Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 10 / 34
3,976—0.080.643,9373,937————————————Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
Office
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — — 24,559 24,559 3.97 0.48 — 24,802
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — —
— — — — — — — — 6,648 6,648 1.08 0.13 — 6,714
Library — — — — — — — — — — — — 774 774 0.13 0.02 — 782 City
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 39,634 39,634 6.41 0.78 — 40,026 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — —
— — — — — — — — 3,716 3,716 0.60 0.07 — 3,753
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 3,937 3,937 0.64 0.08 — 3,976
Office
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — — 24,559 24,559 3.97 0.48 — 24,802
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — —
— — — — — — — — 6,648 6,648 1.08 0.13 — 6,714
Library — — — — — — — — — — — — 774 774 0.13 0.02 — 782 City
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 39,634 39,634 6.41 0.78 — 40,026 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — —
— — — — — — — — 615 615 0.10 0.01 — 621
Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 11 / 34
658—0.010.11652652————————————Apartme
nts
Office
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — — 4,066 4,066 0.66 0.08 — 4,106
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — —
— — — — — — — — 1,101 1,101 0.18 0.02 — 1,112
Library — — — — — — — — — — — — 128 128 0.02 < 0.005 — 129 City
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 6,562 6,562 1.06 0.13 — 6,627
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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
1.05 0.52 8.93 3.80
0.06 0.72 — 0.72 0.72 — 0.72 — 11,341 11,341 1.00 0.02 — 11,373 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
0.54 0.27 4.59 1.95 0.03 0.37 — 0.37 0.37 — 0.37 — 5,827 5,827 0.52 0.01 — 5,843 Office
Park
1.46 0.73 13.2 11.1
0.08 1.01 — 1.01 1.01 — 1.01 — 15,801 15,801 1.40 0.03 — 15,845 General
Heavy
Industry
1.41 0.71 12.8 10.8
0.08 0.97 — 0.97 0.97 — 0.97 — 15,302 15,302 1.35 0.03 — 15,344 Library 0.16 0.08 1.49 1.25 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 — 1,782 1,782 0.16 < 0.005 — 1,786 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 4.61 2.31 41.1 28.9 0.25 3.19 — 3.19 3.19 — 3.19 — 50,052 50,052 4.43 0.09 — 50,191
Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 12 / 34
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
1.05 0.52 8.93 3.80
0.06 0.72 — 0.72 0.72 — 0.72 — 11,341 11,341 1.00 0.02 — 11,373 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
0.54 0.27 4.59 1.95 0.03 0.37 — 0.37 0.37 — 0.37 — 5,827 5,827 0.52 0.01 — 5,843 Office
Park
1.46 0.73 13.2 11.1
0.08 1.01 — 1.01 1.01 — 1.01 — 15,801 15,801 1.40 0.03 — 15,845 General
Heavy
Industry
1.41 0.71 12.8 10.8
0.08 0.97 — 0.97 0.97 — 0.97 — 15,302 15,302 1.35 0.03 — 15,344 Library 0.16 0.08 1.49 1.25 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 — 1,782 1,782 0.16 < 0.005 — 1,786 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 4.61 2.31 41.1 28.9 0.25 3.19 — 3.19 3.19 — 3.19 — 50,052 50,052 4.43 0.09 — 50,191 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
0.19 0.10 1.63 0.69
0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.13 — 0.13 — 1,878 1,878 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,883 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
0.10 0.05 0.84 0.36 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 965 965 0.09 < 0.005 — 967 Office
Park
0.27 0.13 2.42 2.03
0.01 0.18 — 0.18 0.18 — 0.18 — 2,616 2,616 0.23 < 0.005 — 2,623 General
Heavy
Industry
0.26 0.13 2.34 1.97
0.01 0.18 — 0.18 0.18 — 0.18 — 2,533 2,533 0.22 < 0.005 — 2,540 Library 0.03 0.01 0.27 0.23 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 295 295 0.03 < 0.005 — 296 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 0.84 0.42 7.50 5.28 0.05 0.58 — 0.58 0.58 — 0.58 — 8,287 8,287 0.73 0.02 — 8,310
Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 13 / 34
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 4.43 2.22 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 Consum
er
Product
s
154 154 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
13.6 13.6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
45.5 42.4 3.21 362 0.02 0.35 — 0.35 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,171 1,171 0.05 0.01 — 1,175 Total 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 4.43 2.22 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 Consum
er
Product
s
154 154 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
13.6 13.6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 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 -------------------
Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 14 / 34
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.02 0.01 0.17 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 196 196 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 196 Consum
er
Product
s
28.1 28.1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
2.47 2.47 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
4.09 3.82 0.29 32.6 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 95.6 95.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 96.0 Total 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
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — —
— — — — — — — 123 233 356 12.7 0.30 — 764
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 144 271 415 14.8 0.35 — 889
Office
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — 707 1,335 2,042 72.7 1.75 — 4,381
Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 15 / 34
2,994—1.2049.71,396913483———————————General
Heavy
Industry
Library — — — — — — — — — — — 7.61 14.4 22.0 0.78 0.02 — 47.2 City
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — 0.00 18.0 18.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.1
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,465 2,784 4,248 151 3.62 — 9,093 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — —
— — — — — — — 123 233 356 12.7 0.30 — 764
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 144 271 415 14.8 0.35 — 889
Office
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — 707 1,335 2,042 72.7 1.75 — 4,381
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — —
— — — — — — — 483 913 1,396 49.7 1.20 — 2,994
Library — — — — — — — — — — — 7.61 14.4 22.0 0.78 0.02 — 47.2 City
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — 0.00 18.0 18.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.1
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,465 2,784 4,248 151 3.62 — 9,093 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — —
— — — — — — — 20.4 38.5 58.9 2.10 0.05 — 126
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 23.8 44.9 68.6 2.44 0.06 — 147
Office
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — 117 221 338 12.0 0.29 — 725
Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 16 / 34
496—0.208.2323115180.0———————————General
Heavy
Industry
Library — — — — — — — — — — — 1.26 2.38 3.64 0.13 < 0.005 — 7.81 City
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — 0.00 2.97 2.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 242 461 703 24.9 0.60 — 1,506
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — —
— — — — — — — 707 0.00 707 70.6 0.00 — 2,472
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 823 0.00 823 82.2 0.00 — 2,879
Office
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — 1,040 0.00 1,040 104 0.00 — 3,640
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — —
— — — — — — — 729 0.00 729 72.8 0.00 — 2,549
Library — — — — — — — — — — — 63.0 0.00 63.0 6.30 0.00 — 220 City
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — 0.58 0.00 0.58 0.06 0.00 — 2.04
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 3,362 0.00 3,362 336 0.00 — 11,763
Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 17 / 34
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — —
— — — — — — — 707 0.00 707 70.6 0.00 — 2,472
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 823 0.00 823 82.2 0.00 — 2,879
Office
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — 1,040 0.00 1,040 104 0.00 — 3,640
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — —
— — — — — — — 729 0.00 729 72.8 0.00 — 2,549
Library — — — — — — — — — — — 63.0 0.00 63.0 6.30 0.00 — 220 City
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — 0.58 0.00 0.58 0.06 0.00 — 2.04
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 3,362 0.00 3,362 336 0.00 — 11,763 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — —
— — — — — — — 117 0.00 117 11.7 0.00 — 409
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 136 0.00 136 13.6 0.00 — 477
Office
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — 172 0.00 172 17.2 0.00 — 603
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — —
— — — — — — — 121 0.00 121 12.1 0.00 — 422
Library — — — — — — — — — — — 10.4 0.00 10.4 1.04 0.00 — 36.5 City
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.00 — 0.34
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 557 0.00 557 55.6 0.00 — 1,948
Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 18 / 34
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) 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
— — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — 13.5 13.5
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 14.2 14.2
Office
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — 5.05 5.05
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — 284 284
Library — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.49 0.49
City
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 317 317
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — 13.5 13.5
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 14.2 14.2
Office
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — 5.05 5.05
Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 19 / 34
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — 284 284
Library — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.49 0.49
City
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 317 317
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2.23 2.23
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.35 2.35
Office
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.84 0.84
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — 47.0 47.0
Library — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
City
Park
— — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 52.5 52.5
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 20 / 34
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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)
Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 21 / 34
CO2eRN2OCH4CO2TNBCO2BCO2PM2.5TPM2.5DPM2.5EPM10TPM10DPM10ESO2CONOxROGTOGEquipm ent
Type
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 22 / 34
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 23 / 34
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
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 37,759 37,759 37,759 13,782,035 685,920 685,920 685,920 250,360,800
5.10. Operational Area Sources
Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 24 / 34
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Low Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 904
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 869
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 1053
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 1012
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)
Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 25 / 34
7820104.5 2,606,702 4,980,992 1,660,331 —
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) Apartments Low Rise 6,649,615 204 0.0330 0.0040 35,387,853 Apartments Mid Rise 7,044,646 204 0.0330 0.0040 18,180,407 Office Park 43,944,876 204 0.0330 0.0040 49,304,248
General Heavy Industry 11,895,867 204 0.0330 0.0040 47,745,408 Library 1,385,021 204 0.0330 0.0040 5,558,939
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) Apartments Low Rise 64,300,327 0.00
Apartments Mid Rise 74,890,116 0.00
Office Park 368,965,130 0.00
General Heavy Industry 252,143,206 0.00
Library 3,972,064 0.00
Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 26 / 34
City Park 0.00 6,514,277
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Low Rise 1,311 —
Apartments Mid Rise 1,527 —
Office Park 1,931 —
General Heavy Industry 1,352 —
Library 117 —
City Park 1.08 —
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 Apartments Low 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 Low Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Apartments Mid 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 Mid 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
Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 27 / 34
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
Library Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
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)
Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 28 / 34
5.17. User Defined
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
Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 29 / 34
Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
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
Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 30 / 34
Extreme Precipitation 1 1 1 2
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
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 —
Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 31 / 34
CleanUp Sites 99.6
Groundwater 98.7
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 —
Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 32 / 34
Auto Access 29.74464263
Active commuting 46.63159245
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
Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 33 / 34
Cognitively Disabled 98.7
Physically Disabled 98.7
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 —
Milpitas Adopted Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan Detailed Report, 11/11/2024 34 / 34
2016 Voting 55.7
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 GP Capacity Assumptions for MSP
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
Appendix C
Noise Model Calculations
Day Cable Crossing Equipment (no helicopter)
Location
Distance to Nearest
Receptor in feet Equipment
Usage
Factor1
Threshold 80 Grader 0.4
Residence 1 300 Excavator 0.4
Residence 2 250 Dozer 0.4
Dump Truck 0.4
Ground Type hard
Source Height 8
Receiver Height 5
Ground Factor2 0.00
Predicted Noise Level 3
Grader 81.0
Excavator 77.0
Dozer 78.0
Dump Truck 72.0
84.1 Sources:
1 Obtained from the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model, January 2006. Table 1. 2 Based on Figure 6-5 from the Federal Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006 (pg 6-23). 3 Based on the following from the Federal Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006 (pg 12-3).
Leq(equip) = E.L.+10*log (U.F.) - 20*log (D/50) - 10*G*log (D/50) Where: E.L. = Emission Level;
U.F.= Usage Factor;
G = Constant that accounts for topography and ground effects (FTA 2006: pg 6-23); and D = Distance from source to receiver.
68.5 81
Combined Predicted
Noise Level (Leq dBA)
Reference Emission
Noise Levels (Lmax) at 50
feet1
80.0 85
70.1 82
76 Leq dBA at 50 feet3
Combined Predicted Noise Level (Leq dBA at 50 feet)
. ;,,,,,,,,----
Day Cable Crossing Equipment (no helicopter)
Location
Distance to Nearest
Receptor in feet Equipment
Usage
Factor1
Reference Level 50 Grader 1
Residence 100 Excavator 1
Residence 100 Dozer 1
Dump Truck 1
Ground Type hard
Source Height 8
Receiver Height 5
Ground Factor2 0.00
Predicted Noise Level 3
Grader 85.0
Excavator 81.0
Dozer 82.0
Dump Truck 76.0
88.1 Sources:
1 Obtained from the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model, January 2006. Table 1. 2 Based on Figure 6-5 from the Federal Transit Nois e and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006 (pg 6-23). 3 Based on the following from the Federal Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006 (pg 12-3).
Leq(equip) = E.L.+10*log (U.F.) - 20*log (D/50) - 10*G*log (D/50) Where: E.L. = Emission Level;
U.F.= Usage Factor;
G = Constant that accounts for topography and ground effects (FTA 2006: pg 6-23); and D = Distance from source to receiver.
82.0 81
Combined Predicted
Noise Level (Leq dBA)
Reference Emission Noise
Levels (Lmax) at 50 feet1
88.1 85
82.0 82
76 Leq dBA at 50 feet3
Combined Predicted Noise Level (Leq dBA at 50 feet)
Attenuation Calculations for Stationary Noise Sources
KEY: Orange cells are for input.
Grey cells are intermediate calculations performed by the model.
Green cells are data to present in a written analysis (output).
Noise Source/ID Attenuated Noise Level at Receptor
noise level distance Ground Type noise level distance
(dBA) @ (ft) (soft/hard) (dBA) @ (ft)
Helicopter 79.5 @ 50 soft 6 5 0.65 79.5 @ 50
chipper 99.0 @ 3 soft 6 5 0.65 67.7 @ 50
blasting (night lmax) 94.0 @ 50 soft 6 5 0.65 65.0 @ 620 helicopter (night leq) 68.0 @ 492.00 soft 6 5 0.65 45.1 @ 3600 blasting (day lmax) 94.0 @ 50 soft 6 5 0.65 70.1 @ 400
helicopter (day leq) 68.0 @ 492 soft 6 5 0.65 55.0 @ 1520 Blasting (SF Res) 94.0 @ 50 soft 6 5 0.65 79.6 @ 175
blasting 94.0 @ 50 soft 6 5 0.65 86.0 @ 100
construction 85.0 @ 50 soft 6 5 0.65 93.0 @ 25
construction 95.0 @ 50 soft 6 5 0.65 103.0 @ 25
0.66 0.66
0.66 0.66
Notes:
Sources:
Estimates of attenuated noise levels do not account for reductions from intervening barriers, including walls, trees, vegetation, or structures of any type.
Computation of the attenuated noise level is based on the equation presented on pg. 12-3 and 12-4 of FTA 2006.
Computation of the ground factor is based on the equation presentd in Figure 6-23 on pg. 6-23 of FTA 2006, where the distance of the reference noise leve can be adjusted and the usage factor is not applied (i.e., the usage factor is equal to 1).
Federal Transit Association (FTA). 2006 (May). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. Washington, D.C. Available:
<http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf>. Accessed: September 24, 2010.
STEP 1: Identify the noise source and enter
the reference noise level (dBA and distance).
STEP 2: Select the ground type (hard or soft),
and enter the source and receiver heights.
STEP 3: Select the distance to
the receiver.
Reference Noise Level Attenuation Characteristics
Source
Height (ft)
Receiver
Height (ft)
Ground
Factor
Equipment Description
Acoustical
Usage
Factor (%)
Spec
721.560
Lmax @
50ft (dBA
slow)
Actual
Measured
Lmax @
50ft
(dBA slow)
No. of
Actual Data
Samples
(count)
Spec
721.560
LmaxCalc
Spec
721.560
Leq
Distance
Actual
Measured
LmaxCalc
Actual
Measured
Leq
Auger Drill Rig 20 85 84 36 79.0 72.0 100 78.0 71.0
Backhoe 40 80 78 372 74.0 70.0 100 72.0 68.0
Bar Bender 20 80 na 0 74.0 67.0 100
Blasting na 94 na 0 88.0 100
Boring Jack Power Unit 50 80 83 1 74.0 71.0 100 77.0 74.0 Chain Saw 20 85 84 46 79.0 72.0 100 78.0 71.0
Clam Shovel (dropping) 20 93 87 4 87.0 80.0 100 81.0 74.0 Compactor (ground) 20 80 83 57 74.0 67.0 100 77.0 70.0
Compressor (air) 40 80 78 18 74.0 70.0 100 72.0 68.0
Concrete Batch Plant 15 83 na 0 77.0 68.7 100
Concrete Mixer Truck 40 85 79 40 79.0 75.0 100 73.0 69.0 Concrete Pump Truck 20 82 81 30 76.0 69.0 100 75.0 68.0 Concrete Saw 20 90 90 55 84.0 77.0 100 84.0 77.0
Crane 16 85 81 405 79.0 71.0 100 75.0 67.0
Dozer 40 85 82 55 79.0 75.0 100 76.0 72.0
Drill Rig Truck 20 84 79 22 78.0 71.0 100 73.0 66.0
Drum Mixer 50 80 80 1 74.0 71.0 100 74.0 71.0
Dump Truck 40 84 76 31 78.0 74.0 100 70.0 66.0
Excavator 40 85 81 170 79.0 75.0 100 75.0 71.0
Flat Bed Truck 40 84 74 4 78.0 74.0 100 68.0 64.0
Front End Loader 40 80 79 96 74.0 70.0 100 73.0 69.0
Generator 50 82 81 19 76.0 73.0 100 75.0 72.0
Generator (<25KVA, VMS signs) 50 70 73 74 64.0 61.0 100 67.0 64.0 Gradall 40 85 83 70 79.0 75.0 100 77.0 73.0
Grader 40 85 na 0 79.0 75.0 100
Grapple (on Backhoe) 40 85 87 1 79.0 75.0 100 81.0 77.0 Horizontal Boring Hydr. Jack 25 80 82 6 74.0 68.0 100 76.0 70.0 Hydra Break Ram 10 90 na 0 84.0 74.0 100
Impact Pile Driver 20 95 101 11 89.0 82.0 100 95.0 88.0 Jackhammer 20 85 89 133 79.0 72.0 100 83.0 76.0
Man Lift 20 85 75 23 79.0 72.0 100 69.0 62.0
Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) 20 90 90 212 84.0 77.0 100 84.0 77.0 Pavement Scarafier 20 85 90 2 79.0 72.0 100 84.0 77.0
Paver 50 85 77 9 79.0 76.0 100 71.0 68.0
Pickup Truck 40 55 75 1 49.0 45.0 100 69.0 65.0
Pneumatic Tools 50 85 85 90 79.0 76.0 100 79.0 76.0
Pumps 50 77 81 17 71.0 68.0 100 75.0 72.0
Refrigerator Unit 100 82 73 3 76.0 76.0 100 67.0 67.0
Rivit Buster/chipping gun 20 85 79 19 79.0 72.0 100 73.0 66.0 Rock Drill 20 85 81 3 79.0 72.0 100 75.0 68.0
Roller 20 85 80 16 79.0 72.0 100 74.0 67.0
Sand Blasting (Single Nozzle) 20 85 96 9 79.0 72.0 100 90.0 83.0 Scraper 40 85 84 12 79.0 75.0 100 78.0 74.0
Shears (on backhoe) 40 85 96 5 79.0 75.0 100 90.0 86.0
Slurry Plant 100 78 78 1 72.0 72.0 100 72.0 72.0
Slurry Trenching Machine 50 82 80 75 76.0 73.0 100 74.0 71.0 Soil Mix Drill Rig 50 80 na 0 74.0 71.0 100
Tractor 40 84 na 0 78.0 74.0 100
Vacuum Excavator (Vac-truck) 40 85 85 149 79.0 75.0 100 79.0 75.0 Vacuum Street Sweeper 10 80 82 19 74.0 64.0 100 76.0 66.0 Ventilation Fan 100 85 79 13 79.0 79.0 100 73.0 73.0
Vibrating Hopper 50 85 87 1 79.0 76.0 100 81.0 78.0
Vibratory Concrete Mixer 20 80 80 1 74.0 67.0 100 74.0 67.0 Vibratory Pile Driver 20 95 101 44 89.0 82.0 100 95.0 88.0 Warning Horn 5 85 83 12 79.0 66.0 100 77.0 64.0
Welder / Torch 40 73 74 5 67.0 63.0 100 68.0 64.0
chipper 75
Source:
FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model, January 2006. Table 9. 1 U.S. Department of Transportation
CA/T Construction Spec. 721.560
Traffic Noise Spreadsheet Calculator
Project: Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan
Number North-South East-West Roadway Segment
Summary of Net Changes
1 Park Victoria Dr Calaveras Dr. Calaveras West 67.8 67.8 0.0 2 Hillview Dr Calaveras Dr. Calaveras West 69.1 68.9 -0.2 3 Hillview Dr Calaveras Dr. Calaveras East 69.1 68.8 -0.4 4 Milipitas Blvd Calaveras Dr. Calaveras West 69.1 68.8 -0.3 5 Milipitas Blvd Calaveras Dr. Calaveras East 63.5 63.2 -0.2 6 Abel St Calaveras Dr. Abel North 59.1 58.6 -0.4
7 Abel St Sierra Way Abel South 64.1 63.7 -0.4
8 Abel St Calaveras Dr. Calaveras West 70.1 70.0 -0.2
9 Abel St Marylinn Dr Abel North 58.8 58.6 -0.3
10 Abel St Marylinn Dr Abel South 58.5 58.3 -0.3
11 Abbott Ave Calaveras Dr. Calaveras West 64.4 64.2 -0.2 12 Abbott Ave Calaveras Dr. Calaveras East 64.2 64.0 -0.2 13 Abel St Sierra Way Abel South 57.8 57.3 -0.4
14 Abel St Corning Ave Abel South 57.7 57.4 -0.2
15 Abel St Curtis Ave Abel South 58.9 58.5 -0.4
16 Main St Curtis Ave Main South 56.1 55.4 -0.7
*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 levels are reported as A-weighted noise levels.
