Milpitas City Council
October 28, 2025

Ascent Cumulative Impacts
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 4-11 Specific Plan, the introduction of such infrastructure would not physically divide or obstruct any other parts of the Specific Plan Area or the city. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan would not physically divide an established community and as such, would not result in a new significant cumulative effect, and the cumulative impact would not be more severe than the impact identified in the General Plan Update EIR. The Specific Plan’s impact would remain less than cumulatively considerable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

IMPACT 4.4.7-2: CONFLICT WITH ANY LAND USE PLAN, POLICY, OR

REGULATION ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING OR MITIGATING AN

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT
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 conflicts with land use plans and regulations that provide environmental protection. The General Plan Update EIR determined that implementation of General Plan policies and actions were intended to guide growth to appropriate areas and provide services necessary to accommodate growth. Therefore, the General Plan Update EIR concluded that the General Plan would have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to regional land use impacts.

All development and redevelopment projects within the city are required to be consistent with the existing General Plan land use designations and applicable Zoning Ordinances designations, including other Specific Plans. The City would review each cumulative project listed in Table 4-2 as part of the development review process to ensure consistency with the policies of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinances unless there is a proposed land use policy amendment to the General Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance with a project application. At the time that an amendment to a land use policy to the General Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance is submitted, the City would need to evaluate if the proposed change to the land use policy would result in environmental impacts. Cumulative projects requiring discretionary approval would be subject to CEQA, which would require incorporation of feasible mitigation measures to reduce significant environmental impacts associated with conflicting with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. With the safeguards of the City’s development review process and the environmental review process under CEQA in place, development of cumulative projects within the city would not result in foreseeable environmental impacts associated with conflicting with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations. Therefore, cumulative effects related to conflicting with a land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect are considered less than significant within the cumulative study area.

As discussed in Section 3.7, “Land Use and Planning,” the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with all applicable land use plans, policies, and ordinances adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect, including the Plan Bay Area 2050, the City’s 2040 General Plan, and the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update upon adoption. Upon adoption of the proposed Specific Plan, the goals, policies, and development standards of the plan would govern future development proposed within the Specific Plan Area. All future development within the Specific Plan Area would be reviewed for compliance with the Specific Plan during the City’s design review and building permit processes. In addition, future development proposed under the Specific Plan that requires discretionary review would be subject to CEQA, which would ensure any potentially significant land use impacts are mitigated to the greatest extent possible. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects and as such, its incremental contribution to this less-than-significant cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable. This cumulative impact would remain
less than cumulatively considerable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Cumulative Impacts Ascent
City of Milpitas
4-12 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR

4.4.8 Noise
Impact 4.12 of the General Plan Update EIR analyzed whether buildout of the General Plan would contribute to cumulative impacts related to noise. The General Plan Update EIR determined that implementation of General Plan policies and actions were intended to minimize exposure to excessive noise, including noise associated with traffic.

However, the General Plan Update EIR concluded the traffic noise increases associated with the General Plan exceeded the applicable noise exposure criteria. Therefore, the General Plan Update EIR concluded the General Plan had a significant and unavoidable and cumulatively considerable contribution relative to traffic noise on existing noise- sensitive uses in the city.

Noise and vibration impacts associated with future development under the project are analyzed in Section 3.8, “Noise” of this Draft SEIR. Noise and vibration impacts arise from and reflect project-specific characteristics and conditions, including distance to noise sources, barriers between land uses and noise sources, and other factors.

Noise impacts are typically site specific and combine with other noise impacts only when cumulative development occurs close by or when traffic-related noise from a project contributes to traffic volumes on roadways in the project area. For this reason, the geographic scope of the cumulative impact analysis for noise and vibration is the Specific Plan Area vicinity.

The Specific Plan Area is not located within 2 miles of an airport. The airport nearest to the project site is San Jose Mineta International Airport, located approximately 3.8 miles southeast of the Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan Area is outside the San Jose Mineta International Airport’s noise contour. Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive airport noise levels. Thus, the pr oposed Specific Plan would not contribute to cumulative aircraft exposure impacts.

The proposed Specific Plan would not result in future development that would result in major sources of ground vibration, such as a commercial railway or a passenger rail transit line. No existing or planned land uses in the Specific Plan Area would be sources of substantial and permanent ground vibration. Therefore, development facilitated by the Specific Plan would not result in long-term operational activities associated with permanent or substantial levels of ground vibration. Thus, the Specific Plan would not contribute to or create cumulative operational vibration impacts.

IMPACT 4.4.8-1: CONTRIBUTE TO CUMULATIVE CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND

VIBRATION IMPACTS
Construction-related noise and vibration are typically considered localized impacts that affect only receptors close to construction activities. Therefore, unless construction of cumulative projects, including construction associated with the project, occurs on sites close to one another (i.e., less than 500 feet apart) and at the same time, noise and vibration from individual construction projects have little chance of combining to create cumulative impacts. There are no reasonably foreseeable projects within 500 feet of the Specific Plan Area that would be an additional source of construction noise or vibration. Therefore, the Specific Plan’s contribution to cumulative construction noise and vibration impacts would remain
less than cumulatively considerable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

IMPACT 4.4.8-2: CONTRIBUTE TO CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS With respect to mobile-source noise levels, the cumulative context includes local roadways likely to be affected by project-related vehicles. As discussed in Section 3.11, “Noise and Vibration,” project-related traffic increases would not result in a substantial noise increase on affected roadways. Traffic noise was also modeled under the cumulative context. Table 4-3 shows an increase in traffic noise between the cumulative no project scenario and the cumulative with project scenario.

Ascent Cumulative Impacts
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 4-13 Table 4-3 Summary of Modeled Traffic Noise Levels under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
Segment
No. North-South East-West Roadway
Segment
Midtown Conditions
Noise Levels1
(dBA Ldn)
Gateway-Main Street+
Project Noise Levels2
(dBA Ldn)
Modeled
Change
(dBA)
Applicable
Increase
Threshold
Exceeds
Applicable
Threshold?
1 Park Victoria Dr Calaveras Dr. Calaveras West 67.8 67.8 0.0 1.5 No 2 Hillview Dr Calaveras Dr. Calaveras West 69.1 68.9 -0.2 1.5 No 3 Hillview Dr Calaveras Dr. Calaveras East 69.1 68.8 -0.4 1.5 No 4 Milpitas Blvd Calaveras Dr. Calaveras West 69.1 68.8 -0.3 1.5 No 5 Milpitas Blvd Calaveras Dr. Calaveras East 63.5 63.2 -0.2 1.5 No 6 Abel St Calaveras Dr. Abel North 59.1 58.6 -0.4 3 No
7 Abel St Sierra Way Abel South 64.1 63.7 -0.4 3 No
8 Abel St Calaveras Dr. Calaveras West 70.1 70.0 -0.2 1.5 No 9 Abel St Marylinn Dr Abel North 58.8 58.6 -0.3 5 No
10 Abel St Marylinn Dr Abel South 58.5 58.3 -0.3 5 No
11 Abbott Ave Calaveras Dr. Calaveras West 64.4 64.2 -0.2 1.5 No 12 Abbott Ave Calaveras Dr. Calaveras East 64.2 64.0 -0.2 1.5 No 13 Abel St Sierra Way Abel South 57.8 57.3 -0.4 5 No
14 Abel St Corning Ave Abel South 57.7 57.4 -0.2 5 No
15 Abel St Curtis Ave Abel South 58.9 58.5 -0.4 5 No
16 Main St Curtis Ave Main South 56.1 55.4 -0.7 5 No
Notes: Ldn = day-night noise level; dBA = A-weighted decibel; SR = State Route; 1 = represents Cumulative Conditions of the VMT for the Environmental Review; 2 = represents Cumulative with Project Conditions of the VMT for the Environmental Review All modeling assumes average pavement, level roadways (less than 1.5% grade), constant traffic flow, and does not account for shielding of any type or finite roadway adjustments. All noise levels are reported as A-weighted noise levels. For additional details, refer to Appendix FE for detailed traffic data, and traffic-noise modeling input data and output results.

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

As shown above, project-generated traffic would not result in increased traffic along any roadways. Traffic noise increases would range from -0.7 dB to 0.0 dBA Ldn, and noise levels along roadway segments.

Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan’s contribution to the significant cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively considerable, though the impact would remain cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

IMPACT 4.4.8-3: CONTRIBUTE TO CUMULATIVE OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACTS Similar to construction-related noise impacts, stationary source noise impacts are generally localized. As a result, the context for cumulative stationary noise sources is within 500 feet of the Specific Plan area. Future development under the Specific Pan would potentially include new stationary heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment.

However, noise from these sources would be localized and would not combine with noise from other projects. As discussed under Impact 3.11-3 of this SEIR, noise from the proposed HVAC equipment is a consideration only within a

Cumulative Impacts Ascent
City of Milpitas
4-14 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR project site's immediate vicinity, at distances less than 30 feet. Therefore, operational noise sources on the project site would not combine with noise from other area sources to result in a substantial increase in ambient noise.

Therefore, the Specific Plan’s contribution to cumulative operational noise impacts would remain less than cumulatively considerable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.4.9 Population and Housing
The geographic context for cumulative impacts related to population and housing are confined to the City.

Impact 4.10 of the General Plan Update EIR analyzed whether buildout of the General Plan would contribute to cumulative impacts related to population and housing. The General Plan Update EIR identified implementation of General Plan policies and actions intended to guide growth to appropriate areas and provide services necessary to accommodate growth, the land uses allowed under the General Plan, the infrastructure anticipated to accommodate proposed land uses, and the goal and policy framework would not induce growth that would exceed adopted thresholds. Therefore, the General Plan Update EIR concluded the impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.

IMPACT 4.4-9-1: CONTRIBUTE TO CUMULATIVE INDUCEMENT OF UNPLANNED

GROWTH OR DISPLACEMENT
As described in Section 3.9, “Population and Housing” of this Draft SEIR, the Specific Plan would Specific Plan would accommodate up to 5,176 new dwelling units, which is 1,338 units net new units beyond the General Plan. It would also result in a population of12,887 residents, which is an increase of 3,330 people beyond the General Plan. This growth would exceed projections assumed under the City’s General Plan for the Specific Plan Area; however, it would not exceed projections for the City of Milpitas as a whole. The Specific Plan also would not indirectly induce unplanned population growth or residential development.

The proposed Specific Plan does not include proposed changes in land use or zoning that would directly or indirectly result in displacement of substantial numbers of housing or persons. The Specific Plan could accommodate anticipated housing growth in the City. This responsiveness to existing and forecast demand would not induce population growth beyond that planned for and considered in local and regional documents and implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in a new or substantially more severe cumulative impact than what was identified in the General Plan Update EIR. Although cumulative development in Milpitas, including the Specific Plan, would result in a cumulative increase in population and housing in Milpitas, the Specific Plan’s contribution to unplanned population growth would remain
less than cumulatively considerable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.4.10 Public Services and Recreation
The cumulative context for public services and recreation is the City of Milpitas, which is the service area for MFD, MPD, and MUSD.

Ascent Cumulative Impacts
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 4-15 IMPACT 4.4.10-1: CONTRIBUTE TO CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON PUBLIC SERVICES

AND RECREATION
Impact 4.13 of the General Plan Update EIR evaluated the cumulative demand for public services, including fire protection, law enforcement, schools, parks, libraries, and other public and government services and concluded that the General Plan’s contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable.

As described in Section 3.10, “Public Services and Recreation” of this Draft SEIR, buildout of the Specific Plan would result in a less than significant impact to public services because applicants of subsequent development projects under the Specific Plan would be required to pay applicable City development fees . Further, the Specific Plan, itself, would not expand the service area of these existing public service providers within the City of Milpitas and is not anticipated to result in substantial demand for public services such that new facilities would be required as a result of plan implementation. Cumulative development in the region, including development elsewhere within the c ity, would result in the concentration of persons and structures within these local public service jurisdictions and could increase demands for such services and recreation/park facilities. Although the Specific Plan would also increase demand for public services and recreation, no additional facilities would be needed to serve the project site, and development under the Specific Plan would be required to pay impact fees as required by the City and MUSD to ensure the adequate provision of public services in the future. The contribution of fees for the provision of services to the City and MUSD as a whole would reduce a project’s incremental contribution to the need for public services and recreation/park facilities within the cumulative context such that the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution. As a result, a significant cumulative public services and recreation impact would not occur with implementation of the Specific Plan and other development. Therefore, the project’s contribution to public service and recreation demands would remain
less than cumulatively considerable, and implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in a new or substantially more severe cumulative impact than what was identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.4.11 Transportation
The geographic scope of analysis for cumulative impacts related to VMT includes Santa Clara County, the City of Milpitas, and the Specific Plan Area. The geographic scope for the analysis of the impacts related to a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system; substantially increasing transportation hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses; and inadequate emergency access would be different than the geographic scope for VMT analysis. The geographic scope for such analysis would include all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that would have the potential to affect the same transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities surrounding the Specific Plan Area and the interconnected circulation system of the County of Santa Clara.

IMPACT 4.4.11-1: TRANSIT SERVICE AND FACILITIES, BICYCLE FACILITIES, AND

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Development associated with the proposed Specific Plan would occur incrementally over time. Combined with other development in the area, the demand for transit service and facilities, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities is anticipated to increase. Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in improved transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and enhanced connectivity within the Specific Plan Area. In addition, the design standards included in the Specific Plan Update promote alternative transportation, consistent with City General Plan, Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan, and Climate Action Plan policies applicable to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and services. As detailed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” of this Draft SEIR, subsequent development projects under the Specific Plan would be subject to all applicable City guidelines, standards, and specifications related to transit,

Cumulative Impacts Ascent
City of Milpitas
4-16 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, implementation of the Specific Plan, when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to transit service and facilities, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities. Impacts would remain
less than cumulatively considerable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

IMPACT 4.4.11-2: VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
Impact 4.14 of the General Plan Update EIR analyzed whether the General Plan would result in a net increase in total VMT as compared to existing conditions. The General Plan Update EIR identified that General Plan land use patterns and intensities, and General Plan policies would include a multitude of components to reduce VMT. Individual development projects are required to completed VMT analyses based on forthcoming VMT policies and thresholds to be established by the City of Milpitas, including transportation demand management (TDM) measures designed to reduce employment based VMT. The General Plan Update EIR concluded that while such measures are likely to result in less-than-significant VMT impacts when considered at an individual project level, they cannot be guaranteed and are not possible to fully quantify or mitigate at a Citywide level as part of a programmatic General Plan. Therefore, the General Plan Update EIR concluded transportation impacts to be a cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact. Boundary VMT captures all VMT on the roadway network within a specified geographic area, including local trips plus interregional travel that does not have an origin or destination within the specified 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 shifts in existing VMT due to land use and transportation network changes in the region, shifts in existing traffic to alternate travel routes or modes, and new VMT from additional land use development in the region.

Boundary VMT is divided by the service population 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 cumulative condition for the analysis is presumed to be the full buildout of the Milpitas General Plan, which includes the Midtown Specific Plan, whereas in the cumulative with project condition replaces the Midtown Specific Plan by the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (i.e., project). The cumulative VMT analysis evaluates whether implementation of the Specific Plan would result in an increase in the regionwide boundary VMT from the cumulative scenario to the cumulative plus project scenario. As shown in Table 4-4 , the regional impact threshold for the Specific Plan’s effect on VMT is the 2040 regionwide boundary VMT per service population of 13.40.

Table 4-4 Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project VMT Assessment Cumulative Condition Cumulative Plus Project Condition
South Bay Area1
Boundary VMT (A)1 111,997,595 111,890,030
Service Population (B)1,2 8,357,812 8,359,030
Boundary VMT per Service Population (C = A/B) 13.40 13.39 Boundary VMT per Service Population Threshold 13.40 -
Notes: VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled
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 4-4, the boundary VMT per service population for the Specific Plan is 13.39, which is below the threshold of significance of 13.40 VMT per service population (i.e., 2040 regional VMT per service population).

Therefore, the cumulative VMT impact from the Specific Plan would be less than cumulatively considerable. The proposed Specific Plan’s contribution to the significant cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively considerable
, though the impact would remain cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

Ascent Cumulative Impacts
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 4-17 IMPACT 4.4.11-3: GEOMETRIC DESIGN HAZARDS
Development associated with the Specific Plan would occur incrementally over time. In general, transportation hazards are site-specific and not cumulative in nature. As detailed in Section 3.11-3, of this SEIR, new streets would be constructed in the Specific Plan Area and modification of existing roadways including streetscape, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facility improvements would occur as the Specific Plan is implemented. All transportation related infrastructure improvements constructed under the Specific Plan would be constructed in accordance with applicable standards to ensure that development would not result in transportation hazards or incompatible uses. Other development projects surrounding the Specific Plan Area would also be required to comply with all applicable design and safety standards, thus minimizing the potential for cumulative transportation-related hazards. With continued regulatory compliance, implementation of the Specific Plan when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative transportation hazard impacts. Impacts would remain
less than cumulatively considerable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

IMPACT 4.4.11-4: EMERGENCY ACCESS
Implementation of the individual developments under the Specific Plan would be subject to and constructed in accordance with applicable roadway design guidelines and would be subject to review by the Milpitas Fire Department to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided and maintained. Other nearby development projects would also be required to comply with all applicable emergency access standards. Therefore, the Specific Plan’s contribution to cumulative effects related to emergency access would rem ain less than cumulatively
considerable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.4.12 Utilities and Service Systems
The geographic scope for utilities and service systems impacts is based on a mix of the List Method and the Plan Method, as described above in Section 4.3, “Cumulative Setting.” A significant cumulative impact would result if implementation of the proposed Specific Plan were to contribute to impacts related to exceeding the planned use and capacity of the wastewater, water, solid waste, and/or energy service providers for the Specific Plan Area, which project future supply and demand based on current land use and development projections within their respective service areas. Therefore, the cumulative setting for utilities and service systems includes all of the projects listed in Table 4-2 of Section 4.3.3, “Related Projects,” (i.e., List Method) and all of the growth assumptions provided in regional planning documents such as the 2040 General Plan (i.e., Plan Method). For water supply, the geographic scope includes the assumptions in the water supply assessment (WSA) prepared for the Specific Plan (Appendix E of this SEIR), which relies on the water supply and demand projections in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) (City of Milpitas 2021a).

As described in Impact 3.12-1, 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 city, 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

Cumulative Impacts Ascent
City of Milpitas
4-18 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Master Plan. These CIP projects would be implemented irrespective of the Specific Plan. Thus, infrastructure improvements would be within the Specific Plan area and would not contribute to any cumulative impacts.

IMPACT 4.4.12-1: CONTRIBUTE TO CUMULATIVE IMPACTS RELATED TO

WATER SUPPLY
Impact 4.15 of the General Plan Update EIR evaluated whether buildout of the General Plan would contribute to cumulative water supply impacts. Impact 4.15 of the General Plan Update EIR concluded that because the projected water demands associated with General Plan buildout would not exceed the projected water supplies, and that the General Plan includes a comprehensive set of goals, policies, and actions to ensure an adequate and reliable source of clean potable water, cumulative water supply impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

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 identified citywide water supply shortages during dry year conditions for 2025, 2030, 2045 that would occur as a result of cumulative growth and development throughout the SFPUC and Valley Water service area, including the city. The City’s 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan, which would be implemented during dry year conditions, identifies the installation of five additional groundwater wells by 2025 and two additional groundwater wells by 2040 to help offset the 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 impacts on air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, water quality, and noise, a s well as secondary environmental effects such as aquifer depletion, changes in groundwater flow, and subsidence.

As discussed in Section 3.15, “Utilities and Service Systems,” of this Draft SEIR, 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. 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. Although the dry year water supply shortages identified in the 2020 UWMP would not directly occur because of the proposed Specific Plan, the proposed land uses and development projections in the Specific Plan were accounted for in the 2020 UWMP . Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan would contribute to the water supply shortage during these dry year conditions 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 new production well under construction. The well casing was completed in 2021, and the above facilities is anticipated to begin in early 2025, and is anticipated to be completed by summer 2026. 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 McCandles 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.

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 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, the Specific Plan’s contribution to

Ascent Cumulative Impacts
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 4-19 cumulative water supply impacts, when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable growth and development, would be less than cumulatively considerable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

IMPACT 4.4.12-2: CONTRIBUTE TO CUMULATIVE IMPACTS RELATED TO

WASTEWATER
Impact 4.15 of the General Plan Update EIR evaluated whether buildout of the General Plan would contribute to cumulative impacts related to wastewater generation and treatment capacity. Impact 4.15 of the General Plan Update EIR concluded that because projected wastewater generation volumes associated with General Plan buildout would not exceed the projected wastewater treatment capacity, and that the proposed General Plan includes a comprehensive set of goals, policies, and actions to ensure an adequate and reliable wastewater collection and treatment system, cumulative impacts associated with wastewater treatment and compliance with waste discharge requirements would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the city would generate wastewater requiring treatment at the San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF), which treats approximately 110 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater and has a treatment capacity of 167 mgd . The City has rights to discharge up to

14.25 mgd to the RWF under its current allotment (City of Milpitas 2021b). Based on the growth and development projections evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR, there would be approximately 2.4 mgd of wastewater treatment capacity available following buildout of the General Plan. As the city continues to develop in the future, there will be an increased need for water and wastewater services, including a reliable source of recycled water. Since certification of the General Plan Update EIR, the City adopted a comprehensive update to its Sewer Master Plan in 2021 that identifies CIP projects to address existing deficiencies throughout the city as well as accommodate projected growth in the city.

As discussed in Section 3.15, “Utilities and Service Systems,” of this Draft SEIR, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan 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. 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 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.

