Agenda packet — Milpitas City Council, October 28, 2025 (part 9 of 10)

Ascent Findings of Fact
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings 13
 All documents submitted by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the project, up through the close of the final public hearing;
 Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings held in connection with the project;
 Any documentary or other evidence submitted at such information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings;  Any and all resolutions adopted by the City regarding the project, and all staff reports, analyses, and summaries related to the adoption of those resolutions;
 Matters of common knowledge, including, but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations;  Any documents expressly cited in these findings and any documents incorporated by reference, in addition to those cited above;
 Any other written materials relevant to the City Council's compliance with CEQA or its decision on the merits of the project, including any documents or portions thereof, that were released for public review, relied upon in the environmental documents prepared for the project, or included in the City Council non-privileged retained files for the SEIR or project;
 Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by PRC Section 21167.6(e); and  The Notice of Determination.

The City Council intends that only those documents relating to the project and its compliance with CEQA and prepared, owned, used, or retained by the City Council and listed above shall comprise the administrative record for the project. Only that evidence was presented to, considered by, and ultimately before the City Council prior to reviewing and reaching its decision on the SEIR and project.

Custodian of Records
The custodian of the documents or other material that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council’s decision is based is identified as follows:

City of Milpitas
City Clerk
455 E. Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, CA 95035
Recirculation Not Required
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 provides the criteria that a lead agency is to consider when deciding whether it is required to recirculate an EIR. Recirculation is required when “significant new information” is added to the EIR after public notice of the availability of the Draft EIR is given, but before certification (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5[a]). “Significant new information,” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), means information added to an EIR that changes the EIR in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a “substantial adverse environmental effect” or a “feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement.” An example of significant new information provided by the CEQA Guidelines is a disclosure showing that a “new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented”; that a “substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance”; or that a “feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5[a][1]-[3]).

Page 837 of 1045 ends

Findings of Fact Ascent
City of Milpitas
14 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings
Recirculation is not required where “the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5[b]). Recirculation also is not required simply because new information is added to the EIR. Indeed, new information is often added given CEQA’s public/agency comment and response process and CEQA’s post-Draft EIR circulation requirement of proposed responses to comments submitted by public agencies.

The Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan document was refined with minor edits and text clarifications since completion of the Draft SEIR that do not alter the extent or the intensity of planned development under the specific plan. In this legal context, the City Council finds that recirculation of the Draft SEIR prior to certification is not required In sum, the Final SEIR demonstrates that the project would not result in any new significant impacts or increase the severity of a significant impact, as compared to the analysis presented in the Draft SEIR. The changes reflected in the Final SEIR also do not indicate that meaningful public review of the Draft SEIR was precluded in the first instance.

Accordingly, recirculation of the SEIR is not required as revisions to the SEIR are not significant as defined in Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

4.6 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT
The City Council certifies that the Final SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, that the SEIR was presented to the City Council, and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained therein before approving the proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan, and that the SEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council (CEQA Guidelines Section 15090). 5 FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
This statement of Findings of Fact (Findings) and Statement of Overriding Considerations addresses the environmental effects associated with the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan. These Findings are made pursuant to CEQA under Sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6 of the PRC and Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.

The potentially significant impacts were identified in the Final SEIR, which includes the Draft SEIR.

PRC Section 21081 and Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines require that the lead agency prepare written findings for identified significant impacts, accompanied by a brief explanation for the rationale for each finding. The City is the lead agency responsible for preparation of the EIR in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines states, in part:
a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. 2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. 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 provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.

In accordance with PRC Section 21081 and Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, whenever significant impacts cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, the decision-making agency is required to balance, as

Page 838 of 1045 ends

Ascent Findings of Fact
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings 15
applicable, the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered "acceptable." In that case, the decision-making agency may prepare and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.

Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines states:
a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable."
b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.

The Final SEIR for the project identified potentially significant effects that could result from project implementation.

However, the City finds that the inclusion of mitigation measures as part of the project approval would reduce most, but not all, of those effects to a less-than-significant level. Those impacts that are not reduced to a less-than- significant level are identified and overridden due to specific project benefits in a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City Council adopts these Findings as part of its certification of the Final SEIR for the project. Pursuant to Section 21082.1(c)(3) of the PRC, the City Council also finds that the Final SEIR reflects the City Council's independent judgment as the lead agency for the project. As required by CEQA, the City, in adopting these Findings, also adopts an MMRP for the project. The City finds that the MMRP, which is incorporated by reference and made a part of these Findings, meets the requirements of Section 21081.6 of the PRC by providing for the implementation and monitoring of measures intended to mitigate potentially significant effects of the project.
6 RELATIONSHIP WITH FINDINGS MADE ASSOCIATED WITH

GATEWAY-MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN SEIR AND THE

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR
The City certified the Milpitas General Plan Update EIR (General Plan Update EIR) and approved the General Plan Update in December 2021. As part of this action, the City made CEQA Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations that addressed significant unavoidable impacts identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

The Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan would amend the General Plan Update EIR, which would involve changing its boundaries and increasing its residential development potential. The Final SEIR identified environmental effects that would be substantially more severe than the impacts identified in the General Plan Update EIR. The impacts identified in the Final SEIR are disclosed in these findings.

The City Council hereby makes the same CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan for impacts for which the Final SEIR did not identify any new significant environment effects or a substantial increase in severity of environmental effects disclosed in the General Plan Update

Page 839 of 1045 ends

Findings of Fact Ascent
City of Milpitas
16 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings
EIR. The General Plan Update CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are provided in Attachment B.
7 EFFECTS DETERMINED NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
Section 15128 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons why various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and, therefore, why they were not discussed in detail in the EIR. Implementation of the project was determined to result in no potentially significant impacts related to the following issues; consequently, these issues were not discussed in detail in the SEIR.

7.1 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
The Specific Plan Area is located within the City of Milpitas, an urbanized area in northern Santa Clara County, within the South San Francisco Bay Area. The Specific Plan Area is fully developed and no agricultural, forestry, or timber resources exist on or adjacent to the Specific Plan Area. In addition, the Specific Plan Area is currently zoned for industrial, commercial, and residential purposes. Therefore, the project would not convert farmland, conflict with any zoning for agricultural uses or forest land, result in loss or conversion of forest land or involve other changes in the environment that would result in conversion of farmland or forest land. There would be no impact to agriculture or forestry resources. (Draft SEIR page 1-3)

7.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
There are known active faults that have been mapped within the city and numerous faults located in the region as illustrated. In addition, the California Geological Survey has established an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, the Hayward Fault Zone, which traverses the city, east of the Specific Plan Area. All projects would be required to comply with the provisions of the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), which requires development projects to perform geotechnical investigations in accordance with State law, engineer improvements to address potential seismic and ground failure issues, and use earthquake-resistant construction techniques to address potential earthquake loads when constructing buildings and improvements. As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the CBSC, General Plan, and other regulations. In addition to the requirements associated with the CBSC and the Municipal Code, the General Plan includes policies and actions to ensure that development projects address potential geologic hazards, at-risk buildings and infrastructure is evaluated for potential risks, and site-specific studies are completed for area subject to liquefaction.

