that identifies the materials to be diverted from disposal by efficient usage, recycling, reuse on the project, or salvage for future use or sale; determining whether materials will be s orted on-site or mixed; and identifying diversion facilities where the materials collected will be taken.

Demolition debris, including concrete, that can be recycled would be taken to MTWS, while non-recyclable or reusable materials would be disposed of at the Kirby Canyon Landfill. Compliance with applicable state and local regulations related to construction demolition and debris would reduce the amount of solid waste that would be disposed of in landfills from construction of future development under the Specific Plan. Therefore, because a majority of the waste generated during future construction activities would be recycled or salvaged for reuse in compliance with existing local and state regulations, future construction activities under the Specific Plan would not substantially contribute to the remaining capacity available at the Kirby Canyon Landfill. Accordingly, construction associated with implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to solid waste compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

Utilities and Service Systems Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.12-28 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Operation
State and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste include AB 939, AB 341, AB 1826, and Title V, Chapter 200 (Solid Waste Management) of the Milpitas Municipal Code. AB 939 requires jurisdictions to utilize “integrated waste management,” and established mandatory State waste diversion goals of 25 percent by the year 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000, and, with the adoption of AB 341 in May 2012, 75 percent of solid waste from landfills by 2020. AB 341 also establishes the statewide mandatory commercial recycling program, which requires businesses that generate 4 cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week, or multi- family residential dwellings of five units or more, to implement recycling practices during o peration to help the State achieve the statewide diversion goal of 75 percent. AB 1826 requires a business that generates 4 cubic yards or more of organic waste per week to arrange for recycling services for that organic waste in a specified manner. The bi ll would also require a business that generates 4 cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week, on and after January 1, 2019, to arrange for organic waste recycling services and, if CalRecycle makes a specified determination, would decrease that amount to 2 cubic yards, on or after January 1, 2020. Chapter 200 of the Milpitas Municipal Code includes solid waste collection, diversion, and disposal requirements for both residential and commercial generators.

Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in an increase in the number of residential units that could be developed within the Specific Plan Area, resulting in additional new residents beyond the number anticipated in the General Plan Update EIR. However, this increase in residential density would decrease the amount of commercial development that could occur within the Specific Plan Area compared to what was evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR. As discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” it is estimated that the proposed Specific Plan at buildout could result in a population of 16,384 residents (General Plan identified 9,557 residents in the Midtown Specific Plan Area) and 5,541 jobs (General Plan identified 11,555 jobs in the Midtown Specific Plan Area).

As shown in Table 3.12-4, the City’s disposal rates have been steadily decreasing over time and would likely continue to decrease throughout the life of the Specific Plan in accordance with state and local solid waste diversion requirements. In 2022, the City had a per capita disposal rate of 3.2 pounds of solid waste per person per day for residents and 6.4 pounds of solid waste per person per day for employees in 2022. Conservatively assuming that these disposal rates would remain constant throughout the life of the Specific Plan, implementation of the Specific Plan would generate approximately 87,891 pounds of solid waste per day, which equates to 43.9 tons per day or 16,040 tons per year of solid waste. Applying the same disposal rates to the population and employment projections identified for the Specific Plan Area in the General Plan Update EIR, the General Plan land uses for the Specific Plan Area would generate approximately 104,534 pounds of solid waste per day, which equates to 52.3 tons per day or 19,078 tons per year of solid waste. As such, the proposed Specific Plan would generate approximately 3,037 fewer tons of solid waste per year compared to what was identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