Cumulative
Conditions
Cumulative +Project
Conditions
Δ Cumulative – Cumulative
+ Project
Segment Description and Location
Cumulative Traffic Noise Spreadsheet Calculator
Project: Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan
Noise Level Descriptor: Ldn
Site Conditions: Hard
Traffic Input: ADT
Traffic K-Factor: 10
Ldn,
Number North-South East-West Roadway Segment (mph) Near Far % Auto % Medium % Heavy % Day % Eve % Night (dBA)5,6,7 75 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA Existing Conditions
1 Park Victoria Dr Calaveras Dr. Calaveras West 24,514 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 67.8 2 Hillview Dr Calaveras Dr. Calaveras West 33,031 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 69.1 3 Hillview Dr Calaveras Dr. Calaveras East 33,787 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 69.1 4 Milipitas Blvd Calaveras Dr. Calaveras West 33,139 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 69.1 5 Milipitas Blvd Calaveras Dr. Calaveras East 39,236 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 63.5 6 Abel St Calaveras Dr. Abel North 14,258 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 59.1 7 Abel St Sierra Way Abel South 10,629 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 64.1 8 Abel St Calaveras Dr. Calaveras West 42,481 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 70.1 9 Abel St Marylinn Dr Abel North 13,503 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 58.8 10 Abel St Marylinn Dr Abel South 12,673 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 58.5 11 Abbott Ave Calaveras Dr. Calaveras West 48,960 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 64.4 12 Abbott Ave Calaveras Dr. Calaveras East 47,130 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 64.2 13 Abel St Sierra Way Abel South 10,629 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 57.8 14 Abel St Corning Ave Abel South 10,370 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 57.7 15 Abel St Curtis Ave Abel South 13,861 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 58.9 16 Main St Curtis Ave Main South 7,210 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 56.1 *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 levels are reported as A-weighted noise levels. 2 8 25 78
1 4 13 41
2 6 19 60
2 6 18 58
9 28 87 276
8 27 84 266
2 8 24 76
2 7 23 71
8 26 82 259
33 103 327 1034
Segment Description and Location Distance to Contour, (feet)3 7 22 70 221
3 8 25 80
25 81 255 806
26 82 260 822
Input Output
ADT
Speed
Distance to
Directional
Centerline, (feet)4 Traffic Distribution Characteristics 19 60 189 596
25 80 254 804
Cumulative + Project Traffic Noise Spreadsheet Calculator Project: Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan
Noise Level Descriptor: Ldn
Site Conditions: Hard
Traffic Input: ADT
Traffic K-Factor: 10
Ldn,
Number North-South East-West Roadway Segment (mph) Near Far % Auto % Medium % Heavy % Day % Eve % Night (dBA)5,6,7 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Existing + Project Conditions
1 Park Victoria Dr Calaveras Dr. Calaveras West 24,670 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 67.8 2 Hillview Dr Calaveras Dr. Calaveras West 31,623 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 68.9 3 Hillview Dr Calaveras Dr. Calaveras East 30,958 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 68.8 4 Milipitas Blvd Calaveras Dr. Calaveras West 31,063 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 68.8 5 Milipitas Blvd Calaveras Dr. Calaveras East 37,067 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 63.2 6 Abel St Calaveras Dr. Abel North 12,932 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 58.6 7 Abel St Sierra Way Abel South 9,615 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 63.7 8 Abel St Calaveras Dr. Calaveras West 40,880 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 70.0 9 Abel St Marylinn Dr Abel North 12,700 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 58.6 10 Abel St Marylinn Dr Abel South 11,871 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 58.3 11 Abbott Ave Calaveras Dr. Calaveras West 47,006 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 64.2 12 Abbott Ave Calaveras Dr. Calaveras East 44,856 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 64.0 13 Abel St Sierra Way Abel South 9,615 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 57.3 14 Abel St Corning Ave Abel South 9,849 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 57.4 15 Abel St Curtis Ave Abel South 12,558 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 58.5 16 Main St Curtis Ave Main South 6,182 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 55.4 *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 levels are reported as A-weighted noise levels. 7 22 71 224
3 11 35 110
5 17 54 172
6 18 56 176
27 84 265 838
25 80 253 800
7 23 72 227
7 21 67 212
23 74 234 740
99 315 995 3145
7 23 73 231
75 238 753 2382
76 239 756 2390
77 243 769 2433
21 66 209 661
Segment Description and Location Distance to Contour, (feet) 3 60 190 600 1898
Input Output
ADT
Speed
Distance to
Directional
Centerline, (feet)4 Traffic Distribution Characteristics
North-South East-West 2015-No Project 2040-No Project AM Peak PM Peak Total Factor 2015-Plus Project 2040-Plus Project SR 113 North 6,890 10,452 10 32 42 6.8 7,176 10,738 SR 113 South 250 378 0 0 0 6.8 250 378 SR 12 West 16,700 23,388 91 237 328 6.8 18,930 25,618 SR 12 East 23,234 33,008 251 165 416 6.8 26,063 35,837 Azevedo Rd North 18 1,904 0 0 0 5.5 18 1,904 Azevedo Rd South 61 132 0 0 0 5.5 61 132 SR 12 West 23,247 32,946 101 269 370 6.8 25,763 35,462 SR 12 East 23,215 30,990 251 165 416 6.8 26,044 33,819 Azevedo Rd South 18 1,904 0 0 0 5.5 18 1,904 Canright Rd West 35 125 0 0 0 5.5 35 125 Canright Rd East 18 1,917 0 0 0 5.5 18 1,917 McCormack Rd West 10 21 9 32 41 6.1 260 271 McCormack Rd East 10 21 10 31 41 6.1 260 271 Summerset Rd North 2,497 4,402 362 236 598 7.1 6,743 8,648 SR 12 West 23,222 30,999 101 269 370 6.8 25,738 33,515 SR 12 East 22,995 30,644 152 377 529 6.8 26,592 34,241 Province Path South 1,432 2,656 119 333 452 6.7 4,460 5,684 Canright Rd West 21 1,920 76 92 168 5.5 945 2,844 Canright Rd East/Liberty Island Road 1,447 4,515 7 19 26 6.3 1,611 4,679 Hillside Ter North 1,494 2,957 0 0 0 6.3 1,494 2,957 SR 12 West 23,418 31,586 355 231 586 6.8 27,403 35,571 SR 12 East 19,719 25,255 129 365 494 6.8 23,078 28,614 SR 84 (River Rd) North 339 457 46 132 178 6.3 1,460 1,578 SR 12 West 21,189 27,284 214 140 354 6.8 23,596 29,691 SR 12 East 20,852 26,827 83 233 316 6.8 23,001 28,976 *- From Solano Napa Travel Demand Model
**-ADT from Travel Model + Project ADT (Estimated from AM and PM peak hour) Source: Kittelson & Associates 2024
ADT**
7 Province Path Canright Rd
Intersection #
Street Name
5 Project Driveway McCormack Rd
Azevedo Rd SR 12
3 Azevedo Rd Canright Rd
6 Summerset Rd
2 9 SR 84 (River Rd)/N Front St SR 12
Project Traffic
8 Hillside Terrace SR 12
SR 12
Road Segment
ADT*
1 SR 113/Birds Landing Rd SR 12
Appendix D
Gateway-Main Street Vehicle Miles
Traveled for Environmental Review
B
e
r
r
y
e
s
s
a
C
r
e
e
k
L
o
w
e
r
P
e
n
i
t
e
n
c
i
a
C
r
e
e
k
S
M
I
L
P
I
T
A
S
B
L
V
D
Y
O
S
E
M
I
T
E
D
R
C
A
L
A
V
E
R
A
S
B
L
V
D
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
S
A
B
E
L
S
T
M
O
N
T
A
G
U
E
E
X
P
Y
G
R
E
A
T
M
A
L
L
P
K
W
Y
M
c
C
A
R
T
H
Y
B
L
V
D
N
A
B
E
L
S
T
J
A
C
K
L
I
N
R
D
N
M
I
L
P
I
T
A
S
B
L
V
D
N
P
A
R
K
V
I
C
T
O
R
I
A
D
R
S
P
A
R
K
V
I
C
T
O
R
I
A
D
R
E
S
C
U
E
L
A
P
K
W
Y
L
O
S
C
O
C
H
E
S
S
T
T
O
P
A
Z
S
T
S
H
I
L
L
V
I
E
W
D
R
G
I
B
R
A
L
T
A
R
D
R
A
M
E
S
A
V
E
B
A
R
B
E
R
L
N
T
E
C
H
N
O
L
O
G
Y
D
R
B
E
L
L
E
W
D
R
R
A
N
C
H
D
R
N
M
c
C
A
R
T
H
Y
B
L
V
D
S
P
E
N
S
E
A
V
E
M
A
R
Y
L
I
N
N
D
R
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
A
V
E
C
A
R
L
O
S
T
S
E
R
R
A
W
Y
J
U
N
I
P
E
R
O
D
R
C
O
R
N
I
N
G
A
V
E
S
Y
L
V
I
A
A
V
E
H
A
M
M
O
N
D
W
Y
M
A
C
H
A
D
O
A
V
E
T
H
O
M
P
S
O
N
S
T
C
U
R
T
I
S
A
V
E
E
T
A
S
M
A
N
D
R
·
2 3
7 %
&
8 8
0 %
&
680
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
Æ
b
a
B
A
R
T
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
"
X
L
i
g
h
t
R
a
i
l
S
t
o
p
L
i
g
h
t
R
a
i
l
R
a
i
l
w
a
y
B
A
R
T
L
i
n
e
Roadway Classification (Milpitas General Plan Update Existing Conditions Report, June 2018)
PREPARED FOR
WC21-3846
ASCENT ENVIRONMENTAL
CITY OF MILPITAS
NOVEMBER 2024
Vehicle Miles
Traveled
(VMT) for the
Environmental
Review
MILPITAS GATEWAY -
MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN:
FEHR & PEERS
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Project Description ..................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Description ............................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.2.1 Districts ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.2.2 Land Use Framework ............................................................................................................................................... 3
1.2.3 Mobility Overview ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Recent Changes to CEQA Transportation Analysis ...............................................................................................10
1.4 Analysis Scenarios...............................................................................................................................................................10
1.5 Report Organization ..........................................................................................................................................................10
2. VMT Approach and Analysis Methods .................................................................................. 11
2.1 Overview of Senate Bill 743 and Legal Framework ...............................................................................................11
2.2 Approach ................................................................................................................................................................................12
2.2.1 Summary of VMT Methods Decisions ............................................................................................................14
2.3 VMT Accounting Methods ..............................................................................................................................................16
2.3.1 Project Generated VMT ........................................................................................................................................17
2.3.2 Project’s Effect on VMT (Using Boundary VMT) .........................................................................................17
3. Significance Criteria ................................................................................................................ 20
3.1 VMT Significance Criteria .................................................................................................................................................20
3.1.1 Project-Generated VMT Impact Thresholds and Impact Criteria .........................................................21
3.1.2 Project’s Effect on VMT Thresholds and Impact Criteria .........................................................................22
4. Vehicle Miles Traveled Forecasts ........................................................................................... 24
4.1 Daily VMT Forecasts...........................................................................................................................................................24
4.1.1 Total Project Generated VMT Forecasts .........................................................................................................24
4.1.2 Boundary VMT Forecasts .....................................................................................................................................25
4.2 City of Milpitas Travel Model .........................................................................................................................................26
4.2.1 City of Milpitas Travel Model Documentation ............................................................................................26
4.2.2 Model Input Adjustments ....................................................................................................................................27
5. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Assessment ........................................................... 29
5.1 VMT Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................29
5.1.1 Total Project Generated VMT Assessment ....................................................................................................29
5.1.2 Project’s Effect on VMT Analysis (Cumulative Analysis) ..........................................................................34
List of Figures
Figure 1: Milpitas Gateway–Main Street Specific Plan Boundary ...................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Milpitas Gateway–Main Street Focus Areas ........................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3: Mobility Framework .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 4: Existing Transit Routes ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 5: Bicycle and Micro-Mobility Framework .................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 6: Measuring Vehicle Miles Traveled ........................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 7: Transportation-Related GHG Reduction Measures........................................................................................... 31
List of Tables
Table 1: Specific Plan Land Use Comparison ............................................................................................................................. 5 Table 2: Specific Plan Population Comparison ......................................................................................................................... 5 Table 3: VMT Significance Thresholds ....................................................................................................................................... 20 Table 4: Project Generated VMT Threshold ............................................................................................................................ 22 Table 5: Project’s Effect on VMT (Boundary VMT) Cumulative Threshold .................................................................. 23 Table 6: Project Generated VMT Forecasts ............................................................................................................................. 24 Table 7: Boundary VMT Forecasts ............................................................................................................................................... 25 Table 8: External Station Adjustments at Bay Area Regional Boundary ...................................................................... 28 Table 9: Total Project-Generated VMT Assessment ............................................................................................................ 30 Table 10: Project’s Effect (Boundary) VMT Assessment ..................................................................................................... 35 Table A-1: Project Generated VMT Forecasts......................................................................................................................... 37
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
1 1. Introduction and
Project Description
This report presents results of the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis conducted to evaluate the environmental effects of the proposed Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (referred to as the Specific Plan). The Specific Plan includes a combination of land uses and revises the previously approved Midtown Specific Plan (adopted in 2002 and updated in 2010) included in Milpitas’s General Plan. The Specific Plan results in an increase in dwelling units and a decrease in non-residential square footage compared to the Midtown Specific Plan. The Specific Plan boundaries have also expanded (including the area bounded by Calaveras Boulevard, S Abbott Avenue, Alvarez Common, and S Abel Street, and the residential area between the Great Mall and Curtis Avenue) from Midtown to focus on planning efforts to revitalize Main Street and Calaveras.
Figure 1 shows the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan boundary and location within the City of Milpitas and the surrounding transportation network.
This chapter outlines the report purpose, project description, recent changes in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regarding transportation analyses, the analysis scenarios, and report organization.
1.1 Purpose
The primary purpose of this report is to present the VMT analysis for compliance with CEQA, including identification of potentially significant impacts and applicable recommended mitigation for inclusion in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Specifically, this report includes a VMT impact analysis. Project effects on the environment were evaluated following CEQA guidelines along with guidance from the City of Milpitas Transportation Analysis Guidelines (March 2022).
"
X
"
X
"
X
Æ
b
a
2 0
2 1
0 0
6 0
.
0 1
G
I
S
0 0
6 0
0 .
2 5
0 .
5 M
i
l
e
s
2 /
3 /
2 0
2 2
F
i
g
u
r
e
1 R
o
a
d
w
a
y
N
e
t
w
o
r
k
B
e
r
r
y
e
s
s
a
C
r
e
e
k
L
o
w
e
r
P
e
n
i
t
e
n
c
i
a
C
r
e
e
k
S
M
I
L
P
I
T
A
S
B
L
V
D
Y
O
S
E
M
I
T
E
D
R
C
A
L
A
V
E
R
A
S
B
L
V
D
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
S
A
B
E
L
S
T
M
O
N
T
A
G
U
E
E
X
P
Y
G
R
E
A
T
M
A
L
L
P
K
W
Y
M
c
C
A
R
T
H
Y
£
B
L
V
D
N
£
A
B
E
L
£
S
T
J
A
C
K
L
I
N
R
D
N
£
M
I
L
P
I
T
A
S
£
B
L
V
D
N
P
A
R
K
V
I
C
T
O
R
I
A
D
R
S
P
A
R
K
V
I
C
T
O
R
I
A
D
R
E
S
C
U
E
L
A
£
P
K
W
Y
L
O
S
C
O
C
H
E
S
S
T
T
O
P
A
Z
S
T
S
H
I
L
L
V
I
E
W
D
R
G
I
B
R
A
L
T
A
R
D
R
A
M
E
S
A
V
E
B
A
R
B
E
R
L
N
T
E
C
H
N
O
L
O
G
Y
D
R
B
E
L
L
E
W
D
R
R
A
N
C
H
£
D
R
N
£
M
c
C
A
R
T
H
Y
£
B
L
V
D
S
P
E
N
S
E
A
V
E
M
A
R
Y
L
I
N
N
D
R
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
A
V
E
C
A
R
L
O
S
T
S
E
R
R
A
W
Y
J
U
N
I
P
E
R
O
D
R
C
O
R
N
I
N
G
A
V
E
S
Y
L
V
I
A
A
V
E
H
A
M
M
O
N
D
W
Y
M
A
C
H
A
D
O
A
V
E
T
H
O
M
P
S
O
N
S
T
C
U
R
T
I
S
A
V
E
E
£
T
A
S
M
A
N
£
D
R
·
2 3
7 %
&
8 8
0 %
&
680
\\fpainc.local\Dfs-ent-data\Walnut Creek N Drive\PROJECTS\_WC21\WC21-3846.00_Milpitas_MainSt-Gateway_SpecificPlan-EIR\Graphics\ADOBE\Fig01.ai Roadway Network
Figure 1
Æ
b
a
"
X
BART Station
BART Line
Light Rail Stop
Light Rail
Railway
Collector
Roadway Classification
Data Source: Milpitas General Plan Update Existing Conditions Report, June 2018 Arterial
Expressway
Highway
• --
-
-
'
' '
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
3 1.2 Project Description
The Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Area (Specific Plan Area), formerly Midtown Milpitas, includes the historic commercial core of the City of Milpitas, centered on Main Street and the Calaveras Gateway at I- 880. The Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (Specific Plan) updates the vision, standards, and policies of the Midtown Specific Plan, first adopted in 2002 and last updated in 2010. It implements the General Plan vision to rebrand Midtown Milpitas to the Gateway-Main Street area, with a renewed focus on revitalizing Main Street as the city’s historic core and improving Calaveras Boulevard as an important western gateway into the city.
The Specific Plan Area (or Plan Area) is located west of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line, as shown in Figure 1, and covers approximately 605 acres in the center of Milpitas. It encompasses Calaveras Boulevard, Main Street, and the former Midtown Milpitas area bordered by I-880 to the west, the UPRR tracks to the east, and Great Mall Parkway to the south. Two heavy rail lines, the UPRR freight line and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) commuter rail line, traverse the Plan Area to the east. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) operates light rail transit (LRT) service nearby, with an adjacent stop along Great Mall Parkway at Main Street; the stop and interconnecting bus lines serve the Plan Area.
1.2.1 Districts
For planning purposes, the Plan Area has been organized into four priority focus areas: Main Street, Crossroads, Gateway, and Abbott districts, as shown in Figure 2. The Plan Area includes two other districts, the Library District and Creekside Industrial District, as well three urban reserve areas, the Elmwood Correctional Facility (Elmwood), the north Union Pacific Railroad yard (North Railyards), and the south Union Pacific Railroad yard (South Railyards). There are also existing single-family residential neighborhoods within and adjacent to the Plan Area, and those are considered neighborhood preservation areas.
1.2.2 Land Use Framework
The Specific Plan Land Use Framework is described in Table 1. The Land Use Framework implements the vision for the Specific Plan focus areas through a series of tailored and place-based Specific Plan zones, as well as existing applicable citywide zones and new Urban Reserve Areas. Areas not expected to change in land use or character will continue to be regulated through the existing land use and development regulations in the City of Milpitas Zoning Ordinance.
Compared to the Existing Conditions (2020), the Specific Plan would add 2,773 residential dwelling units and approximately 200,000 square feet of non-residential development. As presented in Table 1, the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan proposes an additional 1,338 dwelling units in addition to the previously approved 1,435 dwelling units projected in the Milpitas 2040 General Plan for the Midtown Specific Plan. However, the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan proposes reducing the non-residential square footage from the approximately 1.4 million square feet identified in the General Plan to about 200,000 square feet, accounting for greater mixed-use and redevelopment on existing sites.
880
237
Starlite
Park
Berryessa Creek Trail
O'Toole
Elms Park
Parc Metro
East
Parc Metro
West
Parc Metro
Central
John
McDermott
Park
Tom Evatt
Park
ooleO'TooO'TooOOOO TTT'T'T
ParkElms PaElms PasmsEEEEEEEElElElElmsmsmmsss
1/4Mile R. to Great Mall LightRailStaঞon
1/2 Mile R. to Great Mall LightRailStaঞon
3 1
4 5
6 7
8 9
2 SERRA WY
CURTIS AVE
HAMMOND WAY
S MILPITAS BLVD
BERRYESSA CREEK
PENITENCIA CREEK
BARBER LN
TOPAZ ST
GIBRALTAR DR
RAILROAD AVE
S. MAIN ST
S. ABEL ST
THOMPSON ST
CARLO ST
SPENSE AVE
S ABBOTT AVE
BUTLER ST
JUNIPERO AVE
CORNING AVE
SYLVIA AVE
MACHADO AVE
GREAT MALL PKWY
CALAVERAS BLVD
10 1011
1. Main Street District
2. Crossroads District
3. Gateway District
4. Abbott District
FOCUS AREAS OTHER DISTRICTS URBAN RESERVE AREAS EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS
5. Library District
6. Creekside Industrial
District
7. North Railyards District
8. South Railyards District
9. Elmwood District
10. West of Abel Neighborhood
11. Curtis Neighborhood
0 300' 600' 1,200'
MILPITAS GATEWAY/hyphen.caseMAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN 21 REVISED DRAFT AUGUST 2024 Figure 2-1 District and Neighborhood Framework
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 \\fpainc.local\Dfs-ent-data\Walnut Creek N Drive\PROJECTS\_WC21\WC21-3846.00_Milpitas_MainSt-Gateway_SpecificPlan-EIR\Graphics\ADOBE\Fig02.ai Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Focus Areas
Figure 2
Source: Ascent Environmental, August, 2024
'
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
5 Similarly, Table 2 shows the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan results in about 6,500 more residents and 250 more employees than Existing Conditions.
Table 1: Specific Plan Land Use Comparison
Location
Existing
Conditions
(2020)
Midtown
Specific
Plan1
Project:
Gateway-
Main Street
Specific Plan
Project – Existing2
Change % Change
Residential Dwelling Units 2,403 3,838 5,176 2,773 215.4% Non-Residential Square Footage 1,858,642 3,293,240 2,058,666 200,024 10.7% Note:
1. In Milpitas 2040 General Plan
2. Change (Project – Existing) = Project Conditions column – Existing Conditions column.
Source: Fehr & Peers, June 2024.
Table 2: Specific Plan Population Comparison
Location
Existing
Conditions
(2020)
Midtown
Specific
Plan1
Project:
Gateway-
Main Street
Specific Plan
Project – Existing2
Change % Change
Residents 9,480 12,568 16,384 6,904 172.8%
Employees 4,642 7,898 5,541 899 19.4%
Note:
1. In Milpitas 2040 General Plan
2. Change (Project – Existing) = Project Conditions column – Existing Conditions column.
Source: Fehr & Peers, June 2024.
1.2.3 Mobility Overview
The Gateway-Main Street area lies between two freeways, I-880 and I-680 to the west and east, respectively. SR 237 turns into Calaveras Boulevard and runs through the area connecting the two freeways, and thus carries a significant amount of regional traffic, as shown in Figure 3. Abel Street serves as a north-south connector that runs through the area. Great Mall Parkway serves as an east -west connector that runs to the south of the area and has Class II Bike Lanes. The VTA Orange Line light rail system and VTA Bus Routes 44 and 66 run along Great Mall Parkway, as shown in Figure 4. The City’s Simple Mobile Access to Reliable Transit (SMART) on-demand rideshare service supports VTA as a first/last mile connection within Milpitas. SMART has numerous stops within the Plan area, primarily along Main Street. There are existing Class I bike paths through O’Toole Elms Park and adjacent to Machado Avenue from Thompson Street to Hammond Way, as shown in Figure 5. The goal of the mobility framework is to promote the use of roadways by all modes of transportation, including walking, biking, shared-use micro-mobility, transit, and vehicles.
I I I I
I-
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
6 Proposed high level features of the Specific Plan promote the use of the roadways by all modes of transportation through multimodal community corridors, future streets and alleys to reduce block sizes and enhance walkability, reducing vehicle travel lane widths where possible, a proposed bikeway network and micromobility infrastructure, and central transit hubs and shuttle routes. Main Street from Railroad Avenue to Curtis Avenue is proposed to be a shared street. There are proposed Class I bike paths on Machado Avenue, Calaveras Boulevard, Abel Street, and Thompson Street. There are proposed Class II bike lanes on Curtis Avenue, Corning Avenue, Hammond Way, Sinnott Lane, and Carlo Street. There are proposed Class IV separated bikeways on Abbott Avenue and Serra Way. Micromobility hubs are proposed for locations along Main Street, west of Serra Way, and along Thompson Street shown in Figure
5.
MILPITAS GATEWAY/hyphen.caseMAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN 99 REVISED DRAFT AUGUST 2024 880
237
Starlite
Park
Berryessa Creek Trail
O'Toole
Elms Park
Parc Metro
East
Parc Metro
West
Parc Metro
Central
John
McDermott
Park
Tom Evatt
Park
SERRA WY
CURTIS AVE
HAMMOND WAY
S MILPITAS BLVD
PENITENCIA CREEK
BARBER LN
TOPAZ ST
GIBRALTAR DR
RAILROAD AVE
MAIN ST
S. ABEL ST
THOMPSON ST
CARLO ST.