In addition, it is important to note that environmental impact analyses under CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents unless the proposed project might cause or risk exacerbating environmental hazards or conditions that already exist (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15126.2(a)). In those specific instances, it is the project’s impact on the environment and not the environment’s impact on the project that compels an evaluation of how future residents or users may be affected by exacerbated conditions (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369). New development would not create new seismic events or exacerbate existing seismic hazards, because limited ground disturbance would not alter seismic and fault conditions in the region. (Draft SEIR page 1-3)

7.3 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The use, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials is regulated and monitored by local fire departments, Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA), the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health and the Department of Toxic Substances Control consistent with the requirements of Federal, State, and local regulations and policies. Facilities that store hazardous materials on-site are required to maintain a Hazardous Materials Business Plan

Page 840 of 1045 ends

Ascent Findings of Fact
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings 17
in accordance with State regulations. In the event of an accidental release of hazardous materials, the local CUPA and emergency management agencies (e.g., Police and Fire) would respond. All future projects allowed under the Specific Plan would be required to comply with the provisions of Federal, State, and local requirements related to hazardous materials. In addition to the requirements associated with Federal and State regulations and the Municipal Code, the General Plan includes policies and actions to address potential impacts associated with hazardous materials among other issues. These policies and actions in the General Plan would ensure that potential hazards are identified on a project site, that development is located in areas where potential exposure to hazards and hazardous materials can be mitigated to an acceptable level, and that business operations comply with Federal and State regulations regarding the use, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. Specifically, Action SA-5a would require that applications for discretionary development projects provide detailed information regarding the potential for the historical use of hazardous materials on the site, using information from databases identifying past soil and/or groundwater contaminations, including the Cortese list. If warranted, identify and require mitigation measures to ensure the exposure to hazardous materials from historical uses has been mitigated to acceptable levels consistent with EPA and/or DTSC standards. As identified in the General Plan Update EIR, there are no hazardous materials release sites located in the General Plan Update Planning Area listed on the Cortese List (City of Milpitas 2021). The General Plan also includes policies and actions to ensure that the City has adequate emergency response plans and measures to respond in the event of an accidental release of a hazardous substance (City of Milpitas 2021). Therefore, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant. (Draft SEIR page 1-4)

7.4 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Existing regulatory requirements that manage water quality and implement the San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) include requirements to obtain approval from the Regional Water Quality Control Boards for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, other discharge permits, Water Quality Management Plans, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans, and to implement Best Management Practices. These regulatory requirements are intended to ensure that water quality does not degrade to levels that would violate water quality standards.

Future development projects under the Specific Plan would result in new impervious surfaces and could reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge. However, most developable areas within the Santa Clara Plain Recharge Area and Specific Plan Area are currently developed with urban uses. The amount of new pavement and impervious surfaces, and the extent to which they affect infiltration, depends on the site-specific features and soil types of a given project site. However, all new development would be subject to stormwater quality requirements and the implementation of Low Impact Development (LID) measures that would reduce impervious surfaces and promote the use of infiltration in drainage improvements. Projects located within the Specific Plan Area would have less of an impact than projects converting open lands and spaces. Implementation and future development under the proposed Specific Plan would not appreciably add to the volume of imperious surfaces in the Specific Plan Area or the Santa Clara Plain Recharge Area, when compared to the overall size of the regional groundwater basin recharge area. The proposed Specific Plan contains standards to reduce impacts associated with flooding including standards to minimize damage associated with flooding events and comply with regulations stipulated by FEMA and the National Flood Insurance Program and require that new development within a FEMA-designated flood hazard zone must follow the City’s construction standards for such areas as currently laid out in the Milpitas Municipal Code Section XI-15 (Floodplain Management Regulations).

The City manages local storm drain facilities and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) is responsible for regional flood control planning within the County. The City is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The NFIP provides property owners and renters with federally backed flood insurance, reduces flood damage through a mandatory local floodplain management ordinance, and identifies and maps flood hazards. The NFIP requires the City to maintain a floodplain management ordinance based upon current FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). The City’s meets this requirement through the implementation of Floodplain Management Regulations specified in Section XI Chapter 15 of the Milpitas Municipal Code. The 2021 Storm Drain Master Plan outlines proposed land uses for portions of the Specific Plan Area, but not others. Areas with no defined land uses were

Page 841 of 1045 ends

Findings of Fact Ascent
City of Milpitas
18 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings
assigned subbasin-specific hydrology parameters. The Storm Drain Master Plan highlights three low-priority improvements within the Specific Plan Area at: Main Street and Sierra Way; on Comet Drive; and a short segment of Railroad Avenue. Additionally, the report identifies four Capital Improvement Plan storm drain main extensions along Main Street. The proposed Specific Plan contains standards to reduce impacts associated with stormwater and drainage including standards to provide storm drain infrastructure that is designed to serve new development and meets City standards; construct the improvements within the Specific Plan Area that were identified in the 2021 Storm Drainage Master Plan; and Upgrade and expand the storm drain system in accordance with the Storm Drain Master Plan and as required along new roads within the Specific Plan Area, ensuring it meets the needs of new development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Compliance with mandatory Federal and State regulations, and compliance with the existing City standards and regulations for the SCVURPPP, the City of Milpitas Storm Drainage Master Plan, General Plan policies and the Milpitas Municipal Code requirements, and proposed Specific Plan standards that address drainage and flooding would ensure that impacts to drainage patterns, erosion, and water quality would be less than significant. Therefore, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant. (Draft SEIR page 1-5)

7.5 MINERAL RESOURCES
There are no active mines, no known areas with mineral resource deposits, or mineral or aggregate resources areas of statewide importance located in the City (City of Milpitas 2021). Therefore, no impact to mineral resources would occur. (Draft SEIR page 1-5)

7.6 WILDFIRE
While all of California is subject to some degree of wildfire hazard, the project site is surrounded by urban uses and, therefore, less prone to wildfire.
“Local responsibility areas,” which are under the jurisdiction of local entities (e.g., cities, counties), are required to identify very high fire hazard severity zones. Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) are concentrated in the incorporated areas of Milpitas. Milpitas is an LRA that is served by the Milpitas Fire Department. The City of Milpitas or the general vicinity is not categorized as a "Very High" FHSZ by California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE).

State Responsibility are found to the east of the city limits in the hilly terrain. There are no State Responsibility areas within the city limits of Milpitas, however areas east of the city are designated as “high” FHSZ by CAL FIRE. There are no areas that are designated as a “Very High Fire Hazard” area within the city. New construction is subject to the City Municipal Code and the California Fire Code, which includes safety measures to minimize the threat of fire. Thus, the project would have no impact related to wildlife risk would occur. (Draft SEIR page 1-5) 8 LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
This section identifies those topics for which the Final SEIR did not identify any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of environmental effects disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR (i.e., less than significant impacts).

The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, including information in the Final SEIR, the following impacts have been determined be less than significant and no mitigation is required pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a).

Page 842 of 1045 ends

Ascent Findings of Fact
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings 19

8.1 SECTION 3.1: AESTHETICS
Impact 3.1-1: Have a Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.1-1) determined that impacts related to scenic vistas as a result of General Plan implementation, including the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan, would be less than significant. Similarly, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would increase the level and potential height of development within the Specific Plan Area. However, long distance views of and through the Specific Plan Area are largely precluded by existing development landscaping, and no expansive areas of open space would be removed as a result of project implementation. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
No additional mitigation is required beyond compliance with Milpitas General Plan Community Design Element Policies and Actions, zoning regulations, standard development conditions, Citywide Design Guidelines, and Specific Plan policies and guidelines.