Additionally, the General Plan Update EIR evaluated the potential for development associated with buildout of the General Plan to generate solid waste in excess of the available remaining capacity at Newby Island Landfill. However, since certification of the General Plan Update EIR, the City entered into a franchise agreement with MSI for solid waste collection and disposal services. Waste collected by MSI is disposed of at varying facilities depending on the material waste stream (e.g., garbage, recyclables, food waste, yard trimmings, and construction and demolition). Solid waste is disposed of at the Kirby Canyon Landfill, while recyclables, yard trimmings, and food scraps would be diverted to other facilities as described in Section 3.12.2, “Environmental Setting.” As shown in Table 3.12-3, Kirby Canyon Landfill can accept up to 2,600 tons per day of waste and has a remaining permitted capacity of 16,191,600 cubic yards as of 2015, with an estimated closure date of 2059. Implementation of the Specific Plan would generate approximately 43.9 tons of solid waste per day, which would represent approximately 1.7 percent of the daily permitted capacity of Kirby Canyon Landfill. This amount of daily solid waste would be well within the landfill’s daily permitted capacity. Moreover, the amount of daily solid waste generated by the Specific Plan land uses would be a reduction of 8.3 tons per day compared to what was evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR. As such, Kirby Canyon Landfill would have sufficient capacity to accommodate solid waste generated from buildout of the Specific Plan, and the Specific Plan would not contribute to an exceedance of the landfill’s disposal capacity. Furthermore, future development under the Specific Plan would be required to comply with all applicable state and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including AB 939, AB 341, AB 1826, and the Milpitas Municipal Code, which would reduce the amount of operation-related solid waste that would be disposed of at Kerby Canyon Landfill.

Ascent Utilities and Service Systems
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 3.12-29 Finally, the proposed Specific Plan includes several provisions intended to ensure that solid waste facilities would be able to support future growth in the Specific Plan Area and that waste continues to be collected and disposed of safely. These provisions include requiring all new development to participate to the maximum extent practical in solid waste source reduction and diversion programs and negotiating new agreements to handle the long- term disposal of its solid waste before the expiration of the current waste disposal contract. All future development associated with the Specific Plan would be required to comply with the provisions identified in Chapter 7 of the proposed Specific Plan. The full list of solid waste facility provisions is provided in Chapter 7, Section 7.5.1 of the proposed Specific Plan.

Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with General Plan Policies USC 5-2 through 5-4.

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.

Utilities and Service Systems Ascent
City of Milpitas

3.12-30 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR This page is intentionally left blank.

City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 4-1 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

4.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
This Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) provides an analysis of cumulative impacts of the proposed Specific Plan, as required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130. The goal of such an exercise is twofold:
first, to determine whether the overall long-term impacts of all such projects would be cumulatively significant; and second, to determine whether the incremental contribution to any such cumulatively significant impacts by the project would be “cumulatively considerable” (and thus significant) (See State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15130[a]–[b], Section 15355[b], Section 15064[h], and Section 15065[c]; and Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency [2002] 103 Cal. App. 4th 98, 120). In other words, the required analysis intends first to create a broad context in which to assess cumulative impacts, viewed on a geographic scale beyond the project site itself, and then to determine whether the project’s incremental contribution to any significant cumulative impacts from all projects is itself significant (i.e., “cumulatively considerable”).

Cumulative impacts are defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” A cumulative impact occurs from “the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355[b]).

4.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, the discussion of cumulative impacts in this Draft SEIR focuses on significant and potentially significant cumulative impacts. Section 15130(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides, in part, the following:
[t]he discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness and should focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute rather than the attributes of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact.

A proposed project is considered to have a significant cumulative effect if:
 the cumulative effects of development without the project are not significant and the project ’s additional impact is substantial enough, when added to the cumulative effects, to result in a significant impact; or  the cumulative effects of development without the project are already significant and the project contributes measurably to the effect.

The term “measurably” is subject to interpretation. The standards used herein to determine measurability are that the impact must be noticeable to a reasonable person or must exceed an established threshold of significance (defined throughout the resource sections in Chapter 3 of this Draft SEIR). This cumulative analysis also assumes that all mitigation measures identified in Chapter 3 to mitigate Project impacts are adopted and implemented t o minimize environmental effects.

The State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15130) identify two basic methods for establishing the cumulative environment in which the project is to be considered: the use of a list of past, present, and probable future projects, or the use of adopted projections from a general plan, other regional planning document, or a certified EIR for such a planning document. This analysis uses a combination of the list and planning document approach, as described further below.

Cumulative Impacts Ascent
City of Milpitas
4-2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR The cumulative impact analysis provided in this chapter evaluates whether the Project could result in potentially new cumulatively considerable impacts or an increase in the severity of previously identified cumulative impacts that were identified in the General Plan EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(b).