Therefore, no new significant or substantially more severe cumulative wastewater impacts would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and the Specific Plan’s contribution to cumulative wastewater impacts would remain less than cumulatively considerable.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

IMPACT 4.4.12-3: CONTRIBUTE TO CUMULATIVE IMPACTS RELATED TO

SOLID WASTE
Impact 4.15 of the General Plan Update EIR evaluated whether buildout of the General Plan would contribute to cumulative impacts on solid waste disposal facilities. Impact 4.15 of the General Plan Update EIR states that future projects associated with buildout of the General Plan would be required to comply with applicable state and local

Cumulative Impacts Ascent
City of Milpitas
4-20 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR requirements including those pertaining to solid waste, construction waste diversion, and recycling. Additionally, the General Plan includes actions to further reduce impacts on solid waste services. The General Plan Update EIR concluded that because buildout of the General Plan would not exceed the permitted capacity of the landfill serving the City, and the General Plan complies with regulations related to solid waste, cumulative solid waste impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the city would generate solid waste that would need to be disposed of 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 Milpitas Sanitation, Inc. (MSI). Solid waste is disposed of at the Kirby Canyon Landfill, while recyclables, yard trimmings, and food scraps would be diverted to other facilities. However, 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. 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.

As discussed in Section 3.15, “Utilities and Service Systems,” of this Draft SEIR, implementation of the proposed 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. This amount of daily solid waste would also be well within the Kirby Canyon Landfill’s daily permitted capacity. 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, 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.

Because the waste facilities that serve the Specific Plan Area also serve multiple jurisdictions and the project -level analysis considered overall capacity at multiple facilities, the proposed Specific Plan’s contribution to cumulative solid waste impacts would remain less than cumulatively considerable. Therefore, no new significant or substantially more severe cumulative impacts on solid waste facilities would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR.

City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 5-1 5 ALTERNATIVES

5.1 INTRODUCTION
The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15126.6(a) (State CEQA Guidelines) requires EIRs to describe “ … a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather, it must consider a range of potentially feasible alternatives that will avoid or substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts of a project, and foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives that are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. ” This section of the State CEQA Guidelines also provides guidance regarding what the alternatives analysis should consider.

Subsection (b) further states the purpose of the alternatives analysis is as follows:

Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.

The State CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative must be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the proje ct as proposed (CCR Section 15126.6[d]).

The State CEQA Guidelines further require that the “no project” alternative be considered (CCR Section 15126.6[e]).

The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving a proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. If the no project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, CEQA requires that the EIR “…shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” (CCR Section 15126[e][2]).

In defining “feasibility” (e.g., “… feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project …”), CCR Section 15126.6(f) (1) states, in part:

Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). No one o f these factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives.

In determining what alternatives should be considered in the EIR, it is important to consider the objectives of the project, the project’s significant effects, and unique project considerations. These factors are crucial to the development of alternatives that meet the criteria specified in Section 15126.6(a). Although, as noted above, EIRs must contain a discussion of “potentially feasible” alternatives, the ultimate determination as to whether an alternative is feasible or infeasible is made by the lead agency’s decision-making body, here the City of Milpitas. (See PRC Sections 21081.5, 21081[a] [3].)

Alternatives Ascent
City of Milpitas
5-2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR

5.2 CONSIDERATIONS FOR SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES

5.2.1 Attainment of Project Objectives
As described above, one factor that must be considered in selection of alternatives is the ability of a specific alternative to attain most of the basic objectives of the project (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[a]). Chapter 2, “Project Description,” articulates the following proposed Specific Plan objectives:
 Develop a center for the City composed of districts and neighborhoods organized around hubs of activity to improve the character of the area with high quality development, landscaping, and streetscape design.  Integrate a mix of land uses throughout Main Street and the surrounding districts to create a walkable downtown supported by commercial retail and office uses, civic and cultural anchors, and infill residential and neighborhood service nodes.
 Improve mobility and access for infill and mixed-use development in the community, through creation of complete streets, trails and transit improvements to support a walkable and bikeable urban community.  Create diverse and meaningful public open space that builds on the assets of its location to support new public realm streetscape improvements, urban parks, plazas, special gathering places, and connected open space.

5.2.2 Environmental Impacts of the Specific Plan
As documented throughout Chapter 3 (Sections 3.1 through 3.12) and Chapter 4, “Cumulative Impacts,” of this Draft SEIR, after implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, all of the impacts associated with the proposed Specific Plan would be reduced to a less-than-significant level or remain significant and unavoidable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR, with the exception of the following impacts identified for the proposed Specific Plan that would be significant and unavoidable:
 Impact 3.4-1 (Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Historical Resource)  Impact 3.4-2 (Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of Unique Archaeological Resources)  Impact 3.4-3 (Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource)  Impact 3.8-2 (Generate a Substantial Increase in Long-Term Transportation Noise Levels)  Cumulative Impact 4.4.4-1 (Contribute to Cumulative Impacts to Historical Resources, Archaeological, and Tribal Cultural Resources)
 Cumulative Impact 4.4.8-2 (Contribute to Cumulative Traffic Noise Impacts)  Cumulative Impact 4.4.11-1 (Contribute to Cumulative Impacts Related to Vehicle Miles Traveled)

5.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT EVALUATED FURTHER
As described above, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) provides that the range of potential alternatives for the project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project, and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. Alternatives that fail to meet the fundamental project purpose need not be addressed in detail in an EIR. (In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1165-1167.) In determining what alternatives should be considered in the EIR, it is important to acknowledge the objectives of the project, the project’s significant effects, and unique project considerations. These factors are crucial to the development of alternatives that meet the criteria specified in Section 15126.6(a). Although, as noted above, EIRs must contain a discussion of “potentially feasible” alternatives, the ultimate determination as to whether an alternative is feasible or infeasible is made by lead agency decision-maker(s). (See Pub. Resources Code, Section 21081(a)(3).) At

Ascent Alternatives
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 5-3 the time of action on the project, the decision-maker(s) may consider evidence beyond that found in this EIR in addressing such determinations. The decision-maker(s), for example, may conclude that a particular alternative is infeasible (i.e., undesirable) from a policy standpoint, and may reject an alternative on that basis provided that the decision-maker(s) adopts a finding, supported by substantial evidence, to that effect, and provided that such a finding reflects a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and other considerations supported by substantial evidence. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417; California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 998.) The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency, but were rejected during the planning or scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination.

The following alternatives were considered by the City of Milpitas but are not evaluated further in this Draft SEIR.

5.3.1 Off-Site Alternative
According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][2][A], only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR.

As discussed in the project objectives, a fundamental purpose of the proposed Specific Plan within the Specific Plan Area is to integrate a mix of land uses throughout Main Street and the surrounding districts to create a walkable downtown supported by commercial retail and office uses, civic and cultural anchors, and infill residential and neighborhood service nodes. Thus, the proposed Specific Plan would redevelop an existing urban area that has already been disturbed by previous uses and is served by existing services, avoiding the need for new construction at an undeveloped site.

In addition, an offsite alternative would be inconsistent with the policy direction of the General Plan. The City’s General Plan Land Use Element designates the adopted Midtown Plan area as Milpitas Gateway -Main Street Specific Plan (Specific Plan). The General Plan includes the following actions related to the development of the proposed Specific Plan: Action LU-2A to maintain and implement the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan goals, policies and development standards and guidelines to create a mixed-use community that includes high-density, transit-oriented housing and a central community ‘gathering place’ while maintaining needed industrial, service and commercial uses; and Action ED-3H to work with property owners to facilitate development of vacant and underutilized properties on Main Street to achieve the highest and best use.

For these reasons, this alternative has been eliminated from further consideration .

5.3.2 Reduced Residential Development Alternative
This alternative would involve amendment the General Plan and zoning for residential uses to reduce the extent of development in order to reduce significant and unavoidable impacts associated with water supply as well as other environmental impacts that were identified for the proposed Specific Plan.

As discussed in the project objectives, a fundamental purpose of the proposed Specific Plan is to promote infill residential development. Thus, this alternative would conflict with this objective. In addition, state law limits the City's ability to downzone land. The Housing Crisis Act of 2019, or Senate Bill 330, was signed into law in 2019 to promote housing development throughout the state. In addition to several requirements to streamline housing approvals, t he act restricts local jurisdictions from amending an existing land use designation to prohibit or lower the intensity of residential development unless an increase in capacity is concurrently approved elsewhere to ensure no capacity for housing is lost.

For these reasons, this alternative has been eliminated from further consideration.

Alternatives Ascent
City of Milpitas
5-4 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR

5.4 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS
The following alternatives were evaluated in this Draft SEIR.  Alternative 1: No Project Alternative assumes that the existing Midtown Plan and the associated General Plan land use designations and zoning would remain. No specific plan document would be adopted.  Alternative 2: Increased Residential Development for Main Street and Crossroad s Districts Alternative consists of the proposed Specific Plan modified that would apply the Specific Plan development incentives identified in Section 2.4.4, “Development Incentives,” of Chapter 2, “Project Description,” to the Main Street and Crossroads Districts to increase residential development beyond the proposed Specific Plan.

Further details on these alternatives, and an evaluation of environmental effects relative to the proposed Specific Plan, are provided below.

5.4.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
Under Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative, no actions would be taken. The Midtown Plan would remain in effect as it was adopted by the city in 2002 and designated in the General Plan Update, adopted in 2021. General Plan land use designations and zoning within the Specific Plan Area would remain unchanged. Buildout under Alternative 1 would consist of 3,838 residential dwelling units (population of 12,568) and nonresidential development of 3,293,240 square feet of nonresidential uses (7,898 jobs). The No Project Alternative would not meet the Specific Plan objectives. However, as required by CEQA, the No Project Alternative is evaluated in this D raft SEIR.

AESTHETICS
As discussed in Section 3.1, “Aesthetics,” of this Draft SEIR, the proposed Specific Plan would result in less- than- significant impacts to visual quality and views and new sources of substantial light and glare from new development as identified in the General Plan Update EIR. Alternative 1 would retain current land use designations and zoning and would be subject to General Plan policies CD 1-1, CD 3-1 through CD 3-10, and LU 5-1 through LU 5-3. Therefore, this alternative would result in similar visual and lighting impacts. (Similar)

AIR QUALITY
As discussed in Section 3.2, “Air Quality,” of this Draft SEIR, the proposed Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts associated with consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan and General Plan, exposure to toxic air contaminants, and odor impacts. Alternative 1 would retain current land use designations and zoning and would result in similar air pollutant emissions as the proposed Specific Plan (see Tables 3.2 -5 and 3.2-6). Alternative 1 would not result in any new sources of toxic air contaminants and odor impacts. Therefore, impacts would be similar for Alternative 1 than under the project. (Similar)

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
As discussed in Section 3.3, “Biological Resources,” of this Draft SEIR, the proposed Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts to biological resources. Alternative 1 would have the same development footprint as the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, biological resource impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to those under the project. (Similar)

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
As noted above, the proposed Specific Plan would result in new significant and unavoidable impacts to historical resources, archaeological resources, and tribal cultural resources under project and cumulative conditions beyond

Ascent Alternatives
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 5-5 what was evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR. Alternative 1 would have the same development footprint as the proposed Specific Plan, however less ground-disturbing activities would occur. Therefore, impacts associated with this alternative would be less than the proposed Specific Plan. (Less) ENERGY
Section 3.5, “Energy,” of this Draft SEIR, identified less than significant impacts for the proposed Specific Plan energy demand and consistency with applicable energy plans. As shown in Tables 3.5-1 through 3.5-4, Alternative 1 would be less energy efficient than the proposed Specific Plan. Alternative 1 would be subject to energy efficiency and renewable energy sources provisions of the City’s 2022 CAP. Therefore, impacts would be greater for Alternative 1 than under the project. (Greater)

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
As discussed in Section 3.6, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change,” of this Draft SEIR, the proposed Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts associated with greenhouse gas (GHG) emission increases and would be consist with GHG reduction plans and strategies. As shown in Tables 3.6-3 and 3.6-4, Alternative 1 would generate greater GHG emissions than the proposed Specific Plan. Alternative 1 would be subject to GHG reduction measures of the City’s 2022 CAP. Therefore, impacts would be greater for Alternative 1 than under the project. (Greater)

LAND USE AND PLANNING
Section 3.7, “Land Use and Planning,” of this Draft SEIR concludes that the proposed Specific Plan would not result in significant impacts related to physical division of established communities or conflicts with land use plans, policies , or regulations that protect the environment. Alternative 1 would have the same development footprint as the proposed Specific Plan. Alternative 1 would also not result in any conflicts with plans or policies that address environmental resources in the Specific Plan Area. Therefore, impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to those under the project. (Similar).

NOISE AND VIBRATION
As discussed in Section 3.8, “Noise and Vibration,” of this Draft SEIR, the proposed would not result in new significant impacts related to construction noise or vibration and long-term noise exposure (stationary and traffic noise sources).

As shown in Table 3.8-11, the proposed Specific Plan and Alternative 1 would result in similar traffic noise conditions.

Therefore, impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to those under the project. ( Similar).

POPULATION AND HOUSING
Section 3.9, “Population and Housing,” of this Draft SEIR concludes that the proposed Specific Plan would not result in significant impacts related to population growth or displacement of housing and residents. Future development under the Alternative 1 would have reduced development potential of 1,338 residential units as compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, population growth impacts would be less than the proposed Specific Plan. (Less)

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
As discussed in Section 3.10, “Public Services and Recreation,” of this Draft SEIR, the proposed Specific Plan would generate additional residents, which would increase the need for additional fire protection and law enforcement services and additional parks. However, these services are funded through a variety of sources (e.g., property taxes, development impact fees, fees for services) and are expanded as needed to accommodate additional population

Alternatives Ascent
City of Milpitas
5-6 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR growth. Future development under the Alternative 1 would decrease the development potential by 1,338 residential units. Therefore, impacts would be less than the proposed Specific Plan. (Less)

TRANSPORTATION
As discussed in Section 3.11, “Transportation,” of this Draft SEIR, the proposed Specific Plan would not result in new significant impacts to compliance with circulation plans, safety, or emergency access beyond the less than significant impact conclusions of the General Plan Update EIR. The proposed Specific Plan would also not worsen significant and unavoidable vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts identified under the General Plan Update EIR. Alternative 1 would decrease the service population by 3,816 as compared to the proposed Specific Plan. This would result in a decreased VMT efficient as compared to the proposed Specific Plan as shown in Table 9 of Appendix D. Therefore, impacts would be greater. (Greater)

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
As discussed in Section 3.12, “Utilities and Service Systems,” of this Draft SEIR, the proposed Specific Plan would not result in any new significant impacts to infrastructure improvements, water supply, wastewater services, and solid waste beyond the less than significant impact conclusions of the General Plan Update EIR. Future development under the Alternative 1 would decrease the development potential by 1,338 residential units which would result in reduced infrastructure and utility demands compared to what was identified for the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than the proposed Specific Plan. (Less)

5.4.2 Alternative 2: Increased Residential Development for Main Street and Crossroads Districts Alternative
The Increased Residential Development for Main Street and Crossroads Districts Alternative consists of the proposed Specific Plan modified that would apply the Specific Plan development incentives identified in Section 2.4.4, “Development Incentives,” of Chapter 2, “Project Description,” to the Main Street and Crossroads Districts shown in Figure 2-6 to increase residential development beyond the proposed Specific Plan. Buildout under Alternative 2 would consist of 8,197 residential dwelling units (population of 25,944) and nonresidential development of 2,058,666 square feet of nonresidential uses (5,541 jobs). All other aspects of the proposed Specific Plan would remain the same under Alternative 2.

AESTHETICS
As discussed in Section 3.1, “Aesthetics,” of this Draft SEIR, the proposed Specific Plan would result in less-than- significant impacts to visual quality and views and new sources of substantial light and glare from new development.

Alternative 2 would result in a further intensification of development in the Main Street and Crossroads Districts with the inclusion of 3,021 residential units beyond the proposed Specific Plan that could result in increased building mass and height. Alternative 2 would still be subject to Specific Plan Objective Design Standards that would address visual character within the Specific Plan Area. However, denser and taller development under this alternative would result in increased visual and lighting impacts. (Greater)

AIR QUALITY
As discussed in Section 3.2, “Air Quality,” of this Draft SEIR, the proposed Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts associated with consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan and General Plan, exposure to toxic air contaminants, and odor impacts. Alternative 2 would increase the service population by 9,560 (31,485 service population [residences and jobs]) as compared to the proposed Specific Plan. This increase in service population would result in increases in operational emissions beyond the proposed Specific Plan. Alternative 2 would not result

Ascent Alternatives
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 5-7 in any new sources of toxic air contaminants and odor impacts. Therefore, impacts would be greater for Alternative 2 than under the project. (Greater)

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
As discussed in Section 3.3, “Biological Resources,” of this Draft SEIR, the proposed Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts to biological resources. While Alternative 2 would result in the intensification of development in the Main Street and Crossroads Districts, it would not expand the development footprint of the Specific Plan Area or propose development of natural habitat areas. Therefore, biological resource impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to those under the project. (Similar)

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
As noted above, the proposed Specific Plan would result in new significant and unavoidable impacts to historical resources, archaeological resources, and tribal cultural resources under project and cumulative conditions beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR. While Alternative 2 would result in the intensification of development in the Main Street and Crossroads Districts, it would not expand the development footprint of the Specific Plan Area. Therefore, impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to those under the project. (Similar)
ENERGY
Section 3.5, “Energy,” of this Draft SEIR, identified less than significant impacts for the proposed Specific Plan energy demand and consistency with applicable energy plans. Alternative 2 would increase the service population by 9,560 (31,485 service population [residences and jobs]) as compared to the proposed Specific Plan. This increase in service population would result in increases in energy use beyond the proposed Specific Plan. Alternative 2 would be subject to energy efficiency and renewable energy sources provisions of the City’s 2022 CAP. Therefore, impacts would be greater for Alternative 2 than under the project. (Greater)

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
As discussed in Section 3.6, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change,” of this Draft SEIR, the proposed Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts associated with greenhouse gas (GHG) emission increases and consistency with GHG reduction plans and strategies. Alternative 2 would increase the service population by 9,560 (31,485 service population [residences and jobs]) as compared to the proposed Specific Plan. This increase in service population would result in increases in GHG emissions from mobile and stationary sources beyond the proposed Specific Plan. Alternative 2 would be subject to GHG reduction measures identified in t he City’s 2022 CAP.

Therefore, impacts would be greater for Alternative 2 than under the project. (Greater)

LAND USE AND PLANNING
Section 3.7, “Land Use and Planning,” of this Draft SEIR concludes that the proposed Specific Plan would not result in significant impacts related to physical division of established communities or conflicts with policies that protect the environment. While Alternative 2 would result in the intensification of development in the Main Street and Crossroads Districts, it would not expand the development footprint of the Specific Plan Area or create physical obstructions (e.g., new highway or rail facilities) that would physically divide existing communities. Alternative 2 would also not result in any conflicts with plans or policies that address environmental resources in the Specific Plan Area. Therefore, impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to those under the project. ( Similar)

Alternatives Ascent
City of Milpitas
5-8 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR

NOISE AND VIBRATION
As discussed in Section 3.8, “Noise and Vibration,” of this Draft SEIR, the proposed would not result in new significant impacts related to construction noise or vibration and long term noise exposure (stationary and traffic noise sources).

Future development under the Alternative 2 would increase the development potential by 3,021 residential units that would further increase traffic noise conditions that were identified as a significant and unavoidable impact under the General Plan Update EIR. Development under this alternative would result in greater traffic noise impacts from increased and denser development. (Greater)

POPULATION AND HOUSING
Section 3.9, “Population and Housing,” of this Draft SEIR concludes that the proposed Specific Plan would not result in significant impacts related to population growth or displacement of housing and residents. Future development under the Alternative 2 would increase the development potential by 3,021 residential units that would increase the City’s buildout population, but would provide additional housing opportunities. Therefore, population growth impacts would be greater than the proposed Specific Plan. (Greater)

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
As discussed in Section 3.10, “Public Services and Recreation,” of this Draft SEIR, the proposed Specific Plan would generate additional residents, which would increase the need for additional fire protection and law enforcement services and additional parks. However, these services are funded through a variety of sources (e.g., property taxes, development impact fees, fees for services) and are expanded as needed to accommodate additional population growth. Future development under the Alternative 2 would increase the development potential by 3,021 residential units. Therefore, impacts to public services and recreation would be greater as a result of the additional units under this alternative. Because this alternative would result in additional units, which would have the potential to result in additional residents as compared to the proposed Specific Plan, impacts would be greater. ( Greater)

TRANSPORTATION
As discussed in Section 3.11, “Transportation,” of this Draft SEIR, the proposed Specific Plan would not result in new significant impacts to compliance with circulation plans, safety, or emergency access beyond the less than significant impact conclusions of the General Plan Update EIR. The proposed Specific Plan would also not worsen significant and unavoidable vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts identified under the General Plan Update EIR. Alternative 2 would increase the service population by 9,560 (31,485 service population [residences and jobs]) as compared to the proposed Specific Plan. This increase in service population would result in increases in total VMT generated beyond the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, impacts would be greater. (Greater)

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
As discussed in Section 3.12, “Utilities and Service Systems,” of this Draft SEIR, the proposed Specific Plan would not result in any new significant impacts to infrastructure improvements, water supply, wastewater services, and solid waste beyond the less than significant impact conclusions of the General Plan Update EIR . Future development under the Alternative 2 would increase the development potential by 3,021 residential units that would result in increased infrastructure and utility service demands beyond what was identified for the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, impacts would be greater. (Greater)

Ascent Alternatives
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 5-9

5.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
As identified in Table 5-1, the No Project Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative. However, the No Project Alternative would not meet the objectives of the project as presented above in Section 5.2.

As shown in Table 5-1 Alternative 2 would not avoid or lessen significant environmental impacts of the proposed Specific Plan, but would be consistent with the project objectives and would provide additional housing opportunities beyond the proposed Specific Plan.