Impact 3.1-2: Conflict with Applicable Zoning and Other Regulations Governing Scenic Quality in an Urbanized Area
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.1-3) determined that impacts related to conflicts with zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality as a result of General Plan implementation, including the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan, would be less than significant. Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in the construction and operation of development within the Specific Plan Area and could result in alteration of views, primarily due to potential development of high-rise residential structures. However, the Specific Plan Objective Design Standards would be implemented, consistent with General Plan policies regarding urban design. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
No additional mitigation is required beyond compliance with Milpitas General Plan policies, zoning regulations, standard development conditions, Citywide Design Guidelines, and Specific Plan policies and guidelines.

Impact 3.1-3: Light and Glare Impacts
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.1-4) determined that impacts related to new sources of nighttime lighting and daytime glare as a result of General Plan implementation, including the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan, would be less than significant. The proposed Specific Plan would increase nighttime lighting within the Specific Plan Area as a result of new light sources attributed to proposed residential and mixed-use development. The Specific Plan would be subject to the Milpitas General Plan 2040 policies and City lighting standards in the Municipal Code that address

Page 843 of 1045 ends

Findings of Fact Ascent
City of Milpitas
20 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings
lighting and glare. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the Milpitas General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

8.2 SECTION 3.2: AIR QUALITY
Impact 3.3-1: Conflict With or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan, or Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Criteria Pollutants
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.3-1) concluded that implementation of the General Plan would be consistent with all federal and state guidelines including the 2017 Clean Air Plan. It was concluded in the General Plan Update EIR that population would increase while VMT per service population would decrease, and thus implementation of the General Plan would have a less-than-significant impact. The proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with the General Plan policies and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2017 Clean Air Plan because the proposed Specific Plan would increase service population and decrease VMT, thus it would continue to be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan and General Plan policies. Thus, this impact would remain as less than significant consistent with General Plan Update EIR.

MITIGATION MEASURES
No additional mitigation is required beyond compliance with Milpitas General Plan Minimization Measures, including Land Use Element Policies, Circulation Element Policies, Community Design Element Policies, Conservation Element Policies, Circulation Element Actions, Land Use Element Actions, Community Design Element Actions, and Conservation Element Actions.

Impact 3.2-2: Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial TAC Concentrations
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.3-2) concluded that the General Plan would comply with the applicable policies and programs in the General Plan as well as applicable BAAQMD rules and regulations, that would minimize the potential exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air contaminants (TACs) and PM2.5 within the City. Therefore, this impact was concluded to be less than significant. The proposed Specific Plan would decrease nonresidential SF within the Specific Plan Area and would not add additional TAC or PM2.5 emission sources that were not identified in the General Plan Update EIR. Thus, this impact would remain less than significant.

Page 844 of 1045 ends

Ascent Findings of Fact
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings 21

MITIGATION MEASURES
No additional mitigation is required beyond compliance with Milpitas General Plan Minimization Measures, including Conservation Element Policies and Conservation Element Actions.

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

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is required.

8.3 SECTION 3.3: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.3-1: Substantially Affect Special-Status Species Either Directly or Through Habitat Modifications
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.4-1) identified less-than-significant impacts on special-status plant species through compliance with existing state and federal regulations and General Plan Update actions and policies.

Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in future development that may result in loss of or disturbance to Congdon’s tarplant, alkali milk-vetch, brittlescale, lesser saltscale, Hoover's button-celery, San Joaquin spearscale, prostrate vernal pool navarretia, California alkali grass, long-styled sand-spurrey, and saline clover if present in or near a project area. Adherence to General Plan Action CON-3b would provide protection for special-status plants through pre-construction surveys, implementation of mitigation measures identified by a qualified biologist such as avoidance and protective barriers, and pre-construction training for contractors and sub-contractors to identify and avoid protected species and habitat. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
No additional mitigation is required beyond compliance with Milpitas General Plan Minimization Measures, including the Conservation and Sustainability Element Policies and Conservation and Sustainability Element Actions.

Page 845 of 1045 ends

Findings of Fact Ascent
City of Milpitas
22 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings
Finding
The City Council finds that, based on substantial evidence in the record, the potential impacts related to the Specific Plan’s effects would be less than significant, and no additional mitigation measures are required.

Impact 3.3-2: Substantially Affect Special-Status Wildlife Species Either Directly or Through Habitat Modifications
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.4-1) identified less-than-significant impacts on special-status wildlife species through compliance with existing state and federal regulations and General Plan Update actions and policies.

Implementation of the Specific Plan may result in future development that could result in disturbance, injury, or mortality of several special-status wildlife species, if present; reduced breeding productivity of these species; and loss of species habitat. Adherence to General Plan Action CON-3b would provide protection for special-status wildlife by requiring preconstruction surveys, implementing mitigation measures identified by a qualified biologist such as avoidance and protective barriers, and pre-construction training for contractors and sub-contractors to identify and avoid protected species and habitat. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impacts on special- status wildlife would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

Impact 3.3-3: Substantially Affect any Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community Identified in Local or Regional Plans, Policies, or Regulations or by CDFW or USFWS
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.4-2) identified less than significant impacts on riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities through compliance with existing local, state, and federal regulations and General Plan Update actions and policies. Implementation of future development under the Specific Plan could result in the degradation or loss of riparian habitat, other sensitive natural communities, or the reduction in the function of these habitats, if present. Adherence to General Plan Action CON-3b would provide protection for riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities by requiring protective barriers for any sensitive habitats identified, reducing soil compaction, and providing pre-construction training for contractors and sub-contractors to identify and avoid protected species and habitat. Further protections under Policies CON 3-1, CON 3-2, CON 3-3, and CON 3-5 and Actions CON-3c, CON-3d, CON-3e, CON-3f, CON-3g, and CON-3h of the General Plan would minimize impacts on riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impacts on these resources would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

Page 846 of 1045 ends

Ascent Findings of Fact
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings 23
Impact 3.3-4: Interfere With or Impede the Use of Wildlife Nurseries The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.4-4) identified less-than-significant impacts on wildlife nurseries through compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations and General Plan Update actions and policies.

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

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is required.

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

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is required.

Impact 3.3-6: Conflict with Local Policies and Ordinances General Plan Update EIR Impact 3.4-5 relates to a conflict with local policies and ordinances and was identified as less than significant because the General Plan Update, as a foundational policy document, inherently aligns with the local policies and ordinances that are established from it. Future development implemented under the Specific Plan could result in the removal of trees, which would conflict with the City Milpitas Tree Protection Regulations (Municipal Code Title X, Chapter 2). City of Milpitas ordinance codes and policies are developed to reflect and support the goals of the General Plan Update. Future development under the Specific Plan would comply with Objective Design Standards related to removal of trees, and the measures outlined in the General Plan Update, therefore, they will inherently

Page 847 of 1045 ends

Findings of Fact Ascent
City of Milpitas
24 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings
comply with local ordinance codes and policies, including City of Milpitas Tree Protection Regulations. In addition, projects would adhere to General Plan Action CON-2b, which aims to strengthen City of Milpitas Tree Protection Regulations by establishing stricter criteria for tree removal, detailed tree replacement requirements, enhanced penalties for unpermitted removals, and additional protections for high-value trees. It also proposes expanding the list of protected tree species and setting construction guidelines to minimize impacts on significant trees. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is required.

8.4 SECTION 3.4: CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact 3.4-4: Disturb Human Remains
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.5-2) determined that impacts related to the disturbance of human remains, including the Gateway-Main Specific Plan, would be less than significant. Based on documentary research, there is ample evidence that suggests that unmarked human interments are present within or in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Area. While known burials can be avoided, ground-disturbing construction activities could uncover previously unknown human remains. Compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097 would be required. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is required for this impact.