4.3 CUMULATIVE SETTING
Section 15130(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the discussion of cumulative impacts should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness, and should include the following elements, which are necessary to an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts:
 A discussion of the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative impact.  Either 1) a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts or 2) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or similar document.  A summary of expected environmental effects to be produced by these projects.  Reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative effects.

This SEIR makes use of both the list and project approaches depending on the environmental issue area.

4.3.1 Geographic Scope
The geographic area that could be affected by the project and is appropriate for a cumulative impact analysis varies depending on the environmental resource topic, as presented in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1 Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impacts
Resource Topic Geographic Area
Aesthetics Specific Plan Area and surrounding public viewshed Air Quality Region (pollutant emissions that affect the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin) and immediate project vicinity (pollutant emissions that are highly localized) Biological Resources Specific Plan Area and region
Cultural, and Tribal Cultural Resources Specific Plan Area and region Energy Pacific Gas & Electric Company service area and state Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Global/statewide Land Use and Planning City of Milpitas
Noise and Vibration Specific Plan Area and immediate project-specific vicinity Population and Housing City of Milpitas and Santa Clara County Public Services and Recreation City of Milpitas
Transportation Specific Plan Area and region
Utilities and Service Systems Region (water supply); local service areas (all other utilities) Source: Compiled by Ascent in 2024.

4.3.2 Regional Planning Environment

CITY OF MILPITAS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
The City of Milpitas General Plan Update was adopted in 2021 and serves as the long-term planning document for the city through 2040. It establishes goals, policies, and actions to guide the future growth and development of the

Ascent Cumulative Impacts
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 4-3 city. The General Plan Update is used by City leaders, City staff, developers, and community members in making decisions about the City's physical and social development. The Planning Area for the General Plan Update includes both land within City boundaries (13.6 square miles, or 8,704 acres) and areas of Santa Clara County within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI).

Full buildout of the General Plan Update could generate an additional 11,186 dwelling units, 37,473 residents, 19,729,648 square feet of non-residential building square footage, and 36,795 jobs through the 2040 planning horizon (City of Milpitas 2020: Table 2.0-2). Under this scenario, the City would accommodate a total of 33,401 dwelling units, 113,530 residents, 47,807,536 square feet of non-residential building square footage, and 84,333 jobs.

The EIR for the General Plan Update evaluated the full development potential of the General Plan, including the Specific Plan Area, compared to existing (2017) conditions (City of Milpitas 2020). However, it should be noted that the Specific Plan Area evaluated within the General Plan Update EIR.

As part of the General Plan, the City is required to adopt a Housing Element, which identifies how the City plans for current and future housing needs by analyzing the City’s housing needs, assesses past accomplishments and fair housing practices, shows opportunities for future residential development, and addresses potential constraints to the development of housing in the city. Under State law, the City is required to update its Housing Element every eight years, with the most current Housing Element (2023-2031 Housing Element) being adopted on January 24, 2023. For the 2023-2031 planning period, the City was assigned a Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) of 6,713 housing units. The 2023-2031 Housing Element identifies the City’s housing plan to achieve the City’s RHNA while not exceeding the total 33,401 dwelling units included in the buildout capacity estimated under the General Plan Update and evaluated within the corresponding EIR.

ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 in October 2021. The Final Plan Bay Area 2050 is an updated long-range Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. The plan charts a course for transportation investment and land-use priorities.

Plan Bay Area 2050, which serves as ABAG’s Regional Transportation/Sustainable Communities Strategy (R TP/SCS), identifies the City’s housing plan designed to guide future development as the City works to achieve State- mandated housing goals by provides regional housing, land use planning, and transportation planning for its nine- county region, which encompasses Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma Counties. In developing Plan Bay Area 2050, ABAG prepared land use forecast and modeling to forecast the growth in jobs by industry, housing units and population in the Bay Area. Plan Bay Area 2050 projects future growth within ABAG’s plan area over a 30-year planning period, which is based on economic and demographic projections through 2050, adopted and pending land use plans and policies, market and economic considerations, and other state and federal policies and regulations that can affect the locations and pace of growth. The number of new residents in the ABAG area is estimated to increase by approximately 2,670,000 people between 2015 and 2050 (ABAG 2021: Table 8).