Table 5-1 Summary of Environmental Effects of the Alternatives Relative to the Proposed Specific Plan Environmental Topic Proposed Specific Plan Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
Alternative 2: Increased
Residential Development for
Main Street and Crossroads
Districts Alternative
Aesthetics Less Than Significant Similar Greater
Air Quality Less Than Significant Similar Greater
Biological Resources Less Than Significant Similar Similar Cultural, and Tribal Cultural Resources Significant and Unavoidable Less Similar Energy Less Than Significant Greater Greater
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Less Than Significant Greater Greater Land Use and Planning Less Than Significant Similar Similar Noise Significant and Unavoidable
(Traffic Noise Only) Similar Greater
Population and Housing Less Than Significant Less Greater Public Services and Recreation Less Than Significant Less Greater Transportation Significant and Unavoidable
(VMT Only) Greater Greater
Utilities and Service Systems Less Than Significant Less Greater

Alternatives Ascent
City of Milpitas
5-10 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 6-1 6 OTHER CEQA SECTIONS

6.1 GROWTH INDUCEMENT
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21100(b)(5) specifies that the growth -inducing impacts of a project must be addressed in an environmental impact report (EIR). Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides the following guidance for assessing growth-inducing impacts of a project:

Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also, discuss the characteristics of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.

A project can induce growth directly, indirectly, or both. Direct growth inducement would result if a project involved construction of new housing. Indirect growth inducement would result, for instance, if implementing a project resulted in any of the following:
 substantial new permanent employment opportunities (e.g., commercial, industrial, or governmental enterprises);  substantial short-term employment opportunities (e.g., construction employment) that indirectly stimulates the need for additional housing and services to support the new temporary employment demand; and/or  removal of an obstacle to additional growth and development, such as removing a constraint on a required public utility or service (e.g., construction of a major sewer line with excess capacity through an undeveloped area).

Growth inducement itself is not an environmental effect but may foreseeably lead to environmental effects. If substantial growth inducement occurs, it can result in secondary environmental effects, such as increased demand for housing, demand for other community and public services and infrastructure capacity, increased traffic and noise, degradation of air or water quality, degradation or loss of plant or animal habitats, conversion of agricultural and open-space land to urban uses, and other effects.

The State CEQA Guidelines do not distinguish between planned and unplanned growth for purposes of considering whether a project would foster additional growth. Therefore, for purposes of this SEIR, to reach the conclusion that a project is growth inducing as defined by CEQA, the SEIR must find that it would foster (i.e., promote, encourage, allow) additional growth in economic activity, population, or housing, regardless of whether the growth is already approved by and consistent with local plans beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR. The conclusion does not determine whether induced growth is beneficial or detrimental, consistent with Section 15126.2(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

If the analysis conducted for the SEIR results in a determination that the project is growth-inducing beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR, the next question is whether that growth may cause adverse effects on the environment. Environmental effects resulting from induced growth (i.e., growth-induced effects) fit the CEQA definition of “indirect” effects in Section 15358(a)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines. These indirect or secondary effects of growth may result in significant environmental impacts. CEQA does not require that an EIR speculate unduly about the precise location and site-specific characteristics of significant, indirect effects caused by induced growth, but a good-faith effort is required to disclose what is feasible to assess. Potential secondary effects of growth could include consequences – such as conversion of open space to developed uses, increased demand on community and public services and infrastructure, increased traffic and noise, degradation of air and water quality, or degradation or loss of plant and wildlife habitat – that are the result of growth fostered by the project.

Other CEQA Sections Ascent
City of Milpitas
6-2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR The decision to allow those projects that result from induced growth is the subject of separate discretionary processes by the lead agency(ies) responsible for considering such projects. Because the decision to allow growth is subject to separate discretionary decision making, and such decision making is itself subject to CEQA, the analysis of growth-inducing effects is not intended to determine site-specific environmental impacts and specific mitigation for the potentially induced growth. Rather, the discussion is intended to disclose the potential for environmental effects to occur more generally, such that decision makers are aware that additional environmental effects are a possibility if growth-inducing projects are approved. The decision of whether impacts do occur, their extent, and the ability to mitigate them is appropriately left to consideration by the agency responsible for approving such projects at such times as complete applications for development are submitted.

6.1.1 Summary of Growth-Inducing Impacts
The timing, magnitude, and location of land development and population growth in a community or region are based on various interrelated land use and economic variables. Key variables include regional economic trends, market demand for residential and nonresidential uses, land availability and cost, the availability and quality of transportation facilities and public services, proximity to employment centers, the supply and cost of housing, and regulatory policies or conditions. Because the General Plan of a community defines the location, type, and intensity of growth, it is the primary means of regulating development and growth in California.

6.1.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Specific Plan

GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH POPULATION GROWTH Implementation of the Specific Plan would foster long-term economic growth within the City as a result of construction of 1,338 additional units that would be allowed under the Specific Plan beyond what is allowed under the General Plan currently. The proposed Specific Plan implements the General Plan policies that would change the development currently allowed under the General Plan which would result in an increase in housing potential within the Specific Plan Area. Development buildout under the proposed Specific Plan would result in expanding residential capacity under the General Plan by an additional 1,338 units for a total allowable 5,176 units.

The Specific Plan would provide housing that exceeds the projections in the City of Milpitas’s current planning documents, including the adopted Midtown Plan and General Plan. In addition to the General Plan, ABAG’s Plan Bay Area 2050 projects regional forecasts till 2050, which extends past the City’s current General Plan 2040 planning horizon. As part of the forecast process for Plan Bay Area 2050, ABAG complied jurisdictions’ data at the local and regional levels to project population, household, and jobs growth for the region through 2050. The population projections from Plan Bay Area 2050 were used to determine ABAG and its member jurisdictions regional housing needs allocation (RHNA), which assigns proportional housing needs to help achieve the State’s housing goals.

Through this process, the City was assigned an RHNA of 6,713 units for the 2023-2031 planning cycle. Adoption and implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would aid the City in achieving its current and future RHNAs through higher-density and mixed-use intensities, development incentives, and other programs to help foster targeted growth within the Specific Plan Area. As the growth projected under the proposed Specific Plan would be aligned with ABAG’s Plan Bay Area 2050 growth projections, development under the Specific Plan would not induce unplanned growth within the city or the region. The environmental impacts associated with these direct growth- inducing effects are described in Sections 3.1 through 3.12 of this Draft SEIR.

GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVAL OF BARRIERS TO

POPULATION GROWTH
The proposed Specific Plan would establish a bonus system to allow for additional floor area and/or residential density for qualified projects beyond the base development potential under the Specific Plan identified in Table 2 -6

Ascent Other CEQA Sections
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 6-3 in Chapter 2, Project Description. The purpose of bonuses is to incentivize the provision of certain project attributes, such as providing sustainable design features and/or open space, furthering economic development, and supporting the rehabilitation of existing buildings. Bonuses would only be available within the Specific Plan focus areas. The provision of development bonuses would be subject to review and demonstration of the achievement of the criteria in Table 2-6. Development bonuses shall not exceed the maximum allowances described below:
 Maximum FAR or Density Bonus Increase of 50 percent in the Crossroads District and 40 percent within other Focus Area districts; and
 Maximum Height Increase of 2 stories in the Crossroads District and for the parcels directly fronting Calaveras Boulevard and 1 Story within other Focus Area districts.

Although the development incentives would eliminate an obstacle to growth, maximum density, intensity, and/or bonuses may not be achievable on all sites, as superseding development regulations or site constraints is anticipated to reduce actual development potential. Prior to issuance of a planning permit for a development project receiving a development bonus, the project developer would be required to sign a community benefit agreement, committing to the provision of the agreed upon project attributes in exchange for the development bonus. If the developer does not fulfill the obligations specified in the agreement, the developer would be subject to a financial penalty equal in cost to the value of the project attribute at the time that the occupancy is granted. The extent of this additional development potential that may occur would be based on economic conditions at an individual project basis. Based on these circumstances, the extent of this growth inducement impact would be speculative and no further analysis is provided consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15145.

The proposed Specific Plan emphasizes pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements as a way to improve safety for all roadway users. The Specific Plan does not include increases to vehicle capacity, however Caltrans’ Calaveras Boulevard Improvement Project would include changes to vehicle capacity along Calaveras Boulevard within the Specific plan Area as well as other traffic and intersection improvements including implementation of complete streets improvements on Calaveras Boulevard and the widening of Calaveras Boulevard to provide three through lanes between I-880 and I-680 in both directions.

The proposed Specific Plan would eliminate an obstacle to growth through the extension and provision of utilities and services within the Specific Plan Area. Implementation of the Specific Plan would increase the allowable housing potential within the Specific Plan Area, resulting in additional new residents beyond the number anticipated in the General Plan Update EIR. The WSA prepared for the Specific Plan (Appendix E) calculated the increase in water demand associated with future development under the Specific Plan. 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. As discussed under Impact 3.12-2, the proposed water infrastructure provisions would help to reduce water demand associated with buildout of the Specific Plan. Additionally, as discussed under Impact 3. 12-3, implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in a new significant effect related to wastewater conveyance and treatment and the impact on wastewater conveyance and treatment would be less than significant. 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 provisions identified in Chapter 7 of the proposed Specific Plan. These improvements are intended to improve existing conveyance issues and not future development beyond the project. Future development under the Specific Plan would directly connect to existing utility infrastructure (water, wastewater, natural gas, and electricity) and would not facilitate additional development through expansion of regional facilities (e.g., water treatment plants, wastewater treatment plants, electrical substations) beyond that which was planned for within the General Plan Update for City buildout.

Other CEQA Sections Ascent
City of Milpitas
6-4 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR

6.2 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b) requires EIRs to include a discussion of the significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented. The General Plan Update EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts to traffic noise (Impact 3.12-1), vehicle miles traveled (Impact 3.14-2), cumulative noise (Impact 4.12), cumulative impacts on the transportation network (Impact 4. 14), and irreversible effects (Impact 4.17).

As documented throughout Chapter 3 (Sections 3.1 through 3.12) and Chapter 4, “Cumulative Impacts,” of this Draft SEIR, after implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, all of the impacts associated with the project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level or remain significant and unavoidable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR, with the exception of the following impacts identified for the proposed Specific Plan that would be significant and unavoidable:
 Impact 3.4-1 (Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Historical Resource)  Impact 3.4-2 (Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of Unique Archaeological Resources )  Impact 3.4-3 (Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource)  Cumulative Impact 4.4.4-1 (Contribute to Cumulative Impacts to Historical Resources, Archaeological, and Tribal Cultural Resources)
 Cumulative Impact 4.4.8-2 (Contribute to Cumulative Traffic Noise Impacts)  Cumulative Impact 4.4.11-1 (Contribute to Cumulative Impacts Related to Vehicle Miles Traveled)

6.3 SIGNIFICANT AND IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
The State CEQA Guidelines require a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the project. Specifically, the State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2(c) states:

Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible, since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of r esources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.

The Specific Plan would result in the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of energy and material resources during construction and operation, including the following:
 construction materials, including such resources as soil, rocks, wood, concrete, glass, roof shingles, and steel;  land area committed to future facilities; and
 energy expended in the form of electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, and oil for equipment and transportation vehicles that would be needed for construction and operation.

The use of these nonrenewable resources is expected to account for a minimal portion of the region’s resources and would not affect the availability of these resources for other needs within the region. Construction activities would not result in inefficient use of energy or natural resources (see Section 3.5, “Energy,” for a further discussion of the Specific Plan’s energy use). Long-term operation would not result in substantial long-term consumption of energy and natural resources.

City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 7-1 7 REPORT PREPARERS
City of Milpitas (Lead Agency)
Jay Lee ....................................................................................................................................................................................... Planning Director Lillian VanHua ............................................................................................................................................................................... Senior Planner Ascent (CEQA Compliance)
Pat Angell ................................................................................................................................................................................................... Principal Claudia Watts ............................................................................................................................................................................ Project Manager Dimitri Antoniou ....................................................................................................................... Senior Air Quality/GHG/Energy Specialist Peter Hoholick ........................................................................................................................................ Air Quality/GHG/Energy Specialist Amber Grady .................................................................................................................................. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Alta Cunningham ........................................................................................................................... Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Chris Mundhenk ............................................................................................................................................. Senior Environmental Planner Marlie Long .................................................................................................................................................................... Environmental Planner Tristan Evert ................................................................................................................................................................... Environmental Planner Dimitri Antoniou ........................................................................................................................................................... Senior Noise Specialist Kenneth Nguyen ........................................................................................................................................................................ Noise Specialist Taelor Whittington ...................................................................................................................................... Biological Resources Specialist Pam Brillante................................................................................................................................................... Biological Resources Specialist Elena Savignano .......................................................................................................................................................... Transportation Analyst Jazmin Amini ................................................................................................................................................................. Transportation Analyst Lisa Merry .......................................................................................................................................................................................... GIS Specialist Brian Perry ................................................................................................................................................................................ Graphic Specialist Gayiety Lane ....................................................................................................................................................................... Publishing Specialist Michele Mattei ................................................................................................................................................................... Publishing Specialist Riley Smith ........................................................................................................................................................................... Publishing Specialist Transportation
Fehr and Peers .............................................................................................................................................................................. Transportation

Report Preparers Ascent
City of Milpitas
7-2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank.

City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 8-1 8 REFERENCES
Executive Summary
No references are used in this chapter.

Chapter 1 Introduction
City of Milpitas. 2021. 2040 General Plan City of Milpitas. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1165/Community-Design-PDF?bidId=. Accessed September 18, 2024.

Chapter 2 Project Description
City of Milpitas. 2002. Midtown Specific Plan. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1144/Midtown-Specific-Plan-PDF.

Accessed: September 9, 2024.
———. 2020. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update . SCH: 2020070348. November 2020. Available: https://milpitas.generalplan.org/. Accessed September 9, 2024. ———. 2022 (May). Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Form Analysis. ———. 2024 (November). Draft Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan.

Chapter 3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures No references are used in this section.

Section 3.1 Aesthetics
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2024. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Available:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.

Accessed October 7, 2024.
———. 2021. 2040 General Plan City of Milpitas. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1165/Community-Design-PDF?bidId=. Accessed September 18, 2024.

Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation.

Section 3.2 Air Quality
BAAQMD. See Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. Spare the Air, Cool the Climate. Available:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_- proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed September 28, 2024. ———. 2022. 2022 CEQA Guidelines. Available: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental- quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines. Accessed September 28, 2024.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2024. California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2022.1.1.28 California Air Resources Board. Accessed October 2024.

California Air Resources Board. 2013. California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality—2013 Edition. Available:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac13/almanac13.htm. Accessed September 28, 2024. ———. 2016 (May 4). Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf.

Accessed September 28, 2024.

References Ascent
City of Milpitas
8-2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR ———. 2022. State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/Proposed_2022_State_SIP_Strategy.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2024.
———. 2023. Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview -diesel- exhaust-and-health. Accessed September 27, 2024.

CAPCOA. See California Air Pollution Control Officers Association.

CARB. See California Air Resources Board.

City of Milpitas. 2021 (March). Milpitas 2040 General Plan. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1147/Milpitas-2040-General-Plan-PDF?bidId=. Accessed September 28, 2024.

EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Fehr & Peers. 2024 (November). Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for the Environmental Review.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2023a. Criteria Air Pollutants. Available: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air- pollutants. Accessed September 28, 2024.
———. 2023b. Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants (Green Book). Available: https://www.epa.gov/green-book.

Accessed September 28, 2024.
———. 2024. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM. Available: https://www.epa.gov/pm - pollution/national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs-pm. Accessed September 28, 2024.

Western Regional Climate Center. 2002. Average Wind Direction. Available:
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/climatedata/climtables/westwinddir/. Accessed September 28, 2024. ———. 2016. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary. Available: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7630.

Accessed September 28, 2024.

WRCC. See Western Regional Climate Center.

Section 3.3 Biological Resources
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Available:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83843. Accessed September 25, 2024. ———. 2018 (March 20). Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. Available:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline. Accessed September 24, 2024. ———. 2023 (June 6). Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species. Available: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=213150&inline.

Accessed September 19, 2024.
———. 2024a. Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Viewer. Available: https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios6/?bookmark=648 .

Accessed September 25, 2024.
———. 2024b. Passage Assessment Database. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS 6).

Available: https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios6/?al=ds69. Accessed September 19, 2024.

California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2021. CDFA Weed Pest Ratings and CCR 4500 Noxious Weeds as of June 22, 2021. Available: https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/ipc/encycloweedia/pdf/CaliforniaNoxiousWeeds.pdf .

Accessed September 24, 2024.

California Native Plant Society. 2024. Rare Plant Program: Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-9.5). Available: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed September 17, 2024.

Ascent References
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 8-3 California Natural Diversity Database. 2024. Results of electronic records search. Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch. Retrieved September 17, 2024.

City of Milpitas. 2021. General Plan Update 2040. Adopted in 1994, updated March 9, 2021. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1147/Milpitas-2040-General-Plan-PDF?bidId=. Accessed September 20, 2024.

CDFW. See California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

CDFA. See California Department of Food and Agriculture.

CNPS. See California Native Plant Society.

CNDDB. See California Natural Diversity Database.

De Novo Planning Group. 2020 (November). Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update . SCH:
2020070348. Available: https://milpitas.generalplan.org/. Accessed September 9, 2024. eBird. 2024. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org. Accessed September 18, 2024.

EDAW. 2001 (October). Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Midtown Specific Plan. iNaturalist. 2024. Observations of Plants in the Milpitas Area. Available: https://www.inaturalist.org/. Retrieved September 19, 2024.

Lanterman J., P. Reeher, R. J. Mitchell, and K. Goodell. 2019. “Habitat Preference and Phenology of Nest Seeking and Foraging Bumble Bee Queens in Northeastern North America.” The American Midland Naturalist 182: 131–159.

Leong, K. L. H., Sakai, W. H., Bremer, W., Feuerstein, D., and G. Yoshimura. 2004. “ Analysis of the pattern of distribution and abundance of monarch overwintering sites along the California coastline .” In The Monarch Butterfly: Biology and Conservation, edited by K. S. Oberhauser and M. J. Solensky, 177 –185. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Cited in Pelton et al. 2016.

Liczner A. R., and S. R. Colla. 2019. “A Systematic Review of the Nesting and Overwintering Habitat of Bumble Bees Globally.” Journal of Insect Conservation 23: 787–801.

Pelton, E., Jespen, S., Shultz, C., Fallon, C., and S. H. Black. 2016. State of the Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Sites in California. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation Portland, Oregon. Available:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Prepared+for+the+U.S.+Fish+and+Wildlife+Service+by%3A+The+Xerce s+Society+for+Invertebrate+Conservation+Portland%2C+Oregon&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS1077US1078&sourceid =chrome&ie=UTF-8. Accessed September 19, 2024.

Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. Second edition. California Native Plant Society Press, Sacramento, California, USA.

Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative. 2006. Guidelines & Standards for Land Use Near Streams: A Manual of Tools, Standards and Procedures to Protect Streams and Streamside Resources in Santa Clara County. Adopted 2005, updated 2006. Available: https://www.valleywater.org/contractors/doing - businesses-with-the-district/permits-working-district-land-or-easement/guidelines-and-standards-land-use- near-streams. Accessed September 20, 2024.

SCVWRPC. See Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative.

Spencer, W.D., Beier, P., Penrod, K. Winters, K., Paulman, C., Rustigian-Romsos, H., Strittholt, J., Parisi, M., and A.

Pettler. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration.

Tukman Geospatial and Aerial Information Systems. 2023. Santa Cruz and Santa Clara County Fine Scale Vegetation Map (v. 6/15/23). Prepared by: Tukman Geospatial & Aerial Information Systems. June 9, 2023. United States

References Ascent
City of Milpitas
8-4 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Geological Survey. Available:
https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=3e01167873d14600ad4ae8551785b3d7.

Retrieved September 19, 2024.

US Department of Agriculture. 2015. Newpark Soil Series. National Cooperative Soil Survey, U.S.A . Available:
https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/N/NEWPARK.html. Accessed October 8, 2924.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). USFWS, Region 1. Portland, Oregon. Available: https://www.amphibians.org/wp- content/uploads/sites/3/2019/04/California-Red-legged-Frog-Recovery-Plan.pdf. Accessed September 25, 2024. ———. 2004. Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red -legged Frog. USFWS, Pacific Southwest Region. Available: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/guidance-on-site- assessments-and-field-surveys-for-california-red-legged-frog.pdf. Accessed October 7, 2024. ———. 2021. Recovery Plan for Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis). Available:
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Final%20Recovery%20Plan%20_Rusty%20Patched%20Bu mble%20Bee_2021.pdf. Accessed September 19, 2024.’
———. 2024a. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Resource List for the Gateway- Main Street Specific Plan. Retrieved September 17, 2024.
———. 2024b. National Wetlands Inventory website. Washington, DC. Available:
https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory/wetlands-mapper. Retrieved September 25, 2024.

US Forest Service. 2014. Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) Species Assessment. U.S.

Department of the Interior. Available: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd534366.pdf .

Accessed September 20, 2024.

USDA. See US Department of Agriculture.

USFWS. See US Fish and Wildlife Service.

USFS. See US Forest Service.

Web Soil Survey. 2024. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Available:
https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed October 8, 2024.

Western Monarch Milkweed Mapper. 2024. Sightings Map. Available. https://www.monarchmilkweedmapper.org/app/#/combined/map. Retrieved October 7, 2024.

Williams, P. H., R. W. Thorp, L. L. Richardson, and S. R. Colla. 2014. Bumble Bees of North America . Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ.

Williams, N. L., J. M. Mola, C. Stuligross, T. Harrison, M. L. Page, R. M. Brennan, N. M. Rosenberger, and M. Rundlof. 2019. “Fantastic Bees and Where to Find Them: Locating the Cryptic Overwintering Queens of a Western Bumble Bee.” Ecosphere 10: e02949.

Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. 2018. A Petition to the State of California Fish and Game Commission to List the Crotch’s Bumble Bee (Bombus crotchii), Franklin’s Bumble Bee (Bombus franklini), Suckley Cuckoo Bumble Bee (Bombus suckleyi), and Western Bumble Bee (Bombus occidentalis occidentalis) as Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. Available: https://www.xerces.org/sites/default/files/2019- 10/CESA-petition-Bombus-Oct2018.pdf. Accessed September 19, 2024. ———. 2023. The California Bumble Bee Atlas: Results 2022-2023. Available:
https://www.cabumblebeeatlas.org/project-highlights.html. Accessed September 19, 2024. ———. 2024. Western Monarch Overwintering Sites Database. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.