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

Page 848 of 1045 ends

Ascent Findings of Fact
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings 25
implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would not consume energy in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner during construction or operation of future development allowed under the proposed Specific Plan. This impact would remain less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Impact 3.5-2: Conflict with or Obstruction of a State or Local Plan for Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.7-2) concluded that the General Plan did not conflict with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The Specific Plan would not conflict with General Plan policies, the Milpitas CAP, and Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan. Each of these documents have various policies, strategies, measures, and standards the proposed Specific Plan would need to align with to expand renewable energy and energy efficiency in the Specific Plan area. Because the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with each of these documents and it would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, this impact would be less-than-significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is required for this impact.

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

MITIGATION MEASURES
No additional mitigation is required beyond compliance with Milpitas General Plan Update EIR Land Use Element Policies, Circulation Element Policies, Community Design Element Policies, Conservation Element Policies, Circulation Element Actions, Land Use Element Actions, Community Design Element Actions, and Conservation Element Actions.

Page 849 of 1045 ends

Findings of Fact Ascent
City of Milpitas
26 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings
Finding
The City Council finds that, based on substantial evidence in the record, the potential impacts related to the Specific Plan’s effects would be less than significant, and no additional mitigation measures are required.

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

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is required.

8.7 SECTION 3.7: LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impact 3.7-1: Physically Divide an Established Community The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.10-1) determined that impacts related to physically dividing an established community would be less than significant. Similarly, adoption and implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would not physically divide an established community as the Specific Plan aims to foster growth within targeted areas while preserving existing neighborhoods, establish unique districts with specific characteristics and development standards, improve connectivity through its mobility framework, and create complete streets that incorporate both the built and pedestrian environments. All future development under the proposed Specific Plan would be developed on established parcels within the City’s current land use pattern. Future roadways are envisioned to be built to connect to existing roadways, such as Main Street, to improve transportation mobility and would not extend into new, undeveloped areas of the city that could physically divide or isolate other areas of the city. For these reasons, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
No additional mitigation is required beyond compliance with Milpitas General Plan Update EIR Land Use Element Policies and Land Use Element Actions.

Page 850 of 1045 ends

Ascent Findings of Fact
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings 27
Impact 3.7-2: Conflict with Any Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Avoiding or Mitigating an Environmental Effect
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.10-2) determined that impacts related to causing a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would be less than significant. Similarly, adoption and implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would not cause a significant environmental impact due to an inconsistency with an applicable State, regional, or local plan, policy, or ordinance. For this reason, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
No additional mitigation is required beyond compliance with Milpitas General Plan Update EIR Land Use Element Policies and Land Use Element Actions.

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

However, future development under the Specific Plan would be subject to compliance with the specific requirements of Action N-1c and N-1d. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
No additional mitigation is required beyond compliance with adopted General Plan Minimization Measure Policy N1- 8 and Actions N1c and N1d.

Impact 3.8-3: Generate a Substantial Increase in Long-Term Stationary Operational Noise
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.12-3) determined that stationary noise impacts as a result of General Plan implementation would be less than significant through implementation of General Plan Policies N 1-11 though N 1-14 and Actions N-1a and N-1b. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would allow future development that would create new stationary noise sources. However, future development under the Specific Plan would be subject to compliance with requirements of General Plan Policies N 1-11 though N 1-14 and Actions N-1a and N-1b. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

Page 851 of 1045 ends

Findings of Fact Ascent
City of Milpitas
28 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings

MITIGATION MEASURES
No additional mitigation is required beyond compliance with adopted General Plan Minimization Measure Policies N1-11 through N1-14 and Actions N1a and N1b.

Impact 3.8-4: Generate Substantial Short-Term (Construction) Vibration
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.12-5) determined that construction vibration impacts as a result of General Plan implementation would be less than significant through implementation of General Plan Action N-1d.

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

However, development under the Specific Plan would be subject to compliance with the specific requirements of Action N-1d and with Section 17.52.060.G of the City Municipal Code, which limits construction hours to the less sensitive hours of the day. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
No additional mitigation is required beyond compliance with adopted General Plan Minimization Measure Action N- 1d.

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

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is required.

Page 852 of 1045 ends

Ascent Findings of Fact
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings 29
Impact 3.9-2: Displace Substantial Numbers of Existing People or Housing
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.10-4) determined that impacts related to displacement of existing people or housing as a result of General Plan implementation, including the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan, would be less than significant. Similarly, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would accommodate up to 5,176 new dwelling units and support the development of increased densities and intensities of mixed uses that would increase housing supply in the City. The Specific Plan would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing.

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

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is required.

8.10 SECTION 3.10: PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Impact 3.10-1: Result in Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts Associated with the Provision of New Fire Facilities
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.13-1) determined that impacts related to the need for additional fire facilities would be less than significant. Similarly, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would alter the level of development within the Specific Plan Area, including the creation of additional housing opportunities that would increase the population in the area. All new development would be required to meet Milpitas Fire Department (MFD) standards and code requirements, such that substantial additional demand for service within the Specific Plan Area is not anticipated. Further, the current level of calls for service at local fire stations does not indicate the potential need for an additional fire station. As a result, the anticipated increase in population and development within the Specific Plan Area would not trigger the need for additional fire facilities. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
No additional mitigation is required beyond compliance with adopted General Plan Minimization Measure Safety Element Policies and Actions and Utilities and Public Services Policies and Actions.

Impact 3.10-2: Result in Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts Associated with the Provision of New Police Facilities
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.13-1) determined that impacts related to the need for additional police facilities would be less than significant. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would increase the density of development within the Specific Plan area, including the creation of additional residential uses that would increase

Page 853 of 1045 ends

Findings of Fact Ascent
City of Milpitas
30 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings
the population in the Specific Plan Area. While this could lead to an increased demand for police services, all new development would be required to contribute appropriate fees to the City’s General Fund for any potential expansion of staffing or facilities. Additionally, new development would contribute property tax revenues that would be allocated through the City’s General Fund for police protection services, both maintenance and expansion. As a result, the anticipated increase in population and development within the Specific Plan Area would not trigger the need for additional police facilities. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

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

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

Implementation of the Specific Plan would develop a transportation network for users of all modes of transportation including pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders. The standards and policies proposed under the Specific Plan would support multi-modal transportation, improve non-vehicular access throughout the Specific Plan Area, and encourage

Page 854 of 1045 ends

Ascent Findings of Fact
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings 31
transit-oriented land use development, consistent with policies and standards in relevant transportation plans. In addition, new project-generated demand for transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be satisfied by the multimodal improvements proposed under the Specific Plan. For these reasons, there is no new significant effect, and the impact is not more severe than the impact identified in the General Plan Update EIR. This impact would remain less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
No additional mitigation is required beyond compliance with adopted General Plan Minimization Measure Circulation Element Policies.

Impact 3.11-3: Substantially Increase Hazards Due to a Geometric Design Feature or Incompatible Uses
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.14-3) determined that implementation of the General Plan would result in a less- than-significant impact on transportation hazards because future development would be required to meet applicable federal, state, and City design standards. All new transportation infrastructure and improvements under the proposed Specific Plan would improve multimodal circulation and access and minimize the potential for transportation hazards (e.g., conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians). Future development associated with the Specific Plan would be designed in accordance with applicable design and safety standards and subject to review by City staff ensuring implementation of the Specific Plan would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. Therefore, there is no new significant effect and the impact is not more severe than the impact identified in the General Plan Update EIR. This impact would remain less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
No additional mitigation is required beyond compliance with the General Plan Update EIR’s circulation element policies CIR 2-2 and CIR 2-4.