CITY OF MILPITAS METRO SPECIFIC PLAN
The Milpitas Metro Specific Plan (Metro Plan) is an update to the Milpitas Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP), adopted in 2008. The Metro Plan Area is adjacent to the east of the proposed Specific Plan Area. The Metro Plan, adopted in February 2023, increases the Metro Plan Area from approximately 437 acres to approximately 510 gross acres and includes annexations on the east and west sides of the original Metro Plan Area. The long-term focus of this work is to continue and accelerate the transformation of this area from industrial and auto-oriented to a vibrant, connected and fully developed transit oriented neighborhood. The Metro Plan buildout planned for a total of 7,000 residential units, 300,000 square feet of retail space, and 3,000,000 square feet of office space (including 500,000 sf of industrial uses) to be built by 2040.

Cumulative Impacts Ascent
City of Milpitas
4-4 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR

4.3.3 Related Projects
A list of probable future projects is provided below. Probable future projects are those in the project vicinity that have the possibility of interacting with the project to generate a cumulative impact (based on proximity and construction schedule). These projects:
 are partially occupied or under construction,
 have received final discretionary approvals,
 have applications accepted as complete by local agencies and are undergoing environmental review, or  are proposed projects that have been discussed publicly by an applicant or that otherwise have become known to a local agency and for which information is sufficient to allow at least a general analysis of environmental impacts.

Past and present projects in the vicinity are also considered as part of the cumulative analysis because they contribute to the existing conditions upon which the project’s and probable future projects’ environmental effects are considered.

Table 4-2 briefly summarizes reasonably foreseeable large-scale projects in the project area.

Table 4-2 Cumulative Projects List
Project Number Location Project Summary Project Status
P-SD22-0003 1355 California Circle, Milpitas, CA Residential development project located on 6.7 acres. Project proposes 206 residential units.

Approved
P-SD16-0003 1301 California Circle, Milpitas, CA Hotel development project located on 6.36 acres. Project proposes 150 hotel rooms within a 101,367 square feet
structure.

Approved
P-SD22-0007 612 S Main Street, Milpitas, CA Multi-family residential development on 2.31 acres. Includes 57 residential units.

Approved
P-SD19-0006 600 Barber Lane, Milpitas, CA Mixed-use residential development on 3 acres. Includes 372 residential units and 20,000 square feet of office use.

Approved
P-SD15-0006 Milpitas, CA Mixed-use development on 7.91 acres. Includes 213 residential units within a 221,541 square feet structure.

Approved; under
development
Source: Compiled by Ascent 2024.

4.4 ANALYSIS OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Because the General Plan is essentially a set of guidelines for projects that could occur within the timeframe of the General Plan, the Plan itself represents the cumulative development scenario for the reasonably foreseeable future in the City. Therefore, the analysis presented in this Draft SEIR generally represents a cumulative analysis of the City of Milpitas as a whole over the General Plan planning horizon (updated as noted above) described above. In instances where other cumulative development in neighboring jurisdictions or within the region as a whole could contribute to impacts generated by the proposed Specific Plan, those impacts, as well as the context, are discussed in the cumulative impact discussion that follows the impacts in each section.

As indicated above, CEQA requires that an EIR include an assessment of the cumulative impacts that could be associated with project implementation. This assessment involves examining project -related effects on the environment in the context of similar effects that have been caused by past or existing projects, as well as the anticipated effects of future projects. An EIR must discuss the cumulative impacts of a project when its incremental effect will be cumulatively considerable. Although project-related impacts may be individually minor, the cumulative effects of these impacts, in combination with the impacts of other projects, could be significant under CEQA and must be addressed (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130[a]). Section 15130(a)(3) states that an EIR may determine that a project’s contribution to a significant cumulative impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable, and thus not significant, if a project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. Section 15130(b) indicates that the level of detail of the cumulative

Ascent Cumulative Impacts
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 4-5 analysis need not be as great as for the project impact analyses; that it should reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence; and that it should be focused, practical, and reasonable.