Available: https://westernmonarchcount.org/map-of-overwintering-sites/. Accessed September 19, 2024.

Ascent References
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 8-5 Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Wildlife Preservation Canada, York University, University of Ottawa, The Montreal Insectarium, The London Natural History Museum, BeeSpotter. 2024. Data accessed from Bumble Bee Watch, a collaborative website to track and conserve North America’s bumble bees. Available:
https://www.bumblebeewatch.org/maps/?type=1-
2&project=&user=&status=2&month=&year=&sex=&species=12&state=&page=1 .

Accessed September 19, 2024.

Xerces Society. See Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.

Section 3.4 Cultural, and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Milpitas. 1994 (December). City of Milpitas General Plan. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1148/General-Plan-Adopted-1994-PDF?bidId=. Accessed September 18, 2024.
———. 2021 (March 9). 2040 General Plan City of Milpitas. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1167/Conservation-and-Sustainability-PDF?bidId=. Accessed September 18, 2024.
———. 2024. Milpitas Historical Site Inventory. Available: https://milpitas-gis- milpitas.hub.arcgis.com/apps/7701907d381d4196942288bbb085f2b8/explore. Accessed September 19, 2024.

City of Milpitas and Architectural Resources Group. 2011. Conceptual Historic Resources Masterplan for the City of Milpitas.

City of Milpitas and ARG. See City of Milpitas and Architectural Resources Group.

EDAW, Inc. (October) 2001. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Midtown Milpitas Specific Plan (SCH#2000092027).

Hester, J.A. 1974. Archaeological Assessment of Park Center Project. Report No. S- 004319 on File at the Central Coast Information Center at the Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, California.

Levy, R. 1978. Costanoan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, 485-495. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Milliken, R., R. T. Fitzgerald, M. G. Hylkema, T. Origer, R. Groza, R. Wiberg, A. Leventhal, D. Bieling, A. Gottsfield, D.

Gillette, V. Bellefemine, E. Strother, R. Cartier, and D. A. Fredrickson. 2007. Chapter 8, “Punctuated Culture Change in the San Francisco Bay Area.” In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by T. Jones, pp. 99–123. AltaMira Press. Lanham, MD.

Muwekma Ohlone. See Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area.

Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area. 2023. Muwekma Ohlone Tribe. Available on http://www.muwekma.org/# Accessed on July 29, 2023.
———. 2024. Response letter to the City’s notification of tribal consultation. August 29, 2024. CONFIDENTAL DOCUMENT.

Tamien. See Tamien Nation.

Tamien Nation. 2023. The Aboriginal Tribe of Santa Clara Valley. Available: https://www.tamien.org/. Accessed on June 29, 2023.

Section 3.5 Energy
AFDC. See Alternative Fuels Data Center.

Alternative Fuels Data Center. 2024. Available: https://afdc.energy.gov/stations#/analyze?country=US&region=US- CA. Accessed September 28, 2024.

California Energy Commission. 2019. 2019 California Energy Efficiency Action Plan. Available:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/1900. Accessed September 28, 2024.

References Ascent
City of Milpitas
8-6 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR ———. 2021. 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Available: https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and- topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2022-building-energy- efficiency#:~:text=The%202022%20Energy%20Code%20encourages,strengthens%20ventilation%20standard s%2C%20and%20more. Accessed September 28, 2023.
———. 2022. Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. Available: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023- 02/IEPR_Highlights_no_docket_coversheet_02-17-2023_ADA.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2023. ———. 2024. California Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CEC-A15) Results. Available:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/media/3874. Accessed September 28, 2024.

California Energy Commission and California Air Resources Board. 2003. Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence.

CEC and CARB. See California Energy Commission and California Air Resources Board.

CEC. See California Energy Commission.

EIA. See U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Fehr & Peers. 2024 (November). Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for the Environmental Review.

Milpitas. 2020. 2040 Milpitas General Plan Update EIR. Available:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57277b461d07c02f9c2f5c2c/t/5fa094bab97246713f3e4e9a/1604359401 370/Milipitas_Public_Draft_EIR_reduced.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2024. ———. 2021 (March). Milpitas 2040 General Plan. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1147/Milpitas-2040-General-Plan-PDF?bidId=. Accessed September 28, 2024.
———. 2022 (August). Milpitas Climate Action Plan Update. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3124/Milpitas-Climate-Action-Plan-Update-2022?bidId=.

Accessed September 28, 2024.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 2023. 2021 Power Content Label. Available:
https://www.pge.com/content/dam/pge/docs/account/billing-and-assistance/bill-inserts/1023-Power- Content-Label.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2024.

PG&E. See Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2024. California Energy Consumption by End -Use Sector, 2022. Available:
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2. Accessed September 28, 2024.

Section 3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change BAAQMD. See Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2022. 2022 CEQA Guidelines. Available: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and- climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines. Accessed September 28, 2024.

California Air Resources Board. 2018a. SB 375 Regional Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Targets . Approved by the California Air Resources Board March 22, 2018. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 06/SB375_Final_Target_Staff_Report_%202018_Resolution_18-12.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2024. ———. 2018b. 2018 ZEV Action Plan. Available: https://business.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2018-ZEV- Action-Plan-Priorities-Update.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2024. ———. 2022 (November). Evaluation of the Association of Bay Area Governments' and Metropolitan Transportation Commission's SB 375 2021 Sustainable Communities Strategy. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/ABAGMTCSCS-Report-2022-ADA.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2024.

Ascent References
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 8-7 California Energy Commission. 2021. 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Available:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2022- building-energy-
efficiency#:~:text=The%202022%20Energy%20Code%20encourages,strengthens%20ventilation%20standard s%2C%20and%20more. Accessed September 28, 2024.

California Natural Resources Agency. 2018 (January). Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update. Available:
http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/safeguarding/update2018/safeguarding-california-plan-2018- update.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2024.

CARB. See California Air Resources Board.

CEC. See California Energy Commission.

CNRA. See California Natural Resources Agency.

Fehr & Peers. 2024 (November). Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for the Environmental Review.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, California Energy Commission, and California Natural Resources Agency. 2018 (August). California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment.

Gould, S., and K. Dervin. 2012. Climate Action for Health: Integrating Public Health into Climate Action Planning.

California Department of Public Health.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. Available:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-spm-1.pdf. ———. 2013. Chapter 6, Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. Pages 465–570 in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2024. ———. IPCC 2021. Sixth Assessment Report: Summary for Policymakers. Available:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/. Accessed September 28, 2024.

IPCC. See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

McMichael, A. J., and E. Lindgren. 2011. Climate Change: Present and Future Risks to Health, and Necessary Responses. Journal of Internal Medicine 270(5):401–413.

Metropolitan Transportation Association/Association of Bay Area Governments. 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050 . Available:
https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf .

Milpitas. 2020. 2040 Milpitas General Plan Update EIR. Available:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57277b461d07c02f9c2f5c2c/t/5fa094bab97246713f3e4e9a/1604359401 370/Milipitas_Public_Draft_EIR_reduced.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2024. ———. 2021 (March). Milpitas 2040 General Plan. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1147/Milpitas-2040-General-Plan-PDF?bidId=. Accessed September 28, 2024.
———. 2022 (August). Milpitas Climate Action Plan Update. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3124/Milpitas-Climate-Action-Plan-Update-2022?bidId=.

Accessed September 28, 2024.

MTC/ABAG. See Metropolitan Transportation Association/Association of Bay Area Governments.

OPR, CEC, and CNRA. See Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, California Energy Commission, and California Natural Resources Agency.

References Ascent
City of Milpitas
8-8 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Ostro et al. 2011. Quantifying the Health Impacts of Future Changes in Temperature in California . Available:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21975126/. Accessed September 28, 2024.

Pierce, D. W., J. F Kalansky, and D. R. Cayan. 2018. Climate, Drought, and Sea Level Rise Scenarios for California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. California Energy Commission. Available: https://www.energy.ca.gov/ sites/default/files/2019-11/Projections_CCCA4-CEC-2018-006_ADA.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2024.

United Nations. 2015. Paris Agreement. Available: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf.

Accessed September 28, 2024.

US Global Change Research Program. 2016. The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment.

Wade, Samuel. Branch chief. Transportation Fuels Branch, Industrial Strategies Division, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA. June 30, 2017―e-mail to Austin Kerr of Ascent Environmental regarding whether the Low Carbon Fuel Standard applies to fuels used by off-road construction equipment.

Section 3.7 Land Use and Planning
ABAG and MTS. See Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2021. Plan Bay Area . Available:
https://planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf . Accessed October 2024.

CalSTA. See California State Transportation Agency.

California State Transportation Agency. 2021. California Transportation Plan 2050 . Available: https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/ctp-2050-v3-a11y.pdf.

Accessed October 2024.

City of Milpitas. 2002. Midtown Specific Plan. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1144/Midtown-Specific-Plan-PDF.

Accessed: September 9, 2024.
———. 2021a. City of Milpitas 2040 General Plan. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1147/Milpitas-2040-General-Plan-PDF?bidId=.

Accessed October 2024.
———. 2021b. City of Milpitas 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1169/NOD-and-FEIR-PDF?bidId=. Accessed October 2024. ———. 2022 (May). Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Form Analysis. ———. 2024a. City of Milpitas Municipal Code: Title XI - Zoning, Planning and Annexation. Available:
https://library.municode.com/search?stateId=5&clientId=3318&searchText=zoning&contentTypeId=CODES .

Accessed October 2024.
———. 2024b. City of Milpitas Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update. Website. Available:
https://www.milpitaszoningupdate.org/. Accessed October 2024.

Section 3.8 Noise and Vibration
California Department of Transportation. 2013 (September). Technical Noise Supplement. California Department of Transportation Division of Environmental Analysis. Sacramento, CA. Prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes. ———. 2020 (April). Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf. Accessed March 26, 2024.

Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation.

Ascent References
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 8-9 City of Milpitas. 2020 (November). General Plan Update EIR. City of Milpitas General Plan Update. Available:
https://milpitas.generalplan.org/.
———. 2021. March. City of Milpitas General Plan. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1147/Milpitas-2040-General-Plan-PDF?bidId=.

Federal Highway Administration. 2004. Traffic Noise Model. V 2.5. Released 2004. Washington, D.C. Available:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/traffic_noise_model/tnm_v25/. ———. 2006 (January). Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. Washington, D.C. Prepared by the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Cambridge, MA.

Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual . U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration. Washington, DC. Prepared by John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.

FHWA. See Federal Highway Administration.

FTA. See Federal Transit Administration.

Section 3.9 Population and Housing
Association of Bay Area Governments. 2018 (December). Plan Bay Area 2050 Final Blueprint Growth Pattern. “Projections 2040 by Jurisdiction.” Data last updated January 2021. Available at:
https://data.bayareametro.gov/Demography/Projections-2040-by-Jurisdiction/grqz-amra. Accessed January 27, 2020.

California Department of Finance. 2024 (May). E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2021-2024 with 2020 Census Benchmark. Available: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-4- population-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2021-2024-with-2020-census-benchmark/. Accessed September 30, 2024.

City of Milpitas. 2002. Midtown Specific Plan. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1144/Midtown-Specific-Plan-PDF.

Accessed: September 9, 2024.
———. 2020. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update . SCH: 2020070348. November 2020. Available: https://milpitas.generalplan.org/. Accessed September 9, 2024. ———. 2021 (March 9). General Plan 2040 City of Milpitas. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1159/Land-Use-PDF?bidId=. Accessed September 9, 2024. ———. 2022 (December). 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Addendum Evaluation. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1309/Final-Addendum-2022-Dec-PDF. Accessed:

September 30, 2024.
———. 2023 (January 23). City of Milpitas 2023-2031 Housing Element. Available:
https://milpitashousingelement.com/wp-
content/uploads/2023/03/Milpitas_HE_HCD_Draft_2023_03_clean.pdf. Accessed September 9, 2024. ———. 2024. Demographics. Available: https://www.milpitas.gov/1007/Demographics. Accessed: September DOF. See California Department of Finance.

Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2022. City of Milpitas 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Addendum Evaluation (State Clearinghouse #2020070348). Available: https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1309/Final- Addendum-2022-Dec-PDF. Accessed November 5, 2024.

US Census Bureau. 2024. Milpitas City, California Profile. Available:
https://data.census.gov/profile/Milpitas_city,_California?g=160XX00US0647766#populations -and-people.

Accessed October 29, 2024.

References Ascent
City of Milpitas
8-10 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Section 3.10 Public Services and Recreation
California Department of Education. n.d. 2023-24 Enrollment by Grade - Milpitas Unified Report (43-73387). Available:
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/enrgrdlevels.aspx?agglevel=District&year=2023 - 24&cds=4373387. Accessed October 2, 2024.

City of Milpitas. 2020. Milpitas General Plan Environmental Impact Report. ———. 2021 (March 9). 2040 General Plan City of Milpitas. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1165/Community-Design-PDF?bidId=.

Accessed September 18, 2024.

Milpitas Fire Department. 2024. Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Budget Narrative and Summary. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3296/Fire-Organization-Chart-Fiscal-Year-23-24-pdf.

Accessed October 2, 2024.

Milpitas Police Department. 2023. 2023 Annual Report. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5391/2023-MPD-Annual-Report-PDF.

Accessed October 2, 2024.

Milpitas Unified School District. 2024a. School Impact (Developer) Fees. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/906/School-Impact-Fees-PDF?bidId=.

Accessed October 27, 2024.
———. 2024b. School Facility Fee Justification Report for Residential, Commercial & Industrial Development Projects for the Milpitas Unified School District.

MFD. See Milpitas Fire Department.

MPD. See Milpitas Police Department.

MUSD. See Milpitas Unified School District.

Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission. 2023. Countywide Fire Service Review - October 2023.

Available: https://santaclaralafco.org/sites/default/files/FireSRReview-FinalReport-2023.pdf. Accessed October 3, 2024.

Spaces4Learning. 2024. Mabel Mattos Elementary School. Available:
https://spaces4learning.com/articles/2024/01/04/mabel-mattos-elemantary-school.aspx. Accessed October 2, 2024.

Section 3.11 Transportation
AC Transit. See Alameda-Contra Costa Transit.

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit. 2024 (August). 217 AC Transit Schedule. Available:
https://www.actransit.org/sites/default/files/timetable_files/217-2024_08_11.pdf.

Accessed September 27, 2024.

Bay Area Rapid Transit. 2023. Service Map. Available: https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/2023 -09/BART- Detailed-Map-Web.pdf. Accessed September 27, 2024.
———. 2024 (August). BART Schedules. Available: https://www.bart.gov/schedules/pdfs.

Accessed September 27, 2024.

BART. See Bay Area Rapid Transit.

California Department of Transportation. 2018. Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area . Available:
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/district-4/documents/d4-bike-plan/caltransd4bikeplan_report_lowres- r6.pdf. Accessed September 25, 2024.

Ascent References
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 8-11 ———. 2020a (May). Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide. Available:
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/sb-743/2020-05-20- approved-vmt-focused-tisg-a11y.pdf. Accessed September 24, 2024. ———. 2020b (December). Traffic Safety Bulletin 20-02-R1: Interim Local Development Intergovernmental Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/sb-743/2020-12-22-updated-interim-ldigr-safety- review-guidance-a11y.pdf. Accessed September 24, 2024.
———. 2020c (July). Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000 - Bicycle Transportation Design. Available:
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/chp1000-a11y.pdf.

Accessed September 2024.
———. 2021a. District 4 Pedestrian Plan for the Bay Area 2021. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/active-transportation-complete-streets/district4- finalreport-a11y.pdf. Accessed September 25, 2024.
———. 2021b. California Transportation Plan 2050. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/ctp-2050-v3-a11y.pdf. Accessed September 24, 2024. ———. 2022 (December). Encroachment Permit General Provisions. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/traffic-operations/documents/encroachment-permits/appendix-k-ada-a11y.pdf. Accessed September 24, 2024.
———. 2024 (January). California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices . Available: https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/ca-mutcd/rev8/camutcd2014-rev8-all.pdf.

Accessed September 24, 2024.

Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation.

California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2018 (December). Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Available: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf.

Accessed September 2024.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2021 (December). Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity . Available:
https://www.caleemod.com/documents/handbook/full_handbook.pdf. Accessed October 28, 2024.

CAPCOA. See California Air Pollution Control Officers Association.

City of Milpitas. 2020 (November). Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update . Prepared by De Novo Planning Group. Available: https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1168/Draft -EIR- PDF?bidId=. Accessed October 2024.

City of Milpitas. 2021a. General Plan 2040. Available: https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1159/Land-Use- PDF?bidId=. Accessed September 18, 2024.
———. 2021b (June). The City of Milpitas Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan . Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4954/Trail-Pedestrian-and-Bicycle-Master-Plan---Adopted- May-2022-PDF?bidId=. Accessed September 25, 2024.
———. 2022a (August). Milpitas Climate Action Plan Update. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3124/Milpitas-Climate-Action-Plan-Update-2022. Accessed September 27, 2024.
———. 2022b (March). City of Milpitas Transportation Analysis Guidelines. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1623/Transportation-Analysis-Guidelines-PDF?bidId=.

Acce
ssed September 26, 2024.

References Ascent
City of Milpitas
8-12 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR ———. 2024. Encroachment Permits. Available: https://www.milpitas.gov/246/Encroachment -Permits. Accessed September 30, 2024.

Federal Highway Administration. 2023 (February). Highway Functional Classification Concepts, Criteria, and Procedures. 2023 Edition. Available: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/statewide/related/hwy- functional-classification-2023.pdf. Accessed October 7, 2024.

Fehr & Peers. 2022 (March). Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Existing Transportation Conditions, Issues, and Opportunities Memorandum. Prepared for Ascent.
———. 2024 (November). Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for the Environmental Review. Prepared for Ascent Environmental, Sacramento, CA and City of Milpitas, Milpitas, CA.

FHWA. See Federal Highway Administration.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2021 (October). Plan Bay Area 2050. Available:
https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf . Accessed September 25, 2024.

MTC. See Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

OPR. See California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. 2014 (October). VTP 2040. Available:
https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/VTP-2040_Final.pdf. Accessed September 26, 2024. ———. 2018 (May). Countywide Bicycle Plan. Available: https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2019- 05/SCCBP_Final%20Plan%20_05.23.2018.pdf. Accessed September 25, 2024. ———. 2020 (December). Bus Stop & Passenger Facility Design Criteria and Standards . Available:
https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2022-
03/Bus%20Stop%20and%20Facility%20Criteria%20and%20Standard%202021.pdf .

Accessed September 27, 2024.
———. 2021 (December). 2021 Congestion Management Program Document. Available:
https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2022-01/2021CMPDocumentV2_Reduced.pdf.

Accessed September 25, 2024.
———. 2024. Routes. Available: https://www.vta.org/go/routes. Accessed September 27, 2024.

VTA. See Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.

Section 3.12 Utilities and Service Systems
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2022. Jurisdiction Per Capita Disposal Trends - Milpitas.

Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/ReviewReports.

Accessed November 12, 2024.
———. 2024a. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, Kirby Canyon Recycl.& Disp. Facility (43 -AN-0008). Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1370?siteID=3393.

Accessed November 14, 2024.
———. 2024b. SWIS Facility Detail/Site Activity Details, Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill (43 -AN-0015). Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1376?siteID=3399.

Accessed November 14, 2024.
———. 2024c. SWIS Facility Detail/Site Activity Details, Sunnyvale MRF & Transfer Station (43 -AA-0009). Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1348?siteID=3376.

Accessed November 14, 2024.

Ascent References
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 8-13 ———. 2024d. SWIS Facility Detail/Site Activity Details, Mission Trails Waste Systems (43 -AO-0002). Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1382?siteID=3405.

Accessed November 14, 2024.
———. 2024e. SWIS Facility Detail/Site Activity Details, Zanker Material Processing Facility (43 -AN-0001). Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1359?siteID=3386.

Accessed November 14, 2024.

CalRecycle. See California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.

City of Milpitas. 2021a. General Plan 2040. Available: https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1159/Land-Use- PDF?bidId=. Accessed September 18, 2024.
———. 2021b. (July). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3499/2020-Urban-Water-Management-Plan-PDF?bidId=.

Accessed November 7, 2024.
———. 2021c. (January). City of Milpitas Sewer Master Plan. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3431/2021-Sewer-Master-Plan-PDF?bidId=. Accessed November 20, 2024.
———. 2021d. (October). City of Milpitas Storm Drain Master Plan. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3432/2021-Storm-Drain-Master-Plan-PDF?bidId=. Accessed November 20, 2024.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 2023a. PG&E Company Profile. Available: https://www.pge.com/en_US/about- pge/company-information/profile/profile.page. Accessed November 13, 2024. ———. 2023b. 2021 Power Content Label. Available: https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/your - account/your-bill/understand-your-bill/bill-inserts/2022/1022-Power-Content-Label.pdf.

Accessed November 13, 2024.

PG&E. See Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

Silveira, Michael, P.E. City engineer. City of Milpitas, Milpitas, CA. March 2025 —email messages to Pat Angell of Ascent Environmental regarding water supply and infrastructure.

Chapter 4 Cumulative Impacts
ABAG. See Association of Bay Area Governments.

Association of Bay Area Governments. 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050 Forecasting and Modeling Report . Available:
https://planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_Forecasting_Modeling_Report_Oc tober_2021.pdf. Accessed: September 30, 2024.

City of Milpitas. 2020 (November). Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update . Prepared by De Novo Planning Group. Available: https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1168/Draft -EIR- PDF?bidId=. Accessed December 2024.
———. 2021a. (July). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3499/2020-Urban-Water-Management-Plan-PDF?bidId=.

Accessed November 7, 2024.
———. 2021b. (January). City of Milpitas Sewer Master Plan. Available:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3431/2021-Sewer-Master-Plan-PDF?bidId=. Accessed November 20, 2024.

Fehr & Peers. 2024 (November). Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for the Environmental Review. Prepared for Ascent Environmental, Sacramento, CA and City of Milpitas, Milpitas, CA.