SPENSE AVE
S. ABBOTT AVEBUTLER ST
JUNIPERO AVE
CORNING AVE
SYLVIA AVE
MACHADO AVE
E TASMAN DR
GREAT MALL PKWY
CALAVERAS BLVD
SINNOTT LN
P
P
P
P
P
P
T
T
Existing Street
Future Street
Future Service Alley
Future Public Parking Area
Existing Public Parking Area
Existing Transit Hub
Future Transit Hub
Existing Light Rail Station
Existing Railway
Existing Light Rail Line
Existing BART Line
Potential Future At-Grade Rail Crossing (To Be Studied) T
T
P
P
0 300' 600' 1,200'
Figure 5-1 Mobility Framework
\\fpainc.local\Dfs-ent-data\Walnut Creek N Drive\PROJECTS\_WC21\WC21-3846.00_Milpitas_MainSt-Gateway_SpecificPlan-EIR\Graphics\ADOBE\Fig04.ai Mobility Framework
Figure 3
Source: Ascent Environmental, August, 2024
-••••
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Berryessa Creek
Lower Penitencia Creek
S MILPITAS BLVD
YOSEMITE DR
CALAVERAS BLVD
S MAIN STS ABEL ST
MONTAGUE EXPY
GREAT MALL PKWY
M
cCARTHY BLVD
N ABEL ST
JACKLIN RD
N M
ILPITAS BLVD
N PARK VICTORIA DR
S PARK VICTORIA DR
ESCUELA PKW
Y
LOS COCHES ST
TOPAZ ST
S HILLVIEW DR
GIBRALTAR DR AMES AVE
BARBER LN
TECHNOLOGY DR
BELLEW DR
RANCH DR
N
M
cCARTHY BLVD
SPENSE AVE
MARYLINN DR
RAILROAD AVE
CARLO ST
SERRA WY
JUNIPERO DR
CORNING AVE
SYLVIA AVE
HAMMOND WY
MACHADO AVETHOMPSON ST
CURTIS AVE
E TASMAN DR
66 66
Express 104
217 AC Transit
Express 104
44 71
ACE Purple
ACE Violet
ACE Violet
47 44/47
Tom Evatt Park
O'Toole
Elms Park
Parc Metro
East
Parc Metro
West
John
McDermott
Park
Light Rail Stop
1/4 Mile and 1/2
Mile Radius of
Light Rail Stops
BART Station
Bus Routes
Railway
BART Line
44/47
ACE Violet71
ACE Purple
Express 104
66 217 AC Transit
"X
Æba
Light Rail (Orange Line)
2 0
2 1
0 0
6 0
.
0 1
G
I
S
0 0
6 2
/
3 /
2 0
2 2
Figure 4
Transit Routes
\\fpainc.local\Dfs-ent-data\Walnut Creek N Drive\PROJECTS\_WC21\WC21-3846.00_Milpitas_MainSt-Gateway_SpecificPlan-EIR\Graphics\ADOBE\Fig03.ai Transit Routes
Figure 4
Light Rail Stop
1/4 Mile and 1/2
Mile Radius of
Light Rail Stops
BART Station
Bus Routes
Railway
BART Line
44/47
ACE Violet71
ACE Purple
Express 104
66 217 AC T ransit"X
Æba
Light Rail (Orange Line)
------ --------- ---
MILPITAS GATEWAY/hyphen.caseMAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN 121 REVISED DRAFT AUGUST 2024 Figure 5-18 Bicycle and Micro-Mobility Framework
880
237
Starlite
Park
Berryessa Creek Trail
O'Toole
Elms Park
Parc Metro
East
Parc Metro
West
Parc Metro
Central
John
McDermott
Park
Tom Evatt
Park
T
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
T
SERRA WY
CURTIS AVE
HAMMOND WAY
S MILPITAS BLVD
PENITENCIA CREEK
BARBER LN
TOPAZ ST
GIBRALTAR DR
RAILROAD AVE
MAIN ST
S. ABEL ST
THOMPSON ST
CARLO ST.
SPENSE AVE
S. ABBOTT AVEBUTLER ST
JUNIPERO AVE
CORNING AVE
SYLVIA AVE
MACHADO AVE
E TASMAN DR
GREAT MALL PKWY
CALAVERAS BLVD
SINNOTT LN
Existing Class I Bike Path
Proposed Class I Bike Path
Proposed Class II Bike Lane
Proposed Class IV Separated Bikeway
Main Street Shared Street
Parks and Open Space
Future Micro-Mobility Hub
Future Transit Hub
Existing Transit Hub
Existing Light Rail Station
M
T
T
0 300' 600' 1,200'
\\fpainc.local\Dfs-ent-data\Walnut Creek N Drive\PROJECTS\_WC21\WC21-3846.00_Milpitas_MainSt-Gateway_SpecificPlan-EIR\Graphics\ADOBE\Fig04.ai Bicycle and Micro-Mobility Framework
Figure 5
Source: Ascent Environmental, August, 2024
----------
■
■
■
■
■
--
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
10 1.3 Recent Changes to CEQA Transportation Analysis
Senate Bill (SB) 743 changed how transportation impacts under CEQA are analyzed. SB 743 removed the use of automobile delay or traffic congestion for determining transportation impacts in environmental review. The latest CEQA Statute & Guidelines specify that VMT is the appropriate metric to evaluate transportation impacts (Chapter 2 provides additional context). In short, SB 743 changes the focus of transportation impact analysis in CEQA from measuring impacts to drivers to measuring the impact of driving.
The Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan is a large project that will increase the density of dwelling units and reduce the non-residential square footage compared to the previously approved Midtown Specific Plan, which will influence the total VMT within Milpitas and nearby.
1.4 Analysis Scenarios
The VMT analysis includes the following study scenarios:
• Scenario 1: Existing Conditions – Existing (2020) travel characteristics. • Scenario 2: Cumulative Conditions – Year 2040 travel behavior based on the 2040 travel model, Plan Bay Area 2040 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) land use projections, and planned and funded transportation system improvements noted in the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2040. The Specific Plan area would reflect the approved General Plan (which includes the Midtown Specific Plan) land uses.
• Scenario 3: Cumulative with Project Conditions – Scenario 2 travel characteristics plus the replacement of the Midtown Specific Plan land uses with the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan land uses.
1.5 Report Organization
This report is divided into five chapters:
• Chapter 1 – Introduction and Project Description discusses the report purpose, proposed project description, a description of recent changes to CEQA transportation analysis, a summary of the analysis scenarios, and report organization.
• Chapter 2 – VMT Approach and Analysis Methods discusses the approach for a comprehensive VMT assessment, the forecasting methods used to estimate total VMT per service population rate , and the project’s effect on VMT using boundary VMT per service population. • Chapter 3 – Significance Criteria lists the significance criteria used for the environmental impact analysis.
• Chapter 4 – Vehicle Miles Traveled Forecasts summarizes the VMT forecast methods including the City of Milpitas travel model overview.
• Chapter 5 – Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Assessment includes a VMT analysis.
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
11 2. VMT Approach and
Analysis Methods
This chapter provides an overview of SB 743 and the legal framework, and VMT assessment approach decisions and analysis methods.
2.1 Overview of Senate Bill 743 and Legal Framework
On September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743 into law and started a process intended to fundamentally change transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. Specifically, the legislation directed the State of California’s OPR to look at different metrics for identifying transportation impacts and make corresponding revisions to the CEQA Statute & Guidelines. The initial bill included two legislative intent statements (emphasis and bullets added):
• New methodologies under the California Environmental Quality Act are needed for evaluating transportation impacts that are better able to promote the state’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and traffic-related air pollution, promoting the development of a multimodal transportation system, and providing clean, efficient access to destinations. • More appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
These statements provided direction to OPR and lead agencies. For OPR, the direction is about what the new metrics should achieve. For lead agencies, the direction is about expected changes in transportation analysis (and related technical areas) and what factors to consider for significance thresholds.
To implement this intent, SB 743 contains amendments to current congestion management law that allow cities and counties to opt out of the LOS standards that would otherwise apply. SB 743 does not prevent a lead agency from continuing to analyze delay or LOS as part of other plans (e.g., a general plan), fee programs, or ongoing network monitoring. However, automobile delay as described by LOS is no longer considered a significant impact on the environment for purposes of CEQA. Lead agencies may still consider vehicle LOS outside of the CEQA process if they determine it is an important part of their transportation planning process. The most common applications will occur for jurisdictions wanting to use vehicle LOS to plan roadways in their general plans or determine nexus relationships for their impact fee programs. Jurisdictions can also continue to condition projects to build transportation improvements through the entitlement process in a variety of ways.
Following several years of draft proposals and related public comments, OPR settled upon VMT as the preferred metric for assessing passenger vehicle-related impacts and issued revised CEQA Statute & Guidelines in December 2018, along with a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
12 CEQA (December 2018) (OPR Technical Advisory) to assist practitioners in implementing the CEQA Statute & Guidelines revisions. Under the revised CEQA Statute & Guidelines, vehicle LOS is no longer used to determine significant environmental impacts under CEQA, and analysis of a project’s impacts will now be based on assessment of VMT.
The OPR Technical Advisory provides guidance and recommendations for SB 743 implementation.
However, lead agencies must still make their own specific decisions about metrics, methods, thresholds, and mitigation. Further, the OPR guidance is primarily tied to statewide goals for gre enhouse gas (GHG) reduction and does not attempt to balance or resolve potential conflicts between state and lead agency goals, such as those expressed in local agency general plans and/or climate action plans.
The use of VMT as a metric focuses on the total amount of driving, rather than the driving experience. This new view presents an impact filter intended to promote the reduction of GHG emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. VMT can help identify how projects (land development and infrastructure) influence accessibility (i.e., access to places and people), noise, and emissions; thus, its selection as a metric is aligned with the objectives of SB 743.
Many jurisdictions find it useful to express VMT as an efficiency metric (e.g., VMT per person or VMT per employee). This form of the metric is unrelated to the level of activity in a particular location and more about how efficiently the people at that location travel. A project that contributes to a more efficient use of the transportation system would reduce the total VMT per person as compared to a no-project scenario. A commonly used efficiency metric is “total VMT per service population,” in which the denominator, called “service population,” includes all the variables that generate vehicle trips in the models that estimate VMT; in most instances, this will be the total number of all residents and employees in the analysis area or project. However, it may also include other categories of people, such as visitors or students, if those categories are used in the trip generation estimates in the model. Based on the background context outlined above, the remainder of this chapter provides informa tion about key decisions the City of Milpitas staff made regarding VMT metrics, calculation methods, and impact thresholds.
2.2 Approach
Under CEQA, agencies must decide what constitutes a significant environmental impact. The CEQA Statute & Guidelines encourage local agencies to adopt thresholds of significance. The thresholds for VMT can be quantitative (i.e., a measured value such as the concentration of GHG emissions in the atmosphere) or qualitative performance standards (e.g., VMT on local streets) by which the agency can measure the relative magnitude of an impact caused by a project to determine if the project’s impacts are significa nt.
In fact, the new CEQA Statute & Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4) empower lead agencies to choose the most appropriate VMT methods for transportation impact analysis:
Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household, or in any other measure. A lead agenc y may use
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
13 models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be docume nted and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.
The City of Milpitas updated their Transportation Analysis Guidelines in March 2022 to provide guidance for CEQA-compliant transportation analyses pursuant to SB 743 for all projects in the city. Considering the information and options provided in the Transportation Analysis Guidelines, city staff chose to prepare a comprehensive VMT assessment to evaluate the effect of this large land use project. The comprehensive VMT assessment (i.e., VMT including all vehicle trips, vehicle types, and trip purposes without separation by land use) presented in this report considers the project’s long-term effect on VMT1 based on direct and indirect impacts under cumulative conditions. This VMT approach was prepared by transportation engineers and support staff with a strong understanding of CEQA practice and a focus on consistency and compliance with CEQA Statute & Guidelines.
The OPR Technical Advisory provides a blueprint for organizing key decisions regarding SB 743 methods:
the decisions listed later in this section follow the basic structure of the OPR Technical Advisory. The OPR Technical Advisory recommends considering a project’s short-term, long-term, and cumulative effects on VMT but provides limited recommendations on how to prepare a comprehensive VMT assessment for large land use projects.
City staff considered the substantial evidence presented in the OPR Technical Advisory and the Transportation Analysis Guidelines to make key decisions about the VMT forecasting model, VMT accounting methods, calculation of the baseline and cumulative regional VMT estimates, and VMT thresholds required for a comprehensive analysis.
The inclusion of a project’s effects on VMT for retail projects in the OPR Technical Advisory is one of the reasons the analysis presented here includes all trip purposes and vehicle types, without separation of VMT by land use, and an evaluation of a project’s effects on VMT (i.e., total project-generated VMT per service population and boundary VMT).
The expectations of a CEQA impact analysis to provide a complete picture of the VMT effects on the environment are highlighted within the CEQA Statute & Guidelines in the following sections.
1 This is in contrast with the OPR Technical Advisory recommendation to use partial VMT for transportation impact analysis (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory: On Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, pages 15 and 16). Using partial VMT for project generated VMT screening may not tell the full story of the project’s benefits. For example, mixed-use projects help reduce VMT by shortening vehicle trip lengths or reducing vehicle trips because of the convenience of walking, bicycling, or using transit between project destinations. A comprehensive VMT analysis is a more complete evaluation.
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
14 • CEQA Guidelines – Expectations for Environmental Impact Analysis ◦ § 15003 (F) = fullest possible protection of the environment… ◦ § 15003 (I) = adequacy, completeness, and good-faith effort at full disclosure… ◦ § 15125 (C) = EIR must demonstrate that the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project were adequately investigated…
◦ § 15144 = an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose… ◦ § 15151 = sufficient analysis to allow a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences…
All of these suggest that completeness and accuracy is important when judging an adequate analysis.
Furthermore, to understand the effects of a project, VMT inputs for air quality, GHG emissions, and energy consumption already require a comprehensive analysis of total “project-generated” VMT and “project’s effect on VMT” using local or regional travel forecasting models:
• Total (project-generated) VMT per service population (Direct/Project Impacts): The sum of the “VMT from” and “VMT to” and within a specific geographic area are divided by the sum of the number of residents and employees in the same geographic area. • Project’s effects on VMT per service population (Cumulative Impacts): An evaluation of the change in travel between Without and With Project Conditions on all roadways within a geographic area under Cumulative Conditions divided by the sum of the number of residents and employees in the same geographic area.
Both total VMT and the project’s effects on VMT are needed to fully account for VMT effects that may include changes to VMT generation from neighboring land uses. The importance of a comprehensive analysis using all VMT per service population and that considers a project’s effects on VMT is that land use projects can influence the routing of existing trips and the VMT generation of surrounding land uses.2
2.2.1 Summary of VMT Methods Decisions
Implementation of a comprehensive VMT assessment requires certain methodological decisions. The following steps were taken to establish SB 743 VMT thresholds:
• Select a VMT calculation tool
◦ Use the City of Milpitas’s version of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) - City/County of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) Bi-County Travel Model (City of Milpitas- Travel Model)
• Select the VMT accounting method(s)
2 Typical CEQA practice focuses on environmental effects that occur on a typical weekday, so all references to VMT in this document are intended to mean VMT that occurs on a typical weekday.
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
15 ◦ Total (project-generated) VMT per service population (Direct/Project Impacts): The sum of the VMT within the specified geographic area (internal-internal trips), “VMT from” the specified geographic area (internal-external trips), and “VMT to” the specified geographic area (external-internal trips), divided by the sum of the number of residents and employees, in the same geographic area.
◦ Home-based (project generated) VMT per resident (Direct/Project Impacts): The sum of the VMT generated by light-duty vehicles that start or end from a residential land use within the specified geographic area (internal-internal trips), “VMT from” the specified geographic area (internal-external trips), and “VMT to” the specified geographic area (external-internal trips), divided by the sum of the number of residents in the same geographic area. ◦ Home-based work (project generated) VMT per employee (Direct/Project Impacts) : The sum of the VMT generated by light-duty vehicles that start or end from an employment land use within the specified geographic area (internal-internal trips), “VMT from” the specified geographic area (internal-external trips), and “VMT to” the specified geographic area (external-internal trips), divided by the sum of the number of employees in the same geographic area.
◦ Project’s effects on VMT per service population (Cumulative Impacts): An evaluation of the change in travel between Without and With Project Conditions on all roadways within a geographic area under the Cumulative Conditions scenario, divided by the sum of the number of residents and employees in the same geographic area. • Calculate the baseline and cumulative regional VMT estimates ◦ The analysis presented here uses VMT from all trip purposes and vehicle types (i.e., there is no separation of VMT by land use) for Santa Clara County or region (defined as Santa Clara County, Alameda County, and San Mateo County) with a baseline set as Existing Conditions VMT on all roadways in Santa Clara County and in the region, and cumulative set as VMT on all roadways in Santa Clara County and in the region under Cumulative Conditions (refer to the VMT Accounting Methods sections for detailed descriptions). • Set the VMT threshold(s)
◦ The threshold to be applied in assessing project-specific impacts is 15% below the existing total VMT per service population rate, home-based VMT per resident rate, and home-based work VMT per employee rate for the county. (Refer to Table 3 and Table 4 in Chapter 3 for additional details about this threshold.)
◦ The threshold to be applied in assessing cumulative impacts (project’s effect on VMT) is no change in the cumulative conditions (future) boundary VMT per service population for the region. (Refer to Table 3 and Table 5 in Chapter 3 for additional details about this threshold.)
For direct impacts, total VMT per service population is the metric used to evaluate how the project VMT changes (increases or decreases) between the Without Project and With Project scenarios, considering
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
16 both VMT increases due to growth and VMT reductions due to changes in travel behavior. Total VMT per service population is used to evaluate if the VMT rate due to the project (i.e., the direct impacts) is greater than a specified VMT threshold; however, it does not evaluate a project’s effect on VMT on the entire roadway system,3 which is evaluated as part of the cumulative analysis. 4 Regarding the cumulative analysis, the Specific Plan land use changes are minor in the context of the regional residential population and employment; therefore, it is to be expected that the project’s effect on VMT (cumulative impact) would have localized VMT effects. Therefore, the project’s effect on VMT, as evaluated by the cumulative effects of the project’s land use and transportation changes, compares the changes in boundary VMT per service population5 between the Cumulative Condition and the Cumulative with Project Condition. Each scenario is described in Chapter 1.
For the reasons listed above, the analysis presented in this report focuses on the VMT for all trip purposes and vehicle types without separation of VMT by land use. For the project analysis, the total project- generated VMT threshold was developed using the Existing Conditions total VMT for the region because the net increase in residents would be within Milpitas. As a result, most of the Specific Plan total VMT would be within the region and, therefore, impacts assessed against the regionwide baseline is t he most appropriate assessment of the project’s direct impact. Like the total VMT baseline rate, the boundary VMT baseline uses the regionwide boundary VMT to evaluate the project’s effects on VMT because the project effects are likely to be localized near the Specific Plan area and within the region.
2.3 VMT Accounting Methods
To understand the VMT forecasts and VMT impact analysis, this section defines important VMT terms and analysis methods. The City of Milpitas travel model was used to develop daily VMT forecasts for the following metrics:
• Project Generated VMT: The sum of VMT associated with travel from, to, and within a project site.
• Project’s Effect on VMT (within a selected geographic boundary): An evaluation of the change in total vehicle travel within a defined geographic area boundary, compared between the Without Project and With Project conditions. The boundary for a project’s analysis will be selected based on project characteristics such as size and location.
Project generated VMT per service population is the metric used to evaluate how the project VMT changes (increases or decreases) between the Without Project and With Project scenarios, considering
3 An often-cited example of how a project can affect VMT is the addition of a grocery store in a food desert. Residents of a neighborhood without a grocery store often travel a great distance to an existing grocery store. Adding the grocery store to that neighborhood will shorten many of the grocery shopping trips and reduce the VMT to/from the neighborhood. This concept is likely to occur with the addition of housing in Milpitas. 4 For this analysis, service population is defined as the sum of all residents and employees. 5 Boundary VMT captures all VMT on a roadway network within a specified geographic area, including local trips plus inter-regional travel, which does not have an origin or destination within the area.
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
17 both VMT increases due to growth and VMT reductions due to changes in travel behavior. As noted earlier, project generated VMT per service population is used to evaluate if the VMT rate due to the project is greater than a specified VMT threshold; however, it does not evaluate a project’s effect on VMT across an entire roadway system. The project’s effect on VMT compares the changes in boundary VMT per service population between the Cumulative Condition and Cumulative with Project Conditions. The analysis presented in this report focuses on the VMT for all trip purposes and vehicle types (i.e., there is no separation of VMT by land use).
2.3.1 Project Generated VMT
The project generated VMT is calculated by summing the “VMT within” the specified geographic area (internal-internal trips), “VMT from” the geographic area (internal-external trips), and “VMT to” the geographic area (external-internal trips), as follows:
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑀𝑇 = (𝐼𝐼 + 𝐼𝑋) + (𝐼𝐼 + 𝑋𝐼) = 2 ∗ 𝐼𝐼 + 𝐼𝑋 + 𝑋𝐼 • Internal-internal (II): The full length of all trips made entirely within the specified geographic study area limits.
• Internal-external (IX): The full length of all trips with an origin within the specified geographic study area and destination outside of the area.
• External-internal (XI): The full length of all trips with an origin outside of the specified geographic study area and destination within the area.
The intra-zonal VMT and VMT between traffic analysis zones, or TAZs, that are in the specified geographic study area cause some double counting, an expected result when summing the trip end based VMT. To ensure a VMT rate is expressed properly (i.e., that the numerator and denominator include the generators of both trip ends of the VMT), the VMT is divided by the generator (residential population and/or employees) of both trip ends of the VMT. The VMT estimates are also presented on a per service population basis to account for both the effects of population and/or employment growth and the effects of changes in personal travel behavior. For example, population growth may cause an increase in overall VMT, while travelers changing their behavior by using different travel modes or decreasing their vehicle trip lengths (such as a higher percentage of residents living and working within the Specific Plan Area) would cause decreases in the amount of VMT each person generates.
2.3.2 Project’s Effect on VMT (Using Boundary VMT)
A project’s effect on VMT is evaluated using the boundary VMT, which captures all VMT on the roadway network within a specified geographic area, including local trips plus inter-regional travel that does not have an origin or destination within the study area. The geographical boundary method only considers traffic within the physical limits of the selected study area and does not include the impact of vehicles once they travel outside the area limits. The use of boundary VMT is a more comprehensive evaluati on of the potential effects of a project because it captures the combined effect of new VMT, shifts in existing VMT to/from other neighborhoods, and/or shifts in existing traffic to alternate travel routes or modes. The
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
18 boundary VMT is also divided by the service population (sum of residents and employees) to account for the effects of population and/or employment growth and the effects of changes in personal travel behavior within the specified geographic area.
Figure 6 presents a representation of both project generated VMT and boundary VMT. Both metrics are needed for a comprehensive evaluation of a project’s VMT effects.
Measuring Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
Figure 6
W:\Walnut Creek N Drive\PROJECTS\_WC21\WC21-3846.00_Milpitas_MainSt-Gateway_SpecificPlan-EIR\Graphics\Figures\ADOBE\Fig04_Measuring_Vehicle_Miles_Traveled.ai Project Limits
Notes: External to External (XX) trips (shown as transparent arrow 4) are excluded from this VMT metric. Adjustments to total VMT made to include the full length of trips that leave the project limits to capture inter-juris- diction travel.
1 2
3 Total VMT
(Project Generated VMT)
External to Internal (XI) VMT
Internal to External (IX) VMT 2x Internal to Internal (2xII) VMT1 2 3
External to External (XX) VMT4
4 Project Effect on VMT
(Boundary VMT)
Notes: Boundary VMT is all the VMT on the streets within the Jurisdiction Limits.
Transparent portions of arrows 2, 3 and 4 are not included in the VMT metric.
External to Internal (XI) VMT
Internal to External (IX) VMT Internal to Internal VMT1 2 3
External to External (XX) VMT4
Jurisdiction Limits
3 1
2 4
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
20 3. Significance Criteria
The detailed impact criteria for VMT and other transportation-related items are described below. The project’s potential impacts are presented in Chapter 5.
3.1 VMT Significance Criteria
The Transportation Analysis Guidelines (TA Guidelines) provides guidance for the preparation of CEQA- compliant transportation impact analyses pursuant to SB 743 and is the reference guide for this transportation analysis.
The VMT impact analysis presented in this report considers the project’s direct impacts relative to total VMT per service population, home-based VMT per resident, and home-based per employee as well the project’s long-term effect on VMT using boundary VMT per service population evaluated under Cumulative Conditions. The project would result in a VMT-related impact as described below in Table 3.
Table 3: VMT Significance Thresholds
Impact Category Significance Threshold Calculated Numeric Threshold for Project Project Impact
The threshold for assessing project-specific
impacts is 15% below the existing total VMT
per service population rate of 29.88 miles.