The following sections contain a discussion of the cumulative effects anticipated from implementation of the proposed Specific Plan, together with related projects and planned development, for each of the environmental issue areas evaluated in this Draft SEIR. The analysis herein analyzes whether, after implementation of project - specific mitigation that minimize environmental effects, the residual impacts of the Project would cause a cumulatively significant impact or would contribute considerably to existi ng or anticipated (without the proposed Specific Plan ) cumulatively significant effects that were identified in General Plan Update EIR. Where the proposed Specific Plan would cumulatively contribute to impacts, additional mitigation is recommended where feasible .

4.4.1 Aesthetics
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative scenic resource impacts includes areas adjacent to and visible from the Specific Plan Area, or areas that would be visible from locations that currently include views of the Specific Plan Area. These viewing areas include elevated freeways and freeway connector ramps to the north and south of the Specific Plan Area, adjacent surface streets, existing open space and hillsides to the east, and neighborhoods within the Specific Plan Area and adjacent to the Specific Plan Area.

Aesthetic impacts related to visual character and quality impacts and light and glare identified for the proposed Specific Plan are summarized below. As discussed in Section 3.1, “Aesthetics,” of this Draft SEIR, buildout of the project would not result in impacts on scenic vistas or scenic resources (scenic roadways and highways) and would therefore not combine to create considerable changes and cumulative effects on visual resources. Therefore, impacts related to scenic vistas or scenic resources are not discussed further.

IMPACT 4.4.1-1: CONTRIBUTE TO CUMULATIVE VISUAL CHARACTER IMPACTS Impact 4.1 of the General Plan Update EIR evaluated whether buildout of the General Plan would result in a significant contribution to the cumulative degradation of the existing visual character of the region. The General Plan Update EIR determined this impact would be less than cumulatively considerable because the General Plan would be implemented in an already urbanized area. The Specific Plan Area is located within a built -out area of the city, and continued implementation of the General Plan, as well as recent development trends in the region, would encourage the further redevelopment of existing uses within higher density and elevation project. Future development would be subject to design standards identified in the Objective Design Standards included in Chapter 4 of the proposed Specific Plan. Section 4.2 of the proposed Specific Plan identifies standards for site planning, urban form, and building design including the overall building form and massing, as well as primary building architectural features, including building entries, windows, roofs, materials, and colors, organized. The proposed Specific Plan Objective Design Standards would implement and be consistent with General Plan policies CD 1 -1, CD 3-1 through CD 3-10, and LU 5-1 through LU 5-3. Through implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Objective Design Standards and adherence to the City’s design review process, the existing views and character throughout the City, including within the Specific Plan Area, would be maintained. Therefore, future development would not detract from the existing visual character present within the Specific Plan Area. Thus, the project would not result in a new or greater contribution to cumulative visual character or quality impacts beyond what was identified in the General Plan Update EIR. This impact would remain
less than cumulatively considerable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

IMPACT 4.4.1-2: CONTRIBUTE TO CUMULATIVE LIGHT AND GLARE IMPACTS Impact 4.1 of the General Plan Update EIR evaluated whether buildout of the General Plan would result in a significant contribution to the cumulative increase in lighting. The General Plan Update EIR determined this impact would be less than cumulatively considerable because buildout of the General Plan would occur in an already urbanized area, in compliance with the General Plan policies and actions and adopted regulations pertaining to lighting.

Cumulative Impacts Ascent
City of Milpitas
4-6 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Cumulative effects of lighting are visible over a wide area, because of the potential for lighting from a number of projects to create skyglow. Under existing conditions, the Specific Plan Area, and surrounding areas, experience lighting in the form of streetlights, or illumination for paths, buildings, and other noteworthy structures. As described in Impact 3.1-3 of this Draft SEIR, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would introduce new lighting sources; however, while these fixtures would be similar in nature to existing lighting, and would not contribute new high, intensity lighting (i.e., field lighting) that could contribute substantially to night lighting conditions. Further, future development would be subject to lighting standards identified in the Objective Design Standards included in Chapter 4 of the proposed Specific Plan. Section 4.3.5 of the proposed Specific Plan identifies standards to reduce light pollution and glare. Therefore, the project would not result in a new or greater contribution to cumulative effects of light and glare beyond what was identified in the General Plan Update EIR. This impact would remain less than
cumulatively considerable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.4.2 Air Quality
The cumulative setting for air quality is the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). Santa Clara County and the SFBAAB are within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) . Santa Clara County is currently designated as nonattainment with respect to the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) for ozone, with respect to the CAAQS for respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10), and with respect to the NAAQS for 24-hour respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM 2.5). Emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors from industrial sources, area sources, and mobile sources in the basin have contributed to exceedances of the NAAQS for ozone and fine particulate matter and the CAAQS for ozone, respirable particulate matter, and fine particulate matter. Projects identified in Table 4-2 would increase emissions of these criteria air pollutants. Odor and toxic air contaminants (TACs) exposure are localized impacts, and the cumulative context is considered to be within 1,000 feet from a project site and associated off-site roadway and infrastructure improvements during construction.