References Ascent
City of Milpitas
8-14 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR Silveira, Michael. City Engineer. Milpitas, CA. March 3, 2025—email to Pat Angell of Ascent Environmental regarding water supply for the Specific Plan Area.

Chapter 5 Alternatives
No references are used in this chapter.

Chapter 6 Other CEQA Sections
No references are used in this chapter.

Appendix A
Notice of Preparation and Comments
Received

City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Notice of Preparation 1

CITY OF MILPITAS

NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF

AN SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING

FOR THE GATEWAY-MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
Date: July 15, 2024
To: Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and Interested Persons RE: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Project
In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA ), the City of Milpitas (City) has prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (Specific Plan). The SEIR tiers from the City’s adopted General Plan 2040 to implement the General Plan policies (LU 1-1 and LU 1-2) Action LU-2a for the update and implementation of the Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan. The NOP includes a project description, exhibits, summary of key issues to be addressed in the SEIR, and an overview of the purpose of this notice and the environmental review process. The purpose of this NOP is to provide an opportunity for the public, interested parties, and public agencies to comment on the scope and proposed content of the SEIR.

PROVIDING COMMENTS ON THIS NOTICE OF PREPARATION
Agencies and interested parties may provide the City with written comments on environmental topics to be addressed in the SEIR for the project. Because of time limits mandated by State law, written and/or email comments should be provided no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 13, 2024. Please send all comments on the NOP to:

City of Milpitas, Planning Department
455 E. Calaveras Blvd.

Milpitas, CA 95035
Attn: Jay Lee, Planning Director
Phone: (408) 586-3077
E-mail: [email protected]

PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING
The City will conduct a public scoping meeting to receive comments on environmental issues that should be addressed in the Draft SEIR as well as the range of practicable alternatives to be evaluated in the Draft SEIR. The public scoping meetings are scheduled virtually via Zoom at the following date, time and location:

DATE: August 1, 2024, 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

MEETING LINK: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81649348310?pwd=XybwZmZWwtvqy2z5mH9CPim1p5ix9W.1 Meeting ID: 816 4934 8310
Passcode: 816975

Ascent
City of Milpitas
2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Notice of Preparation

PROJECT LOCATION
The Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Area (Specific Plan Area) covers approximately 605 acres within the City of Milpitas. The City, located in northern Santa Clara County, within the South San Francisco Bay Are a, is situated north of San Jose and east of Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Mountain View along State Route 237 (Highway 237 ) (Figure 1, Regional Location). The City is served by three major freeways: Interstate (I)-880, I-680, Highway 237/Calaveras Boulevard, and the County-managed Montague Expressway.

The Specific Plan Area is located within the western portion of the city, west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line.

It encompasses Calaveras Boulevard, Main Street, and the Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan project area bordered by I- 880 to the west, the UPRR tracks to the east, and Great Mall Parkway to the south. Two heavy rail lines, the UPRR freight line and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) commuter rail lines, traverse the Specific Plan Area on the east. The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) operates light rail transit (LRT) and interconnecting bus lines into t he Specific Plan Area along the Great Mall Parkway.

Existing land uses in the Specific Plan Area consist of single-family residential, multi-family residential, retail, office, civic/institutional, park/open space, and industrial uses. Commercial uses (retail, office, and hospitality) are located throughout the Specific Plan Area. A mix of single-family and multi-family housing is scattered throughout the Specific Plan Area. Public uses, including religious, educational, and cultural facilities, comprise a portion of the Specific Plan Area, including the County-operated Elmwood Correctional Facility. Transportation and industrial uses, in the Specific Plan Area, are primarily focused between the two railroad lines.

PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan (Midtown Plan), adopted in 2002, is the predecessor plan to the Milpitas Gateway- Main Street Specific Plan. The Midtown Plan was last updated in 2010 to respond to a series of development activities in the Midtown area, including the construction of new housing, reinvestment in the Great Mall , a retail shopping center, and the extension of the Tasman East Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) light rail transit line, and proposals, at the time, to extend the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) through the area.

The City of Milpitas General Plan 2040, adopted in 2021, is the guiding, long-term plan and policy document for the physical development of the city through 2040. The planned update of the Midtown Plan to the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan, as described in the General Plan, is intended to create an economically-viable main street type development that serves as the cultural hub of the city. The 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 Specific Plan Area includes the historic commercial core of the City, centered on Main Street and Serra Way, and Calaveras Boulevard, near Interstate 880. The Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Update would provide the vision, standards, and policies of the Midtown Plan. The project would implement the General Plan goals and policies to update the Midtown Plan with a focus on revitalizing Main Street as the city’s historic core and improving Calaveras Boulevard as a western gateway into the city.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Overview
The purpose of the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (Specific Plan) is to guide land use and development consistent with the General Plan; implement the City’s economic development strategy and help facilitate investment in the Specific Plan’s Focus Areas; preserve and enhance existing neighborhoods; and plan for the future transition of Urban Reserve lands. The Specific Plan identifies four focus areas: Gateway District, Crossroads District, Main Street District, and Abbott District.

Ascent
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Notice of Preparation 3

Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2024.

Figure 1 Regional Location
• Sausalito
Milpita s City Limit s
Plan Are a
0 4 8
MILES
ESRI Ocean Base 20210060.01 GIS 048
• Moraga
• Santa Cruz

CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY
Livermore

SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY

ALAMEDA
COUNTY

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

Ascent
City of Milpitas
4 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Notice of Preparation The City’s General Plan Land Use Element designates the adopted Midtown Plan area as MGSP - Milpitas Gateway- Main Street Specific Plan. The General Plan includes the following actions related to the Specific Plan: Action LU-2A to maintain and implement the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan goals, policies and development standards and guidelines to create a mixed-use community that includes high-density, transit-oriented housing and a central community ‘gathering place’ while maintaining needed industrial, service and commercial uses; and Action ED-3H to work with property owners to facilitate development of vacant and underutilized properties on Main Street to achieve the highest and best use (Figure 2).

Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan
The proposed Specific Plan would change the development currently allowed under the General Plan. The Specific Plan would require amendments to the General Plan as changes to the boundaries and land use and development standards of the adopted Midtown Plan Area are proposed. The Specific Plan Update proposes a new project area boundary that removes the portion of the Midtown Specific Plan Area south of the Great Mall Parkway, and adds area in the northwestern portion of the Specific Plan Area.

The proposed Specific Plan would allow for additional residential development beyond what is allowed under the General Plan through increases in density and implementation of an incentive program. This would also include alterations in nonresidential development potential through mixed-use development.

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
As required by CEQA, the SEIR will describe existing conditions and evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project and a reasonable range of alternatives, including the no-project alternative. It will address direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. The SEIR will also discuss potential growth-inducing impacts and summarize significant and unavoidable environmental effects. The SEIR will identify feasible mitigation measures, if available, to reduce potentially significant impacts. Potential issues and impacts to the existing environment to be analyzed in the Draft SEIR include the following environmental topics:
 Aesthetics
 Air Quality
 Energy
 Biological Resources
 Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources  Noise and Vibration
 Land Use and Planning
 Population and Housing
 Public Services and Utilities
 Traffic and Circulation
 Recreation
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Implementation of the project would have no impact on agricultural resources, forestry resources, or mineral resources as these resources do not exist in the proposed Specific Plan area. The proposed Specific Plan Area is surrounded by urban development and is not adjacent to or intermixed with open space, natural land, or rural/agricultural lands. New construction is subject to the City Municipal Code, California Building Code, and the California Fire Code, which includes safety measures to minimize the threat of geologic hazards and fire. Thus, the project would have no impact related to geology and soils or wildfire risk. The majority of development allowed under the proposed Specific Plan would be within areas currently developed with urban uses and the amount and type of runoff that could result in hydrology and water impacts generated by new development would be similar to existing conditions.

Ascent
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Notice of Preparation 5

Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2024.

Figure 2 Proposed Land Use
Plan Boundary
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Zones
Main Street Mixed-Use (MS-MU)
Crossroads Mixed-Use (XR-MU)
Gateway Mixed-Use (GW-MU)
Library District Mixed-Use (LD-MU)
Abbott District Business Park (AD-BP)
Existing Zones
Single Family Residential (R1)
Multiple Family Residential (R3)
Multiple Family Very High
Density Residential (R4)
Commercial (C2)
Heavy Industrial (M2)
Institutional (I)
-
I
' I
'
.
700
\
\
\
1,400
Feet
20210060.01 GIS 047

Ascent
City of Milpitas
6 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Notice of Preparation Further, future development would be required to prepare a detailed project specific drainage plan, Water Quality Management Plan, and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Thus, the project would have no impact related to hydrology or water quality. New construction would be subject to a comprehensive set of California regulatory requirements that are designed to assure the safe handling and disposal of hazardous materials . These issues will not be evaluated in the Draft SEIR.

Other SEIR Sections: In addition to the above environmental topics, the Draft SEIR will also evaluate the potential cumulative and growth inducing effects of the project, as required by CEQA. Reasonably foreseeable future projects in the project vicinity will be considered in this analysis.

In accordance with section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the Project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” As required by CEQA, the SEIR will evaluate a No Project Alternative. Aside from the No Project Alternative, the City has not yet determined what additional alternatives to the project will be evaluated in the SEIR. These will be identified during the environmental review process. Once selected, the alternatives will be analyzed at a qualitative level of detail in the Draft SEIR for comparison against the impacts identified for the proposed project, consistent with the requirements of CEQA.

PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE
In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15082), the City has prepared this NOP to inform agencies and interested parties that an EIR will be prepared for the above -referenced project. The purpose of an NOP is to provide sufficient information about the project and its potential environmental impacts to allow agencies and interested parties the opportunity to provide a meaningful response related to the scope and content of the EIR, including mitigation measures that should be considered and alternatives that should be addressed (State CEQA Guidelines 14 CCR Section 15082[b]).

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
Following completion of the 30-day NOP public review period, the City will incorporate relevant information into the Draft SEIR, including results of public scoping and technical studies. The Draft S EIR will be circulated for public review and comment for 45-day public review period. All parties that have requested to be included on the project mailing list will be provided a Notice of Availability for the Draft SEIR.

A copy of this NOP has been posted on the project website: Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (milpitasmainstreet.org)
If you would like to be placed on the project mailing list or have any questions or comments, please contact Jay Lee , Planning Director, City of Milpitas, at (408) 586-3077 or [email protected].

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” DISTRICT 4

OFFICE OF REGIONAL AND COMMUNITYPLANNING
P.O. BOX 23660, MS–10D | OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
www.dot.ca.gov
August 13, 2024 SCH #: 2024070432
GTS #: 04-SCL-2024-01305
GTS ID: 33347
Co/Rt/Pm: SCL/237/VAR
Jay Lee, Planning Director
City of Milpitas
455 E. Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, CA 95035
Re: Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Project─ Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
Dear Jay Lee:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Project. The Local Development Review (LDR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities. The following comments are based on our review of the July 2024 NOP.

Please note this correspondence does not indicate an official position by Caltrans on this project and is for informational purposes only.

Project Understanding
The proposed project will guide the land use and development of the Specific Plan’s Focus Area. The Plan will implement the City’s economic development strategy and will plan for high-density, transit-oriented housing to create a mixed-use community.

The project area is located along State Route (SR)- 237 and Interstate 880 (I-880).

Travel Demand Analysis
With the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 743, Caltrans is focused on maximizing efficient development patterns, innovative travel demand reduction strategies, and multimodal improvements. For more information on how Caltrans assesses Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis for land use projects, please review Caltrans’ Transportation Impact Study Guide (link).

Jay Lee, Planning Director
August 13, 2024

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” If the project meets the screening criteria established in the City’s adopted VMT policy to be presumed to have a less-than-significant VMT impact and exempt from detailed VMT analysis, please provide justification to support the exempt status in alignment with the City’s VMT policy. Projects that do not meet the screening criteria should include a detailed VMT analysis in the DEIR.

Fair Share Contributions
We encourage a sufficient allocation of fair share contributions toward multi-modal and regional transit improvements to fully mitigate cumulative impacts to regional transportation. We also strongly support measures to increase sustainable mode shares, thereby reducing VMT. Should the project have any significant transportation impacts, please consider fair share contributions to the following projects identified in the Plan Bay Area 2050 (PBA 2050):

• Project ID 21-T06-025: Corridor & Interchange Improvements located on I-880 in Santa Clara County. This program includes funding to implement interchange improvements at Montague Expressway (Expy).

• Project ID 21-T06-043: Corridor & Interchange Improvements located on SR-237 in Santa Clara County. This program includes funding to implement interchange improvements at SR-85, Great American Parkway, Lawrence Expy/Caribbean Dr, Java Dr, Maude Ave, and Middlefield Rd; intersection improvements at El Camino Real/Grant Rd; a new westbound auxiliary lane between McCarthy to N 1st St; new eastbound auxiliary lanes between Mathilda Ave and Fair Oaks Ave; and new auxiliary lanes between Coyote Creek/Zanker Rd to N 1st St.

Multimodal Transportation Planning
Please review and include the reference to the Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan (2021) and the Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan (2018) in the DEIR. These two plans studied existing conditions for walking and biking along and across the State Transportation Network (STN) in the nine-county Bay Area and developed a list of location-based and prioritized needs.

Please note that any Complete Streets reference should be updated to reflect Caltrans Director’s Policy 37 (link) that highlights the importance of addressing the needs of non-motorists and prioritizing space-efficient forms of mobility, while also facilitating goods movement in a manner with the least environmental and social impacts. This supersedes Deputy Directive 64-R1, and further builds upon its goals of focusing on the movement of people and goods.

Integrated Transportation and Land Use Planning

Transportation and housing are integrally connected. The Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan development process may provide a mechanism to reflect current transportation and land use policy and adopt efficient land-use strategies such as

Jay Lee, Planning Director
August 13, 2024

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” transit-oriented, infill and mixed-use developments that can potentially reduce vehicle miles traveled and address climate change.

Please review and include the reference to the current California Transportation Plan (CTP) in the DEIR. CTP 2050 envisions that the majority of new housing located near existing housing, jobs, and transit, and in close proximity to one another will reduce vehicle travel and GHG emissions, and be accessible and affordable for all Californians, including disadvantaged and low-income communities. The location, density, and affordability of future housing will dictate much of our future travel patterns, and our ability to achieve the vision outlined in CTP 2050. Caltrans encourages the City to consider and explore the potential of excess state-owned property for affordable housing development, per Executive Order N-06-19.

Caltrans looks forward to reviewing the DEIR that should demonstrate how this specific plan aligns with the City’s adopted VMT policies. Caltrans supports collaboration with local agencies to work towards a safe, functional, interconnected, multi-modal transportation network integrated through efficient and equitable land use planning and policies. The City should also continue to coordinate with Caltrans to identify and implement necessary network improvements and impact mitigation.

Lead Agency
As the Lead Agency, the City is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to the STN. The project’s fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures.

Construction-Related Impacts
Potential impacts to the State Right-of-Way (ROW) from project-related temporary access points should be analyzed. Mitigation for significant impacts due to construction and noise should be identified. Project work that requires movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on State roadways requires a transportation permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, please visit Caltrans Transportation Permits (link).

Prior to construction, coordination may be required with Caltrans to develop a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to reduce construction traffic impacts to the STN.

Equitable Access
If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, those facilities must meet American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards after project completion. As well, the project must maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during construction. These

Jay Lee, Planning Director
August 13, 2024

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” access considerations support Caltrans’ equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users.

Equity and Public Engagement
We will achieve equity when everyone has access to what they need to thrive no matter their race, socioeconomic status, identity, where they live, or how they travel.

Caltrans is committed to advancing equity and livability in all communities. We look forward to collaborating with the City to prioritize projects that are equitable and provide meaningful benefits to historically underserved communities.

Caltrans encourages the City to foster meaningful, equitable and ongoing public engagement in the Specific Plan development process to ensure future transportation decisions and investments reflect community interests and values. The public engagement process should include community-sensitive and equity-focused approaches seeking out the needs of individuals from underserved, Tribal, and low- income communities, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities.

Encroachment Permit
Please b
e advised that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto Caltrans’ ROW requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit. As part of the encroachment permit submittal process, you may be asked by the Office of Encroachment Permits to submit a completed encroachment permit application package, digital set of plans clearly delineating Caltrans’ ROW, digital copy of signed, dated and stamped (include stamp expiration date) traffic control plans, this comment letter, your response to the comment letter, and where applicable, the following items: new or amended Maintenance Agreement (MA), approved Design Standard Decision Document (DSDD), approved encroachment exception request, and/or airspace lease agreement.

The Office of Encroachment Permit requires 100% complete design plans and supporting documents to review and circulate the permit application package. To obtain more information and download the permit application, please visit Caltrans Encroachment Permits (link). Please note th at the checklist TR-0416 is used to determine the appropriate Caltrans review process for encroachment projects. Your application package may be emailed to [email protected].

Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Marley Mathews, Associate Transportation Planner, via [email protected].

For future early coordination opportunities or project referrals, please visit Caltrans LDR website (link) or contact [email protected].

Jay Lee, Planning Director
August 13, 2024

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” Sincerely,

YUNSHENG LUO
Branch Chief, Local Development Review
Office of Regional and Community Planning
c: State Clearinghouse

State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Bay Delta Region
2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100
Fairfield, CA 94534
(707) 428-2002
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
August 13, 2024
Jay Lee, Planning Director
City of Milpitas
455 E Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, CA 95035
[email protected]
Subject: Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Project, Notice of Preparation of a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2024070432, City of Milpitas, Santa Clara County
Dear Jay Lee:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) from the City of Milpitas (Lead Agency) for the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Project (Project) pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1 Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.

Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the state. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (Id., § 1802.) Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority over the Project pursuant to the Fish and Game

1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

Jay Lee
City of Milpitas
August 13, 2024

Code. For example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) regulatory authority, if the Project impacts the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake within the State (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent the Project may result in “take” as defined by state law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), the Project proponent may seek related take authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code.

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
California Endangered Species Act
A CESA Incidental Take Permit (ITP) must be obtained from CDFW if the Project has the potential to result in “take” of plants or animals listed under CESA, either during construction or over the life of the Project. Under CESA, “take” means “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” (Fish & G.

Code, § 86). CDFW’s issuance of an ITP is subject to CEQA and to facilitate permit issuance, any Project modifications and mitigation measures must be incorporated into the CEQA document analysis, discussion, and mitigation monitoring and reporting program. If the Project will impact CESA listed species, early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to the Project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain a CESA Permit.

CEQA requires a mandatory finding of significance if a project is likely to substantially impact threatened or endangered species. Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21001, subd. (c) & 21083; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15380, 15064 & 15065). In addition, pursuant to CEQA, the Lead Agency cannot approve a project unless all impacts to the environment are avoided or mitigated to less-than-significant levels, or the Lead Agency makes and supports Findings of Overriding Consideration (FOC) for impacts that remain significant despite the implementation of all feasible mitigation. FOC under CEQA, however, does not eliminate the Project proponent’s obligation to comply with the Fish and Game Code.

Lake and Streambed Alteration
The Project has the potential to impact stream resources including mainstems, tributaries, drainages and floodplains associated with Penitencia Creek that may require notification to the LSA Program.

CDFW requires an LSA Notification, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq., for Project activities affecting rivers, lakes or streams and associated riparian habitat. Notification is required for any activity that may substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow; change or use material from the bed, channel, or bank (including associated riparian or wetland resources); or deposit or dispose of material where it

Jay Lee
City of Milpitas
August 13, 2024

may pass into a river, lake, or stream. Work within ephemeral streams, drainage ditches, washes, watercourses with a subsurface flow, and floodplains is generally subject to notification requirements. In addition, infrastructure installed beneath such aquatic features, such as through hydraulic directional drilling, is also generally subject to notification requirements. Therefore, any impact to the mainstems, tributaries, or floodplains or associated riparian habitat caused by the proposed Project will likely require an LSA Notification.

Migratory Birds and Raptors
CDFW has authority over actions that may result in the disturbance or destruction of active bird nest sites or the unauthorized take of birds. Fish and Game Code sections protecting birds, their eggs, and nests include section 3503 (regarding unlawful take, possession, or needless destruction of the nests or eggs of any bird), section 3503.5 (regarding the take, possession, or destruction of any birds-of-prey or their nests or eggs), and section 3513 (regarding unlawful take of any migratory nongame bird).

Migratory birds are also protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Fully Protected Species
Several Fully Protected Species (Fish & G. Code § 3511 and 4700) have the potential to occur within or adjacent to the Project area.

Project activities described in the draft SEIR should be designed to completely avoid any fully protected species that have the potential to be present within or adjacent to the Project area. Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except as follows:

Take is for necessary scientific research;
• Efforts to recover a fully protected, endangered, or threatened species, live capture and relocation of a bird species for the protection of livestock; or • They are a covered species whose conservation and management is provided for in a Natural Community Conservation Plan (Fish & G. Code, §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, & 5515).

Specified types of infrastructure projects may be eligible for an ITP for unavoidable impacts to fully protected species if certain conditions are met (Fish & G. Code §2081.15).

CDFW also recommends the draft SEIR analyze potential adverse impacts to fully protected species due to habitat modification, loss of foraging habitat, and/or interruption of migratory and breeding behaviors. CDFW recommends that the Lead Agency include

Jay Lee
City of Milpitas
August 13, 2024

in the analysis how appropriate avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures will reduce indirect impacts to fully protected species. Project proponents should consult with CDFW early in the Project planning process.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: City of Milpitas
Objective: The purpose of the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan is to guide land use and development consistent with the General Plan; implement the Lead Agency’s economic development strategy and help facilitate investment in the Project’s Focus Areas; preserve and enhance existing neighborhoods; and plan for the future transition of Urban Reserve lands. The Project identifies four focus areas: Gateway District, Crossroads District, Main Street District, and Abbott District.

Location: The Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Area (Project Area) covers approximately 605 acres within the City of Milpitas. The Project Area is located within the western portion of the city, west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line. It encompasses Calaveras Boulevard, Main Street, and the Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan project area bordered by Interstate-880 (I-880) to the west, the UPRR tracks to the east, and Great Mall Parkway to the south.

Timeframe: Not noted in the NOP.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the Lead Agency in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources.