The project would result in a significant
project-specific impact if the project total
VMT per service population under Cumulative
with Project Conditions is greater than
25.40 miles.
The threshold for assessing project-specific
impacts is 15% below the existing home-
based VMT per resident rate of 13.97 miles.
The project would result in a significant
project-specific impact if the project home-
based VMT per resident under Cumulative
with Project Conditions is greater than
11.87 miles.
The threshold for assessing project-specific
impacts is 15% below the existing home-
based work VMT per employee rate of
16.84 miles.
The project would result in a significant
project-specific impact if the project home-
based work VMT per employee under
Cumulative with Project Conditions is greater
than 14.31 miles.
Project Effect
The threshold for assessing cumulative
impacts is no change in the Cumulative
Conditions (future) boundary VMT per service
population for 2040.
The project would result in a significant
cumulative impact if it causes the cumulative
regionwide daily boundary VMT per service
population to be greater than 13.40 miles.
Source: City of Milpitas Transportation Analysis Guidelines, March 2022, and Fehr & Peers, 2024.
Each of these criteria is discussed further below.
t
t
t
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
21 3.1.1 Project-Generated VMT Impact Thresholds and Impact Criteria As discussed in the VMT Approach and Analysis Methods chapter (Chapter 2), the significance threshold for determining the project’s direct impact is a total VMT per service population rate that is 15% below the Existing Conditions total VMT per service population for the county (Santa Clara County). The threshold applied in this analysis is 15% below the existing total VMT per service population of 29.88, which, as shown in Table 4, is the existing total VMT of 92,685,100 divided by the service population of 3,101,410. This results in a total VMT per service population threshold of 25.40 miles (29.88 miles * 85% =
25.40 miles).
The significance threshold for determining the project’s direct impact is a home -based VMT per resident rate that is 15% below the Existing Conditions home-based VMT per resident threshold for the county (Santa Clara County). The threshold applied in this analysis is 15% below the existing home-based VMT per resident of 13.97, which, as shown in Table 4, is the existing home-based VMT of 27,937,530 divided by the resident population of 1,999,110. This results in a home-based VMT per resident threshold of 11.87 miles (13.97 miles * 85% = 11.87 miles).
The significance threshold for determining the project’s direct impact is a home -based work VMT per employee rate that is 15% below the Existing Conditions home-based work VMT per employee threshold for the county (Santa Clara County). The threshold applied in this analysis is 15% below the existing home-based work VMT per employee of 16.84, which, as shown in Table 4, is the home-based work VMT of 18,561,410 divided by the service population of 1,102,300. This results in a home-based work VMT per employee threshold of 14.31 miles (16.84 miles * 85% = 14.31 miles).
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
22 Table 4: Project Generated VMT Threshold
Project Generated VMT Threshold
Total VMT per Service Population Threshold
Total Vehicle Miles Traveled (A)1 92,685,100
Service Population (B)1,2 3,101,410
Total VMT per Service Population (A/B = C) 29.88
Total VMT per Service Population Threshold (C*85% = D) 25.40 Home-Based VMT per Resident Threshold
Home-Based Vehicle Miles Traveled (A)1 27,937,530
Residents (B)1,2 1,999,110
Home-Based VMT per Resident (A/B = C) 13.97
Home-Based VMT per Resident Threshold (C*85% = D) 11.87 Home-Based Work VMT per Employee Threshold
Home-Based Work Vehicle Miles Traveled (A)1 18,561,410
Employees (B)1,2 1,102,300
Home-Based Work VMT per Employee (A/B = C) 16.84
Home-Based Work VMT per Employee Threshold (C*85% = D) 14.31 Notes:
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.
Therefore, the project would cause a significant project-generated VMT impact if the Specific Plan total VMT per service population under Cumulative with Project Conditions is greater than 25.40 miles, if the Specific Plan home-based VMT per resident under Cumulative with Project Conditions is greater than
11.87 miles, or if Specific Plan home-based work VMT per employee under Cumulative with Project Conditions is greater than 14.31 miles.
3.1.2 Project’s Effect on VMT Thresholds and Impact Criteria The impact threshold for the project’s effect on VMT, or the project’s cumulative impact, is the regional6 boundary VMT per service population, or 13.40 miles (see Table 5).
6 The region is defined as Santa Clara County, Alameda County, and San Mateo County. +
+
+
+
+
+
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
23 Table 5: Project’s Effect on VMT (Boundary VMT) Cumulative Threshold Boundary VMT Threshold
Boundary Vehicle Miles Traveled (A)1 111,997,600
Service Population (B)1,2 8,357,810
Boundary VMT per Service Population (A/B = C) 13.40
Boundary VMT per Service Population Threshold (C) 13.40 Notes:
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.
Therefore, the project’s effect on VMT would result in a significant cumulative impact if it causes the cumulative regionwide daily boundary VMT per service population to be greater than 13.40 miles.
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
24 4. Vehicle Miles Traveled Forecasts
The City of Milpitas Travel Model was used to develop daily VMT and traffic forecasts for the Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan. VMT forecasts were prepared for the SB 743 VMT assessment.
4.1 Daily VMT Forecasts
This section summarizes the project generated VMT and boundary VMT forecasts for the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan under the four study scenarios.
4.1.1 Total Project Generated VMT Forecasts
The total project generated VMT forecasts for the Specific Plan presented in Table 6 is the expected VMT growth “budget” established by the Specific Plan land use growth assumptions. The Specific Plan’s project-generated VMT grows at a slower rate than its service population, and thus the Specific Plan total VMT per service population rate decreases with the introduction of the Specific Plan. This downward trend in the total VMT per service population in the Specific Plan Area is an important observation: it means Milpitas could consider the results of a baseline total VMT per service population sufficient for some land use project types. The full table comparing Existing, Cumulative, and Cumulative with Project Conditions can be found in Attachment A.
The Specific Plan’s home-based VMT grows slower than its resident population, and thus the Specific Plan home-based VMT per resident rate decreases with the introduction of the Specific Plan. Between Existing and Cumulative Conditions, the Santa Clara County home-based VMT per resident rate decreases.
The Specific Plan’s home-based work VMT decreases more than its employee population, and thus the Specific Plan home-based work VMT per employee rate decreases with the introduction of the Specific Plan. Between Existing and Cumulative Conditions, the Santa Clara County home-based work VMT per employee rate increases.
Table 6: Project Generated VMT Forecasts
Land Use Existing Conditions3 Cumulative with
Project Conditions
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan1
Total Project Generated VMT (A) 362,160 536,440
Service Population (B) 14,122 21,925
Total VMT per Service Population (A/B = C) 25.65 24.47
Home-Based VMT (X) 99,410 171,770
Residents (Y) 9,480 16,384
Home-Based VMT per Resident (X/Y = Z) 10.49 10.48
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
25 Home-Based Work VMT (X) 182,090 107,360
Employees (Y) 4,642 5,541
Home-Based Work VMT per Employee (X/Y = Z) 39.23 19.38
Santa Clara County2
Total Project Generated VMT (A) 92,685,100 114,809,550 Service Population (B) 3,101,410 3,935,270
Total VMT per Service Population (A/B = C) 29.88 29.17
Home-Based VMT (X) 27,937,530 34,148,330
Residents (Y) 1,999,110 2,594,170
Home-Based VMT per Resident (X/Y = Z) 13.97 13.16
Home-Based Work VMT (X) 18,561,410 23,249,540
Employees (Y) 1,102,300 1,341,110
Home-Based Work VMT per Employee (X/Y = Z) 16.84 17.34
Notes: Population values rounded to nearest 10.
1. TAZs included in this summary: 35, 252, 281, 283, 284, 301, 305, 313, 314, 315, 320, 321.
2. TAZs included in this summary: 1-1490.
3. Existing Conditions represent 2020 conditions, which was interpolated from the 2015 base year and 2040 horizon year.
Source: City of Milpitas Travel Model land use summary prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2024.
4.1.2 Boundary VMT Forecasts
Boundary VMT is a VMT metric that measures VMT on a jurisdiction’s roadway system and is presented in Table 7. Boundary VMT is then divided by the service population (sum of all residential population and employment population) to calculate boundary VMT per service population. The South Bay Region’s boundary VMT per service population slightly decreases with the introduction of the Specific Plan. The change in boundary VMT with the introduction of the Specific Plan captures the effect of shifting VMT due to new connections with project land uses (e.g., increased housing density) and VMT efficiency of land use in the project’s location.
Table 7: Boundary VMT Forecasts
Land Use Cumulative
Conditions1
Cumulative with
Project Conditions
South Bay (Santa Clara County + Alameda County + San Mateo County) Total Project Generated VMT (A) 111,997,600 111,890,030 Service Population (B) 8,357,810 8,359,030
Total VMT per Service Population (A/B = C) 13.40 13.39
Notes: Population values rounded to nearest 10.
1. Cumulative Conditions represent 2040 conditions.
Source: City of Milpitas Travel Model land use summary prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2024. +-
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
26 4.2 City of Milpitas Travel Model
The City of Milpitas Travel Model was used to develop the VMT forecasts for this study. A description of the City of Milpitas travel model, land use inputs, and transportation network inputs are discussed in the following sections.
4.2.1 City of Milpitas Travel Model Documentation
The project uses the City of Milpitas Travel Model received from Kittelson & Associates for the Milpitas Metro Specific Plan, which is based on the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) -/ City/County of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) Bi-County Travel Model. This version of the City of Milpitas Travel Model uses 2015 as its base year, and 2040 as its cumulative horizon year. To reflect 2020 as the base year for the analysis, the model was interpolated between 2015 and 2040. Kittelson had updated the model to include the full buildout of the Milpitas General Plan (which includes the Midtown Specific Plan) and Milpitas Metro Specific Plan in 2040.
The City of Milpitas Travel Model includes the regional roadways and major arterials of the nine-county Bay Area, the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) region (Santa Cruz County, Monterey County, and San Benito County), and portions of the San Joaquin Valley. It also contains additional transportation network detail and refined transportation analysis zones (TAZs) 7 in San Mateo County and Santa Clara County. The City of Milpitas Travel Model land use inputs are based on Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) 2017 land use projections (Plan Bay Area 2040 land use projections), 2010 Census socio-economic data (with some additional refinements in 2019), and a future regional transportation infrastructure consistent with Plan Bay Area 2040 (July 2017). The City of Milpitas Travel Model has a 2040 horizon year.
The TAZ size influences the types of streets vehicle traffic is typically assigned to. For the City of Milpitas Travel Model, an arterial or minor arterial is the lowest street level traffic is assigned to because the TAZ structure in Milpitas has moderate detail. The City of Milpitas Travel Model has a mode share model that can be used to express changes in mode share.
The future year City of Milpitas Travel Model is used to develop forecasts for Cumulative (2040) Conditions and includes projected growth to Year 2040. Planned and funded roadway improvements associated with the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2040 (adopted in October 2014) are also included.
VTP projects near the City of Milpitas include the following:
• BART Silicon Valley: The Berryessa Extension (VTP ID: T1) • BART Silicon Valley: The Santa Clara Extension (VTP ID: T2) • BART Berryessa Connector (VTP ID: T6)
7 Transportation analysis zones, also referred to as TAZs, are small geographic areas within the City of Milpitas Travel Model. As defined by NCHRP Report 716, Travel Demand Forecasting: Parameters and Techniques, TRB, 2012, “TAZ boundaries are usually major roadways, jurisdictional borders, and geographic boundaries and are defined by homogeneous land uses to the extent possible.”
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
27 • Tasman Express Light Rail Improvement Project (Long T) (VTP ID: T11) • I-880 Express Lanes: Alameda County line to US 101 (VTP ID: H7) • I-680 Express Lanes: Calaveras Boulevard to Montague Expressway (VTP ID: H14) • Calaveras Boulevard Widening (VTP ID: R6)
• South Milpitas Blvd. from Calaveras Boulevard to Montague Expressway Bicycle Path and Sidewalk on east side (1.5 miles) (VTP ID: B84)
• South Milpitas Boulevard SMART Corridor (VTP ID: S17) The City of Milpitas Travel Model has four time periods to address travel during congested morning and evening peak periods and uncongested mid-day and midnight time periods. During congested times, the average trip length and speed of travel change.
4.2.2 Model Input Adjustments
For the purpose of this VMT analysis, the baseline (2015) City of Milpitas Travel Model land use and population were updated by Kittelson & Associates to reflect the development of the Milpitas General Plan (which includes the Midtown Specific Plan) and Metro Specific Plan in the City of Milpitas. In addition, the Year 2040 City of Milpitas Travel Model was updated to reflect the full buildout of the Milpitas General Plan and Metro Specific Plan.
4.2.2.1 Including Inter-Regional Travel for VMT Analysis The OPR Technical Advisory cites the importance of not truncating (i.e., ending or omitting a trip outside off the geographic boundary; truncating has the effect of shortening a trip to/from a destination) trip lengths based on travel forecasting model or political boundaries:
Considerations for All Projects. Lead agencies should not truncate any VMT analysis because of jurisdictional or other boundaries, for example, by failing to count the portion of a trip that falls outside the jurisdiction or by discounting the VMT from a trip that crosses a jurisdiction al boundary.
CEQA requires environmental analyses to reflect a “good faith effort at full disclosure.” (CEQA Statute & Guidelines, § 15151.) Thus, where methodologies exist that can estimate the full extent of vehicle travel from a project, the lead agency should apply them to do so. Where those VMT effects will grow over time, analyses should consider both a project’s short-term and long-term effects on VMT. (Quote from page 6 of the Technical Advisory: On Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, December 2018).
The City of Milpitas Travel Model extends south beyond the Bay Area regional boundary into the AMBAG region (Santa Cruz County, Monterey County, and San Benito County) and east into San Joaquin County.
However, the travel model stops at the Bay Area regional boundary and does not include inter -regional travel to Mendocino County, Lake County, Yolo County, and Merced County, which shortens the vehicle travel to those counties. This truncation results in a lower total project generated VMT estimate for the region and Santa Clara County and affects baseline regional or county baseline VMT values used to establish VMT thresholds.
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
28 The California statewide travel demand model (CSTDM) was used to estimate and forecast trip lengths that occur outside the City of Milpitas Travel Model boundary. These trip lengths have been appended to the external stations8 (refer to Table 8) and are reflected in the VMT estimates and forecasts contained in this analysis.
Table 8: External Station Adjustments at Bay Area Regional Boundary External Station
(Connecting County)
Distance
(Miles)
SR 1 – Mendocino County 9.4
US 101 – Mendocino County 48.4
SR 29 – Lake County 21.4
I-505 – Yolo County 101.2
SR 113 – Yolo County 12.9
I-80 – Yolo County 39.2
SR 12 – San Joaquin County No adjustment made to these external station distances because the City of Milpitas Travel Model area incudes
San Joaquin County.
SR 4 – San Joaquin County
I-205 – San Joaquin County
SR 152 – Merced County 162.9
SR 25 – San Benito County No adjustment made to these external station distances because the City of Milpitas Travel Model area incudes
San Benito County. US 101 – San Benito County
SR 152 – Santa Cruz County
No adjustment made to these external station distances
because the City of Milpitas Travel Model area incudes
Santa Cruz County.
SR 17 – Santa Cruz County
SR 9 – Santa Cruz County
SR 1 – Santa Cruz County
Notes: External station adjustments rounded to nearest tenth of a mile.
Source: California statewide travel demand model (CSTDM) was used to develop the external station adjustments.
Fehr & Peers, 2024.
8 External stations are located on the major transportation routes into and out of the City of Milpitas Travel Model boundary. These stations are used to load traffic generated from and/or destined to locations outside of the City of Milpitas Travel Model boundary.
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
29 5. Environmental Impacts and
Mitigation Assessment
This section describes the analysis methods, assumptions, and results used to identify potential significant impacts of the proposed project on the transportation system per the significance criteria described in Section 5.1.1. Transportation/traffic impacts are described and assessed, and mitigation measures are recommended for impacts identified as significant.
5.1 VMT Analysis
This section presents an analysis of the project’s impacts relative to VMT. Both direct (project-generated) and cumulative (project’s effect) VMT impacts were evaluated. Direct VMT impacts were evaluated using total VMT per service population rate, home-based VMT per resident rate, and home-based work VMT per employee rate of the Specific Plan under Cumulative with Project Conditions. Indirect and cumulative VMT impacts were evaluated using boundary VMT per service population under Cumulative with Project Conditions. The results of the project-generated VMT and project’s effect on VMT analyses are presented in Table 9 and Table 10, respectively.
5.1.1 Total Project Generated VMT Assessment
The results of the project generated VMT analysis is presented in Table 9 below and determined as follows:
• For the Cumulative (2040) with Project Conditions, the Specific Plan would generate 536,440 daily total VMT, or 24.47 miles on a per service population basis. This value would be about 4% less than the VMT threshold (25.40 total VMT per service population) and would be considered a less- than-significant impact.
• For the Cumulative (2040) with Project Conditions, the Specific Plan would generate 171,770 home-based VMT, or 10.48 miles on a per resident basis. This value would be approximately 12% less than the VMT threshold (11.87 home-based VMT per resident) and would be considered a less-than-significant impact.
• For the Cumulative (2040) with Project Conditions, the Specific Plan would generate 107,360 home-based work VMT, or 19.38 miles on a per employee basis. This value would be approximately 35% more than the VMT threshold (14.31 home-based work VMT per employee) and would be considered a significant impact.
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in excessive home -based work VMT per employee under Cumulative (2040) with Project Conditions due to employment growth planned within the city and would be considered a significant impact.
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
30 Table 9: Total Project-Generated VMT Assessment
Total Project
Generated VMT
Total VMT per Service Population
Total Project Generated Vehicle Miles Traveled (A)1 536,440 Service Population (B)1,2 21,925
Total Project Generated VMT per Service Population (A/B = C) 24.47 Initial Impact Assessment for Total VMT per Service Population Total VMT per Service Population Threshold 25.40 (4% below the threshold)
(Initial Impact Conclusion) Less-Than-Significant
Home-Based VMT per Resident
Home-Based VMT (A)1 171,770
Residents (B)1,2 16,384
Home-Based VMT per Resident (A/B = C) 10.48
Initial Impact Assessment for Home-Based VMT per Resident Home-Based VMT per Resident Threshold 11.87 (12% below the threshold)
(Initial Impact Conclusion) Less-Than-Significant
Home-Based Work VMT per Employee
Home-Based Work VMT (A)1 107,360
Employees (B)1,2 5,541
Home-Based Work VMT per Employee (A/B = C) 19.38
Initial Impact Assessment for Home-Based Work VMT per Employee Home-Based Work VMT per Employee Threshold 14.31 (35% greater than threshold)
(Initial Impact Conclusion) Significant
Notes:
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.
5.1.1.1 VMT Mitigation
This finding accords with the Milpitas General Plan, which describes an impact for the home-based work VMT per employee. A goal of the Milpitas General Plan (March 2021) is to provide a transportation system that minimizes vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (Goal CIR-1).
VMT mitigation effectiveness depends on its scale (how much VMT the mitigation acts on) and its ability to reduce VMT in different VMT reduction programs. The biggest effects of VMT mitigation actions (and resultant emissions reductions) derive from statewide or region-wide policies that increase the cost, or +-
+-
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
31 reduce the convenience, of using vehicles. Other region-wide actions include improving land use location efficiency and infrastructure investments that support transit, walking, and bicycling. While there are many VMT mitigation actions that can influence VMT and emissions, individual site level VMT mitigation actions (such as TDM measures) typically have the smallest effect on VMT reductions because they are applied to new VMT generated by new buildings, while region-wide level programs have the greatest effect on VMT reduction. Additionally, the available research indicates that the effectiveness of TDM measures varies substantially depending on the context in which they are applied. TDM is most effective in urban areas where urban character (land use and built environment) and land use mix are most supportive of vehicle trip reduction. TDM programs are less effective in suburban areas where the built environment and transportation network are more dispersed and where modes are typically limited to personal vehicles.
Figure 7 presents a conceptual illustration of the relative importance of scale.
Figure 7: Transportation-Related GHG Reduction Measures Due to these individual site level implementation barriers, ad-hoc project-by-project mitigation is less effective at reducing VMT compared with larger scale community-wide level and region-wide VMT mitigation actions. The City of Milpitas would require implementation of individual site level, community- wide, and region-wide VMT mitigation actions to reduce VMT. These mitigation actions may be implemented through TDM programs, a transportation management association (TMA) that runs a community-wide VMT mitigation actions, a VMT mitigation program, in-lieu fee programs, and other land use project conditions to reduce VMT.
The current standard for calculating VMT reduction efficacy from TDM strategies is the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) 2021 Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity. The handbook quantifies the effects of Individual Site Level
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Measures (Project Scale)
Community-wide Level
Bicycle/Pedestrian Network, Transit Services
(City Scale)
Region-wide Level
Location Efficiency, Regional Policies, and Regional
Infrastructure
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
32 numerous land use and design strategies including travel incentives and disincentives. Feasible home- based work VMT reduction measures for this project are listed below. The estimated reduction in VMT come from California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (August 2021). The CAPCOA VMT reductions presented below are associated with the affected project population. All employers would be required to implement the project-level VMT reduction measures, and coordinate with the relevant agencies for the community- and regional-level VMT reduction measures.
Project-Level VMT Reduction Measures
1. Employ marketing and encouragement strategies to promote non-drive-alone travel: This measure encompasses the aspects of typical TDM programs that rely on providing customized information and incentives to encourage use of transportation alternatives in place of single occupancy vehicles. The process is typically a residential-based approach for each community.
This measure could reduce employee commute / home-based work VMT up to 4%.
2. Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules: This measure relies on effective Internet access and speeds to individual project sites/buildings to provide the opportunity for telecommuting. The effectiveness of the measure depends on the ultimate building tenants and this should be a factor when considering the potential VMT reduction (while this measure certainly reduces commute-related VMT, recent research has shown that total VMT from telecommuters can exceed VMT from non-telecommuters).
3. Require employer-based shuttle or vanpool service: This measure involves working with individual employers or building managers to offer shuttle services. For large employers with corporate campuses, this may include running private shuttles to and from neighborhoods where employees live. For smaller employers, or buildings with multiple employer tenants, it may involve a shuttle connecting to regional transit, such as a Caltrain station, funded through an organization such as a Transportation Management Association (TMA). This measure could reduce employee commute / home-based work VMT up to 7%.
Community-Level VMT Reduction Measures:
4. Provide ridesharing programs: This measure focuses on encouraging carpooling and vanpooling by project site/building tenants and has similar limitations to encouraging telecommuting and alternate work schedules measure earlier. This measure could reduce employee commute / home- based work VMT up to 8%.
5. Implement car-sharing program: This measure reduces the need to own a vehicle or reduces the number of vehicles owned by a household by making it convenient to access a shared vehicle for trips where vehicle use is essential. Examples include programs such as ZipCar, Car2Go, and Gig.
This measure could reduce home-based work VMT up to .15%.
6. Implement Bikeshare, Electric Bikeshare, and Scootershare Program: This measure will establish a bikeshare and scootershare program. The projects provide users with on-demand access to bicycles, electric pedal assist bicycles, and electric scooters for short-term rentals. The Specific Plan identifies micromobility strategies such as a study to consider integrating micromobility hubs and potentially consider integrating car-share services and mode shifts with transit. They
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
33 encourage mode shift from vehicles to bicycles and scooters, displacing VMT and thus reducing GHG emissions. These three programs could reduce VMT up to .02%, .06%, and .07%, respectively.
7. Implement on-street market pricing for parking: This measure focuses on implementing a pricing measure for parking by pricing all on-street parking in central business districts, employment centers, and retail centers. Priced parking would encourage “park once” behavior and may also result in area-wide mode shifts. This measure is recommended as a future action in the Specific Plan. This measure could reduce home-based work VMT up to 30%.