The General Plan Update EIR identified air quality impacts associated with future development from implementation of the General Plan under project and cumulative conditions (City of Milpitas 2020) and concluded the General Plan would result in a less than cumulatively considerable impact for impacts related to plan consistency, long-term operational emissions, odors, and TAC emissions.

IMPACT 4.4.2-1: CONTRIBUTE TO CUMULATIVE CONFLICTS WITH OR

OBSTRUCTION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF AN APPLICABLE AIR QUALITY PLAN As described under Impact 3.3-1 of this SEIR, the proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan and the relevant 2040 General Plan policies. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan’s contribution to cumulative conflicts with the relevant air quality plan would remain less than cumulatively considerable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

IMPACT 4.4.2-2: CONTRIBUTE TO CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE OF TACS Emissions of TACs and PM is a localized impact and there are no existing or planned land uses adjacent to the project that would be large stationary sources of local TACs or odors. As identified in the discussion of Impact 3.3 -2 of this SEIR, the proposed Specific Plan would not introduce any new TAC or PM2.5 emission sources but would continue to require all new sources of TAC emissions within the City would be required to obtain an air permit from BAAQMD that includes analysis of any TAC or PM2.5 emissions created from the new source and the potential health impacts to

Ascent Cumulative Impacts
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 4-7 the nearest sensitive receptor. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan’s contribution to cumulative exposure to TACs impacts would remain less than cumulatively considerable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

IMPACT 4.4.2-3: CONTRIBUTE TO CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE OF ODORS As discussed for Impact 3.3-3, construction and operation of land uses under the proposed Specific Plan would not result in the development of new odor sources atypical of developed urban areas, and odor -generating construction activity would be temporary. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan’s contribution to cumulative exposure to odor impacts would remain less than cumulatively considerable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.4.3 Biological Resources
The geographic context for cumulative impacts related to biological resources is the greater vicinity of the project area, including adjacent wildlife migration and movement corridors in the area. The project area is surrounded by urban development, comprised of industrial and residential units with some small fragments of parks and open space. Future development near the Specific Plan Area includes commercial and residential development (see Table 4-2). The majority of the greater Specific Plan Area vicinity is developed and current and future development projects within the project vicinity primarily involve development on land that has been previously developed within the context of a highly developed region. Past development in the region, including conversion of natural land to urban uses, has resulted in a substantial loss of native habitat. This condition has resulted in a significant and cumulative loss of natural habitat and special-status plant and wildlife species in the region.

As discussed in Section 3.3, “Biological Resources,” of this Draft SEIR, implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in impacts on special-status species, riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, wildlife movement and nursery sites, State or federally protected wetlands, or conflict with local policies and ordinances and therefore would not combine to create considerable changes to and cumulative effects on biological resources. Therefore, cumulative impacts on special-status species, riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, wildlife movement and nursery sites, State or federally protected wetlands, and conflict with local policies and ordinances pertaining to these resources, are not discussed further.