The draft SEIR should define the threshold of significance for each impact and describe the criteria used to determine whether the impacts are significant (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (f)). The draft SEIR relies on General Plan policies and on requirements that subsequent Projects, if necessary, obtain appropriate permits but does not sufficiently describe how these policies will reduce impacts to less-than-significant.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Sufficient information regarding the environmental setting is necessary to understand any potentially significant impacts on the environment of the proposed Project (CEQA Guidelines, §§15063 & 15360). CDFW recommends that a full list or table is included in the updated Biological Resources Section of the draft SEIR that notes species common name, scientific name, state and federal listing status (as applicable), habitat type

Jay Lee
City of Milpitas
August 13, 2024

preference and determination on presence, for all special-status species with the potential to occur within the Project area.

CDFW recommends the draft SEIR provide baseline habitat assessments for special- status plant, fish and wildlife species located and potentially located within the Project area and surrounding lands, including all rare, threatened, and endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, §15380). The draft SEIR should describe aquatic habitats, such as wetlands or waters of the U.S. or State, and any sensitive natural communities or riparian habitat occurring on or adjacent to the Project area (for sensitive natural communities see:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/NaturalCommunities#sensitive%20natural%20co mmunities), and any stream or wetland set back distances the City of Milpitas or Santa Clara County (County) may require.

CDFW recommends that the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), as well as previous studies performed in the area, be consulted to assess the potential presence of sensitive species and habitats. A nine U.S. Geologic Survey 7.5-minute quadrangle search is recommended to determine what may occur in the region, larger if the Project area extends past one quad (see Data Use Guidelines on the Department webpage www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data). Please review the webpage for information on how to access the database to obtain current information on any previously reported sensitive species and habitat, including Significant Natural Areas identified under Chapter 12 of the Fish and Game Code, in the vicinity of the Project.

CDFW recommends that CNDDB Field Survey Forms be completed and submitted to CNDDB to document survey results. Online forms can be obtained and submitted at:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. Please note that CDFW’s CNDDB is not exhaustive in terms of the data it houses, nor is it an absence database.

CDFW recommends that it be used as a starting point in gathering information about the potential presence of species within the general area of the Project site. Other sources for identification of species and habitats near or adjacent to the Project area should include, but may not be limited to, State and federal resource agency lists, California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System, California Native Plant Society Inventory, agency contacts, environmental documents for other projects in the vicinity, academics, and professional or scientific organizations. Only with sufficient data and information can the Lead Agency adequately assess which special-status species are likely to occur in the Project vicinity.

According to Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) records, the Project site contains positive detections of several special-status species and has the potential to support numerous special-status species and their associated habitat.

Species with potential to occur on-site include but are not limited to those listed in Attachment 1.

Jay Lee
City of Milpitas
August 13, 2024

I. Environmental Setting and Related Impact Shortcoming Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)?
COMMENT 1: Nesting Bird Surveys
The Project area includes over a dozen mature trees. The draft SEIR does not identify the number of trees that will be removed or the potential impacts to birds. The Project has the potential to disturb special-status species and nesting habitat for birds and raptors; however, the draft SEIR does not state that baseline data will be collected if active nests are discovered.

To evaluate and avoid for potential impacts to nesting bird species, CDFW recommends incorporating the following mitigation measures, and that these measures be made conditions of approval for the Project:
• Nesting Bird Surveys. If Project-related work is scheduled during the nesting season (typically February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as passerines; January 15 to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), a professional biologist experienced with the applicable species and habitat shall conduct two surveys for active nests of such birds within 14 days prior to the beginning of Project construction, with a final survey conducted within 48 hours prior to construction. Appropriate minimum survey radii surrounding the work area are typically the following: i) 250 feet for passerines; ii) 500 feet for small raptors such as accipiters; and iii) 1,000 feet for larger raptors such as buteos. Surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate times of day and during appropriate nesting times.
• Nesting Bird Buffers: CDFW recommends a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet around active nests of non-listed bird species and a 500-foot no-disturbance buffer around active nests of non-listed raptors. These buffers are advised to remain in place until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or on-site parental care for survival.

COMMENT 2: Bats
The Project area includes over a dozen mature trees. The draft SEIR does not identify the number of trees that will be removed or the potential impacts to bats. The Project has the potential to disturb bat habitat. In order to determine the extent to which impacts may occur to bats and determine where habitat loss may occur from the removal of

Jay Lee
City of Milpitas
August 13, 2024

trees, the draft SEIR should propose measures to conduct a bat habitat assessment of suitable bat roosting habitat.

The habitat assessment shall include a visual inspection of features within the work area for potential roosting features including trees, crevices, and hollow areas (bats need not be present). include a visual inspection of features within 200 feet of the work area for potential roosting features including trees, crevices, and hollow areas (bats need not be present). The draft SEIR should also include a section that discusses the results of the suitable habitat assessment and if any bats or signs of bats (feces or staining at entry/exit points) are discovered. The surveys should occur at least two seasons in advance of Project initiation. The draft SEIR should include:
• Bat Habitat Monitoring by a qualified biologist of suitable habitat from March 1 to April 1 or August 31 to October 15 prior to construction activities. If the focused survey reveals the presence of roosting bats, then the appropriate exclusionary or avoidance measures will be implemented prior to construction during the period between March 1 to April 15 or August 31 to October 15. • Bat Project Avoidance: If active bat roosts are observed during environmental assessments or during construction, at any time, all Project activities should stop until the qualified biologist develops a bat avoidance plan to be implemented at the Project site. The bat avoidance plan should utilize seasonal avoidance, phased construction as well as temporary and permanent bat housing structures developed in coordination with CDFW.

COMMENT 3: Crotch’s bumble bee
Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) are candidate species under CESA (CEQA Guidelines, §15380, subds. (c)(1)). The draft SEIR does not address whether the proposed Project could result in impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee. Crotch’s bumble bee occurrences have been documented in the County (CDFW 2023). The Project location is within the Crotch’s bumble bee range (https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CESA) and grassland within and adjacent to the Project area may contain potential habitat for Crotch’s bumble bee.

The Project includes areas within ruderal grass and herbaceous vegetation and that may be potential Crotch’s bumble bee nesting and foraging habitat. Potential impacts include direct mortality through crushing or filling of active bee colonies and hibernating bee cavities, reduced reproductive success, loss of suitable breeding and foraging habitats, loss of native vegetation that may support essential foraging habitat.

Jay Lee
City of Milpitas
August 13, 2024

To evaluate and avoid for potential impacts to bumble bees, CDFW recommends incorporating the following mitigation measures, and that these measures be made conditions of approval for the Project:
• Habitat Assessment. A habitat assessment shall be conducted by a qualified entomologist knowledgeable with the life history and ecological requirements of Crotch’s bumble bee. The habitat assessment shall include all suitable nesting, overwintering, and foraging habitats within the Project area and surrounding areas. Potential nest habitat (February through October) could include that of other Bombus species such as bare ground, thatched grasses, abandoned rodent burrows or bird nests, brush piles, rock piles, and fallen logs.

Overwintering habitat (November through January) could include that of other Bombus species such as soft and disturbed soil or under leaf litter or other debris. The habitat assessment shall be conducted during peak bloom period for floral resources on which Crotch’s bumble bee feed. Further guidance on habitat surveys can be found within Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species
(https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CESA).
• Survey Plan: If Crotch’s bumble bee habitat is present within the Project area, a pre-construction survey plan shall be developed and be submitted to CDFW for review and approval. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified entomologist familiar with the behavior and life history of Crotch’s bumble bee. If CESA candidate bumble bee will be captured or handled, surveyors should obtain a 2081(a) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) from CDFW. Surveys shall be conducted during the colony active period (i.e. April through August) and when floral resources are in peak bloom. Bumble bees move nests sites each year, therefore, surveys shall be conducted each year that Project work activities will occur. Further guidance on presence surveys can be found within Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species referenced above.
• Crotch’s Bumble Bee Avoidance or Take Authorization: If Crotch’s bumble bee are detected during pre-construction surveys, a Crotch’s bumble bee avoidance plan shall be developed and provided to CDFW for review prior to work activities involving ground disturbance or vegetation removal. If full take avoidance is not feasible, CDFW strongly recommends that the Project proponent apply to CDFW for take authorization under an ITP.

COMMENT 4: Western Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is designated by CDFW as a California State Species of Special Concern (SSC) due to population decline and breeding range

Jay Lee
City of Milpitas
August 13, 2024

retraction. The species has also experienced a severe population decline in the County.

Known populations of burrowing owl occur within and adjacent to the Project area.

The Project includes areas within ruderal grass and herbaceous vegetation that may be potential burrowing owl habitat. Direct mortality could occur through crushing of adults or young within burrows, loss of nesting burrows, loss of nesting habitat, loss of foraging habitat resulting in reduced nesting success (loss or reduced health or vigor of eggs or young), nest abandonment, and reduced frequency or duration of care for young resulting in reduced health or vigor of young.

To evaluate and avoid for potential impacts to burrowing owl, CDFW recommends incorporating the following mitigation measures, and that these measures be made conditions of approval for the Project:
• Habitat Assessment and Surveys: The draft SEIR should include a thorough habitat assessment of potential burrowing owl habitat within and adjacent to the Project area. A professional biologist experienced with burrowing owl and their habitat should conduct a field assessment that includes all areas that could be directly or indirectly impacted by the Project and include data such as vegetation type, vegetation structure and presence of burrows. Specific information on habitat assessment, burrowing owl survey methods, buffer distances and mitigation is provided in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, dated March 7, 2012, and available at
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols#377281284-birds.

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a data base which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)). Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the CNDDB. The CNDDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is

Jay Lee
City of Milpitas
August 13, 2024

required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (See Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)

CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft SEIR to assist the Lead Agency in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources.

Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Marcus Griswold, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist), at (707) 815-6451 or [email protected], or Jason Faridi, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory), at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Erin Chappell
Regional Manager
Bay Delta Region
Attachment 1: Special-Status Species and Commercially/Recreationally Important Species
ec: Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH No. 2024070432) Craig Weightman, CDFW Bay Delta Region – [email protected]

REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS.

Accessed July 15, 2024.

Docusign Envelope ID: D10F34D7-3F5B-40DC-BDA9-84DB3E492152 DocuSigned
by:

Erin Chappell
877E9A6211 EF486 ...

Jay Lee
City of Milpitas
August 13, 2024

ATTACHMENT 1:

Special-Status Species
Species Status
Fish and Invertebrates
Crotch's bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) State Candidate (SC) Birds
burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) State Species of Special Concern (SSC) Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) State Threatened (ST) tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)
white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) State Fully Protected (FP) Mammals
San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma
fuscipes annectens) SSC
Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus
townsendii) SSC
western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus) SSC
Plants
Congdon's tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp.
congdonii) S2, 1B.1
Halls Mallow (Malacothamnus hallii) S2, 1B.2

z •
•
•

CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagallng
Chumash

VICE-CHAIRPERSON
Buffy McQulllen
Yokayo Pomo,
Nom/oki

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Wayne Nelson

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
011/one-Costonoon

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaoy

COMMISSIONER
Laurena Bolden
Serrano

COMMISSIONER
Reid Mllanovlch
Cohui//o

COMMISSIONER
Bennae Calac
Pauma-Yuima Bond of
Indians

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.

Hitchcock
Miwok, Nisenon

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-37 I 0
nahc@nahc ca.gov

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
July 19, 2024
Jay Lee
City of Milpitas
455 E. Calaveras Blvd.

Milpitas CA 95035
Re: 2024070432, Gateway-Main Street Specltlc Plan Project, Santa Clara County Dear Mr. Lee:

The Native American Heritage Commission INAHC) has received the Notice of Preparation (NOP), Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or Early Consultation for the project referenced above. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et seq.), specifically Public Resources Code §2 1084.1, states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code§ 21084.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, § 15064.5 (b) (CEQA Guidelines§ 15064.5 (b)). If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may hove a significant effect on the environment, on Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall be prepared. (Pub. Resources Code §21080 (d); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 5064 subd.(o)(l) (CEQA Guidelines§ 15064 (o)(l)).

In order to determine whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, a lead agency will need to determine whether there are historical resources within the area of potential effect (APE).

CEQA was amended significantly in 2014. Assembly Bill 52 (Gatto, Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) (AB.52) amended CEQA to create a separate category of cultural resources, "tribal cultural resources" (Pub. Resources Code §21074) and provides that a project with on effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.2). Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)). AB 52 applies to any project for which a notice of preparation, a notice of negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration Is filed on or after July 1, 2015. If your project involves the adoption of or amendment to a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation or proposed designation of open space, on or after March l, 2005, it may also be subject to Senate Bill 18 (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004) (SB 18).

Both SB 18 and AB 52 have tribal consultation requirements. If your project is also subject to the federal Notional Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), the tribal consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 ( 154 U.S.C. 300101. 36 C.F.R. §800 et seq.) may also apply.

The NAHC recommends consultation with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of your proposed project as early as possible in order to ovoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and best protect tribal cultural resources. Below is a brief summary of portions of AB 52 and SB 18 as well as the NAHC's recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments.

Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 as well as compliance with any other applicable laws.

Pagel of 5

AB 52 has added to CEQA the additional requirements listed below, along with many othe r requirements:

1. Fourteen Day Period to Provide Notice of Completion of an Application/Decision to Undertake a Project:

Within fourteen ( 14) days of determining that an application for a project is complete or of a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, a lead agency shall provide formal notification to a designated contact of, or tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, to be accomplished by at least one written notice that includes:
a. A brief description of the project.
b. The lead agency contact information.
c. Notification that the California Native American tribe hos 30 days to request consultation. (Pub.

Resources Code §21080.3.1 (d)).
d. A "California Native American tribe" is defined as a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of Statutes of 2004 (SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code §21073).

2. Begin Consultation Within 30 Days of Receiving a Tribe's Request for Consultation and Before Releasing a Negative Declaration. Mitigated Negative Declaration. or Environmental Impact Report: A lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consultation from a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1, subds. (d) and (e)) and prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1 (b)). a. For purposes of AB 52, "consultation shall have the some meaning as provided in Gov. Code §65352.4 (SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1 (b)).

3. Mandatory Topics of Consultation If Requested by a Tribe: The following topics of consultation, if a tribe requests to discuss them, are mandatory topics of consultation:
a. Alternatives to the project.
b. Recommended mitigation measures.
c. Significant effects. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).

4. Discretionary Topics of Consultation: The following topics are discretionary topics of consultation:
a. Type of environmental review necessary.
b. Significance of the tribal cultural resources.
c. Significance of the project's impacts on tribal cultural resources. d. If necessary, project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe may recommend to the lead agency. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).

5. Confidentiality of Information Submitted by a Tribe During the Environmental Review Process: With some exceptions, any information, including but not limited to, the location, description, and use of tribal cultural resources submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public, consistent with Government Code § 6254 (r) and § 6254.10. Any information submitted by a California Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, in writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the information to the public . (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (c)(l )).

6. Discussion of Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources in the Environmental Document: If a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency's environmental document shall discus s both of the following:
a. Whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource. b. Whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, including those measures that may be agreed to pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (a), ovoid or substantially lessen the impact on the identified tribal cultural resourc e. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 {bl).

7. Conclusion of Consultation: Consultation with a tribe shall be considered concluded when either of the following occurs:
a. The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists. on a tribal cultural resource; or
b. A party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort. concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (b)).

8. Recommending Mitigation Measures Agreed Upon in Consultation in the Environmental Document: Any mitigation measures agreed upon in the consultation conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.2 shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program, if determined to avoid or lessen the impact pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (b), paragraph 2, and shall be fully enforceable. (Pub. Resources Code §2l082.3 (a)}.

9. Required Consideration of Feasible Mitigation: If mitigation measures recommended by the staff of the lead agency as a result of the consultation process are not included in the environmental document or if there are no agreed upon mitigation measures at the conclusion of consultation, or if consultation does not occur, and if substantial evidence demonstrates that a project will cause a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource , the lead agency shall consider feasible mitigation pursuant to Public Resources Code §21084.3 (b}. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (e)).

10. Examples of Mitigation Measures That. If Feasible. May Be Considered to Avoid or Minimize Significant Adverse Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources:
a. Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to:
i. Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context.
ii. Planning greenspace, parks, or other open space. to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria.
b. Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource. including. but not limited to, the following:

I. Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. ii. Protecting the traditional use of the resource.
iii. Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.
c. Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property , with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. d. Protecting the resource. (Pub. Resource Code §2l084.3 (b}). e. Please note that a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC to protect a California prehistoric, archaeological. cultural. spiritual, or ceremonial place may acquire and hold conservation easements it the conservation easement is voluntarily conveyed . (Civ. Code §815.3 (c)). f. Please note that it is the policy of the state that Native American remains and associated grave artifacts shall be repatriated. (Pub. Resources Code §5097.991).

11. Prerequisites for Certifying an Environmental Impact Report or Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Negative Declaration with a Significant Impact on an Identified Tribal Cultural Resource: An Environmental Impact Report may not be certified, nor may a mitigated negative declarat ion or a negative declaration be adopted unless one of the following occurs:
a. The consultation process between the tribes and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Public Resources Code §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2 and concluded pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080.3.2.
b. The tribe that requested consultation tailed to provide comments to the lead agency or otherwise failed to engage in the consultation process.
c. The lead agency provided notice of the project to the tribe in compliance with Public Resources Code §21080.3.1 (d) and the tribe failed to request consultation within 30 days. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (d}).

The NAHC's PowerPoint presentation titled, "Tribal Consultation Under AB 52: Requirements and Best Practices" may be found online at: htt p://nahc..ca.gov/ /wp-cont ent /uploads/20 1 5/ 10/AB52TribalConsulta tion CglEP APDF .pdf

SB 18
SB 18 applies to local governments and requires local governments to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation of open space. (Gov. Code §65352.3). Local governments should consult the Governor's Office of Planning and Research's "Tribal Consultation Guidelines," which can be found online at:
https:// www,opr.ca.gov/docs/09 14 05 U pdated Guidelines 922.pdf .

Some of SB 18's provisions include:

1. Tribal Consultation: If a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend a general plan or a specific plan, or to designate open space it is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the NAHC by requesting a "Tribal Consultation List." If a tribe, once contacted, requests consultation the local government must consult with the tribe on the plan proposal. A tribe has 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to request c:onsuttatlon unless a shorter tlmeframe has been agreed to by the tribe. (Gov. Code §65352.3 (a)(2)).

2. No Statutory Time Limit on SB 18 Tribal Consultation. There is no statutory time limit on SB 18 tribal consultation.

3. Confidentiality: Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to Gov. Code §65040.2, the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of the information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of places, features and objects described in Public Resources Code §5097.9 and §5097.993 that are within the city's or county's jurisdiction. (Gov. Code §65352.3 (b)).

4. Conclusion of SB 18 Tribal Consultation: Consultation should be concluded at the point in which:
a. The parties to the consultation come to a mutual agreement concerning the appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation; or
b. Either the local government or the tribe, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached concerning the appropriate measures of preservation or mitigation. (Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Governor's Office of Planning and Research {2005) at p. 18).

Agencies should be aware that neither AB 52 nor SB 18 precludes agencies from initiating tribal consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with their jurisdictions before the timefromes provided in AB 52 and SB 18. For that reason, we urge you to continue to request Native American Tribal Contact Lists and "Sacred Lands File" searches from the NAHC. The request forms can be found online at: htlp:llnahc .cg.gov/resou rces/forms/.

NAHC Recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments To adequately assess the existence and significance of tribal cultural resources and plan for avoidance, preservation in place, or barring both, mitigation of project-related impacts to tribal cultural resources, the NAHC recommends the following actions:

1. Contact the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) Center (htfps://ohp.porks.ca.gov/?page_id=30331) for an archaeological records search. The records search will determine:
a. If part or all of the APE hos been previously surveyed for cultural resources. b. If any known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. c. If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. d. If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. If an archaeological inventory survey is required. the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. a. The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures should be submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations , Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum and not be made available for public disclosure.
b. The final written report should be submitted within 3 months ofter work has been completed to the appropriate regional CHRIS center.

3. Contact the NAHC for:
a. A Sacred Lands File search. Remember that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the Sacred Lands File, nor ore they required to do so. A Sacred Lands File search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project's APE.
b. A Native American Tribal Consultation List of appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in planning for avoidance, preservation in place, or, failing both, mitigation measures.

4. Remember that the lack of surface evidence of archaeological resources (including tribal cultural resources) does not preclude their subsurface existence.
a. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of inadvertently discovered archaeological resources per Col. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064.5(f) (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(f)). In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American with knowledge of cultural resources should monitor all ground-disturbing activities.
b. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the disposition of recovered cultural items that are not burial associated in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans.
c. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains. Health and Safety Code §7050.5. Public Resources Code §5097.98, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064.5, subdivisions (d) and (e) (CEQA Guidelines§ 15064.5, subds. (d) and (e)) address the processes to be followed in the event of an inadvertent discovery of any Native American human remains and associated grave goods in a location other than a dedicated cemetery.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address:

[email protected] .

Sincerely,
Cody Campagne
Cultural Resources Analyst
cc: State Clearinghouse

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Attachments:

RE: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Project, Milpitas Tuesday, August 13, 2024 12:39:18 PM
image002.png
image004.png
FINAL Interim Water Pipeline Right of Way Policy.pdf
FINAL-Amended Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy.pdf CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
This email originated from outside the organization. Do NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report suspicious messages to the IT Helpdesk.

Dear Mr. Lee:

Thank you for the notice of Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the above-referenced project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). We appreciate the opportunity for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to provide comments on the scope of the SEIR.

The City and County of San Francisco owns in fee several parcels, and one easement, within the project site for the Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (Plan). These parcels constitute the SFPUC’s right-of-way (ROW) for its Bay Division Pipeline Nos. 3 and 4 and are identified by the following Assessor’s Parcel Numbers:
083-20-005
083-13-014
083-13-009
086-25-010
086-25-006 (SFPUC Easement)
In the SEIR Notice of Preparation (NOP), Figure 2 depicts the SFPUC’s ROW parcels within an existing zone, “Parks and Open Space (POS)”.