Regional-Level VMT Reduction Measures:9
8. Increase transit service frequency and speed: This measure focuses on improving transit service convenience and travel time competitiveness with driving. Given existing land use density in Milpitas, this measure may be limited to traditional commuter transit where trips can be pooled at the start and end locations, or it may require new forms of demand-responsive transit service. A demand-responsive service could be provided as subsidized trips by contracting private transportation network companies (TNCs) or taxi companies. The Specific Plan could allocate curb space for SMART. Alternatively, a public transit operator could provide subsidized service but would need to improve on traditional cost effectiveness. Note that implementation of this measure would require regional or local agency implementation, substantial changes to c urrent transit practices, and would not likely be applicable for individual development projects. This measure could reduce VMT by up to 11.3%.
The VMT reduction measures listed above were developed in consultation with City staff. These VMT reduction measures are complementary to those identified in the Specific Plan organized by implementation scale. Several factors, including costs, feasibility, and effectiveness, were considered when developing this list of VMT reduction measures.
When determining the VMT reduction needed, other available evidence related to VMT trends in California was considered; specifically, CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update10 and 2022 Scoping Plan Update,11 which assumes all regions in the state will meet the GHG reduction targets set in their Regional Transportation Plans and Sustainable Communities Strategies (RTP/SCS). Thus far, there is no indication that all regions are meeting those targets, and vehicular travel in California (at least prior to the COVID-19 pandemic) has been increasing rather than decreasing over the past several years (see CARB’s Improved Program Measurement Would Help California Work More Strategically to Meet Its Climate Change Goals, February 2021, and CARB’s 2018 Progress Report: California’s Sustainable Community and Climate Protection Act, November 2018). The 2020 Mobile Source Strategy (California Air Resources Board
9 Regional-level VMT Reduction Measures include Location Efficiency, Community-wide and Regional Policies, and Community-wide and Regional Infrastructure.
10 California Air Resources Board’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target (January 2019)
11 California Air Resources Board’s 2022 Scoping Plan Update (November 2022)
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
34 2021) also acknowledges the challenge of VMT reduction and states, “Without additional policy intervention, VMT may continue to rise.”
Further, the VMT reduction needed does not account for any future increases in the use of TNCs (such as Uber and Lyft) or commercial delivery services, nor does it envision the potential for development of autonomous vehicles or any other emerging transportation innovations. These emerging transportation innovations will alter the effectiveness of VMT mitigation action, some increasing VMT reduction effectiveness while others decrease VMT reduction effectiveness.
Based on the discussion above, there is growing evidence that demonstrates the challenge of reducing VMT when background conditions are contributing to higher VMT generation rates, suggesting greater action is needed by the state to meet the state’s GHG and VMT reduction goals. Without further action by the state to discourage vehicle travel (i.e., increasing the cost of driving and providing provisions for bus services to avoid congestion delays) while reducing the barriers or constraints that prevent more efficient use of vehicles and greater use of transit, walking, and bicycling, VMT trends are unlikely to reverse , regardless of the steps and measures the City implements through its Land Use map and General Plan transportation policies. The Specific Plan includes a comprehensive approach to reducing VMT through implementation of numerous policies and actions, that through this Specific Plan establishes a land use map that prioritizes higher density development near transit stations. However, in order to reduce VMT to a less than significant level, the City must rely on additional assistance from regional and state -level agencies to affect major changes in driving patterns and behaviors throughout the greater Bay Area region. The biggest effects of VMT mitigation actions (and resultant emissions reductions) derive from statewide or region-wide policies that increase the cost, or reduce the convenience, of using vehicles. The City of Milpitas cannot effectively or practically implement statewide or region-wide policies, other than to be supportive of and complimentary to these efforts in the City’s General Plan and Specific Plan, which the City has done, as described above. There are no additional feasible mitigation strategies available to the City to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. As a result, the VMT impacts associated with employment-based uses allowed by the proposed Specific Plan would be considered significant and unavoidable.
5.1.2 Project’s Effect on VMT Analysis (Cumulative Analysis)
5.1.2.1 Project’s Effect on VMT Assessment (using Boundary VMT) To evaluate the project’s effect on VMT between the Cumulative Condition and Cumulative with Project Condition, the boundary VMT for the region (i.e., Santa Clara County, Alameda County, and San Mateo County) is divided by the service population (sum of all residential population and employment population). The change in boundary VMT 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.
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
35 The Cumulative Condition for the area 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 the Midtown Specific Plan is replaced by the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan. As shown in Table 10, this analysis evaluated whether the project would result in an increase in the regionwide boundary VMT from Cumulative Conditions to Cumulative with Project Conditions. The boundary VMT per service population slightly decreases from Cumulative Conditions to Cumulative with Project Conditions. The regional impact threshold for the project’s effect on VMT is the regionwide Cumulative Conditions boundary VMT per service population of 13.40 miles per service population.
Under Cumulative with Project Conditions the regionwide boundary VMT per service population is 13.39, which is below the applicable threshold of 13.40. Therefore, the impact of the project’s effect on VMT under Cumulative with Project Conditions would be less-than-significant.
Table 10: Project’s Effect (Boundary) VMT Assessment
Cumulative Condition Cumulative with
Project Condition
South Bay Area1
Boundary Vehicle Miles Traveled (A)1 111,997,600 111,890,030 Service Population (B)1,2 8,357,810 8,359,030
Boundary VMT per Service Population (A/B = C) 13.40 13.39 Boundary VMT per Service Population Threshold 13.40
(Initial Impact Conclusion) Less-Than-Significant
Notes:
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.
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
36 Attachment A: Project Generated VMT
Forecasts
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan: Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Environmental Review November 2024
37 Table A-1: Project Generated VMT Forecasts
Notes: Population values rounded to nearest 10.
1. TAZs included in this summary: 35, 252, 281, 283, 284, 301, 305, 313, 314, 315, 320, 321.
2. TAZs included in this summary: 1-1490.
3. Existing Conditions represent 2020 conditions, which was interpolated from the 2015 base year and 2040 horizon year.
4. Cumulative Conditions represent 2040 conditions (Midtown Specific Plan).
Source: City of Milpitas Travel Model land use summary prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2024.
Land Use Existing
Conditions3
Cumulative
Conditions4
Cumulative with
Project
Conditions
Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan1
Total Project Generated VMT (A) 362,160 685,920 536,440 Service Population (B) 14,122 20,466 21,925
Total VMT per Service Population (A/B = C) 25.65 33.52 24.47 Home-Based VMT (X) 99,410 127,030 171,770
Residents (Y) 9,480 12,568 16,384
Home-Based VMT per Resident (X/Y = Z) 10.49 10.11 10.48 Home-Based Work VMT (X) 182,090 142,120 107,360
Employees (Y) 4,642 7,898 5,541
Home-Based Work VMT per Employee (X/Y = Z) 39.23 17.99 19.38 Santa Clara County2
Total Project Generated VMT (A) 92,685,100 114,828,140 114,809,550 Service Population (B) 3,101,410 3,933,820 3,935,270 Total VMT per Service Population (A/B = C) 29.88 29.19 29.17 Home-Based VMT (X) 27,937,530 34,047,470 34,148,330
Residents (Y) 1,999,110 2,590,350 2,594,170
Home-Based VMT per Resident (X/Y = Z) 13.97 13.14 13.16 Home-Based Work VMT (X) 18,561,410 23,245,810 23,249,540 Employees (Y) 1,102,300 1,343,460 1,341,110
Home-Based Work VMT per Employee (X/Y = Z) 16.84 17.30 17.34 +
+
+
+
+
+
t
t
+
t
t
t
+
Appendix E
Draft Gateway-Main Street Water
Supply Assessment
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan
Water Supply Assessment
Prepared for:
City of Milpitas
455 East Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, CA 95035
April 2025
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Water Supply
Assessment
Prepared for:
City of Milpitas
455 East Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, CA 95035
Contact:
Jay Lee
Planning Director
408.586.3077
Prepared by:
Ascent Environmental, DBA Ascent
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Contact:
Patrick Angell
Principal
916.732.3324
April 2025
20210060.01
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 1 ES.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1 ES.2 Summary Description of the Project ........................................................................................................................... 1 ES.3 Summary of Water Supply Assessment Conclusions ............................................................................................. 1 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 1-1
1.1 Purpose of Water Supply Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Project Overview ............................................................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.3 Relationship of the Water Supply Assessment to The City Urban Water Management Plan ................ 1-2
1.4 Water Supply Assessment Organization ................................................................................................................ 1-2
1.5 Standard Terminology ................................................................................................................................................. 1-3 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND WATER DEMANDS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 2-1
2.1 Project Description ....................................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Estimated Project Water Demands ......................................................................................................................... 2-3
2.3 City Water Demands ................................................................................................................................................... 2-3 3 CITY WATER SUPPLY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 3-1
3.1 Current Water Supply Sources .................................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Groundwater ................................................................................................................................................................ . 3-2
3.3 Future Water Supply Sources and Reliability ....................................................................................................... 3-2 4 WATER SUPPLY SUFFICIENCY ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-1
4.1 Project Water Demands and Future Water Supply............................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Water Supply Reliability ............................................................................................................................................. 4-2 5 REPORT PREPARERS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 5-1 6 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 6-1 Figures
Figure 2-1 Specific Plan Area Boundary ..................................................................................................................................... 2-2 Tables
Table 2-1 Changes in Buildout Under Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan ..................................................................... 2-1 Table 2-2 Comparison of Adopted General Plan to the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Water Demands .. 2-3 Table 2-3 Current Water Use Demand by Customer Type (Million Gallons) ................................................................ 2-3 Table 2-4 2020 UWMP Projected Water Demand Projections by Customer Type (Million Gallons) ..................... 2-4 Table 3-1 City Water Supplies (AFY) .......................................................................................................................................... 3-3 Table 4-1 City Water Supplies and Demands with Project – Normal Year (Million Gallons) ..................................... 4-1 Table 4-2 City Water Supplies and Demands with Project – Single Dry Year (Million Gallons) ................................ 4-1 Table 4-3 City Water Supplies and Demands with Project – Multiple Dry Years (Million Gallons) .......................... 4-1
List of Abbreviations Ascent
City of Milpitas
ii Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AFY acre-feet per year
BAWSCA Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency
Bay Delta Plan San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Milpitas
EIR Environmental Impact Report
GWMP Groundwater Management Plan
IWRP Integrated Water Resources Planning Study
mgd million gallons per day
project Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan
RWS Regional Water System
SBWR South Bay Water Recycling
sf square feet
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Specific Plan Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SWP State Water Project
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
Valley Water Santa Clara Valley Water District
Water Code California Water Code
WSA water supply assessment
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 INTRODUCTION
Division 6, Part 2.10 (1995) of the California Water Code (Water Code), requires coordination between land use lead agencies and public water purveyors. The purpose of this coordination is to ensure that prudent water supply planning has been conducted, and that planned water supplies are adequate to meet both existing demands and demands of planned development.
Water Code Sections 10910 – 10915 (inclusive) require land use lead agencies: 1) to identify the responsible public water purveyor for a proposed development project, and 2) to request a “Water Supply Assessment” (WSA) from the responsible purveyor. The objective of a WSA is to demonstrate the sufficiency of a purveyor's water supplies to satisfy the water demands of a proposed development project while still meeting the current and projected water demands of existing customers. Water Code Sections 10910 – 10915 delineate specific information that must be included in a WSA. This WSA was prepared consistent with Water Code Sections 10910 – 10915.
ES.2 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The proposed Gateway-Main Street 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 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan 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 Gateway-Main Street 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.
ES.3 SUMMARY OF WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS
Pursuant to Section 10910 of the Water Code and based on the analysis detailed in this report, the City of Milpitas has determined that its existing water supply sources result in shortfalls in supply in 2025, 2030, and 2045 under single dry-year and multiple dry year conditions, as shown in Table 4-2 and 4-3. During these conditions, the City would implement its Water Shortage Plan that consists of voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures that would address water supply shortfalls.
Specifically, the Water Shortage Contingency Plan Table 3-2 identifies water demand reduction actions that include a range of measures (e.g., restrictions on operation of water features, landscaping irrigation, public information campaigns, reductions of system water loss) that are identified to reduce the water supply shortage gap from 1 to 70 percent. The Plan also includes Table 3-3 that identifies water augmentation through the installation of five additional groundwater wells by 2025 and two additional groundwater wells by 2040 each with a 1.2 mgd production capacity.
Based on the shortfalls identified in Table 4-2 and 4-3, this additional groundwater production would be adequate to offset water supply shortages identified in for 2030 and 2045 (project approval is anticipated in 2025).
Executive Summary Ascent
City of Milpitas
ES-2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment This page is intentionally left blank.
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment 1-1 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
The Water Code (Section 10910 et. seq.), based on Senate Bill 610 of 2001 (SB 610), requires a project proponent to prepare a water supply assessment (WSA) to evaluate the reliability of a project’s water supply as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. If the City of Milpitas (City) potable water supply does not have sufficient existing water supply to meet the project demands of the project, the development of additional water supplies must be addressed in the WSA and in the project Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Under the Government Code (Section 66473.7), based on SB 221 of 2001, proposed subdivisions adding 500 dwelling units are also required to receive written verification of the available water supply from the project’s water supplier.
The Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (project) does not include the creation of a subdivision or a subdivision tract map, so a written verification of supply is not required.
This report is meant to serve as the WSA for the project to meet the Water Code and Government Code requirements. This WSA documents the City’s existing and future water supplies for the project and compares them to the City’s total projected water demands for the next twenty (20) years.
SB 610 requires the following steps be taken to identify the need and scope of a project’s WSA:
1. Determine whether the project is subject to CEQA.
2. Determine whether the project meets the definition of a “project” per SB 610.
3. Determine the public water agency that will serve the project.
4. Determine whether any current Urban Water Management Plan considers the projected water demand for the project area.
5. Determine whether groundwater is used by the public water agency to serve the project area.
1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Area (Specific Plan Area) is approximately 605 acres within the City. The City, located in northern Santa Clara County, within the South San Francisco Bay Area, is situated north of San Jose and east of Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Mountain View along State Route 237 (Highway 237) (Figure 2-1). The City is served by three major freeways: Interstate (I)-880, I-680, State Route 237 (Highway 237)/Calaveras Boulevard, and the County-managed Montague Expressway.
Specific plans are a land use planning tool for the further implementation of the General Plan for individual development proposals in a defined geographic area. They give local land use agencies the ability to establish land use and design regulations to create development that is consistent with site-specific physical constraints and opportunities as well as available infrastructure. All subsequent development within the boundaries of the specific plan area is subject to the requirements of the specific plan. Sections 65450 through 65457 of the California Government Code grant authority to the City for the development and adoption of specific plans.
The purpose of the proposed 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 Abbot District.
The proposed Specific Plan implements the General Plan policies that would change the development currently allowed under the General Plan. Table 2-4 identifies development buildout within the Midtown Plan Area under the General Plan and the proposed development buildout that would be allowed with implementation of the Specific Plan. The maximum
Introduction Ascent
City of Milpitas
1-2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment residential development capacity under the General Plan within the Midtown Plan Area is 3,838 units. A total of 1,338 additional units would be allowed under the Specific Plan beyond what is allowed under the General Plan currently. The nonresidential development area allowed under the General Plan is 3,293,240 square feet (sf) which would be reduced to 2,058,666 sf with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan. This WSA addresses this change in development potential. Land uses and general development potential of project are identified in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) as well as overall City growth through 2045 (City of Milpitas 2021a:27).
The proposed increase of 1,338 residential units triggers the need for the preparation of a WSA pursuant to Water Code Section 1092(a). The City municipal water system that serves the project uses water purchased from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). Recycled water is provided to the City by South Bay Water Recycling (SBWR). The project is located within both Valley Water and SFPUC water service areas.
This WSA is being prepared in accordance with SB 610 for the City’s CEQA work in connection with the project.
1.3 RELATIONSHIP OF THE WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT TO THE
CITY URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Urban water management plans are considered by the California Department of Water Resources as a fundamental document for compliance with both SB 610 and SB 221. Thorough and complete UWMPs allow water suppliers to use UWMPs as a foundation to fulfill the specific requirements of these two statutes. The UWMP provides information detailing water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection, and the existing and projected future water demand during a 20-year projection. The UWMP presents projected supplies and demands in 5-year increments for the 20-year projection. Supplies from all sources, including wholesaler supplies, are documented in the UWMP. This documentation includes identifying and quantifying water rights, contracts, and/or entitlements to the supply; associated capital outlay programs; federal, state and local permits for constructing infrastructure for conveying the supply; and any necessary regulatory approvals required for conveyance.
Data from the City’s 2020 UWMP was utilized to complete this WSA. The 2020 UWMP shows projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years in 5-year increments through the year 2045.
1.4 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT ORGANIZATION
This WSA is organized into chapters, as identified and briefly described below. Chapters are further divided into sections (e.g., Chapter 3, “City Water Supply” and Section 3.1, “Current Water Supply Sources”):
The “Executive Summary”: This chapter introduces the project; provides a summary of the of the project, and a summary of the WSA conclusions.
Chapter 1, “Introduction”: This chapter provides a description of the purposed of the WSA, a project overview, a review of the previous WSA and its relationship the City’s UWMP, and the WSA organization. Chapter 2, “Project Description”: This chapter describes the location, background, and project water demands for the project, City water demands, and describes the project elements in detail. Chapter 3, “City Water Supply”: The sections within this chapter describe the City’s current and future water supply and reliability from the following existing sources: SFPUC, Valley Water, and recycled water from SBWR. Chapter 4, “Water Supply Sufficiency Analysis”: This chapter evaluates the water supply reliability and the anticipated project water demands to determine if the future water supply can adequately meet the project water demands. Chapter 5, “Conclusions”: This chapter summarizes the conclusions of the WSA. Chapter 6, “Report Preparers”: This chapter identifies the preparers of the document. Chapter 7, “References”: This chapter identifies the organizations and persons consulted during preparation of this WSA and the documents and individuals used as sources for the analysis.
Ascent Introduction
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment 1-3
1.5 STANDARD TERMINOLOGY
This WSA uses the following standard terminology:
“CEQA” means the California Environmental Quality Act.
“project” means proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan.
Introduction Ascent
City of Milpitas
1-4 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment This page is intentionally left blank.
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment 2-1 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND WATER DEMANDS
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Midtown Plan, adopted in 2002 and updated in 2010, is the predecessor plan to the proposed Milpitas Gateway- Main Street Specific Plan. Its aim was to respond to a series of development activities in the Midtown area, including the construction of new housing, reinvestment in the Great Mall, and the future extension of the VTA Light Rail Transit line and BART to the area by creating a cohesive Specific Plan for Midtown.
The Milpitas General Plan Update, adopted in 2021, is the guiding, long-term plan and policy document for the physical development of the city through 2040. 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.
The Specific Plan Area includes the historic commercial core of the city, centered on Main Street and the Calaveras Gateway. The proposed Specific Plan would update 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.
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. There are currently 2,403 residential units and 1,858,642 square feet of nonresidential uses in the Specific Plan Area.
The Specific Plan proposes a new project area boundary, as shown in Figure 2-1, 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. The proposed Specific Plan Land Use Framework would implement the vision for the Specific Plan focus areas through Specific Plan Zoning Districts and existing Citywide Zoning Districts. The proposed Specific Plan implements the General Plan policies that would change the development currently allowed under the General Plan. Table 2-1 identifies development buildout within the Midtown Plan Area under the General Plan and the proposed development buildout that would be allowed with implementation of the Specific Plan. The maximum residential development capacity under the General Plan within the Midtown Plan Area is 3,838 units. A total of 1,338 additional units would be allowed under the Specific Plan beyond what is allowed under the General Plan currently. The nonresidential development area allowed under the General Plan is 3,293,240 square feet (sf) which would be reduced to 2,058,666 sf with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan.
Table 2-1 Changes in Buildout Under Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Land Use Type General Plan Proposed Specific Plan Change Residential 3,838 DU 5,176 DU 1,338 DU
Non-Residential 3,293,240 SF 2,058,666 SF -1,234,574 sf Note: The allowable development numbers under the General Plan include the development assumptions of the adopted Midtown Plan.
Source: Data Compiled by Ascent 2024.
I I
Project Description and Water Demands Ascent
City of Milpitas
2-2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2024.
Figure 2-1 Specific Plan Area Boundary
0 900 1,800
Feet
20210060.01 GIS 051
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Boundary
Adopted Midtown Specific Plan Project Area
Metro Specific Plan Project Area
Light Rail
Railway
BART Station
Light Rail Stop
Ascent Project Description and Water Demands
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment 2-3
2.2 ESTIMATED PROJECT WATER DEMANDS
Table 2-2 provides an estimate of project water demands.
Table 2-2 Comparison of Adopted General Plan to the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Water Demands
Project
Land Use Type
Residential
Dwelling units
Land Use Type
Non-Residential
Square feet
Water Demand
Factors
Residential
(gpd/du)1
Water Demand
Factors
Non-Residential
(gpd/ksf)2
Water Demands
(Gallons Per Day)
Residential
Water Demands
(Gallons Per Day)
Non-Residential
Total
(Gallons Per
Day)
General Plan Land
Uses for Specific Plan
Area3
3,838 3,293,240 170 270 652,460 889,175 1,541,635
Proposed Specific
Plan 5,176 2,058,666 170 270 879,920 555,840 1,435,760
Increase 1,338 -1,234,574 - - 227,460 -333,335 -105,875
1. Assumed gallons per dwelling unit based on the City of Sunnyvale Lawrence Station Area Plan Update/Intuitive Surgical Corporate Campus Project Water Supply Assessment (City of Sunnyvale 2020) as the 2020 UWMP and the City of Milpitas Water Master Plan do not provide water demand factors on a per unit basis.
2. Assumed gallons per 1,000 square feet of non-residential use for a mix commercial, industrial and institutional uses based on the City of Sunnyvale Lawrence Station Area Plan Update/Intuitive Surgical Corporate Campus Project Water Supply Assessment (City of Sunnyvale 2020) as the 2020 UWMP and the City of Milpitas Water Master Plan do not provide water demand factors on a square footage basis.
3. The allowable development numbers under the General Plan include the development assumptions of the adopted Midtown Plan Source: Compiled by Ascent 2024.
2.3 CITY WATER DEMANDS
2.3.1 Historic and Current Water Demands
Table 2-3 summarizes the 2020 water use in the City divided by sector.
Table 2-3 Current Water Use Demand by Customer Type (Million Gallons) Customer Type 2020 Water Use
Single Family Residential 965
Multi-Family Residential 724
Commercial 276
Industrial 355
Industrial – Industrial Cooling Tower Using Recycled Water 16 Institutional/Governmental 146
Landscape 290
Landscape Irrigation Using Recycled Water 341
Other 15
Losses (Fire) 302
Total Water Use 3,430
Source: 2020 UWMP, Table 4-1 and 6-4 (City of Milpitas 2021a).
I I
Project Description and Water Demands Ascent
City of Milpitas
2-4 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment
2.3.2 Future Water Demands
Table 2-4 summarizes the projected water demand for the City divided by 5-year increments provided in the 2020 UWMP using California Department of Finance growth projections for the City that identifies a population of 120,400 residents in 2045. In comparison, General Plan buildout (without the project) is estimated to consist of 113,530 residents (City of Milpitas 2020). Water demand growth is assumed to occur under normal water year conditions.
Table 2-4 2020 UWMP Projected Water Demand Projections by Customer Type (Million Gallons)
Customer Type Year 2025 Year 2030 Year 2035 Year 2040 Year 2045 Single Family Residential 1,110 1,110 1,080 1,070 1,070 Multi-Family Residential 810 900 1,000 1,090 1,170
Commercial 530 540 540 550 560
Industrial 450 460 460 470 480
Industrial – Industrial Cooling Tower
Using Recycled Water 20 20 20 20 20
Institutional/Governmental 210 230 250 270 280
Landscape 390 400 430 440 460
Landscape Irrigation Using Recycled Water 380 380 380 380 380 Losses 420 440 460 480 490
Other (Fire) 5 5 6 6 7
Total Water Use 4,325 4,475 4,626 4,776 4,917
Source: 2020 UWMP Table 4-3 and 6-4 (City of Milpitas 2021a).