Impact 3.11-4: Result in Inadequate Emergency Access
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.14-4) determined that implementation of the General Plan would result in a less-than-significant impact on emergency access because all future development would be subject to the City Design and Construction Standards, which include requirements for emergency access, and would be reviewed by public safety officials. The Specific Plan proposes streetscape improvements and standards that were developed in coordination with the MFD. Future development under the Specific Plan would be required to adhere to the California Fire Code, as adopted by reference in Title V, Chapter 300 of the City Municipal Code. Adherence to the California Fire Code would ensure that future developments provide adequate emergency access. In addition, future development projects under the Specific Plan would be subject to review by the MFD to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided. For these reasons, implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in inadequate emergency access. The Specific Plan would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact on emergency access than identified in the General Plan Update EIR. This impact would remain less than significant

Page 855 of 1045 ends

Findings of Fact Ascent
City of Milpitas
32 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings

MITIGATION MEASURES
No additional mitigation is required beyond compliance with the General Plan Update EIR Minimization Measures policies CIR 1-1, CIR 1-7, CIR 1-11, and CIR 1-13.

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

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

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is required.

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

However, the 2020 UWMP identifies that the City would have shortfalls in supply in 2025, 2030, and 2045 under single dry-year and multiple dry year conditions if contract water supply sources provided by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and Valley Water are reduced. This water supply shortage would apply city-wide and would not directly occur because of the proposed Specific Plan. Although the potential water demand would decrease under the proposed Specific Plan compared to the land uses assumed in the General Plan Update EIR, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would contribute to water supply shortages that would potentially trigger the need to construct additional groundwater wells, the construction and operation of which could result in significant environmental impacts. However, the City is implementing drought contingency measures identified in the UWMP

Page 856 of 1045 ends

Ascent Findings of Fact
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings 33
through the construction of additional groundwater wells to offset water supply shortages identified for 2030 and 2045. Therefore, sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the Specific Plan and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is needed.

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

MITIGATION MEASURES
No additional mitigation is required beyond compliance with adopted General Plan Minimization Measure Utilities Policies and Community Services UCS 3-1, UCS 3-2, and UCS 3-3, and Utilities and Community Services Actions UCS- 3a through UCS-3d.

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

Future construction and demolition activities associated with development under the proposed Specific Plan would generate solid waste, including metals, plastics, wood, concrete, and other building materials. However, future construction activities would be required to comply with applicable waste diversion requirements, including CALGreen Divisions 4.4 and 5.4, which requires a minimum of 65 percent of all non-hazardous construction and demolition waste for residential and non-residential development, respectively, to be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. Additionally, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would generate approximately 8.3 fewer tons of operation-related solid waste per day and 3,037 fewer tons of operation-related solid waste per year compared to what was identified in the General Plan Update EIR. As such, Kirby Canyon Landfill would have sufficient capacity to accommodate solid waste generated from buildout of the Specific Plan, and the Specific Plan would not contribute to

Page 857 of 1045 ends

Findings of Fact Ascent
City of Milpitas
34 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings
an exceedance of the landfill’s disposal capacity. Furthermore, future development under the Specific Plan would be required to comply with all applicable state and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including AB 939, AB 341, AB 1826, and the Milpitas Municipal Code, which would reduce the amount of operation-related solid waste that would be disposed of at Kerby Canyon Landfill. Finally, the proposed Specific Plan includes several provisions intended to ensure that solid waste facilities would be able to support future growth in the Specific Plan Area and that waste continues to be collected and disposed of safely. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain less than significant

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is needed.

Finding
The City Council finds that, based on substantial evidence in the record, the potential impacts related to the Specific Plan’s effects would be less than significant, and no additional mitigation measures are required. 9 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact 4.4.1-1: Contribute to Cumulative Visual Character Impacts The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 4.1-1) evaluated whether buildout of the General Plan would result in a significant contribution to the cumulative degradation of the existing visual character of the region. The General Plan Update EIR determined this impact would be less than cumulatively considerable because the General Plan would be implemented in an already urbanized area. The Specific Plan Area is located within a built-out area of the city, and continued implementation of the General Plan, as well as recent development trends in the region, would encourage the further redevelopment of existing uses within higher density and elevation project. Future development would be subject to design standards identified in the Objective Design Standards included in Chapter 4 of the proposed Specific Plan. Section 4.2 of the proposed Specific Plan identifies standards for site planning, urban form, and building design including the overall building form and massing, as well as primary building architectural features, including building entries, windows, roofs, materials, and colors, organized. The proposed Specific Plan Objective Design Standards would implement, and be consistent with, General Plan policies CD 1-1, CD 3-1 through CD 3-10, and LU 5- 1 through LU 5-3. Through implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Objective Design Standards and adherence to the City’s design review process, the existing views and character throughout the City, including within the Specific Plan Area, would be maintained. Therefore, future development would not detract from the existing visual character present within the Specific Plan Area. Thus, the project would not result in a new or greater contribution to cumulative visual character or quality impacts beyond what was identified in the General Plan Update EIR. This impact would remain less than cumulatively considerable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

Finding
The City Council finds that, based on substantial evidence in the record, the potential impacts related to the Specific Plan’s effects would be less than cumulatively considerable, and no additional mitigation measures are required.

Page 858 of 1045 ends

Ascent Findings of Fact
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings 35
Impact 4.4.1-2: Contribute to Cumulative Light and Glare Impacts Impact 4.1 of the General Plan Update EIR evaluated whether buildout of the General Plan would result in a significant contribution to the cumulative increase in lighting. The General Plan Update EIR determined this impact would be less than cumulatively considerable because buildout of the General Plan would occur in an already urbanized area, in compliance with the General Plan policies and actions and adopted regulations pertaining to lighting.

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

Impact 4.4.2-1: Contribute to Cumulative Conflicts with or Obstruction of Implementation of an Applicable Air Quality Plan As described under Impact 3.3-1 of the SEIR, the proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan and the relevant 2040 General Plan policies. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan’s contribution to cumulative conflicts with the relevant air quality plan would remain less than cumulatively considerable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is required.

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

Page 859 of 1045 ends

Findings of Fact Ascent
City of Milpitas
36 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings
to the nearest sensitive receptor. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan’s contribution to cumulative exposure to TACs impacts would remain less than cumulatively considerable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is required.

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

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.4.3-1: Contribute to Cumulative Impacts on Biological Resources
Impact 4.4 of the General Plan Update EIR determined buildout of the General Plan, in combination with other development projects in the surrounding region, would result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution on biological resources because buildout of the General Plan would occur in an already urbanized area and would be consistent with policies and actions of the General Plan and comply with Federal and State regulations to reduce, avoid, or compensate for potential impacts. The proposed Specific Plan would not result in a new or greater contribution to cumulative biological resources beyond what was identified in the General Plan Update EIR. This impact would remain less than cumulatively considerable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.4.6-1: Contribute to Cumulative Impacts Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
As stated above, the issue of global climate change is inherently cumulative because the GHG emissions of individual projects cannot be shown to have any material effect on global climate. Therefore, the Specific Plan’s impact on climate change is addressed only as a cumulative impact. Impact 3-6.1 of this SEIR stated that because the proposed Specific Plan would reduce VMT and VMT per service population and reduce GHG emissions throughout the Specific

Page 860 of 1045 ends

Ascent Findings of Fact
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings 37
Plan Area, the proposed Specific Plan would meet the State’s goals to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045. Impact 3-6.2 of this SEIR stated that the proposed Specific Plan would increase efficiency throughout the proposed Specific Plan Area and thus would align with the local GHG reduction strategies and plans such as the Milpitas 2022 CAP, the general plan policies, the 2022 Scoping Plan, and the Plan Bay Area 2050+. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan’s contribution to cumulative GHG and climate change impacts would remain less than cumulatively considerable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.4.7-1: Contribute to Cumulative Impacts Related to Physically Dividing an Established Community
Impact 4.10 of the General Plan Update EIR analyzed whether buildout of the General Plan would contribute to cumulative land use impacts associated with the division of an established community. The General Plan Update EIR determined urban growth that would occur in the City as a result of General Plan buildout would occur at in-fill locations within existing urbanized areas and would not create physical division within existing communities.