According to the NOP, the Milpitas General Plan 2040 includes policies to update and implement the Plan. While the Milpitas General Plan 2040 appears to simply designate the SFPUC ROW parcels as “MGSP-Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan”, the 1994 General Plan for Milpitas designates the SFPUC ROW between I-880 and Hammond Way as having an open space land use designation.

Since the Plan does not appear to have a physical effect on the SFPUC’s ROW within the project site, the following comments are more general and concern the SFPUC’s role in the Plan’s environmental review process, the policies of the SFPUC that should be included in the land use analysis of the SEIR, and the process for reviewing future projects on the SFPUC’s ROW.

SEIR Scoping Comments
The SFPUC should be listed as a responsible agency since it is foreseeable that improvements could be proposed on the SFPUC ROW property, which could result in a discretionary action by the SFPUC that would require the SFPUC to draft responsible agency findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

In addition, SFPUC land use policies should be included in the land use analysis of the SEIR.

Land use and planning analyses under
CEQA generally consider the compatibility of a project with neighboring areas, change to or displacement of existing uses, and consistency of a project with relevant local land use policies. The magnitude of land use conflicts or compatibility issues depends on the extent to which a project physically divides an established community or conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect such that an adverse impact on the environment occurs.

The SFPUC maintains policies to help inform how and in which instances its ROW can serve the needs of public agencies, private parties, nonprofit organizations, and developers while maintaining the safety and security of the pipelines that run underneath the ROW. SFPUC policies pertain to land use and structures, recreational use, utilities, vegetation, and water efficiency. Construction of structures on the ROW is generally prohibited, with prohibitions on structures or improvements that require excavation, bored footings, or concrete pads that are greater than 6 inches deep. No structures may be placed directly on top of a pipeline or within 20 feet of the edge of a pipeline. No utilities may be installed on the ROW running parallel to SFPUC’s pipelines; utilities may run perpendicular to pipelines with SFPUC approval.

According to SFPUC’s Interim Water Pipeline Right of Way Use Policy for San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda Counties (copy

attached), the SFPUC typically issues 5-year licenses for use of its property, with a form of rent and insurance required upon signing.

These licenses are revocable, meaning that the SFPUC can revoke them prior to the 5-year expiration. The licensee (user of SFPUC property) is to maintain landscaping and equipment to ensure that water is used efficiently. Water runoff leaving a landscaped area due to low head drainage, overspray, broken irrigation hardware, or other similar conditions is prohibited. Structures on the ROW are generally prohibited under SFPUC’s policies.

The SFPUC’s Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy (copy attached) was established to manage vegetation on the transmission, distribution, and collection systems within SFPUC’s ROW so that it does not pose a threat or hazard to the system’s integrity and infrastructure or impede utility maintenance and operations. These policies include regulations on the types of plantings that are permitted to occur within each zone of the ROW, regulations on annual grass and weed management, and policies pertaining to vegetation removal.

The SFPUC ROWs are primarily used for utility purposes and are vital to the reliable operation of a regional water system. The SFPUC has policies that limit third-party uses and improvements on San Francisco property due to the presence of high-pressure, subsurface water transmission lines and appurtenances and other infrastructure located above-grade. Please see the attached Interim Water Pipeline ROW Use Policy and Integrated Vegetation Management Policy for more information about restrictions on the ROW.

Certain secondary uses by third parties on SFPUC property are allowed under a fee-based lease or license agreement requiring payment of fair market value to the SFPUC.

Such a secondary use may occur only if the SFPUC determines that the secondary use benefits the SFPUC and does not in any way interfere with, endanger, or damage existing or future SFPUC operations, security, or facilities.

The SFPUC prohibits any use on its ROW property that:

1. Cannot be removed promptly, to allow SFPUC construction, maintenance, or emergency repairs of its facilities.

2. Would conflict with SFPUC legal obligations to adjoining property owners or tenants. Some SFPUC parcels in the City of Milpitas could be subject to easements or other agreements held by adjoining landowners or third parties which may present conflicts with a proposed use.

Further research by the SFPUC’s Real Estate Services would be needed to determine whether certain SFPUC parcels are available for a proposed use.

3. Would conflict with the resolution of unauthorized third-party encroachments that currently exist on some SFPUC ROW parcels.

4. Would create an unreasonable burden for the SFPUC (or its ratepayers) in the use of its property for utility purposes. The SFPUC reasonably anticipates that its property in the City of Milpitas will be available for future utility infrastructure and capital projects. Revocable licenses and leases issued by the SFPUC contain standard language requiring any lessee or licensee of SFPUC lands to mitigate the effects for the disruption of its recreational use on SFPUC lands, even if the SFPUC is causing the disruption of the recreational use. This includes required mitigation under CEQA.

5. Is otherwise inconsistent with SFPUC plans and policies.

This list is not exhaustive. The SFPUC retains the right to disallow any use that, at the SFPUC's sole discretion, may interfere with, endanger or damage existing or future SFPUC operations, security, or facilities.

SFPUC Project Review Process

Proposed projects and other activities on any San Francisco property must undergo the Project Review Process if the project will include construction; digging or earth moving; clearing; installation; the use of hazardous materials; other disturbance to watershed and ROW resources; or the issuance of new or revised leases, licenses and permits. This review is done by the SFPUC's Project Review Committee (Committee).

The Committee is a multidisciplinary team with expertise in natural resources management, environmental regulatory compliance, engineering, water quality and real estate. Projects and activities are vetted by the Committee for consistency with SFPUC plans and policies.

In reviewing a proposed project, the Committee may conclude that modifications or avoidance and minimization measures are necessary. Large and/or complex projects may require several project review sessions to review the project at significant planning and design stages.

To initiate the Project Review process, please download and fill out a Project Review application at https://www.sfpuc.gov/construction-contracts/lands-rights-of-way/project-review-and-land-use-bay-area. Please submit the completed application to [email protected] and it will be scheduled for the next available Project Review meeting.

If you have any questions or need more information, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Joanne Wilson

Joanne Wilson
Senior Land and Resources Planner
Natural Resources and Lands Management Division
Water Enterprise
1657 Rollilns Road
Burlingame, CA
94010

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System
Operated by San Francisco Water, Power and Sewer | Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

To:

Subject:

Date:

Attachments:

Valley Water File 26436 - Notice of Preparation of A Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Project
Tuesday, August 13, 2024 4:41:50 PM
image001.png
CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
This email originated from outside the organization. Do NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report suspicious messages to the IT Helpdesk.

Hi Jay,
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) has reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan, received on July 11, 2024.

Based on our review, we have the following comments:

1. The Gateway – Main Street Specific Plan will increase the allowable residential density in the project area. If the changes allow 500 additional housing units or more, the City should prepare a Water Supply Assessment to evaluate the proposal’s consistency with the City’s Urban Water Management Plan and available water supplies to serve the development. The City’s Urban Water Management Plan assumes a substantial increase in water conservation to meet future water demand (as does the Urban Water Management Plan for Valley Water).

Valley Water encourages the City to help meet this goal by requiring all available water conservation measures in new development and redevelopment.

Valley Water has been
working with jurisdictions throughout the county on a Model Water Efficient New Development Ordinance that the City may consider to ensure there are sufficient water supplies are available into the future.

2. Valley Water owns fee title property and easements for Valley Water’s Milpitas Pipeline and Lower Penitencia Creek within the plan area. In accordance with Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance, any work within Valley Water fee title property or easements or that impacts Valley Water’s facilities will require a Valley Water encroachment permit. Issuance of an encroachment permit is a discretionary act under CEQA.

More
information can be found on our website here:
https://www.valleywater.org/contractors/doing-businesses-with-the-district/permits- working-district-land-or-easement/encroachment-permits.

We appreciate the opportunity to review and provide comments on this NOP for the Draft SEIR for the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan. Please include us on future review opportunities regarding this project.

This project has been assigned to Valley Water File 26436. Please reference this number on future correspondence regarding this project.

Thank you,

MATT SASAKI
Pronouns: he/him
Acting Associate Engineer - Civil
Community Projects Review Unit
[email protected]
Tel. (408) 630-3776

Santa Clara Valley Water District is now known as:

Clean Water • Healthy Environment • Flood Protection
5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose CA 95118
www.valleywater.org

Appendix B
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and
Energy Model Calculations

Milpitas Summary Tables
Operational Criteria Air Pollutants
Emissions Source ROG (lb/day) NOx
(lb/day) CO (lb/day) PM 10 Exhaust (lb/day) PM 2.5 Exhaust (lb/day) Emissions Source ROG (lb/day) NOx (lb/day) CO (lb/day)
PM 10 Exhaust
(lb/day)
PM 2.5 Exhaust
(lb/day)
Mobile 118.0 87.7 1043.0 1.3 1.2 Mobile 94.2 93.8 1185.0 1.6 1.5 Area 184.0 3.0 190.0 0.2 0.2 Area 188.0 2.5 179.0 0.3 0.2 Energy 1.8 31.4 21.4 2.5 2.5 Energy 2.3 41.1 28.9 3.2 3.2 Total Emissions 303.8 122.1 1254.4 4.0 3.9 Total Emissions 284.5 137.4 1392.9 5.0 4.9 Per service Population 0.0139 0.0056 0.0572 0.0002 0.0002 Emissions Per Pop 0.0139 0.0067 0.0681 0.0002 0.0002 Operational GHG Emissions
Emissions Sector MTCO 2e Emissions Sector MTCO 2e
Mobile Source 54,163 Mobile Source 68,317
Area Sources 358 Area Sources 292
Energy 10,983 Energy 14,937
Water Consumption 1,168 Water Consumption 1,506
Wastewater Treatment 1,895 Wastewater Treatment 1,948
Refrigerants 52 Refrigerants 53
Total Operational GHG Emissions 68,618 Total Operational GHG Emissions 87,053
GHG Emissions per Service Population 3.13 GHG Emissions per Service Population

4.25 Energy Summary
Source Gas (gal) Diesel (gal) Kwh kBTU Source Gas (gal) Diesel (gal) Kwh kBTU Mobile Sources 5,668,744 1,463,371 Mobile Sources 7,248,350 1,871,142 Electricity 49,282,572 Electricity 70,920,025
Natural Gas 119,870,521 Natural Gas 156,176,855
Usage Per Service Population 258.55 66.74 2,248 5,467 Usage Per Service Population 354.17 91.43 3,465 7,631 Metric Consumption Units Metric Consumption Units
VMT 195,800,600 Annual
Miles VMT 250,360,800 Annual
Miles
Trips Generated 20,703,895 Annual
Trips
Trips Generated 13,782,035 Annual
Trips
VMT per Service Population 8930 VMT/SP VMT per Service Population 12233 VMT/SP Gallons of Gasoline 5,668,744 Gallons Gallons of Gasoline 7,248,350 Gallons Gallons of Diesel 1,463,371 Gallons Gallons of Diesel 1,871,142 Gallons Gallons of Gasoline per Service Population 258.6 Gallons/SP Gallons of Gasoline per Service Population 354.2 Gallons/SP
Gallons of Diesel per Service Population 66.7 Gallons/SP Gallons of Diesel per Service Population 91.4 Gallons/SP
Plan VMT (Annual) Service
Population Jobs Annual VMT per population ADT
Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan 250,360,800 20,466 5,540 26,197 37,759 Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan 195,800,600 21,925 7,223 15,194 56,723 Change -54,560,200 1,459 1,683 -11,003 18,964
Percent Change -21.8% 7.1% 30.4% -42.0% 50.2%
Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Energy Summary Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Energy Summary Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Operations Table (daily ave) Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Operations Table (daily ave) Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Annual GHG Emissions Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Annual

I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I
I I I

CALEEMOD INPUTS

1. Land Use
Land Use Type Units Acres SF Landscape SFSource Land Use Type Units Acres SF Landscape SFSource Single Family Homes 48 24 57025 GP Capacity Assumptions for MSP + Proposed LU_Parcel_Data_20240507Apt Low Rise 1773 97.02 1879380 GP Capacity Assumptions for MSP High Rise Apartments 2771 87 2371909 Apt Mid Rise 2065 106.76 1982400 Condo Rise High 2357 107 2490491 Office Park 140.92 2,075,943 Office Park 113.1017971 880,397 Heavy Industrial 105.23 1090349 Heavy Industrial 109.9797157 1049258 Library 72.15 126948 Library 76.94251414 129011.4 parks 12.59 274210.2
parks 17.38251414 378591.2
Total Non Residential SF 3,293,240
Total Non Residential SF 2058666.199 Total Units 3838
Total Units 5176 Total Acreage 534.67
Total Acreage 535

2. VMT and trip gen and population
VMT Daily VMT Annual VMT Source
Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan 685920 250360800 Fehr & Peers Traffic Impact Analysis Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan 536440 195800600 Fehr & Peers Traffic Impact Analysis Trip Generation Annual Trips Annual Trips Source
Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan 37,759 13782035 CalEEMod Default Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan 56,723 20703895 CaleeMod Default Population Buildout Year 2040 Source
Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan 20466 Fehr & Peers Traffic Impact Analysis Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan 21925 Fehr & Peers Traffic Impact Analysis Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan

I I I I I I I I

Project Details
Current Project: Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan
Existing: Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan
Current Project is updating the adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan The Specific Plan proposes a new project area boundary which includes additional areas that currently have other designations in the General Plan Land Use Element and removes areas south of Great Mall Parkway that were included in the Midtown Plan.

Land Use Type General Plan Proposed Specific
Plan Change Residential SF (GP) Residential SF (Proposed) Change Residential 3,838 DU 5,176 DU 1,338 DU 4919425 -101881.0576 Non-Residential 3,293,240 SF 2,058,666 SF -1,234,574
sf 4817544.319
District Land Use Acreage District Land Use Acreage District Land Use Acreage Change Commercial 23.52330352 Commercial 43.39016505 Commercial 19.86686152 Industrial 20.8920755 Parks 1.025213978 Industrial -19.86686152 Industrial 27.80115869 Creekside Industrial 28.42006181 Industrial 0.618903116 Mixed Use 0.618903116 Crossroads Mixed Use 51.69103799 Mixed Use -0.618903116 Commercial 25.62169579 Multi Fam Res 34.88312591 Commercial -25.62169579 Mixed Use 26.0693422 Parks 3.617841724 Mixed Use 25.62169579 Multi Family Res 34.88312591 Elmwood Instituational 62.1556693 Multi Family Res 0 Parks 3.617841724 Gateway Mixed Use 22.06336865 Parks 0 Elmwood Instituational 62.1556693 Parks 3.012890567 Elmwood Instituational 0 Gateway Commercial 22.06336865 Institutional 6.670412014 Commercial -22.06336865 Instituational 5.49998409 Mixed Use 5.766952342 Mixed Use 22.06336865 Mixed Use 7.091550917 Instituational 4.352593148 Library Instituational 1.170427924 Parks 2.858719917 mixed use 32.3509352 Mixed Use -1.324598574 Instituational 4.352593148 Multi Fam Res 14.40860984 Parks 0.15417065 Mixed Use 31.98687463 Parks 2.470819645 Main Street Instituational 0 Multi Family Res 14.77267041 Industrial 77.36577319 Mixed Use 0.364060571 Parks 2.470819645 parks 2.670058401 Multi Family Res -0.364060571 Industrial 77.33924966 South Railyards Multi Family Res 51.5768425 Parks 0 Multi Family Res 2.670058401 Transportation Industrial 19.29206289 North Railyards Industrial 0.026523529 Town Center 0.026523529 Industrial 5.704301708 Multi Family Res 0 South Railyards Multi Family Res 51.5768425 Waterways 5.866413864 Town Center -0.026523529 Transportation Transportation 19.29206289 Multi Family Res 30.74695406 South Railyards Multi Family Res 0 Waterways Waterways 11.57071557 Commercial 1.029356176 Transportation Transportation -19.29206289 Commerical 1.029356176 Parks 4.920850758 Industrial 19.29206289 Multi Family Res 33.17693374 Single Family Res 13.50197401 Waterways Industrial 5.704301708 Parks 3.977779644 Total 528.9542847 Waterways -5.704301708 Single Family Res 12.01506544 West of Abel Commerical 0 Total 528.9542847 Multi Family Res -2.42997968
Parks 0.943071114
Single Family Res 1.486908567
Total 1.13687E-13
Land Use Acreage Land Use Acreage Land Use Acreage % of total Non Res Change Change is SF Commercial 72.23772414 Commercial 44.41952122 Commercial -27.81820291 -39% -1195546.05 Industrial 126.0324838 Industrial 130.7821996 Industrial 4.749715746 -4% -41091.37308 Mixed Use (commerical) 65.76667085 Mixed Use 111.8722942 Mixed Use 46.10562332 Multi Family Res 137.079631 Multi Family Res 131.6155323 Multi Family Res -5.464098652 Parks 12.92516093 Parks 17.71767507 Parks 4.792514143
Instituational 72.00824654 Instituational 73.17867446 Instituational 1.170427924 2% 2063.423166 Town Center 0.026523529 Town Center 0 Town Center -0.026523529 Transportation 19.29206289 Transportation 0 Transportation -19.29206289 Waterways 11.57071557 Waterways 5.866413864 Waterways -5.704301708 Single Family Residential 12.01506544 Single Family Residential 13.50197401 Single Family Residential1.486908567 Total 528.9542847 Total 528.9542847 Total 0
Dwelling Units 3838 Dwelling Units 5176 Dwelling Untits 1338 NON RES SF 3293240 NON RES SF 2058666 NON RES SF 1234574 -1234574 total res 214.8613673 total res 256.9898005 total res 42.12843323 Non res -18.27597303
Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Land Uses by AcreageAdopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Land Uses by Acreage North Railyards
Waterways
West of Abel
Changes
North Railyards
West of Abel
Changes
Abbott
Creekside
Crossroads
Curtis
GatewayLibrary
Main Street
Curtis
Library
Main Street
Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Land Uses by District Abbott
Creekside
Crossroads
Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Land Uses by District Abbott
Curtis
I

Daily VMT Annual VMT Trips (daily) Trips (annual) Population Daily VMT per Population Annual VMT per Population Cumulative 685,920 250,360,800 37,759 13,782,035 20466 33.51509821 12233 Cumulative + Project 536,440 195,800,600 56,723 20,703,895 21925 24.46704675 8930 Difference -149,480 -54,560,200 18,964 6,921,860 1,459 -9 -3,303 Source: Fehr and
Peers Calculated Fehr and Peers Calculated Fehr and Peers Calculated Calculated

General Plan Assumptions for Midtown Specific Plan
General Plan* Use Midtown Specific Plan Use Density and Intensity Total General Plan Acreage Existing Housing Units Net New Housing Units at Build-Out
Total Housing Units at Build-
Out Existing Non-Residential Area Net New Non-Residential Area at Build-Out
Non-Residential Area at Build-
Out
MFH - Multi-Family High Density MFH - Multifamily Residential, High Density 12-20 units/acre (apts low rise) 32.17 674 5 679 0 VHD - Multi-Family Very High Density VHD - Multifamily Residential, Very High Density 31-40 units/acre (apt mid rise) 106.76 1,593 472 2,065 0 MXD - Mixed Use MXD - Mixed Use 21-30 units/acre; max. 0.75 FAR (Apt low rise) 64.85 134 958 1,092 631,808 487,595 1,119,403 GNC - General Commercial C2 - General Commercial max. 0.5 FAR 66.47 0 604,874 389,409 994,283 MFG – Manufacturing/Heavy Industrial M2 - Heavy Industrial max. 0.4 FAR 105.23 2 2 383,073 705,336 1,088,409 RSC - Neighborhood Commercial C1 - Neighborhood Commercial max. 0.35 FAR 9.6 0 109,999 109,999 INP - Industrial Park MP - Industrial Park max 1.0 FAR 0.73 0 1,940 1,940 PF - Public Facilities I - Institutional none 72.15 0 126,948 126,948 POS - Parks and Open Space POS - Parks and Open Space 12.59 0 0 Right-of-Way Right-of-Way 14.28 0 0
Water Way Water Way 11.86 0 0
Non-Conforming VHD Use Non-Conforming VHD Use 0 147,742 -147,742 -147,742 Total Total 496.69 2,403 1,435 3,838 1,858,642 1,434,598 3,293,240 3,838 3,293,240
* Note: Based on Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan boundary Mixed Use Assumptions:

64.85 Total acres
25 units per acre
1092 units

43.68 acres of residential

21.17 Acres of Commercial
168926.7792 SF of commercial

66.47 General Commercial Acreage
994,283 General Commercial SF
2895433.2 Acres to SF

34.3% SF of commercial as %

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 1 / 37
Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 2 / 37

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 3 / 37

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 4 / 37

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 5 / 37

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 6 / 37

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Operational Y ear 2040
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Plan/community
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.00
Precipitation (days) 31.0
Location 37.4293904108645, -121.89580436347518
County Santa Clara
City Milpitas
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1999
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.28

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Single Family
Housing

48.0 Dwelling Unit 24.0 57,025 342,526 — 144 —

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 7 / 37
—8,285——2,371,90987.0Dwelling Unit2,771Apartments High
Rise
Condo/Townhouse
High Rise
2,357 Dwelling Unit 107 2,490,491 — — 7,047 —
Office Park 880 1000sqft 113 880,397 — — — —
General Heavy
Industry
1,049 1000sqft 110 1,049,258 — — — —
Library 129 1000sqft 76.9 129,001 — — — —
City Park 17.4 Acre 17.4 0.00 378,591 378,591 — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 349 331 165 1,598 3.89 8.12 378 386 7.97 95.9 104 4,403 474,929 479,332 462 14.9 486 495,827 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 303 288 176 1,100 3.66 7.83 378 386 7.75 95.9 104 4,403 452,914 457,317 463 16.1 316 473,996 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 317 304 122 1,255 3.39 3.97 371 375 3.86 94.0 97.8 4,403 393,513 397,916 462 15.5 386 414,456 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 8 / 37
Unmit. 57.8 55.4 22.3 229 0.62 0.73 67.7 68.4 0.70 17.2 17.9 729 65,150 65,880 76.4 2.56 64.0 68,618

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 132 122 79.5 1,170 3.35 1.28 378 380 1.20 95.9 97.1 — 341,194 341,194 9.78 11.4 175 345,009 Area 213 207 54.2 406 0.34 4.40 — 4.40 4.32 — 4.32 0.00 65,600 65,600 1.26 0.13 — 65,671 Energy 3.54 1.77 31.4 21.4 0.19 2.45 — 2.45 2.45 — 2.45 — 65,959 65,959 7.86 0.61 — 66,338 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1,132 2,176 3,308 116 2.80 — 7,054 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 3,271 0.00 3,271 327 0.00 — 11,445 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 311 311
Total 349 331 165 1,598 3.89 8.12 378 386 7.97 95.9 104 4,403 474,929 479,332 462 14.9 486 495,827 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 129 119 93.3 1,057 3.15 1.28 378 380 1.20 95.9 97.1 — 320,333 320,333 10.7 12.5 4.53 324,336 Area 170 167 50.8 21.6 0.32 4.11 — 4.11 4.11 — 4.11 0.00 64,447 64,447 1.21 0.12 — 64,514 Energy 3.54 1.77 31.4 21.4 0.19 2.45 — 2.45 2.45 — 2.45 — 65,959 65,959 7.86 0.61 — 66,338 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1,132 2,176 3,308 116 2.80 — 7,054 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 3,271 0.00 3,271 327 0.00 — 11,445 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 311 311
Total 303 288 176 1,100 3.66 7.83 378 386 7.75 95.9 104 4,403 452,914 457,317 463 16.1 316 473,996 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 128 118 87.7 1,043 3.18 1.28 371 372 1.20 94.0 95.2 — 323,221 323,221 10.3 12.1 75.4 327,148 Area 186 184 2.96 190 0.02 0.24 — 0.24 0.21 — 0.21 0.00 2,158 2,158 0.05 0.01 — 2,162 Energy 3.54 1.77 31.4 21.4 0.19 2.45 — 2.45 2.45 — 2.45 — 65,959 65,959 7.86 0.61 — 66,338 -------------------

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 9 / 37
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1,132 2,176 3,308 116 2.80 — 7,054 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 3,271 0.00 3,271 327 0.00 — 11,445 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 311 311
Total 317 304 122 1,255 3.39 3.97 371 375 3.86 94.0 97.8 4,403 393,513 397,916 462 15.5 386 414,456 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 23.3 21.5 16.0 190 0.58 0.23 67.7 67.9 0.22 17.2 17.4 — 53,513 53,513 1.71 2.00 12.5 54,163 Area 33.9 33.6 0.54 34.7 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 0.00 357 357 0.01 < 0.005 — 358 Energy 0.65 0.32 5.74 3.91 0.04 0.45 — 0.45 0.45 — 0.45 — 10,920 10,920 1.30 0.10 — 10,983 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 187 360 548 19.3 0.46 — 1,168 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 542 0.00 542 54.1 0.00 — 1,895 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 51.5 51.5
Total 57.8 55.4 22.3 229 0.62 0.73 67.7 68.4 0.70 17.2 17.9 729 65,150 65,880 76.4 2.56 64.0 68,618

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.6. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available.