I I
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment 3-1 3 CITY WATER SUPPLY
The following provides an overview of City water supply sources based on Chapter 6, “Water Supply Characterization,” of the 2020 UWMP (City of Milpitas 2021a).
3.1 CURRENT WATER SUPPLY SOURCES
The City obtains its water supply from three sources: purchased water from SFPUC and Valley Water and recycled water from SBWR. The project is located within both the SFPUC and Valley Water water service areas.
3.1.1 San Francisco Public Utility Commission
Approximately 60 percent of the City’s water supply is provided from SFPUC. The City receives imported water from the City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water System (RWS), operated by SFPUC. This supply is predominantly from the Sierra Nevada, delivered through the Hetch Hetchy aqueducts, but also includes treated water produced by the SFPUC from its local watersheds and facilities in Alameda and San Mateo Counties. Water from the RWS is treated before delivery and supplied to City from two connections, Bay Division Pipelines (BDPL) 1 and 2, and the Crystal Springs Bypass Tunnel.
The amount of imported water available to the SFPUC’s retail and wholesale customers is constrained by hydrology, physical facilities, and the institutional parameters that allocate the water supply of the Tuolumne River. Due to these constraints, the SFPUC is very dependent on reservoir storage to ensure ongoing reliability of its water supplies.
On June 2, 2009, the City entered into a 25-year Water Supply Agreement with SFPUC. This agreement affirms the City’s perpetual right to purchase up to 9.23 million gallons per day (mgd) of treated potable water unless SFPUC has a water shortage.
3.1.2 Valley Water
Valley Water began providing treated surface water from Valley Water in August 1993 under a September 1984 contract between the City and Valley Water (previously known as Santa Clara Valley Water District). The supply delivery is adjusted annually based on a binding 3-year annual delivery schedule. The City’s annual purchase must be at least 90 percent of the delivery schedule and the City’s monthly “supply guarantee” is at least 15 percent of the annual delivery schedule. Valley Water provides treated water from its Penitencia and Santa Teresa treatment plant via its Milpitas Pipeline which terminates in the City.
Although the City purchases are currently limited to surface water largely purchased by Valley Water from the State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project CVP (Valley Water has a contract for 152,500 acre-feet per year [AFY] from the CVP and 100,000 AFY from the SWP), Valley Water’s overall water supply comes from a variety of sources.
Nearly half is from local groundwater aquifers, and more than half is imported from the Sierra Nevada through pumping stations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Both groundwater and imported water are sold to retailers. Valley Water also manages the groundwater basin to the benefit of agricultural users and other independent users who pump groundwater. Local runoff is captured in Valley Water reservoirs for recharge into the groundwater basin or treatment at one of Valley Water’s water treatment plants. The total storage capacity of these reservoirs is about 170,000 acre-feet. According to the City’s Water Master Plan, a new Valley Water turnout near Piper Drive and a two mgd storage reservoir and 4,000 gallon per minute pump station in the Valley Water service area is anticipated to be constructed between 2031 and 2035 (Silveira 2025, pers comm). Further, according to the City’s Water Master Plan, a new emergency pressure reducing valve at the intersection of Cedar Way and South Main Street to allow flows between zone SF1 and zone VW1, as identified in Section 7.3 of the Specific Plan, is anticipated to be constructed between 2031 and 2035 (Silveira, pers. comm., 2025).
City Water Supply Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment
3.1.3 Recycled Water
The recycled water use identified in Table 2-2 and Table 2-3 include projects currently underway to convert potable users within the vicinity of the existing recycled water system, irrigation and conversion of cooling towers as identified through a SBWR Cooling Tower Initiative and extension of the recycled water system to capture additional irrigation use.
Every year, the City purchases approximately 300 million gallons of recycled water from the San Jose/Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility, through SBWR. The recycled water undergoes an extensive tertiary treatment process (including filtration and disinfection) and is delivered to more than 220 recycled water customers in the City, for landscape irrigation and industrial uses. The recycled water system is part of the South Bay Water Recycling Strategic Master Planning Report completed in 2014. The Strategic Plan was divided into two phases, near-term (2015-2020) and long term (2020-2035). Master Planning would provide basis for identifying alternative governance frameworks and associated funding strategies for non-potable water (i.e. recycled water). The SBWR system is currently developed to reflect near term recycled water demands. The long term plan is currently being studied, and future allocations have not been identified. Projected recycled water use is limited by the future supply allocations outlined by SBWR.
3.2 GROUNDWATER
The City does not use groundwater to meet customer demands under normal conditions. The City has one existing fully developed well, Pinewood Well and two planned or in development: Curtis Well and McCandless Well. These wells are located in the southwestern part of the city. The Curtis Well was drilled in 2003, but the well was not equipped with above-grade infrastructure required for a functioning well, and the facility was never completed. As a result, bringing the Curtis Well online requires installing a submersible pump, piping and treatment components, as well as conducting testing and permitting. The well is currently inactive, but the City Water Master Plan identifies that this well will be improved and operational on or after 2035. The McCandless Well is anticipated to have its construction complete by 2026 and operational in 2027 with a 0.58 mgd capacity. 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. There is no plan for an additional well at this time. As mentioned in the UWMP, a fourth well is needed for a 5th dry year by 2035 or 3rd dry year by 2045. The City will continue to evaluate The need for a fourth well in future UWMPs and Water Master Plans will continue to be evaluated by the City (Silveira, pers. comm., 2025).
The future use of these well facilities as emergency wells or fully functioning wells was not identified in the 2020 UWMP. Potential expansion of the City’s water portfolio to include groundwater wells could supplement loss of supply as a result of wholesale cutbacks in the event of prolonged droughts. Pinewood Well is permitted for use as a standby emergency well. The City currently reserves groundwater supply for emergency use in the event that SFPUC and Valley Water cannot deliver contract treated water supplies.
The Santa Clara Valley Subbasin is not adjudicated and has not been identified to be in overdraft by California Department of Water Resources. Valley Water manages the groundwater basin, monitoring the basin for local subsidence, managing surface recharge, and working with local retailers to prevent subsidence consistent with the Valley Water’s Groundwater Management Plan. The subbasin is not subject to a groundwater sustainability plan as required under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.
3.3 FUTURE WATER SUPPLY SOURCES AND RELIABILITY
Table 3-1 shows the projected water supplies for the City through the year 2045.
Ascent City Water Supply
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment 3-3 Table 3-1 City Water Supplies (AFY)
Supply Source Year 2025 Year 2030 Year 2035 Year 2040 Year 2045 SFPUC Purchased Water 2,410 2,470 2,570 2,660 2,750
Valley Water Purchased Water 1,445 1,505 1,536 1,586 1,637 Recycled Water 400 400 400 400 400
Total 4,325 4,475 4,626 4,776 4,917
Source: 2020 UWMP Table 6-9 (City of Milpitas 2021a).
3.3.1 San Francisco Public Utility Commission
In December 2018, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay Delta Plan) to establish water quality objectives to maintain the health of the Bay-Delta ecosystem. The adopted Bay Delta Plan was developed with the stated goal of increasing salmonid populations in three San Joaquin River tributaries (the Stanislaus, Merced, and Tuolumne Rivers) and the Bay Delta. The Bay Delta Plan Amendment requires the release of 30 to 50 percent of the “unimpaired flow” on these tributaries from February through June in every year type. As noted above, SFPUC obtains surface water from the Tuolumne River.
The SFPUC has initiated an Alternative Water Supply Planning Program to ensure that San Francisco can meet its Retail and Wholesale Customer water needs, address projected dry years shortages, and limit rationing to a maximum 20 percent system-wide in accordance with adopted SFPUC policies. This program is intended to meet future water supply challenges and vulnerabilities such as environmental flow needs and other regulatory changes; earthquakes, disasters, and emergencies; increases in population and employment; and climate change.
Since the City’s water supply relies partially on the SFPUC RWS, impacts from the potential implementation of the Bay Delta Plan, is anticipated to impact the City’s service reliability. The City would be able to meet the projected water demands in normal years through 2045 but would experience supply shortages in single dry years and multiple dry years. Such implementation of the Bay Delta Plan would require rationing in all single dry years and multiple dry years. For the preparation of local UWMPs, SFPUC provided two scenarios, using hydrologic models with and without the Bay Delta Plan Amendment. This included Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) drought cutback allocations based on the information about projected water supply availability for the wholesale customers from SFPUC. All of BAWSCA’s allocation tables assume that the wholesale customers can purchase up to 184 mgd from SFPUC’s RWS through 2045. In normal years 100 percent of the City’s ISG is available to the City, that is 9.232 mgd. The reader is referred to Chapter 4, “Water Supply Sufficiency Analysis,” for a further discussion of anticipated supply shortages for the City in dry and multiple dry year conditions.
3.3.2 Valley Water
To maintain water supply reliability and flexibility, Valley Water’s water supply includes a variety of sources including local groundwater, imported water, and local surface water. Valley Water has an active conjunctive water management program to optimize the use of groundwater and surface water, and to prevent groundwater overdraft and land subsidence.
Long-term planning and modeling analysis performed by Valley Water as part of its Integrated Water Resources Planning Study (IWRP) indicates that if additional investments are made, future countywide demands can reliably be met. It is the intent of Valley Water to invest in accordance with the IWRP framework to develop a flexible resource mix. This flexibility will allow Valley Water to respond to uncertain future conditions. The 2003 IWRP developed a planning framework and supporting modeling tools to help Valley Water identify and select specific water resource investments. The 2003 IWRP evaluation was based on a best estimate of the water demand and water supply outlook through 2040. Future water demand was estimated based on data from ABAG, Department of Finance and general I
City Water Supply Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-4 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment plans from cities and Santa Clara County. The demand projection for the cities in Santa Clara County did not distinguish between Valley Water or SFPUC supplies.
The key findings from the 2003 IWRP are: (1) securing baseline supplies is top priority for ensuring reliability, 2) a mix of three types of new water supply investments makes the best water supply portfolio, and 3) local supplies decrease vulnerability.
Modeling conducted for the Water Supply Master Plan 2040 (Master Plan) indicates shortages during droughts in all demand years, with shortages increasing in severity and frequency as demands increase and Delta-conveyed supplies decrease. By 2040, without new supplies or conservation savings, shortages could occur in about 40 percent of years.
The Master Plan identifies that 2040 available water supplies would range from 250,000 AFY to 399,000 AFY depending on the water year that could result in water supply shortfalls as high as 140,000 AFY during extended drought conditions (Valley Water 2019).
To improve the reliability of water supplies, the Master Plan includes the Valley Water’s Ensure Sustainability water supply strategy that consists of securing existing supplies and infrastructure; increasing water conservation and water reuse; and optimizing the use of existing supplies and infrastructure. The following projects would be implemented as part of this strategy:
Delta Conveyance Project,
Additional Conservation and Stormwater Projects and Programs, Potable Reuse Program,
Pacheco Reservoir Expansion,
Transfer-Bethany Pipeline, and
South County Recharge.
Implementation of these projects would provide a reliable water supply that would meet 2040 demands during a non-drought year. During drought conditions, water supplies would be sufficient to meet 100 percent of demand during the first five years of drought and more than 90 percent in the last year (Valley Water 2019).
3.3.3 Groundwater
Groundwater is managed under guidance from Valley Water and in accordance with the 2016 Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP). California Department of Water Resources has determined that the GWMP satisfies the objectives of the SGMA. The goals are the 2016 GWMP area to manage and optimize groundwater supply reliability and minimalize land subsidence and to protect groundwater from contamination and saltwater intrusion.
Groundwater well pumping may be adjusted slightly in the future to meet future water demands during drought years and emergencies. Countywide water supplies are generally sufficient to meet demands in normal years through 2040, but significant shortages may occur during multiple dry years without additional investments. Total natural groundwater recharge assumed for total Valley Water supplies consists of 61,000 AFY long term average and 47,000 AFY during a crucial drought (Valley Water 2019).
3.3.4 Recycled Water
As described above, recycled water provision to the City is addressed in the South Bay Water Recycling Strategic Master Planning Report completed in 2014. The Strategic Plan was divided into two phases, near-term (2015-2020) and long term (2020-2035). Master Planning would provide basis for identifying alternative governance frameworks and associated funding strategies for non-potable water (i.e., recycled water). The SBWR system is currently developed to reflect near term recycled water demands. The long term plan is currently being studied, and future allocations have not been identified. Projected recycled water use is limited by the future supply allocations outlined by SBWR.
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment 4-1 4 WATER SUPPLY SUFFICIENCY ANALYSIS
4.1 PROJECT WATER DEMANDS AND FUTURE WATER SUPPLY
The project’s water estimated water demands are provided in Table 2-2 and identifies a total demand of 1,435,760 gallons per day (approximately 524 million gallons per year) that would result in a net decrease anticipated water demand of 105,875 gallons per day (approximately 39 million gallons per year) as compared to existing land uses under the General Plan.
Tables 4-1 through 4-3 identify City water demands and supplies under normal, single dry, multiple dry year conditions between 2025 and 2045. These water demands associated with growth factor the project (City of Milpitas 2021a). The project’s population increases over the General Plan buildout (i.e., an additional 3,816 residents to the General Plan buildout of 113,530 residents) would be within the growth projections used in the 2020 UWMP of 120,400 residents in 2045. The project would also reduce nonresidential development potential under the General Plan by 1,234,574 square feet (see Table 2-1).
Table 4-1 City Water Supplies and Demands with Project – Normal Year (Million Gallons)
Supply Source Year 2025 Year 2030 Year 2035 Year 2040 Year 2045 City Water Supply Total1 4,325 4,475 4,626 4,776 4,917
City Water Demands (including project) 4,325 4,475 4,626 4,776 4,917 Difference 0 0 0 0 0
1. Consists of water supplied by SFPUC, Valley Water, and recycled water from SBWR.
Source: 2020 UWMP Table 7-2 (City of Milpitas 2021a).
Table 4-2 City Water Supplies and Demands with Project – Single Dry Year (Million Gallons) Supply Source Year 2025 Year 2030 Year 2035 Year 2040 Year 2045 City Water Supply Total1 3,460 4,475 4,626 4,776 4,917
City Water Demands (including project) 4,325 4,475 4,626 4,776 4,917 Difference (865) 0 0 0 0
1. Consists of water supplied by SFPUC, Valley Water, and recycled water from SBWR.
Source: 2020 UWMP Table 7-2 (City of Milpitas 2021a).
Table 4-3 City Water Supplies and Demands with Project – Multiple Dry Years (Million Gallons) Supply Source Year 2025 Year 2030 Year 2035 Year 2040 Year 2045 First Year City Water Supply Total1 3,460 4,475 4,626 4,776 4,917 City Water Demands (including project) 4,325 4,475 4,626 4,776 4,917 Difference (865) 0 0 0 0
Second Year City Water Supply Total1 3,230 4,475 4,626 4,776 4,917 City Water Demands (including project) 4,325 4,475 4,626 4,776 4,917 Difference (1,095) 0 0 0 0
Third Year City Water Supply Total1 2,940 4,370 4,626 4,776 4,917 City Water Demands (including project) 4,325 4,475 4,626 4,776 4,917 Difference (1,385) (105) 0 0 0
I I
I I
I I
Water Supply Sufficiency Analysis Screencheck Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Ascent City of Milpitas
4-2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment Supply Source Year 2025 Year 2030 Year 2035 Year 2040 Year 2045 Fourth Year City Water Supply Total1 2,940 4,370 4,626 4,776 4,870 City Water Demands (including project) 4,325 4,475 4,626 4,776 4,917 Difference (1,385) (105) 0 0 (47)
Fifth Year City Water Supply Total1 2,940 4,370 4,626 4,776 4,870 City Water Demands (including project) 4,325 4,475 4,626 4,776 4,917 Difference (1,385) (105) 0 0 (47)
1. Consists of water supplied by SFPUC, Valley Water, and recycled water from SBWR.
Source: 2020 UWMP Table 7-4 (City of Milpitas 2021a).
4.2 WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY
As shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3, City’s existing water supply sources result in shortfalls in supply in 2025, 2030, and 2045 under single dry-year and multiple dry year conditions. During these conditions, the City would implement its Water Shortage Contingency Plan that consists of voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures that would address water supply shortfalls.
Specifically the Water Shortage Contingency Plan Table 3-2 identifies water demand reduction actions that include a range of measures (e.g., restrictions on operation of water features, landscaping irrigation, public information campaigns, reductions of system water loss) that are identified to reduce the water supply shortage gap from 1 to 70 percent (City of Milpitas 2021b).
The Water Shortage Contingency Plan also includes Table 3-3 that identifies water augmentation through the installation of five additional groundwater wells by 2025 and two additional groundwater wells by 2040 each with a
1.2 mgd production capacity. This could include involve a managed groundwater well extraction program similar to neighboring water agencies, Alameda County Water District to the north and City of Santa Clara and San Jose Water Company to the south. The south-western portion of the City of Milpitas overlays a groundwater aquifer that has been determined to be adequately productive. In-pipe blending of groundwater with SFPUC and Valley Water has been identified viable option for augmenting supply shortages. Four wells at an average withdrawal rate of 1.2 million gallons per day (450 million gallons per year) would produce up to 5 million gallons per day of supplemental water supply for the City. The extraction rate and volume is based on preliminary production tests of McCandless Well and Curtis Well which have indicated the aquifer in this zone produces 500 to 1,200 gallons per minute or an average of 850 gallons per minute. The potential provision of future wells, while an increase to the infrastructure costs, would improve long-term supply reliability by expanding the City’s water supply portfolio during dry-year conditions when SFPUC and Valley Water supplies may be reduced. Based on the shortfalls identified in Table 4-3, groundwater production by four wells would be adequate to offset water supply shortages identified for 2030 and 2045 (project approval is anticipated in 2025). Sustainability of wells and groundwater aquifers are based on aquifer recharge, as currently performed by Valley Water. The City in concert with Valley Water could study the feasibility of offsetting SFPUC supply reductions, as identified in the 2020 UWMP during various drought scenarios (City of Milpitas 2021b).
In addition to these measures, California Code of Regulations, title 23, division 3, chapter 3.5, which go into effect in 2025, establish new water conservation measures to be implemented by public water service providers that would provide additional reductions to future water demands.
I I
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment 5-1 5 REPORT PREPARERS
Ascent
Patrick Angell ....................................................................................................................................................................................... Principal Claudia Watts ....................................................................................................................................................................... Project Manager
Report Preparers Ascent
City of Milpitas
5-2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment This page intentionally left blank.
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment 6-1 6 REFERENCES
Chapter 1 Introduction
City of Milpitas. 2021a (July). City of Milpitas 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by Maddaus Water Management, Inc.
Chapter 2 Project Description and Water Demands
City of Milpitas. 2020 (November). General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by De Novo Planning Group.
———. 2021a (July). City of Milpitas 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by Maddaus Water Management, Inc.
City of Sunnyvale. 2020 (August). City of Sunnyvale Lawrence Station Area Plan Update/Intuitive Surgical Corporate Campus Project Water Supply Assessment. Prepared by Ascent Environmental.
Chapter 3 City Water Supply
City of Milpitas. 2021a (July). City of Milpitas 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by Maddaus Water Management, Inc.
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.
Valley Water. 2019 (November). Water Supply Master Plan 2040.
Chapter 4 Water Supply Sufficiency Analysis
City of Milpitas. 2021a (July). City of Milpitas 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by Maddaus Water Management, Inc.
———. 2021b. City of Milpitas 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Prepared by Maddaus Water Management, Inc.
References Ascent
City of Milpitas
6-2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment This page is intentionally left blank.
Ascent Table of Contents
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Draft EIR 1
FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
Gateway-Main Street
Specific Plan
State Clearinghouse No. 2024070432
PREPARED FOR:
City of Milpitas
455 E. Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, CA 95030
ATTENTION:
Jay Lee
Planning Director
September 2025
FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan
State Clearinghouse No. 2024070432
PREPARED FOR:
City of Milpitas – Planning Department
455 E. Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, CA 95030
CONTACT:
Jay Lee
Planning Director
[email protected]
PREPARED BY:
Ascent Environmental, Inc., DBA Ascent
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
CONTACT:
Pat Angell
Principal
916.732.3324
[email protected]
SEPTEMBER 2025
20210060.01
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Final SEIR i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... ii 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 1-1 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 2-1
2.1 List of Commenters on the Draft SEIR .................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Comments and Responses ......................................................................................................................................... 2-1 3 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 3-1 4 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 4-1
Appendix
A Comment Letters
B CEQA Findings and MMRP
Figure
Figure 2-1 VMT & GHG Reduction Strategies .......................................................................................................................... 2-5 Table
Table 2-1 List of Commenters ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-1
1.1 Purpose and Intended Uses of this Final SEIR ....................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Project Location .............................................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.3 Project Objectives .......................................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.4 Summary Description of the Project ....................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.5 Major Conclusions of the Environmental Analysis .............................................................................................. 1-2
1.6 CEQA Public Review Process ..................................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.7 Organization of the Final SEIR .................................................................................................................................. 1-3
List of Abbreviations Ascent
City of Milpitas
ii Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Final SEIR
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Milpitas
Draft SEIR Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Final SEIR Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report GHG greenhouse gas
I Interstate
Specific Plan Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan
TDM Transportation Demand Management
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VTA Valley Transportation Authority
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Final SEIR 1-1
1 INTRODUCTION
This final subsequent environmental impact report (Final SEIR) has been prepared by the City of Milpitas (City), as lead agency, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15132). This Final SEIR contains responses to comments received on the draft subsequent environmental impact report (Draft SEIR) for the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (Specific Plan). The Final SEIR consists of the Draft SEIR and this document (response to comments document), which includes comments on the Draft SEIR, responses to those comments, and revisions to the Draft SEIR.
1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USES OF THIS FINAL SEIR
CEQA requires a lead agency that has prepared a Draft EIR to consult with and obtain comments from responsible and trustee agencies that have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project, and to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR is the mechanism for responding to these comments. This Final SEIR has been prepared to respond to comments received on the Draft SEIR, which are reproduced in this document; and to present corrections, revisions, and other clarifications and amplifications to the Draft SEIR, including project updates, made in response to these comments and as a result of the City’s ongoing planning efforts. The Final SEIR will be used to support the City’s decision regarding whether to approve the Specific Plan.
This Final SEIR will also be used by CEQA responsible agencies to ensure that they have met their requirements under CEQA before deciding whether to approve or permit project elements over which they have jurisdiction.
This SEIR provides a programmatic evaluation of the proposed Specific Plan. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan (i.e., approval of future projects) could involve many responsible agencies, depending on the details of a future project.
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Area (Specific Plan Area) is approximately 605 acres within the City. The City, located in northern Santa Clara County, within the South San Francisco Bay Area, is situated north of San Jose and east of Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Mountain View along State Route 237 (Highway 237) (Figure 2-1). The City is served by three major freeways: Interstate (I)-880, I-680, State Route 237 (Highway 237)/Calaveras Boulevard, and the County-managed Montague Expressway.
1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objectives are based on the proposed Specific Plan vision and are intended to achieve the following:
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
Introduction Ascent
City of Milpitas
1-2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Final SEIR
1.4 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
Specific plans are a land use planning tool for the further implementation of the General Plan for individual development proposals in a defined geographic area. They give local land use agencies the ability to establish land use and design regulations to create development that is consistent with site-specific physical constraints and opportunities as well as available infrastructure. All subsequent development within the boundaries of the specific plan area is subject to the requirements of the specific plan. Sections 65450 through 65457 of the California Government Code grant authority to the City for the development and adoption of specific plans.
The purpose of the proposed 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 Abbot District.
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. The proposed Specific Plan Land Use Framework would implement the vision for the Specific Plan focus areas through Specific Plan Zoning Districts and existing Citywide Zoning Districts.