Therefore, the General Plan Update EIR concluded that the General Plan would have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to regional land use impacts.

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

As discussed in Section 3.7, “Land Use and Planning,” of this Draft SEIR, the proposed Specific Plan would be applied to already established parcels within the City’s land use pattern and would not include any new areas of the city or surrounding area. All future development would be located on demarcated parcels within the proposed Specific Plan Area. In addition, while the Specific Plan’s Mobility Framework (Chapter 5 of the Specific Plan) supports the construction of new roadways and service alleys, the Specific Plan envisions these roadway and alleys to improve mobility throughout the Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan also supports new streets with redevelopment of the Serra Center and other large neighborhood blocks to connect to existing roadways and support a more walkable neighborhood grid pattern. Therefore, while new roadway infrastructure could be developed under the proposed Specific Plan, the introduction of such infrastructure would not physically divide or obstruct any other parts of the Specific Plan Area or the city. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan would not physically divide an established community and as such, would not result in a new significant cumulative effect, and the cumulative impact would not be more severe than the impact identified in the General Plan Update EIR. The Specific Plan’s impact would remain less than cumulatively considerable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is required.

Page 861 of 1045 ends

Findings of Fact Ascent
City of Milpitas
38 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings
Finding
The City Council finds that, based on substantial evidence in the record, the potential impacts related to the Specific Plan’s effects would be less than cumulatively considerable, and no additional mitigation measures are required.

Impact 4.4.7-2: Contribute to Cumulative Impacts Related to Conflict with any Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Avoiding or Mitigating an Environmental Effect Impact 4.10 of the General Plan Update EIR analyzed whether buildout of the General Plan would contribute to cumulative land use impacts associated with conflicts with land use plans and regulations that provide environmental protection. The General Plan Update EIR determined that implementation of General Plan policies and actions were intended to guide growth to appropriate areas and provide services necessary to accommodate growth. Therefore, the General Plan Update EIR concluded that the General Plan would have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to regional land use impacts.

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

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

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is required.

Page 862 of 1045 ends

Ascent Findings of Fact
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings 39
Impact 4.4.8-1: Contribute to Cumulative Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts
Construction-related noise and vibration are typically considered localized impacts that affect only receptors close to construction activities. Therefore, unless construction of cumulative projects, including construction associated with the project, occurs on sites close to one another (i.e., less than 500 feet apart) and at the same time, noise and vibration from individual construction projects have little chance of combining to create cumulative impacts. There are no reasonably foreseeable projects within 500 feet of the Specific Plan Area that would be an additional source of construction noise or vibration. Therefore, the Specific Plan’s contribution to cumulative construction noise and vibration impacts would remain less than cumulatively considerable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.4.8-3: Contribute to Cumulative Operational Noise Impacts Similar to construction-related noise impacts, stationary source noise impacts are generally localized. As a result, the context for cumulative stationary noise sources is within 500 feet of the Specific Plan area. Future development under the Specific Pan would potentially include new stationary heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment.

However, noise from these sources would be localized and would not combine with noise from other projects. As discussed under Impact 3.11-3 of this SEIR, noise from the proposed HVAC equipment is a consideration only within a project site's immediate vicinity, at distances less than 30 feet. Therefore, operational noise sources on the project site would not combine with noise from other area sources to result in a substantial increase in ambient noise.

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

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.4-9-1: Contribute to Cumulative Inducement of Unplanned Growth or Displacement
As described in Section 3.9, “Population and Housing” of this Draft SEIR, the Specific Plan would Specific Plan would accommodate up to 5,176 new dwelling units, which is 1,338 units net new units beyond the General Plan. It would also result in a population of12,887 residents, which is an increase of 3,330 people beyond the General Plan. This growth would exceed projections assumed under the City’s General Plan for the Specific Plan Area; however, it would not exceed projections for the City of Milpitas as a whole. The Specific Plan also would not indirectly induce unplanned population growth or residential development.

The proposed Specific Plan does not include proposed changes in land use or zoning that would directly or indirectly result in displacement of substantial numbers of people or housing. The Specific Plan could accommodate anticipated housing growth in the City. This responsiveness to existing and forecast demand would not induce

Page 863 of 1045 ends

Findings of Fact Ascent
City of Milpitas
40 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings
population growth beyond that planned for and considered in local and regional documents and implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in a new or substantially more severe cumulative impact than what was identified in the General Plan Update EIR. Although cumulative development in Milpitas, including the Specific Plan, would result in a cumulative increase in population and housing in Milpitas, the Specific Plan’s contribution to unplanned population growth would remain
less than cumulatively considerable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.4.10-1: Contribute to Cumulative Impacts on Public Services and Recreation
Impact 4.13 of the General Plan Update EIR evaluated the cumulative demand for public services, including fire protection, law enforcement, schools, parks, libraries, and other public and government services and concluded that the General Plan’s contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable.

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

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is required.

Page 864 of 1045 ends

Ascent Findings of Fact
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings 41
Impact 4.4.11-1: Contribute to Cumulative Impacts Related to Transit Service and Facilities, Bicycle Facilities, and Pedestrian Facilities Development associated with the proposed Specific Plan would occur incrementally over time. Combined with other development in the area, the demand for transit service and facilities, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities is anticipated to increase. Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in improved transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and enhanced connectivity within the Specific Plan Area. In addition, the design standards included in the Specific Plan Update promote alternative transportation, consistent with City General Plan, Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan, and Climate Action Plan policies applicable to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and services. As detailed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” of this Draft SEIR, subsequent development projects under the Specific Plan would be subject to all applicable City guidelines, standards, and specifications related to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, implementation of the Specific Plan, when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to transit service and facilities, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities. Impacts would remain less
than cumulatively considerable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is required.

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

MITIGATION MEASURES
No additional mitigation is required beyond compliance with the General Plan Update EIR’s circulation element policies CIR 2-2 and CIR 2-4.

Page 865 of 1045 ends

Findings of Fact Ascent
City of Milpitas
42 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings
Impact 4.4.11-4: Contribute to Cumulative Impacts Related to Emergency Access
Implementation of the individual developments under the Specific Plan would be subject to and constructed in accordance with applicable roadway design guidelines and would be subject to review by the Milpitas Fire Department to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided and maintained. Other nearby development projects would also be required to comply with all applicable emergency access standards. Therefore, the Specific Plan’s contribution to cumulative effects related to emergency access would remain less than cumulatively considerable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is required beyond compliance with the General Plan Update EIR Minimization Measures policies CIR 1- 1, CIR 1-7, CIR 1-11, and CIR 1-13.