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 10 / 37
168—< 0.0050.03166166————————————Single
Family
Housing
Apartme
nts
High
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 5,283 5,283 0.85 0.10 — 5,335
Condo/T
ownhou
se
High
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 4,494 4,494 0.73 0.09 — 4,538
Office
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — — 10,415 10,415 1.68 0.20 — 10,518
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — —
— — — — — — — — 6,398 6,398 1.03 0.13 — 6,461
Library — — — — — — — — — — — — 787 787 0.13 0.02 — 794 City
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 27,542 27,542 4.46 0.54 — 27,814 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 166 166 0.03 < 0.005 — 168
Apartme
nts
High
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 5,283 5,283 0.85 0.10 — 5,335
Condo/T
ownhou
se
High
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 4,494 4,494 0.73 0.09 — 4,538
Office
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — — 10,415 10,415 1.68 0.20 — 10,518

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 11 / 37
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — —
— — — — — — — — 6,398 6,398 1.03 0.13 — 6,461
Library — — — — — — — — — — — — 787 787 0.13 0.02 — 794 City
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 27,542 27,542 4.46 0.54 — 27,814 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 27.5 27.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 —

27.7 Apartme
nts
High
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 875 875 0.14 0.02 — 883
Condo/T
ownhou
se
High
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 744 744 0.12 0.01 — 751
Office
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — — 1,724 1,724 0.28 0.03 — 1,741
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — —
— — — — — — — — 1,059 1,059 0.17 0.02 — 1,070
Library — — — — — — — — — — — — 130 130 0.02 < 0.005 — 132 City
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 4,560 4,560 0.74 0.09 — 4,605

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 12 / 37
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.07 0.03 0.56 0.24 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05

0.05 — 0.05 — 711 711 0.06 < 0.005 — 713
Apartme
nts
High
Rise

0.72 0.36 6.16 2.62 0.04 0.50 — 0.50 0.50 — 0.50 — 7,819 7,819 0.69 0.01 — 7,840 Condo/T
ownhou
se
High
Rise

0.61 0.31 5.24 2.23 0.03 0.42 — 0.42 0.42 — 0.42 — 6,650 6,650 0.59 0.01 — 6,669 Office
Park

0.62 0.31 5.62 4.72

0.03 0.43 — 0.43 0.43 — 0.43 — 6,701 6,701 0.59 0.01 — 6,720 General
Heavy
Industry

1.36 0.68 12.3 10.4

0.07 0.94 — 0.94 0.94 — 0.94 — 14,725 14,725 1.30 0.03 — 14,766 Library 0.17 0.08 1.52 1.27 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,810 1,810 0.16 < 0.005 — 1,815 City
Park

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 3.54 1.77 31.4 21.4 0.19 2.45 — 2.45 2.45 — 2.45 — 38,417 38,417 3.40 0.07 — 38,523 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.07 0.03 0.56 0.24 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05

0.05 — 0.05 — 711 711 0.06 < 0.005 — 713
Apartme
nts
High
Rise

0.72 0.36 6.16 2.62 0.04 0.50 — 0.50 0.50 — 0.50 — 7,819 7,819 0.69 0.01 — 7,840

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 13 / 37
6,669—0.010.596,6506,650—0.42—0.420.42—0.420.032.235.240.310.61Condo/T ownhou
se
High
Rise
Office
Park

0.62 0.31 5.62 4.72

0.03 0.43 — 0.43 0.43 — 0.43 — 6,701 6,701 0.59 0.01 — 6,720 General
Heavy
Industry

1.36 0.68 12.3 10.4

0.07 0.94 — 0.94 0.94 — 0.94 — 14,725 14,725 1.30 0.03 — 14,766 Library 0.17 0.08 1.52 1.27 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,810 1,810 0.16 < 0.005 — 1,815 City
Park

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 3.54 1.77 31.4 21.4 0.19 2.45 — 2.45 2.45 — 2.45 — 38,417 38,417 3.40 0.07 — 38,523 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.01 0.01 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01

0.01 — 0.01 — 118 118 0.01 < 0.005 — 118
Apartme
nts
High
Rise

0.13 0.07 1.12 0.48 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 1,294 1,294 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,298 Condo/T
ownhou
se
High
Rise

0.11 0.06 0.96 0.41 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,101 1,101 0.10 < 0.005 — 1,104 Office
Park

0.11 0.06 1.02 0.86

0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,109 1,109 0.10 < 0.005 — 1,113 General
Heavy
Industry

0.25 0.12 2.25 1.89

0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.17 — 0.17 — 2,438 2,438 0.22 < 0.005 — 2,445 Library 0.03 0.02 0.28 0.23 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 300 300 0.03 < 0.005 — 301 City
Park

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.65 0.32 5.74 3.91 0.04 0.45 — 0.45 0.45 — 0.45 — 6,360 6,360 0.56 0.01 — 6,378

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 14 / 37

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 5.94 2.97 50.8 21.6 0.32 4.11 — 4.11 4.11 — 4.11 0.00 64,447 64,447 1.21 0.12 — 64,514 Consum
er
Product
s
150 150 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

13.9 13.9 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

42.9 40.2 3.46 385 0.02 0.29 — 0.29 0.22 — 0.22 — 1,153 1,153 0.05 0.01 — 1,157 Total 213 207 54.2 406 0.34 4.40 — 4.40 4.32 — 4.32 0.00 65,600 65,600 1.26 0.13 — 65,671 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 5.94 2.97 50.8 21.6 0.32 4.11 — 4.11 4.11 — 4.11 0.00 64,447 64,447 1.21 0.12 — 64,514 Consum
er
Product
s
150 150 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

13.9 13.9 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 170 167 50.8 21.6 0.32 4.11 — 4.11 4.11 — 4.11 0.00 64,447 64,447 1.21 0.12 — 64,514 -------------------

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 15 / 37
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.03 0.01 0.23 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 0.00 263 263 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 263 Consum
er
Product
s

27.4 27.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

2.53 2.53 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

3.86 3.62 0.31 34.6 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 94.2 94.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 94.5 Total 33.9 33.6 0.54 34.7 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 0.00 357 357 0.01 < 0.005 — 358

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.34 18.6 22.0 0.35 0.01 — 33.1
Apartme
nts
High
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 193 364 556 19.8 0.48 — 1,193

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 16 / 37
1,015—0.4116.8473309164———————————Condo/T
ownhou
se
High
Rise
Office
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — 300 566 866 30.8 0.74 — 1,858
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — —
— — — — — — — 465 878 1,343 47.8 1.15 — 2,881
Library — — — — — — — — — — — 7.73 14.6 22.3 0.80 0.02 — 47.9 City
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — 0.00 24.8 24.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 25.0
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,132 2,176 3,308 116 2.80 — 7,054 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.34 18.6 22.0 0.35 0.01 — 33.1
Apartme
nts
High
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 193 364 556 19.8 0.48 — 1,193
Condo/T
ownhou
se
High
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 164 309 473 16.8 0.41 — 1,015
Office
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — 300 566 866 30.8 0.74 — 1,858
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — —
— — — — — — — 465 878 1,343 47.8 1.15 — 2,881
Library — — — — — — — — — — — 7.73 14.6 22.3 0.80 0.02 — 47.9 City
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — 0.00 24.8 24.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 25.0

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 17 / 37
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,132 2,176 3,308 116 2.80 — 7,054 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.55 3.09 3.64 0.06 < 0.005 — 5.49 Apartme
nts
High
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 31.9 60.2 92.1 3.28 0.08 — 198
Condo/T
ownhou
se
High
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 27.1 51.2 78.3 2.79 0.07 — 168
Office
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — 49.6 93.8 143 5.11 0.12 — 308
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — —
— — — — — — — 77.0 145 222 7.92 0.19 — 477
Library — — — — — — — — — — — 1.28 2.42 3.70 0.13 < 0.005 — 7.94 City
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — 0.00 4.11 4.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.15
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 187 360 548 19.3 0.46 — 1,168

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 18 / 37

70.9—0.002.0320.30.0020.3———————————Single
Family
Housing
Apartme
nts
High
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 1,104 0.00 1,104 110 0.00 — 3,863 Condo/T
ownhou
se
High
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 939 0.00 939 93.9 0.00 — 3,286
Office
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — 441 0.00 441 44.1 0.00 — 1,544
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — —
— — — — — — — 701 0.00 701 70.1 0.00 — 2,453
Library — — — — — — — — — — — 64.0 0.00 64.0 6.40 0.00 — 224 City
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — 0.81 0.00 0.81 0.08 0.00 — 2.82
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 3,271 0.00 3,271 327 0.00 — 11,445 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 20.3 0.00 20.3 2.03 0.00 — 70.9
Apartme
nts
High
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 1,104 0.00 1,104 110 0.00 — 3,863 Condo/T
ownhou
se
High
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 939 0.00 939 93.9 0.00 — 3,286
Office
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — 441 0.00 441 44.1 0.00 — 1,544

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 19 / 37
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — —
— — — — — — — 701 0.00 701 70.1 0.00 — 2,453
Library — — — — — — — — — — — 64.0 0.00 64.0 6.40 0.00 — 224 City
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — 0.81 0.00 0.81 0.08 0.00 — 2.82
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 3,271 0.00 3,271 327 0.00 — 11,445 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.36 0.00 3.36 0.34 0.00 — 11.7
Apartme
nts
High
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 183 0.00 183 18.3 0.00 — 640
Condo/T
ownhou
se
High
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 156 0.00 156 15.5 0.00 — 544
Office
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — 73.1 0.00 73.1 7.30 0.00 — 256
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — —
— — — — — — — 116 0.00 116 11.6 0.00 — 406
Library — — — — — — — — — — — 10.6 0.00 10.6 1.06 0.00 — 37.1 City
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.01 0.00 — 0.47
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 542 0.00 542 54.1 0.00 — 1,895

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 20 / 37
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.41 0.41
Apartme
nts
High
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 17.0 17.0
Condo/T
ownhou
se
High
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 17.8 17.8
Office
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — 273 273
Library — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.50 0.50
City
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 311 311
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.41 0.41
Apartme
nts
High
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 17.0 17.0

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 21 / 37

17.817.8————————————————Condo/T
ownhou
Office
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — 273 273
Library — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.50 0.50
City
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 311 311
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07
Apartme
nts
High
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.81 2.81
Condo/T
ownhou
se
High
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.95 2.95
Office
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.35 0.35
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — 45.2 45.2
Library — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
City
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 51.5 51.5

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 22 / 37

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 23 / 37
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 24 / 37
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 25 / 37
——————————————————Remove
d
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 26 / 37

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Total all Land Uses 56,723 56,723 56,723 20,703,895 536,440 536,440 536,440 195,800,600

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 10
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 38
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
Apartments High Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 1413
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 1358
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 27 / 37
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
Condo/Townhouse High Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 1202
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 1155
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
9961835.625 3,320,612 3,144,773 1,048,258 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 28 / 37
Single Family Housing 296,873 204 0.0330 0.0040 2,218,652 Apartments High Rise 9,453,130 204 0.0330 0.0040 24,396,081 Condo/Townhouse High Rise 8,040,790 204 0.0330 0.0040 20,751,196 Office Park 18,636,801 204 0.0330 0.0040 20,909,684
General Heavy Industry 11,447,558 204 0.0330 0.0040 45,946,070 Library 1,407,420 204 0.0330 0.0040 5,648,838
City Park 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 1,740,787 4,475,472
Apartments High Rise 100,494,194 0.00
Condo/Townhouse High Rise 85,479,905 0.00
Office Park 156,476,259 0.00
General Heavy Industry 242,640,913 0.00
Library 4,036,300 0.00
City Park 0.00 8,994,004

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 37.6 —
Apartments High Rise 2,049 —
Condo/Townhouse High Rise 1,743 —
Office Park 819 —

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 29 / 37
General Heavy Industry 1,301 —
Library 119 —
City Park 1.49 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Apartments High Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments High Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Condo/Townhouse
High Rise
Average room
A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Condo/Townhouse
High Rise
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Office Park Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
Office Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
General Heavy
Industry
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 0.30 4.00 4.00 18.0

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 30 / 37

1.000.000.600.021,430R-134aLibrary Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
Library Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Library Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 < 0.005 1.00 0.00 1.00
Library Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 31 / 37
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue
to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 12.4 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 2.60 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 32 / 37
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data
(32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a
full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth
for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population
density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 1 0 0 N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptiv
e capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to
adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 1 1 1 2
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 33 / 37
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptiv
e capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to
adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 17.6
AQ-PM 21.2
AQ-DPM 86.5
Drinking Water 23.5
Lead Risk Housing 8.49
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 36.1
Traffic 79.1
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 99.6
Groundwater 98.7

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 34 / 37
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 96.8
Impaired Water Bodies 33.2
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 18.9
Cardio-vascular 32.6
Low Birth Weights 67.2
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 54.8
Housing 19.4
Linguistic 80.7
Poverty 19.6
Unemployment 5.57

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 69.04914667
Employed 6.274862056
Median HI 88.02771718
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 84.30642885
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 86.26972924
Transportation —
Auto Access 29.74464263
Active commuting 46.63159245

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 35 / 37
Social —
2-parent households 57.97510586
Voting 55.67817272
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 37.71333248
Park access 15.29577826
Retail density 87.11664314
Supermarket access 64.94289747
Tree canopy 36.21198511
Housing —
Homeownership 46.24663159
Housing habitability 78.41652765
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 73.03990761 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 88.81047094
Uncrowded housing 52.91928654
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 92.73707173
Arthritis 99.0
Asthma ER Admissions 86.7
High Blood Pressure 98.3
Cancer (excluding skin) 98.2
Asthma 98.6
Coronary Heart Disease 99.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 99.3
Diagnosed Diabetes 97.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 88.5
Cognitively Disabled 98.7
Physically Disabled 98.7

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 36 / 37
Heart Attack ER Admissions 63.5
Mental Health Not Good 92.6
Chronic Kidney Disease 98.6
Obesity 97.2
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 98.5
Stroke 98.8
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 38.6
Current Smoker 85.1
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 79.1
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 83.5
Children 16.3
Elderly 88.2
English Speaking 27.9
Foreign-born 87.8
Outdoor Workers 73.1
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 10.1
Traffic Density 74.5
Traffic Access 87.4
Other Indices —
Hardship 15.7
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 55.7

Milpitas Proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 37 / 37

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 41.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 67.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use From changes in the GP Capacity Assumptions
Operations: Architectural Coatings BAAQMD VOC Limit of 50 g/l for interior and 100 g/L for exterior Operations: Water and Waste Water No specified water usage

Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 1 / 34
Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 2 / 34

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 3 / 34

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 4 / 34

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 5 / 34

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data

Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 6 / 34

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Operational Y ear 2040
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Plan/community
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.00
Precipitation (days) 31.0
Location 37.42693310950128, -121.89802584520064
County Santa Clara
City Milpitas
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1999
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.28

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Apartments Low
Rise
1,773 Dwelling Unit 97.0 1,879,380 — — 5,301 —

Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 7 / 34
—6,174——1,982,400107Dwelling Unit2,065Apartments Mid
Rise
Office Park 2,076 1000sqft 141 2,075,943 — — — —
General Heavy
Industry
1,090 1000sqft 105 1,090,349 — — — —
Library 127 1000sqft 72.2 126,948 — — — —
City Park 12.6 Acre 12.6 0.00 274,210 274,210 — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 331 312 167 1,783 4.75 8.17 484 492 7.98 123 131 4,827 573,042 577,869 508 17.3 540 596,284 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 283 267 179 1,223 4.47 7.82 484 491 7.72 123 130 4,827 545,086 549,912 509 18.5 323 568,473 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 300 285 137 1,393 4.28 5.00 474 479 4.86 120 125 4,827 502,510 507,336 508 18.0 413 525,793 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 54.8 52.0 25.1 254 0.78 0.91 86.5 87.4 0.89 21.9 22.8 799 83,196 83,995 84.1 2.97 68.5 87,051 -------------------

Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 8 / 34

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 109 97.7 84.9 1,376 4.24 1.56 484 485 1.46 123 124 — 431,317 431,317 9.89 12.7 223 435,585 Area 217 212 41.1 378 0.26 3.41 — 3.41 3.33 — 3.33 0.00 49,255 49,255 0.95 0.10 — 49,308 Energy 4.61 2.31 41.1 28.9 0.25 3.19 — 3.19 3.19 — 3.19 — 89,687 89,687 10.8 0.87 — 90,217 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1,465 2,784 4,248 151 3.62 — 9,093 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 3,362 0.00 3,362 336 0.00 — 11,763 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 317 317
Total 331 312 167 1,783 4.75 8.17 484 492 7.98 123 131 4,827 573,042 577,869 508 17.3 540 596,284 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 106 94.8 99.8 1,178 3.98 1.56 484 485 1.46 123 124 — 404,532 404,532 10.4 13.9 5.79 408,949 Area 172 170 37.9 16.1 0.24 3.06 — 3.06 3.06 — 3.06 0.00 48,083 48,083 0.91 0.09 — 48,133 Energy 4.61 2.31 41.1 28.9 0.25 3.19 — 3.19 3.19 — 3.19 — 89,687 89,687 10.8 0.87 — 90,217 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1,465 2,784 4,248 151 3.62 — 9,093 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 3,362 0.00 3,362 336 0.00 — 11,763 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 317 317
Total 283 267 179 1,223 4.47 7.82 484 491 7.72 123 130 4,827 545,086 549,912 509 18.5 323 568,473 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 106 94.2 93.8 1,185 4.01 1.56 474 476 1.46 120 122 — 408,276 408,276 10.1 13.5 96.5 412,636 Area 190 188 2.52 179 0.01 0.25 — 0.25 0.21 — 0.21 0.00 1,763 1,763 0.05 0.01 — 1,766 Energy 4.61 2.31 41.1 28.9 0.25 3.19 — 3.19 3.19 — 3.19 — 89,687 89,687 10.8 0.87 — 90,217 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1,465 2,784 4,248 151 3.62 — 9,093 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 3,362 0.00 3,362 336 0.00 — 11,763 -------------------

Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 9 / 34
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 317 317
Total 300 285 137 1,393 4.28 5.00 474 479 4.86 120 125 4,827 502,510 507,336 508 18.0 413 525,793 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 19.3 17.2 17.1 216 0.73 0.29 86.5 86.8 0.27 21.9 22.2 — 67,595 67,595 1.68 2.23 16.0 68,317 Area 34.7 34.4 0.46 32.7 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 0.00 292 292 0.01 < 0.005 — 292 Energy 0.84 0.42 7.50 5.28 0.05 0.58 — 0.58 0.58 — 0.58 — 14,849 14,849 1.79 0.14 — 14,937 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 242 461 703 24.9 0.60 — 1,506 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 557 0.00 557 55.6 0.00 — 1,948 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 52.5 52.5
Total 54.8 52.0 25.1 254 0.78 0.91 86.5 87.4 0.89 21.9 22.8 799 83,196 83,995 84.1 2.97 68.5 87,051

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.6. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available.

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — —
— — — — — — — — 3,716 3,716 0.60 0.07 — 3,753