IMPACT 4.4.3-1: CONTRIBUTE TO CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON BIOLOGICAL

RESOURCES
Impact 4.4 of the General Plan Update EIR determined buildout of the General Plan, in combination with other development projects in the surrounding region, would result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution on biological resources because buildout of the General Plan would occur in an already urbanized area and would be consistent with policies and actions of the General Plan and comply with Federal and State regulations to reduce, avoid, or compensate for potential impacts. The proposed Specific Plan would not result in a new or greater contribution to cumulative biological resources beyond what was identified in the General Plan Update EIR. This impact would remain
less than cumulatively considerable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.4.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Because all significant cultural and tribal cultural resources are unique and nonrenewable members of finite classes, meaning there are a limited number of significant cultural resources, all adverse effects erode a dwindling resource

Cumulative Impacts Ascent
City of Milpitas
4-8 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR base. The loss of any one archaeological or historic site could affect the scientific value of others in a region because these resources are best understood in the context of the entirety of the cultural system of which they are a part. The cultural system is represented archaeologically by the total inventory of all sites and other cultural remains in the region. As a result, a meaningful approach to preserving and managing cultural and tribal cultural resources must focus on the likely distribution of cultural resources, rather than on a single project or parcel boundary.

IMPACT 4.4.4-1: CONTRIBUTE TO CUMULATIVE IMPACTS TO HISTORICAL

RESOURCES, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES The cumulative context for the historical resources analysis considers a broad regional area of which the resources are a part. The cumulative context for historical resources for this project includes the project region (i.e., project area, the city of Milpitas, and the county of Santa Clara). The cumulative context for the archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources (TCRs) analysis considers a broad regional area that includes the traditional tribal lands of the Costanoan people that occupied during the pre-contact period.

Impact 4.5 of the General Plan Update EIR determined buildout of the General Plan, in combination with other development projects in the surrounding region, could result in discovery and removal of cultural resources , including archeological, historical, and Native American resources and human remains. However, the General Plan Update EIR concluded the General Plan’s contribution to this potential impact would be less than cumulatively considerable because each project under the General Plan would undergo further environmental review of project- specific impacts prior to City approval and would be required to comply with policies, actions, and regulations to avoid and/or minimize a cumulative loss of cultural resources.

As identified in Impact 3.4-1, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in changing the zoning to allow greater density. The development pressure could increase and result in more requests for the demolition of historical resources. Project Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a and 3.4-1b would assist, but not fully mitigate, this impact. As a result, substantially more severe cumulative impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would be cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.

Since the adoption of the Midtown Plan in 2001, several discoveries have been made in the area, which indicates a higher sensitivity for resources than previously identified. Additionally, the tribal consultation required under AB52 has informed the context of the area and indicated a higher sensitivity of the area as well. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development within the region, would involve ground-disturbing activities that could result in discovery of or damage to known or previously undiscovered archaeological resources and TCRs, as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21074, respectively, within the cumulative context. Proper planning and appropriate mitigation can help to capture and preserve knowledge of such resources and can provide opportunities for increasing our understanding of cultures and past environmental conditions by recording data about sites discovered and preserving artifacts found. Federal, State, and local laws are also in place that protect these resources in most instances. Even so, it is not always feasible to protect these resources, particularly when preservation in place would make projects infeasible, and for this reason the cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects could result in a potentially significant cumulative impact on archaeological and tribal cultural resources.

Compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Sections 21080.3.2, and 21084.3(a), as well as implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4-2a through 3.4-2e and 3.4-3a through 3.4-3e would ensure that treatment and disposition of unique archaeological resources are handled by a professional archaeologist, qualified under the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, and TCRs, including human remains, occurs in a manner consistent with the California Native American Heritage Commission guidance. However, due to the sensitivity of the area some archaeological resources may not be able to be avoided during future projects, the Specific Plan’s contribution to cumulative impacts on archaeological resources and TCRs would be more severe compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would be cumulatively considerable and significant and
unavoidable.

Ascent Cumulative Impacts
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 4-9 Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a, 3.4-1b, 3.4-2a through 3.4-2e, and 3.4-3a through 3.4-3e would address this impact. No additional measures are available.

4.4.5 Energy
The cumulative context for energy is existing and projected energy use in the Pacific Gas and Electric Company service area and in the state. Cumulative development in the County would increase regional energy demand.

No significant and unavoidable energy use impacts were identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

IMPACT 4.4.5-1: CONTRIBUTE TO CUMULATIVE ENERGY IMPACTS As discussed under Impact 3.5-1 of this SEIR, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would increase energy demand during temporary construction activities for new buildings and facilities; however, construction activities would not increase long-term, ongoing demand for energy or fuel, because construction would be temporary.