Impact 4.4.12-1: Contribute to Cumulative Impacts Related to Water Supply
Impact 4.15 of the General Plan Update EIR evaluated whether buildout of the General Plan would contribute to cumulative water supply impacts. Impact 4.15 of the General Plan Update EIR concluded that because the projected water demands associated with General Plan buildout would not exceed the projected water supplies, and that the General Plan includes a comprehensive set of goals, policies, and actions to ensure an adequate and reliable source of clean potable water, cumulative water supply impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Since certification of the General Plan Update EIR, the City adopted the 2020 UWMP in June 2021, which provides updates to the water demand and supply projections for the city from the 2015 UWMP relied on in the General Plan Update EIR. The 2020 UWMP identified citywide water supply shortages during dry year conditions for 2025, 2030, 2045 that would occur as a result of cumulative growth and development throughout the SFPUC and Valley Water service area, including the city. The City’s 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan, which would be implemented during dry year conditions, identifies the installation of five additional groundwater wells by 2025 and two additional groundwater wells by 2040 to help offset the water supply shortages identified for 2030 and 2045. The construction of these additional groundwater wells would have the potential to result in direct environmental effects, including potential impacts on air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, water quality, and noise, as well as secondary environmental effects such as aquifer depletion, changes in groundwater flow, and subsidence.

As discussed in Section 3.15, “Utilities and Service Systems,” of this Draft SEIR, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in an increase in the number of residential units that could be developed within the Specific Plan Area, resulting in additional new residents beyond the number anticipated in the General Plan Update EIR.

However, this increase in residential density would decrease the amount of commercial development that could occur within the Specific Plan Area compared to what was evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR. Implementation of the Specific Plan would decrease water demand by 105,875 gpd, resulting in a decrease of 119 AFY compared to the land uses assumed for the Specific Plan Area in the General Plan Update EIR. Although the dry year water supply shortages identified in the 2020 UWMP would not directly occur because of the proposed Specific Plan, the proposed land uses and development projections in the Specific Plan were accounted for in the 2020 UWMP. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan would contribute to the water supply shortage during these dry year conditions that would potentially trigger the need to construct additional groundwater wells, the construction and operation of which could result in significant environmental impacts. However, the City is implementing drought contingency measures identified in the UWMP through the construction of additional groundwater wells to offset water supply shortages

Page 866 of 1045 ends

Ascent Findings of Fact
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings 43
identified for 2030 and 2045. McCandless Well, located in Delango Manaong Park along McCandless Drive, is a new production well under construction. The well casing was completed in 2021, and is expected to be completed by summer 2026 and operational in 2027. Pinewood well is an existing standby well that may be converted into production. According to the City Water Master Plan, Curtis well, designated to be a production well, is anticipated to be constructed between 2031 and 2035 (Silveira, pers. Comm., 2025). Operation of McCandles Well alone could provide approximately 649 AFY of supplemental water supply that would offset the UWMP projected dry year conditions through the year 2040. Therefore, sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the Specific Plan and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.

All future development associated with the Specific Plan would be required to comply with the provisions identified in Chapter 7 of the proposed Specific Plan. The full list of water infrastructure provisions is provided in Chapter 7, Section

7.3.2 of the proposed Specific Plan. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with General Plan Policies USC 2-1 and USC 2-4 and associated Action USC-2f. The proposed water infrastructure provisions would help to reduce water demand associated with buildout of the Specific Plan. Therefore, the Specific Plan’s contribution to cumulative water supply impacts, when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable growth and development, would be less than cumulatively considerable as identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.4.12-2: Contribute to Cumulative Impacts Related to Wastewater
Impact 4.15 of the General Plan Update EIR evaluated whether buildout of the General Plan would contribute to cumulative impacts related to wastewater generation and treatment capacity. Impact 4.15 of the General Plan Update EIR concluded that because projected wastewater generation volumes associated with General Plan buildout would not exceed the projected wastewater treatment capacity, and that the proposed General Plan includes a comprehensive set of goals, policies, and actions to ensure an adequate and reliable wastewater collection and treatment system, cumulative impacts associated with wastewater treatment and compliance with waste discharge requirements would be less than cumulatively considerable.

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

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

As discussed in Section 3.15, “Utilities and Service Systems,” of this Draft SEIR, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in a decrease in water demand by 105,875 gpd, as compared to buildout under the General Plan. Assuming a 1 to 1 ratio of water consumption to wastewater generation, the proposed Specific Plan would result in a corresponding decrease in wastewater of 105,875 gpd as compared to buildout under the General Plan.

Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan includes provisions intended to ensure that sewer infrastructure is able to support future growth in the Specific Plan Area. All future development associated with the Specific Plan would be

Page 867 of 1045 ends

Findings of Fact Ascent
City of Milpitas
44 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings
required to comply with the provisions identified in Chapter 7 of the proposed Specific Plan. The full list of wastewater infrastructure provisions is provided in Chapter 7, Section 7.4.2 of the proposed Specific Plan.

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

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

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.4.12-3: Contribute to Cumulative Impacts Related to Solid Waste
Impact 4.15 of the General Plan Update EIR evaluated whether buildout of the General Plan would contribute to cumulative impacts on solid waste disposal facilities. Impact 4.15 of the General Plan Update EIR states that future projects associated with buildout of the General Plan would be required to comply with applicable state and local requirements including those pertaining to solid waste, construction waste diversion, and recycling. Additionally, the General Plan includes actions to further reduce impacts on solid waste services. The General Plan Update EIR concluded that because buildout of the General Plan would not exceed the permitted capacity of the landfill serving the City, and the General Plan complies with regulations related to solid waste, cumulative solid waste impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the city would generate solid waste that would need to be disposed of at different facilities depending on the material waste stream (e.g., garbage, recyclables, food waste, yard trimmings, and construction and demolition) in accordance with the City’s franchise agreement with Milpitas Sanitation, Inc. (MSI). Solid waste is disposed of at the Kirby Canyon Landfill, while recyclables, yard trimmings, and food scraps would be diverted to other facilities. However, the City’s disposal rates have been steadily decreasing over time and would likely continue to decrease throughout the life of the Specific Plan in accordance with state and local solid waste diversion requirements. Kirby Canyon Landfill can accept up to 2,600 tons per day of waste and has a remaining permitted capacity of 16,191,600 cubic yards as of 2015, with an estimated closure date of 2059.

As discussed in Section 3.15, “Utilities and Service Systems,” of this Draft SEIR, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would generate approximately 87,891 pounds of solid waste per day, which equates to 43.9 tons per day or 16,040 tons per year of solid waste. Applying the same disposal rates to the population and employment projections identified for the Specific Plan Area in the General Plan Update EIR, the General Plan land uses for the Specific Plan Area would generate approximately 104,534 pounds of solid waste per day, which equates to 52.3 tons per day or 19,078 tons per year of solid waste. As such, the proposed Specific Plan would generate approximately 3,037 fewer tons of solid waste per year compared to what was identified in the General Plan Update EIR. This amount of daily solid waste would also be well within the Kirby Canyon Landfill’s daily permitted capacity. As such, Kirby Canyon Landfill would have sufficient capacity to accommodate solid waste generated from buildout of the Specific Plan, and the Specific Plan would not contribute to an exceedance of the landfill’s disposal capacity.

Furthermore, future development under the Specific Plan would be required to comply with all applicable state and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including AB 939, AB 341, AB 1826, and the Milpitas Municipal Code, which would reduce the amount of operation-related solid waste that would be disposed of at Kerby Canyon Landfill.