1.5 MAJOR CONCLUSIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The Draft SEIR identified the following significant and unavoidable impacts under project and cumulative conditions:
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
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) Transportation
Impact 3.8-2 (Generate a Substantial Increase in Long-Term Transportation Noise Levels) Cumulative
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)
1.6 CEQA PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
The City published the Draft SEIR for public and agency review on April 17, 2025. A 45-day public review was provided, ending on June 2, 2025. The Draft SEIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to reviewing agencies; posted on the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Project’s website (https://www.milpitasmainstreet.org/). A notice of availability of the Draft SEIR was distributed by the City. The City extended the comment period to July 24, 2025.
As a result of these notification efforts, written and verbal comments were received from two local agencies (California Department of Transportation and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority) on the content of the Draft
Ascent Introduction
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Final SEIR 1-3
SEIR. Chapter 3, “Responses to Comments,” identifies these commenting parties, their respective comments, and responses to these comments. None of the comments received, or the responses provided, constitute “significant new information” by CEQA standards (State CEQA Guidelines CCR Section 15088.5).
Final SEIR Appendix B includes the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (findings) that have been prepared consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 through 15093. The Milpitas City Council will be required to make these findings regarding the environmental impact conclusions of the SEIR as part of the City’s actions to adopt the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan. These findings are based on the technical analysis and conclusions of the Draft SEIR and this Final SEIR.
1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL SEIR
This Final SEIR is organized as follows:
Chapter 1, “Introduction,” describes the purpose of the Final SEIR, summarizes the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan and the major conclusions of the Draft SEIR, provides an overview of the CEQA public review process, and describes the content of the Final SEIR.
Chapter 2, “Responses to Comments,” contains a list of all parties who submitted comments on the Draft SEIR during the public review period, copies of the comment letters received, and responses to the comments.
Chapter 3, “References,” identifies the documents used as sources for the analysis.
Chapter 4, “List of Preparers,” identifies the lead agency contacts as well as the preparers of this Final SEIR.
Introduction Ascent
City of Milpitas
1-4 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Final SEIR
This page is intentionally left blank.
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-1 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
This chapter contains comment letters received during the public review period for the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR), which concluded on July 24, 2025. In conformance with Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, written responses were prepared addressing comments on environmental issues received from reviewers of the Draft SEIR.
2.1 LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE DRAFT SEIR
Table 3-1 presents the list of commenters, including the numerical designation for each comment letter received, the author of the comment letter, and the date of the comment letter.
Table 2-1 List of Commenters
Letter No. Commenter Date
STATE AGENCIES (S)
S1 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 4 Yunsheng Luo, District Branch Chief
June 2, 2025
LOCAL AGENCIES (L)
L1 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Triana Crighton, Senior Transportation Planner May 30, 2025
2.2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
The individual comments received on the Draft SEIR and the responses to those comments are provided below.
Actual comment letters are provided in Appendix A.
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Milpitas
2-2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR
2.2.1 State Agencies
Letter S1 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans, District 4) Yunsheng Luo, District Branch Chief
June 2, 2025
Comment S1-1
Per the DEIR, this project is found to have a significant VMT impact. Please consider the following measures to mitigate the project’s VMT impact.
Mitigation Strategies
Caltrans Smart Mobility Framework Guide defines a place type based on four physical elements: built form, land use, mobility options, and people. We encourage the project applicant to develop and implement an effective Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to reduce VMT and greenhouse gas emissions from future development in this area. TDM programs should be documented with annual monitoring reports by a TDM coordinator to demonstrate effectiveness. If the project does not achieve the VMT reduction goals, the reports should also include next steps to take to achieve those targets.
Response S1-1
Caltrans recommends that the City develop and implement an effective Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to reduce VMT and greenhouse gas emissions. The VMT mitigation options identified in the Draft SEIR include a commute trip reduction program (Mitigation Measure 3.11-2a). The program would include elements such as a ridesharing program, subsidized or discounted transit passes, employer-sponsored vanpool, and a guaranteed ride home program.
The City of Milpitas General Plan includes implementing a Transportation Demand Management Plan as a circulation goal (Goal CIR-5). TDM is also listed as an important tool to achieve all of Caltrans’ Smart Mobility 2010’s performance measures of location efficiency, reliable mobility, health and safety, environmental stewardship, social equity, and robust economy.
The City has also adopted a VMT Policy, which establishes screening criteria reflecting TDM measures prioritizing density, mixed-use, and multimodal transportation. The VMT Policy also references the VTA VMT Evaluation Tool, which prioritizes similar TDM measures for mitigation, as a resource for evaluation. Additionally, the City has adopted the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update, which establishes citywide TDM requirements for certain types of new development.
Comment S1-2
Please also consider the measures listed below are quantified by California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and shown to have different efficiencies reducing regional VMT:
Increase Residential Density
Increase Job Density
Provide Transit-Oriented Development
Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing
Improve Street Connectivity
Locate Project/Developments in Area with High Destination Accessibility Improve Destination Accessibility in Underserved Areas Orient Project/Developments Toward Transit, Bike, or Pedestrian Facility Locate Project/Developments near Bike Path/Bike Lane
Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement
Construct or Improve Bike Facility
Construct or Improve Bike Boulevard
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-3 Expand Bikeway Network
Implement Shared Vehicle Program (car/bike/E-bike/scooter) Provide Traffic Calming Measures
Create Urban Non-motorized zones
Dedicate Land for Bike Trails
Extend Transit Network Coverage or Hours
Increase Transit Service Frequency
Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments
Provide Bus Rapid Transit
Reduce Transit Fares
Improve Transit Access, Safety, and Comfort
Provide Bike Parking Near Transit
Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure
Limit Residential Parking Supply
Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street)
Provide Secure Bike Parking
Implement Area or Cordon Pricing
Replace Traffic Controls with Roundabout
Required Project Contributions to Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Install Park-and-Ride Lots
Response S1-2
Caltrans suggests the City consider the measures quantified by CAPCOA that are shown to have different efficiencies reducing regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
The Specific Plan includes a comprehensive approach to reducing VMT through implementation of numerous VMT reduction measures listed in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (August 2021), along with their respective potential VMT reductions. Figure 1 below shows the VMT and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction measures and their associated maximum VMT/ GHG reduction. As shown below in Figure 2-1, the most effective VMT reduction measures are increased residential and employment density. Building dense development is integral to reducing VMT and other VMT reduction projects have lower reductions as they support the denser urban environment.
Furthermore, through the City’s development review process for new development and redevelopment projects, including those in the Plan Area, the City will require projects to implement many of the measures related to TDM and transportation public improvements listed in Comment S1-2.
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Milpitas
2-4 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR This page is intentionally left blank.
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-5
Source: Fehr & Peers 2025
Figure 2-1 VMT & GHG Reduction Strategies
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-7 Comment S1-3
VMT Mitigation Program
Please note that the Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) Equitable VMT Mitigation Program for Santa Clara County (link) was awarded through Caltrans’ Sustainable Transportation Planning Program to assist local agencies in identifying and quantifying mitigations to VMT impacts and improve multimodal transportation to serve Santa Clara’s residents. The County is encouraged to collaborate with Caltrans and VTA to assess and develop a regional VMT mitigation program to reduce VMT in an effective and feasible manner.
Response S1-3
Caltrans notes that VTA’s Equitable VMT Mitigation Program for Santa Clara County was awarded through Caltrans’ Sustainable Transportation Planning Program. Caltrans suggests Santa Clara County collaborate with them and VTA to assess and develop a regional VMT mitigation program.
The Equitable VMT Mitigation Program for Santa Clara County was accepted by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) board in March 2025. The board accepted a framework which offers considerations and recommendations for (1) types of VMT reduction projects that could be funded by a program, (2) the structure of a program, and (3) who would sponsor a program, along with other elements. The detailed specifications for a program would be determined in a potential future implementation phase, based on input from staff and legal counsel of the VMT mitigation Program Sponsor and participating local jurisdictions. The intent of the VMT mitigation program is to reduce driving and expand travel options for Santa Clara County residents in a way that works across jurisdictional lines and improves outcomes for communities that need it most. VTA will develop a conceptual scope for an implementation phase in consultation with local jurisdiction staff and solicit interest from local jurisdictions on whether to opt in to an implementation phase. The City of Milpitas was an active participant in the Equitable VMT Mitigation Program and looks forward to further discussions about a countywide VMT mitigation program and/or a regional VMT mitigation program.
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Milpitas
2-8 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR
2.2.2 Local Agencies
Letter L1 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Triana Crighton, Senior Transportation Planner
May 30, 2025
Comment L1-1
VTA recommends that the City should clearly specify the responsible parties, schedule, and monitoring / reporting procedures for Mitigation Measures 3.11-2a through 3.11-2f in the project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. To the greatest extent possible, VTA recommends having monitoring of these VMT mitigation measures performed by an independent third-party, paid for by future developers and/or property managers, rather than through self-reporting. Mitigation Measure 3.11-2b regarding Employer-Sponsored Vanpool or Shuttle Service mentions that a Transportation Management Association (TMA) could play a role in coordinating funding for a shuttle program; VTA notes that forming a TMA would help implement and monitor many of the VMT mitigation measures identified in the DSEIR.
Response L1-1
VTA recommends that the City clearly specify the details for the monitoring / reporting procedures for the Mitigation Measures 3.11-2a through 3.11-2f in the project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to lessen the significant and unavoidable VMT impact.
The mitigation measures for reducing the VMT impact are from California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and the mitigation discussion includes who would implement the mitigation measures. MMRP will be adopted with the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan will identify implementation of these mitigation measures. The MMRP identifies Mitigation Measures 3.11-2a through 3.11-2d would be triggered through subsequent project applications and implementing as part of subsequent project approvals consistent with the City’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines (TAG) Tier 4 (Mitigation) Transportation Demand Management provisions. Mitigation Measures
3.11-2e through 3.11-2f would be completed by the City through its overall implementation of the specific plan.
Comment L1-2
For Mitigation Measure 3.11-2a (Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program) VTA recommends that any such program should coordinate with and promote programs that already exist in Santa Clara County, including the VTA / MTC Vanpool Subsidy Program, VTA Guaranteed Ride Home Program, and transit incentive programs such as VTA SmartPass, Clipper START, and Clipper BayPass.
Response L1-2
VTA recommends that the City coordinate with and promote programs that already exist in Santa Clara County for Mitigation Measure 3.11-2a.
The reader is referred to responses to Comment Li-1. Mitigation Measure 3.11-2a requires future employers to develop and implement a commute trip reduction program that will be presented to the City of Milpitas for review and approval. This coordination is required and would occur as each future project under the Specific Plan is implemented. Approval of future commute trip reduction programs would need to demonstrate consideration of elements that reduce commute trips, which may include programs that already exist in Santa Clara County, including the VTA / MTC Vanpool Subsidy Program, VTA Guaranteed Ride Home Program, and transit incentive programs such as VTA SmartPass, Clipper START, and Clipper BayPass. This mitigation measure would be implemented through compliance with the City of Milpitas Transportation Analysis Guidelines (TAG) Tier 4 (Mitigation) Transportation Demand Management Provisions. This is discussed on Draft SEIR Page 3.11-8. Therefore, this comment does not identify a significant environmental impact that needs to be addressed further.
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 3-1 3 REFERENCES
Chapter 1, “Introduction”
No citations were used in this chapter.
Chapter 2, “Response to Comments”
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2021. 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: July 28, 2025.
CAPCOA. See California Air Pollution Control Officers Association.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. 2025 (March). Equitable VMT Mitigation Program for Santa Clara County.
Available: https://www.vta.org/projects/equitable-vmt-mitigation-program-santa-clara-county.
Accessed: July 28, 2025.
References Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR This page is intentionally left blank.
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 4-1 4 LIST OF PREPARERS
LEAD AGENCY
City of Milpitas (Lead Agency)
Jay Lee .................................................................................................................................................................................. Planning Director Lillian VanHua ....................................................................................................................................................................... Principal Planner
PREPARERS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
Ascent (CEQA Compliance)
Pat Angell.............................................................................................................................................................................................. Principal Claudia Watts ....................................................................................................................................................................... Project Manager Nicole Wang ............................................................................................................................................................. Environmental Planner Fehr and Peers (Transportation)
Mark Soendjojo ..................................................................................................................... Senior Transportation Engineer / Planner Daniel Rubins ........................................................................................................................................... Senior Transportation Specialist
List of Preparers Ascent
City of Milpitas
4-2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR This page is intentionally left blank.
Appendix A
Comment Letters
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Final SEIR 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATE AGENCIES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 3 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 4 ............................................................ 3 LOCAL AGENCIES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 6 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority .............................................................................................. 6
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” DISTRICT 4
OFFICE OF REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING
P.O. BOX 23660, MS–10D | OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
www.dot.ca.gov
June 2, 2025 SCH #: 2024070432
GTS #: 04-SCL-2024-01408
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 ─ 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 April 2025 DEIR.
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
June 2, 2025
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” The project VMT analysis and significance determination are undertaken in a manner consistent with the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation’s (LCI) Technical Advisory. Per the DEIR, this project is found to have a significant VMT impact. Please consider the following measures to mitigate the project’s VMT impact.
Mitigation Strategies
Caltrans Smart Mobility Framework Guide defines a place type based on four physical elements: built form, land use, mobility options, and people. We encourage the project applicant to develop and implement an effective Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to reduce VMT and greenhouse gas emissions from future development in this area. TDM programs should be documented with annual monitoring reports by a TDM coordinator to demonstrate effectiveness. If the project does not achieve the VMT reduction goals, the reports should also include next steps to take to achieve those targets.
Please also consider the measures listed below are quantified by California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and shown to have different efficiencies reducing regional VMT:
• Increase Residential Density
• Increase Job Density
• Provide Transit-Oriented Development
• Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing
• Improve Street Connectivity
• Locate Project/Developments in Area with High Destination Accessibility • Improve Destination Accessibility in Underserved Areas • Orient Project/Developments Toward Transit, Bike, or Pedestrian Facility • Locate Project/Developments near Bike Path/Bike Lane
• Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement
• Construct or Improve Bike Facility
• Construct or Improve Bike Boulevard
• Expand Bikeway Network
• Implement Shared Vehicle Program (car/bike/E-bike/scooter) • Provide Traffic Calming Measures
• Create Urban Non-motorized zones
• Dedicate Land for Bike Trails
• Extend Transit Network Coverage or Hours
• Increase Transit Service Frequency
• Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments
• Provide Bus Rapid Transit
• Reduce Transit Fares
• Improve Transit Access, Safety, and Comfort
• Provide Bike Parking Near Transit
Jay Lee, Planning Director
June 2, 2025
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” • Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure
• Limit Residential Parking Supply
• Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street)
• Provide Secure Bike Parking
• Implement Area or Cordon Pricing
• Replace Traffic Controls with Roundabout
• Required Project Contributions to Transportation Infrastructure Improvement • Install Park-and-Ride Lots
VMT Mitigation Program
Please note that the Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) Equitable VMT Mitigation Program for Santa Clara County (link) was awarded through Caltrans’ Sustainable Transportation Planning Program to assist local agencies in identifying and quantifying mitigations to VMT impacts and improve multimodal transportation to serve Santa Clara’s residents. The County is encouraged to collaborate with Caltrans and VTA to assess and develop a regional VMT mitigation program to reduce VMT in an effective and feasible manner.
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].
Sincerely,
YUNSHENG LUO
Branch Chief, Local Development Review
Office of Regional and Community Planning
c: State Clearinghouse
May 30, 2025
City of Milpitas
455 E. Calaveras Blvd
Milpitas CA 95035
Attn: Jay Lee
Dear Jay,
VTA appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan for the City of Milpitas.
VTA has reviewed the document and has the following comments:
Mitigation Measures for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Impact The Draft Subsequent EIR identifies a Significant and Unavoidable impact regarding VMT, Impact
3.11-2, which was also identified in the Milpitas General Plan Update EIR in 2021. The DSEIR includes several mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures 3.11-2a through 3.11-2f) to lessen this VMT impact, which VTA supports.
VTA recommends that the City should clearly specify the responsible parties, schedule, and monitoring / reporting procedures for Mitigation Measures 3.11-2a through 3.11-2f in the project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. To the greatest extent possible, VTA recommends having monitoring of these VMT mitigation measures performed by an independent third-party, paid for by future developers and/or property managers, rather than through self- reporting. Mitigation Measure 3.11-2b regarding Employer-Sponsored Vanpool or Shuttle Service mentions that a Transportation Management Association (TMA) could play a role in coordinating funding for a shuttle program; VTA notes that forming a TMA would help implement and monitor many of the VMT mitigation measures identified in the DSEIR.
For Mitigation Measure 3.11-2a (Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program) VTA recommends that any such program should coordinate with and promote programs that already exist in Santa Clara County, including the VTA / MTC Vanpool Subsidy Program, VTA Guaranteed Ride Home Program, and transit incentive programs such as VTA SmartPass, Clipper START, and Clipper BayPass.
Thank you again for the opportunity to review this plan and serve on the plan’s Technical Advisory Committee. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected], or the VTA Land Use and Development Review team at [email protected]
Sincerely,
Triana Crighton
Senior Transportation Planner
[ML2401]
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
of the City of Milpitas
for the
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan
September 2025
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 1 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 1
2.1 Background and Location .............................................................................................................................................. 1
2.2 Project Overview ............................................................................................................................................................... 1
2.3 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................................................ 9
2.4 Proposed Amendments ................................................................................................................................................ 10
2.5 Anticipated Actions ........................................................................................................................................................ 10 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 10 4 GENERAL CEQA FINDINGS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 11
4.1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program .................................................................................................... 11
4.2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and 15092 Findings ............................................................................................ 11
4.3 City Council Independent Judgment ........................................................................................................................ 12
4.4 Nature of Findings .......................................................................................................................................................... 12
4.5 Reliance on Record ......................................................................................................................................................... 12
4.6 Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report ...................................................................................... 14 5 FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 14 6 RELATIONSHIP WITH FINDINGS MADE ASSOCIATED WITH GATEWAY-MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN SEIR AND THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 15 7 EFFECTS DETERMINED NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 16
7.1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .......................................................................................................................... 16
7.2 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................................................................... 16
7.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................................................. 16
7.4 Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................................................................................................... 17
7.5 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................................................................... 18
7.6 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................................................................... 18 8 LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 18
8.1 Section 3.1: Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................................... 19
8.2 Section 3.2: Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................. 20
8.3 Section 3.3: Biological Resources ............................................................................................................................... 21
8.4 Section 3.4: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 24
8.5 Section 3.5: Energy ........................................................................................................................................................ 24
8.6 Section 3.6: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change ......................................................................... 25
8.7 Section 3.7: Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................................................... 26
8.8 Section 3.8: Noise and Vibration ............................................................................................................................... 27
8.9 Section 3.9: Population, Employment, and Housing ........................................................................................... 28
8.10 Section 3.10: Public Services and Recreation ......................................................................................................... 29
8.11 Section 3.11: Transportation ........................................................................................................................................ 30
8.12 Section 3.12: Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................................. 32 9 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 34
Table of Contents Ascent Environmental
City of Milpitas
ii Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings
10 FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE ............ 45
10.1 Section 3.4: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 45
10.2 Section 3.8: Noise ........................................................................................................................................................... 51
10.3 Section 3.11: Transortation ............................................................................................................................................ 51
10.4 Section 4: Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................................................... 54 11 FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 58
11.1 No Project Alternative .................................................................................................................................................. 58
11.2 Increased Residential Development for Main Street and Crossroads Districts Alternative ..................... 59 12 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 60
Attachments
Attachment A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Attachment B General Plan Update CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Tables
Table 1 Proposed New Specific Plan Zoning Districts .......................................................................................................... 4 Table 2 Changes in Buildout Under Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan ........................................................................ 4 Table 3 Available Incentives ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 Table 4 Summary of Modeled Traffic Noise Levels under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions ......................................................................................................................................................... 55 Table 5 Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project VMT Assessment .............................................................................. 57
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan CEQA Findings 1
1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Milpitas (City), as lead agency, prepared a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (Specific Plan). The document consists of the April 2025 Draft SEIR and the August 2025 Final SEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2024070432) (collectively referred to as the SEIR). The SEIR for the proposed Specific Plan provides an assessment of the reasonably foreseeable and potentially significant adverse environmental effects that may occur beyond what was evaluated in the City of Milpitas General Plan Update EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2020070348). These findings have been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.) and its implementing guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). The City is the lead agency under CEQA, and the City of Milpitas City Council (City Council) is the decision-making authority for the project. The City Council adopts these findings in that capacity. 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 BACKGROUND AND LOCATION
The Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Area (Specific Plan Area) is approximately 605 acres within the City. The City, located in northern Santa Clara County, within the South San Francisco Bay Area, is situated north of San Jose and east of Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Mountain View along State Route 237 (Highway 237) (Figure 2-1). The City is served by three major freeways: Interstate (I)-880, I-680, State Route 237 (Highway 237)/Calaveras Boulevard, and the County-managed Montague Expressway.
The Midtown Plan, adopted in 2002 and updated in 2010, is the predecessor plan to the proposed Milpitas Gateway- Main Street Specific Plan. Its aim was to respond to a series of development activities in the Midtown area, including the construction of new housing, reinvestment in the Great Mall, and the future extension of the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Light Rail Transit line and BART to the area by creating a cohesive Specific Plan for Midtown.
The Milpitas General Plan Update, adopted in 2021, is the guiding, long-term plan, and policy document for the physical development of the city through 2040. 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.
The Specific Plan Area includes the historic commercial core of the city, centered on Main Street and the Calaveras Gateway. The proposed Specific Plan would update 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.
2.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
Specific plans are a land use planning tool for the further implementation of the General Plan for individual development proposals in a defined geographic area. They give local land use agencies the ability to establish land use and design regulations to create development that is consistent with site-specific physical constraints and opportunities as well as available infrastructure. All subsequent development within the boundaries of the specific plan area is subject to the requirements of the specific plan. Sections 65450 through 65457 of the California Government Code grant authority to the City for the development and adoption of specific plans.
CEQA Findings Ascent
City of Milpitas
2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan CEQA Findings
The purpose of the proposed 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 Abbot District.
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. The proposed Specific Plan Land Use Framework would implement the vision for the Specific Plan focus areas through Specific Plan Zoning Districts and existing Citywide Zoning Districts.
Specific Plan Areas
Existing neighborhoods would be preserved and enhanced with future improvements in the Specific Plan Area.
Neighborhoods are intended to benefit from local area improvements, such as new street, streetscape, and open space trail improvements that would connect residents to adjacent area shops, businesses, parks, and open space. No new development is planned or anticipated in these areas. The proposed Specific Plan provides guidance for the design of edges adjacent to the existing neighborhoods, to create compatible transitions, landscaping, and neighborhood connectivity.
Urban Reserve Areas are areas subject to longer-term planning and further study in the event that future changes of use should occur on these sites. The Elmwood Correctional Facility, North Railyards, and South Railyards are Urban Reserve Areas within the Specific Plan. If it is determined that the Urban Reserve Areas or their associated facilities are no longer needed for their current purpose, redevelopment would be coordinated to ensure consistency with the Specific Plan.
Focus Areas are areas of the Specific Plan targeted to support redevelopment and infill, including streetscape and open space improvements, connectivity improvements, and district branding. The Specific Plan includes four proposed focus areas, Main Street District, Crossroads District, Gateway District, and Abbott District.
Proposed General Plan Zoning and Land Use
Residential and non-residential land use designations in the adopted General Plan are proposed within the Specific Plan Area. Existing residential uses include low density residential (LDR), medium density residential (MDR), and high density residential (HDR); non-residential land use designations include general commercial (GNC), industrial park (INP), and permanent open space (POS).