Impact 3.5-1 concluded that because the proposed Specific Plan would decrease total energy 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, the proposed Specific Plan would not use energy wastefully, inefficiently, or unnecessarily.

Additionally, as discussed in Impact 3.5-2 of this SEIR, the proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with general plan policies, the Milpitas CAP, and Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan’s contribution to cumulative energy impacts would remain less than cumulatively considerable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Prominent greenhouses gases (GHGs) contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide, 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 trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming.

Climate change is a global problem caused by global pollutants and is inherently cumulative. Therefore, the cumulative setting for climate change is global, and the earth is experiencing an adverse cumulative condition. This includes consideration of planned development under the 2040 Milpitas General Plan and pending development projects identified in Table 4-2.

No significant and unavoidable GHG and climate change impacts were identified in the General Plan Update EIR . As identified in Section 3.6, “Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change,” the City’s 2022 Climate Action Plan (CAP) was updated after certification of the General Plan Update EIR.

IMPACT 4.4.6-1: CONTRIBUTE TO CUMULATIVE GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACTS As stated above, the issue of global climate change is inherently cumulative because the GHG emissions of individual projects cannot be shown to have any material effect on global climate. Therefore, the Specific Plan’s impact on climate change is addressed only as a cumulative impact. Impact 3-6.1 of this SEIR stated that because the proposed Specific Plan would reduce VMT and VMT per service population and reduce GHG emissions throughout the Specific Plan Area, the proposed Specific Plan would meet the State’s goals to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990

Cumulative Impacts Ascent
City of Milpitas
4-10 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045. Impact 3-6.2 of this SEIR stated that 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 plan policies, the 2022 Scoping Plan, and the Plan Bay Area 2050+. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan’s contribution to cumulative GHG and climate change impacts would remain less than cumulatively considerable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.4.7 Land Use and Planning
The geographic scope for evaluating cumulative land use and planning impacts related to physically dividing an established community encompasses the city of Milpitas. A significant cumulative impact related to physically dividing an established community would occur if cumulative development in combination with the proposed Specific Plan physically divided the city through the construction of physical features, such as new highways, aboveground utility infrastructure, or easements, which function as barriers to travel between two or more parts of the city.

The geographic scope for evaluating cumulative land use and planning impacts related to conflicting with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect includes the City of Milpitas. A significant cumulative impact related to conflicting with a land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would occur if future development projects, in combination with the proposed Specific Plan, would result in significant environmental impacts due to an inconsistency with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation.

IMPACT 4.4.7-1: PHYSICALLY DIVIDE AN ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY Impact 4.10 of the General Plan Update EIR analyzed whether buildout of the General Plan would contribute to cumulative land use impacts associated with the division of an established community. The General Plan Update EIR determined urban growth that would occur in the City as a result of General Plan buildout would occur at in-fill locations within existing urbanized areas and would not create physical division within existing communities. Therefore, the General Plan Update EIR concluded that the General Plan would have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to regional land use impacts.

The cumulative study area is characterized as an urbanized city developed with a clear land use pattern demarcated by parcel boundaries and roadways. As discussed in Section 4.3.3, “Related Projects,” cumulative projects within the cumulative study area consists of residential, mixed-use, and hotel projects, all of which are proposed on established parcels under the City’s jurisdiction and are not anticipated to include the construction of a physical f eature that would physically divide the city. As the city is an urban, developed environment, these cumulative projects most likely would involve infill development or redevelopment within an already-established residential or hotel area. These projects would also not construct physical features that function as barriers to travel between two or more parts of an existing established community. In addition, these projects would not involve permanent street or sidewalk closures that would interfere with or impair access within established communities. Therefore, cumulative effects related to physically dividing an established community are considered less than significant within the cumulative study area.

As discussed in Section 3.7, “Land Use and Planning,” of this Draft SEIR, the proposed Specific Plan 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 proposed Specific Plan Area. 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. The Specific Plan also supports new streets with redevelopment of the Serra Center and other large neighborhood blocks to connect to existing roadways a nd support a more walkable neighborhood grid pattern. Therefore, while new roadway infrastructure could be developed under the proposed