The Specific Plan Land Use Framework is depicted in Figure 2-7 of the Draft SEIR. The Land Use Framework, described in Chapter 3 of the proposed Specific Plan, guides future development in the Specific Plan focus areas through a series of Specific Plan Zoning Districts, as well as existing applicable Citywide zones, and Urban Reserve Areas. Areas not expected to change in land use or character would continue to be regulated through the land use and development regulations in the City of Milpitas Zoning Ordinance (ZO) for the following Citywide Zones:
Single Family Residential (R1),
Multi-Family High Density Residential (R3) and Multi-Family Very High Density Residential (R4), General Commercial (C2),
Heavy Industrial (M2),
Institutional (I), and
Parks and Open Space (POS).
A citywide overlay zone, the Freeway Corridor (FC) Overlay Zone, established in the Zoning Ordinance, may be combined with any nonresidential zoned property within 300 feet of a freeway corridor, including I-880 and Highway
Ascent CEQA Findings
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan CEQA Findings 3
237 within the Specific Plan Area, to allow for an increase in the maximum floor area ratio to support new and infill developments.
The Specific Plan also identifies three potential Urban Reserve Areas, the County-owned Elmwood Correctional Facility, North Railyards, and South Railyards depicted as an overlay in Figure 2-6. The existing zoning for these areas would continue to remain in-place until these areas are ready to be redeveloped and planned for new uses. The proposed Specific Plan does not propose land use changes for these areas but establishes policies to ensure the orderly development and integration of these projects within the Specific Plan Area.
The proposed Specific Plan mixed-use zones and overlays are described below.
MAIN STREET MIXED-USE (MS-MU)
The MS-MU zone would include a mix of residential infill and smaller pedestrian-oriented retail shops, restaurants, services, and office uses, as well as urban parks, plazas, and open space uses within the framework of an active streetscape environment. Active retail, restaurant, and residential uses generate pedestrian activity at the street level, with office and residential uses above the ground floor encouraged.
CROSSROADS MIXED-USE IV (XR-MU)
The XR-MU zone would include a commercial mixed-use focus and supports a mix of retail, entertainment, and office, with urban multifamily residential, civic, and recreational uses. The XR-MU zone is a pedestrian oriented streetscape environment, with ground-floor commercial uses prioritized along Retail Priority Streets and Corners, as identified in Section 3.7.2 of the Specific Plan.
LIBRARY DISTRICT MIXED-USE (LU-MU)
The LD-MU zone, centered around the Milpitas Library on N. Main Street, supports a compatible mix of retail, office, multifamily residential, and civic uses within a pedestrian-oriented streetscape environment.
GATEWAY MIXED-USE (GW-MU)
The GW-MU zone supports a freeway and commercial corridor service orientation along Calaveras Boulevard and I- 880, transitioning to a neighborhood-oriented residential focus to the north, and a commercial/mixed-use focus adjacent to Crossroads Mixed-Use.
ABBOTT DISTRICT BUSINESS PARK (AD-PB)
The AD-BP zone allows for a compatible mix of commercial, office, light industrial, open space, and public uses, organized within a campus setting.
URBAN RESERVE OVERLAY (URO)
The URO is applied as an overlay for areas that will be subject to future study when these uses are ready for redevelopment. The policies of the Specific Plan found in Section 3.8 of the Specific Plan apply within these areas.
The proposed Specific Plan includes regulations for development, including density, intensity, height, setbacks, historic and cultural resources, housing resources, and development incentives, applicable to several new proposed Specific Plan mixed-use zones.
The proposed Specific Plan would allow for additional residential development beyond what is allowed under the General Plan through increases in density and implementation through an incentive program. This would also include alterations in nonresidential development potential through mixed-use development. Within the Specific Plan Area, rezoning would be required to clarify locations of the different types of allowable land uses. The allowable land uses, maximum building heights, residential densities, and nonresidential floor area ratios (FARs) would also change within the proposed Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan would increase the maximum density allowance (in dwelling units per acre – du/ac) for residential and non-residential areas (from 40 du/ac to 65 du/ac) as identified in Table 1.
CEQA Findings Ascent
City of Milpitas
4 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan CEQA Findings
Table 1 Proposed New Specific Plan Zoning Districts
Specific Plan Area
District
Zoning Maximum
Density
FAR
(maximum)
Maximum Building
Height (feet)
Maximum
Number of Stories
Minimum Ground
Floor Height
Main Street
District
MS-MU 65 du/ac 2.5 65 5 Main Street: 15 ft
Other Areas: 12 ft
Crossroads District XR-MU 85 du/ac 3.0 85 7 Serra Way: 15 ft Commercial Uses: 15 ft
Gateway District GW-MU 65 du/ac 2.0 65 5 Calaveras Blvd: 15 ft Commercial Uses: 15 ft
Abbott District AD-BP N/A 1.5 65 N/A Commercial Uses: 15 ft Library District LD-MU 65 du/ac 2.0 65 5 Main Street: 15 ft Other Areas: 12 ft
All Other Areas See applicable existing Zoning
Source: City of Milpitas 2024.
The proposed Specific Plan implements the General Plan policies that would change the development currently allowed under the General Plan. Table 2 identifies development buildout within the Midtown Plan Area under the General Plan and the proposed development buildout that would be allowed with implementation of the Specific Plan. The maximum residential development capacity under the General Plan within the Midtown Plan Area is 3,838 units. A total of 1,338 additional units would be allowed under the Specific Plan beyond what is allowed under the General Plan currently. The nonresidential development area allowed under the General Plan is 3,293,240 square feet (sf) which would be reduced to 2,058,666 sf with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan.
Table 2 Changes in Buildout Under Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan
Land Use Type General Plan Proposed Specific Plan Change Residential 3,838 dwelling units 5,176 dwelling units 1,338 dwelling units Non-Residential 3,293,240 square feet 2,058,666 square feet -1,234,574 square feet Note: The allowable development numbers under the General Plan include the development assumptions of the adopted Midtown Plan.
Source: Data compiled by Ascent 2024.
As shown in Table 2, it is estimated that the proposed Specific Plan at buildout could result in a population of 16,384 residents and 5,541 jobs, as opposed to 9,557 residents and 11,555 jobs in the plan area as identified in the General Plan.
Specific Plan Components
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
The proposed Specific Plan includes Objective Design Standards that provide criteria for site planning, urban form, and building design in the Specific Plan Area, as well as pedestrian-level design. The Objective Design Standards are tailored to development within the Specific Plan Area, with a focus on requirements for commercial and pedestrian- oriented mixed-use development.
The planning and design of the site and arrangement of activities identified in the proposed Specific Plan aim to activate a mixed-use Downtown environment and create walkable communities that support a mix of uses and activities. The Building Design and Architecture section of the proposed Objective Design Standards address the overall building form and massing, as well as primary building architectural features, including building entries, windows, roofs, materials, and colors. A complete list of Objective Design Standards is included in Chapter 4 of the proposed Specific Plan.
Ascent CEQA Findings
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan CEQA Findings 5
MOBILITY
The proposed Specific Plan includes a mobility chapter (Chapter 5) that addresses mobility, transportation, and parking within the Specific Plan Area and sets the standards and street designs that would support a complete street travel environment. The proposed Specific Plan addresses both the mobility and parking needs of existing uses while accommodating future development planned for the area. The mobility framework, illustrated in Figure 5-1 in Section
5.1 of the proposed Specific Plan, identifies the new circulation elements of the Specific Plan. It includes existing streets as well as new streets and alleys parallel to Main Street to provide business and neighborhood access while improving the bike and pedestrian quality and character of Main and Abel Streets. The Specific Plan supports new streets with redevelopment of the Serra Center and other large neighborhood blocks to connect to existing roadways and supports a more walkable neighborhood grid pattern. Components of the mobility framework are described briefly below, and a complete description is included in Chapter 5 of the proposed Specific Plan.
Traffic Improvements
The proposed Specific Plan emphasizes pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements to improve safety for all roadway users. The Specific Plan does not include increases to roadway capacity; however Caltrans’ Calaveras Boulevard Improvement Project would include changes to roadway capacity along Calaveras Boulevard as well as other traffic and intersection improvements as described below.
The Calaveras Boulevard Improvement Project would result in the following improvements to Calaveras Boulevard between South Abel Street and Milpitas Boulevard:
1. Add pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including elevated cycle tracks in both directions.
2. Implement complete streets improvements on Calaveras Boulevard, including widening existing sidewalks on the north side of Calaveras Boulevard and providing new sidewalks along the south side of Calaveras Boulevard.
3. Widen Calaveras Boulevard and provide three through lanes between I-880 and I-680 in both directions.
4. Replace the existing structures over the UPPR/BART tracks with a wider structure and replace or widen the existing structures over North Main Street and the Union Pacific Railroad track with a wider structure or have the existing structure widened and seismically retrofitted.
5. Improve the intersection safety for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Public Transit Improvements
The Public Transit Framework for the Specific Plan Area is illustrated in Figure 5-16 in Section 5.5 of the proposed Specific Plan. The goal of the transit framework is to connect the Specific Plan Area to local and regional transit service directly and provide a comfortable, efficient, and safe experience for transit users. Figure 5-16 of the proposed Specific Plan illustrates the existing transit networks and proposed public transit improvements in the Specific Plan area, described in more detail below.
The Specific Plan Area is served by several transit services, including Santa Clara VTA buses and light rail, and BART commuter rail. The city has a shuttle program known as Simple Mobile Access to Reliable Transit (SMART) that provides on-demand rideshare service from various pick-up / drop-off locations and provides first-mile / last-mile connections with the Milpitas BART Station and VTA’s bus and light rail stations.
The Specific Plan proposes a shuttle loop along Main Street, Weller Lane, North / South Abel Street, Thompson Street, and Great Mall Parkway to connect the Specific Plan Area with existing transit that may be coordinated with the SMART program and can build upon existing bus stop facilities, as well as serve underserved locations in the Plan Area, including at:
a. Existing bus stops on South Main Street at Curtis Avenue. b. Existing bus stops on South Main Street south of Tom Evatt Park. c. Existing bus stops on South Main Street at Corning Avenue.
CEQA Findings Ascent
City of Milpitas
6 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan CEQA Findings
d. Existing bus stops on South Main Street at Serra Way. e. Existing bus stops on North Main Street at the Milpitas Library. f. Existing bus stops on North Abel Street at Weller Lane. g. Existing bus stops on Serra Way between Calaveras Boulevard and South Abel Street. h. At the intersection of South Abbott Avenue and the extension of Thompson Street north. i. At the intersection of Thompson Street and Machado Avenue.
Pedestrian Network
The Pedestrian Framework for the Specific Plan Area is illustrated in Figure 5-17 in Section 5.6 of the proposed Specific Plan which illustrates the pedestrian intersection improvement priorities proposed. The Specific Plan includes traffic signal and intersection crossing improvements that support safe pedestrian roadway crossings, prioritizing the existing signalized intersections and new signalized intersections shown in Figure 5-17 of the proposed Specific Plan.
All new intersections created by the intersection of two future streets would be required to comply with the design standards identified in Section 5.6.2 of the proposed Specific Plan.
Bicycles and Micro-Mobility
The Bicycle and Micro-Mobility Framework for the Specific Plan Area is illustrated in Figure 5-18 in Section 5.7 of the proposed Specific Plan, which illustrates the proposed bicycle infrastructure improvements and proposed micro- mobility hubs. The proposed bicycle infrastructure network would provide a continuous bicycle connection from local neighborhoods to the commercial and mixed-use zones within the Specific Plan Area.
The Specific Plan for shared-use micro-mobility infrastructure provides strategically located micro-mobility hubs that provide a safe alternative transportation means within the Specific Plan Area. Micro-mobility hubs are proposed at the following locations:
Main Street / Serra Way,
Main Street / Corning Avenue,
Main Street / Machado Avenue,
Main Street / Curtis Avenue,
Main Street / Great Mall Parkway,
N. Abel Street / Calaveras Boulevard,
N. Abel Street / O’Toole Elms Park,
Calaveras Boulevard / Serra Way,
S. Abbott Avenue / Junipero Avenue, and
Thompson Street / Machado Avenue.
Parking
The proposed Specific Plan aims to provide enough parking spaces in centralized areas without encouraging or incentivizing vehicular travel or providing unused or underutilized parking spaces. The proposed Specific Plan aims to provide sufficient parking in the four focus area districts, while reducing the demand for additional parking and providing a system to provide access to walking, biking, or transit. All development in the Specific Plan Area would be required to conform to the parking standards identified in Section 5.8.2 and the parking ratios set forth in Table 3-9 of the Specific Plan.
Public parking is proposed at the following locations:
At the southeast corner of South Abbott Avenue and north of Junipero Avenue (within Serra Center). To the south of Serra Way between South Main Street and South Abel Street. To the south of Calaveras Boulevard between South Main Street and South Abel Street. To the east of South Main Street adjacent to the railroad tracks.
Ascent CEQA Findings
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan CEQA Findings 7
PUBLIC REALM
The Public Realm chapter (Chapter 6) of the proposed Specific Plan addresses the network of parks, open space, and public spaces that would provide a sense of place for the Specific Plan Area. Quality public open spaces are an essential part of the urban fabric, particularly in higher-density urban neighborhoods where private outdoor spaces may be more limited. The Specific Plan Area proposes a variety of parks and shared public spaces that would act as focal points to activate districts and neighborhoods and meet the diverse needs of the community for recreation, social gathering spaces, and neighborhood connections. Parks and open space are envisioned to include neighborhood parks, urban parks, linear parks, and paseos, as well as smaller privately owned pocket parks, plazas, and urban alleys/greenways, as described in Chapter 6 of the Specific Plan.
The City’s General Plan establishes an overall goal of 3.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents in the Specific Plan Area. To achieve this, the proposed Specific Plan identifies new parks and open space to support build-out of the Plan Area as shown in Figure 6-2 in Section 6.3 of the proposed Specific Plan. Requirements would be met through a combination of public parks and plazas, privately-owned open space (up to the total allowed by the Zoning Ordinance), and park in-lieu fees.
The Specific Plan proposes new parks and plazas, illustrated in Figure 6-2, to support existing and future development in the Specific Plan Area and serve as district focal points for activity. The following parks and plazas are proposed:
1. N. Main St. Park - Implement a new neighborhood park north of the Library with an anchor civic gathering space, such as an amphitheater or farmer's market pavilion, a community museum, and flexible program spaces to host activities and community events.
2. Crossroads Square - Anchor the historic crossroads at the end of Serra Way and Main Street with a new civic plaza or "Crossroads Square."
3. Carlo Park - Create Carlo Park, as a new urban plaza and mobility hub located along Carlo Street, west of Main Street, including:
a. Conversion of unused City-owned right-of-way and vacant land. b. Preservation of existing trees to the extent possible with the future plaza design. c. Providing pedestrian amenities, such as seating, planters, and lighting.
4. Serra Center - Require the integration of new parks, plazas, and open spaces as part of the redevelopment of the Serra Center, including:
a. Creation of a new neighborhood park to provide open space supporting future residents or a linear park to serve as a community activity hub within the Crossroads District. b. Recreational amenities serving the local neighborhood area, which may include:
play spaces,
pedestrian seating,
pedestrian scale lighting,
wayfinding signage,
landscaping,
fountains/drinking fountains, and
bicycle racks.
CEQA Findings Ascent
City of Milpitas
8 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan CEQA Findings
5. Tom Evatt Park - Expand and activate Tom Evatt Park along the Hetch Hetchy right-of-way as a linear pen space, including:
a. New open space at the areas identified as the Tom Evatt Park West Expansion and Tom Evatt Park East Expansion.
b. Community trail connections to neighborhoods east of S. Main Street and south of Curtis Avenue. c. Recreational amenities serving the local neighborhood area, such as:
benches,
distinctive paving,
bicycle racks, and
directional/wayfinding signage.
d. Coordinate all expanded Tom Evatt Park spaces and amenities with the requirements within the Hetch Hetchy right-of-way easement.
6. South Railyards Park - Integrate new urban parks, plazas, and open spaces in conjunction with future development of the South Railyards, north of the Parc Metro community that incorporates inspiration from the rail themed historic use of the site, including in the development of South Railyards Park and the Tom Evatt Park East Expansion.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SERVICES
The Infrastructure and Public Services chapter (Chapter 7) of the proposed Specific Plan outlines the infrastructure needed to support public services within the Specific Plan Area. It sets forth policies and improvement projects for enhancing and expanding public facilities, including the following:
storm drainage,
flooding,
water supply and distribution system,
sewer,
solid waste,
energy and technology,
fire protection and emergency response,
police services,
schools, and
libraries, and childcare.
Development Incentives
The 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 2-5. 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, as identified in Table 3. The following describes the available bonuses, while Table 3 identifies the specific incentives available. The provision of development bonuses would be subject to review and demonstration of the achievement of the criteria in Table 3.
Development bonuses shall not exceed the following maximum allowances:
Maximum FAR or Density Bonus Increase of 50 percent in the Crossroads District and 40 percent within the Main Street and Library Districts and parcels directly fronting Calaveras Boulevard in the Gateway District.; and Maximum Height Increase of 2 stories in the Crossroads District and for parcels directly fronting Calaveras Boulevard in the Gateway District. Maximum Height Increase of 1 Story in the Main Street and Library Districts.
Maximum density, intensity, and/or bonuses may not be achievable on all sites, as superseding development regulations or site constraints may reduce development potential. Prior to issuance of a planning permit for a
Ascent Findings of Fact
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings 9
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.
Table 3 Available Incentives
Green Roof or Eco-Roof
Option 1: 30% of Total Roof Footprint 10% density bonus or FAR increase.
Option 2: 31-60% of Total Roof Footprint 15% density bonus or FAR increase.
Option 3: Over 60% of Total Roof Footprint 20% density bonus or FAR increase.
Economic Development
Space for Small Businesses, Non-Profits, and
Arts Organizations or Business Expansion
Temporarily reduce or defer application and impact fees for development and remove parking minimums within the Crossroads, Main Street, and Library Districts Business Retention Temporarily reduce or defer application and impact fees and allow 20% FAR increase Retail Ready Ground Floor Commercial Space A one-story height increase, subject to the standards in Sections 3.6 and 4.3.2 of the Specific Plan
Lot Consolidation
Lot Consolidation 20% density bonus or FAR increase.
District Public Parking
District Parking Lot or Garage Spaces 10% density bonus or FAR for every 20 public parking spaces; up to the allowed district maximum bonus
Publicly Accessible Open Space
Option 1: Additional 50 square foot per unit 10% density bonus or FAR increase.
Option 2: Additional 100 square foot per unit 15% density bonus or FAR increase.
Option 3: Additional 150 square foot per unit 20% density bonus or FAR increase.
Promote the City’s History
Through Preservation, Storefront Façade
Improvements, or Interpretation
Eligible for City Storefront Improvement Program Grants, Mills Act Program.
Source: City of Milpitas 2024.
2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objectives are based on the proposed Specific Plan vision and are intended to achieve the following:
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.
Findings of Fact Ascent
City of Milpitas
10 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings
2.4 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The proposed Specific Plan would require amendments to the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance (ZO). A summary of the proposed amendments to these documents is provided below.
City of Milpitas General Plan Amendments
The City’s General Plan would be amended to update the residential buildout for the Specific Plan and land use/density descriptions. An amendment would also be required as changes to the boundaries and land use and development standards of the adopted Midtown Plan Area are proposed. The Specific Plan 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.
City of Milpitas Zoning Ordinance Amendments
The Specific Plan would function as zoning for the Specific Plan Area. There would be new zoning designations established for certain areas to clarify site-specific land use and buildout expectations. Potential amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance would be needed to include various text amendments for changes in development standards associated with the proposed project.
2.5 ANTICIPATED ACTIONS
City actions would include the following:
Certification of the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan EIR Adoption of the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan and associated amendments to the General Plan to reflect the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan
Milpitas Zoning Code and Zoning Map Amendments
3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
In accordance with Section 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an SEIR on July 15, 2024. It was submitted to the California State Clearinghouse and distributed to interested and affected federal, state, and local agencies; interested parties; and organizations. The NOP was circulated for 30 days, through August 13, 2024. A public scoping meeting was held on August 1, 2024. Concerns raised in response to the NOP were considered during preparation of the Draft SEIR. The NOP and all comments received on the NOP are presented in Appendix A of the Draft SEIR.
The Draft SEIR includes an analysis of the following issue areas:
aesthetics,
air quality,
cultural and tribal cultural resources,
biological resources,
energy,
greenhouse gas emissions and climate change,
land use and planning,
Ascent Findings of Fact
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings 11
noise and vibration,
population and housing,
public services and recreation,
transportation, and
utilities and service systems.
The City published the Draft SEIR for public and agency review on April 17, 2025. A 45-day public review period was provided, ending on June 2, 2025 and extended to July 24, 2025. During the public review period, the City received two comment letters. Those comments relevant to CEQA were addressed in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15088 and 15132). The Final SEIR was made available for public review in September 2025.
The Final SEIR includes comments received on the Draft SEIR and responses to these comments. No revisions to the Draft SEIR in response to the comments were necessary. The Draft and Final SEIR were made available for public review on the internet at: https://www.milpitasmainstreet.org/.
As discussed in Section 4, below, the comments did not include “significant new information” requiring recirculation of the Draft SEIR pursuant to PRC Section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. 4 GENERAL CEQA FINDINGS
4.1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Based on the entire record before the City Council and having considered the significant impacts of the project, the City Council hereby determines that all feasible mitigation within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Milpitas has been adopted to reduce or avoid the potentially significant impacts identified in the Final SEIR. The feasible mitigation measures are discussed below in the findings and are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
Section 21081.6 of the PRC requires the City Council to adopt a monitoring or compliance program regarding the changes in the project and mitigation measures imposed to lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment.
The MMRP for the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan project (Attachment A) is hereby adopted by the City Council because it fulfills the CEQA mitigation monitoring requirements:
The MMRP is designed to ensure compliance with the changes in the project and mitigation measures imposed on the project during project implementation.
measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable through conditions of approval, permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
4.2 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15091 AND 15092 FINDINGS
Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the administrative record, the City Council has made one or more of the following findings with respect to each of the significant effects of the project:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such other agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final SEIR.
Findings of Fact Ascent
City of Milpitas
12 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings
Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the administrative record, and as conditioned by the foregoing:
1. All significant effects on the environment due to the project have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible.
2. Any remaining significant effects that have been found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to the overriding considerations set forth herein.
4.3 CITY COUNCIL INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT
The Final SEIR reflects the City Council’s independent judgment. The City Council has exercised independent judgment in accordance with PRC Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own environmental consultant in the preparation of the SEIR, as well as reviewing, analyzing, and revising material prepared by the consultant.
Having received, reviewed, and considered the information in the Final SEIR and all other information in the record, the City Council hereby makes findings pursuant to and in accordance with Sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6 of the PRC.
4.4 NATURE OF FINDINGS
Any findings made by the City Council shall be deemed made, regardless of where it appears in this document. All of the language included in this document constitutes findings by the City Council, whether or not any particular sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. The City Council intends that these findings be considered as an integrated whole and, whether or not any part of these findings fail to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other part of these findings, that any finding required or committed to be made by the City Council with respect to any particular subject matter of the Final SEIR, shall be deemed to be made if it appears in any portion of these findings.
4.5 RELIANCE ON RECORD
Each and all of the findings and determinations contained herein are based on substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the administrative record relating to the project.
Record of Proceedings
In accordance with PRC Section 21167.6(e), the record of proceedings for the City Council’s decision on the project includes the following documents:
The NOP for the project and all other public notices issued in conjunction with the project; All comments submitted during the comment period on the NOP; The Draft SEIR for the project and all appendices;
All comments submitted during the comment period on the Draft SEIR; The Final SEIR for the project, including comments received on the Draft SEIR, responses to those comments, and appendices;
Documents cited or referenced in the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR; The MMRP for the project;
All findings and resolutions adopted by the City Council in connection with the project and all documents cited or referred to therein;
All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the project prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City Council’s action on the project;