Page 868 of 1045 ends

Ascent Findings of Fact
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings 45
Finally, all future development associated with the Specific Plan would be required to comply with the provisions identified in Chapter 7 of the proposed Specific Plan. The full list of solid waste facility provisions is provided in Chapter 7, Section 7.5.1 of the proposed Specific Plan. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with General Plan Policies USC 5-2 through 5-4.

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

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation is required.

MITIGATED BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
This section addresses those impacts for which the Final SEIR identified a substantial increase in severity of environmental effects disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR that cannot be mitigated below a level of significance.

For these impacts, there are no feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives that would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level, and the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. This section identifies the significant and unavoidable impacts that require a statement of overriding considerations to be issued by the City Council, pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines if the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan is approved.

Based on the analysis contained in the Final SEIR, the following impacts have been determined to be significant and unavoidable.

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

MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a: Conduct Project-Specific Level Surveys Prior to altering or otherwise affecting a building or structure 50 years old or older and has not been previously evaluated as a potential historic resource, the City shall require the project applicant to retain a qualified architectural historian to evaluated and record it on a California Department of Parks and Recreation DPR 523 form or equivalent

Page 869 of 1045 ends

Findings of Fact Ascent
City of Milpitas
46 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings
documentation. Its significance shall be assessed by a qualified architectural historian and evaluated against NRHP, CRHR, and local criteria. The evaluation process shall include the development of appropriate historical background research as context for the assessment of the significance. For buildings or structures that do not meet significance and integrity criteria, no further mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b: Historical Resources Documentation Prior to the alteration or demolition of any building or structure that qualifies as a historical resource, a qualified architectural historian, the project applicant, and the City shall consult to consider measures that would enable the project to avoid direct or indirect impacts to the building or structure. If the project cannot avoid modifications to a historic building or structure that would result in a substantial adverse change the City shall ensure that the project applicant have a qualified architectural historian thoroughly documents the building and associated landscaping and setting. If the historic building or structure is eligible or listed on the NRHP, documentation shall include still and video photography and a written documentary record of the building to the standards of the Historic American Building Survey or Historic American Engineering Record, including accurate scaled mapping, architectural descriptions, and scaled architectural plans, if available. A copy of the record shall be deposited with the City, the Milpitas Historical Society, and the Milpitas Library. The record shall be accompanied by a report containing site- specific history and appropriate contextual information. This information shall be gathered through site specific and comparative archival research, and oral history collection as appropriate.

Finding
The City Council finds that feasible mitigation measures would not reduce the identified significant impact to a less- than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. However, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b), the City’s Statement of Overriding Considerations describes the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Specific Plan project that outweigh this significant and unavoidable impact.

Rationale
For the Specific Plan, implementation of adopted Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a and 3.4-1b would reduce impacts to historical resources. However, because the extent of construction and the presence of unrecorded historical resources cannot be fully known at this time, it is impossible to determine whether the mitigation measures would fully mitigate this impact. The potential for demolition or substantial alteration of a historical resource is unavoidable. Therefore, even with the implementation of adopted Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a and 3.4-1b, the Specific Plan project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on historic resources. (Draft SEIR page 3.4-17) Impact 3.4-2: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of Unique Archaeological Resources
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.5-1) determined that impacts related to archaeological resources, including the Gateway-Main Specific Plan, would be less than significant, requiring no mitigation. However, additional information obtained since the General Plan Update EIR indicates that the area is highly sensitive for archaeological and tribal cultural resources. Project-related ground-disturbing activities could result in discovery or damage of yet undiscovered archaeological resources as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. As a result, a substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would be potentially significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure 3.4-2a: Prepare and Implement Worker Training Program A training program will be provided to all construction personnel active on a given project site prior to implementation of earth moving activities. A qualified archaeologist meeting the United States Secretary of Interior

Page 870 of 1045 ends

Ascent Findings of Fact
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings 47
guidelines for professional archaeologists shall prepare the program and provide the training to all construction personnel. The program will include relevant information regarding archaeological resources, including protocols for resource avoidance, applicable laws regulations, and the consequences of violating them. The program will also underscore the requirement for confidentiality and culturally appropriate treatment of any find of significance as well as the actions that need to be taken after a find is made.

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

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

Page 871 of 1045 ends

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

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

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

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

Finding
The City Council finds that feasible mitigation measures would not reduce the identified significant impact to a less- than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. However, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b), the City’s Statement of Overriding Considerations describes the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan project that outweigh this significant and unavoidable impact.

Rationale
For the Specific Plan, implementation of adopted Mitigation Measures 3.4-2a through 3.4-2e would reduce impacts to unique archaeological resources. However, because the extent of construction and the presence of unrecorded archaeological resources cannot be fully known at this time, it is impossible to determine whether the mitigation measures would fully mitigate this impact. The potential for demolition or substantial alteration of a unique archaeological resource is unavoidable. Therefore, even with the implementation of adopted Mitigation Measures

3.4.2a through 3.4.2e, the Specific Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on archaeological resources (Draft SEIR page 3.4-19).

Page 872 of 1045 ends

Ascent Findings of Fact
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings 49
Impact 3.4-3: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource
The General Plan Update EIR did not analyze impacts related to tribal cultural resources. AB 52 went into effect in 2014 and prior to that, tribal consultation was not required as part of the EIR process. However, additional information obtained through tribal consultation since the General Plan Update EIR was completed indicates that the area is highly sensitive for tribal cultural resources. Consultation with the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the SF Bay Area and Tamien Nation has not resulted in specific resources being identified as tribal cultural resources as described under PRC Section 21074. Although neither of the consulting tribes, the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the SF Bay Area and Tamien Nation, have specifically identified any of these archaeological sites as a tribal cultural resource as defined in PRC Section 21074, the tribe(s) have expressed great concern for these resources and have identified the Specific Plan Area as highly sensitive for tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the Specific Plan’s impact on tribal cultural resources would be more severe compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would be potentially significant.

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

Mitigation Measure 3.4-3b: Identify and Protect Unknown Tribal Cultural Resources During project-specific environmental review under the Specific Plan, if the City in consultation or coordination with the tribe(s) determines that a project activity may cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource, and measures to protect the resource are not otherwise identified in the consultation process, the project applicant shall implement the following steps to identify and protect tribal cultural resources or archaeological resources significant to the tribe that may be present in the project’s area of effects. 1) If a tribal cultural resource is identified, the project lead shall consult with the tribe(s) to consider means of avoiding or reducing ground disturbance within the resource boundaries, including minor modifications of building footprint, landscape modification, the placement of protective fill (e.g., capping), the establishment of a preservation easement, or other means that will avoid or substantially preserve the resource in place. Similar to Mitigation Measure 3.4-2b(iv).
2) If avoidance or substantial preservation in place of tribal cultural resources is not possible, the project lead shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.4-3(c).
3) For projects that require subsurface testing of archaeological sites that contain indigenous materials, the project applicant shall retain the Native American tribe(s) to monitor the subsurface testing of the project area that is required under Mitigation Measure 3.4-2c. The type of subsurface testing (e.g., ground-penetrating radar, core, forensic dogs, excavation) shall be coordinated with the consulting tribe(s).

Page 873 of 1045 ends

Findings of Fact Ascent
City of Milpitas
50 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings
plan. The treatment plan shall include, but not be limited to testing, excavation strategy, research design, resource significance assessment methods, a burial treatment agreement (if applicable), reporting requirements and health and safety procedures. The burial treatment agreement (if applicable) shall include a discussion of reburial options, locations, and potential easements, considering tribal preferences. This may be developed in conjunction with Mitigation Measure 3.4-2c.

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

Mitigation Measure 3.4-3e: Implement Native American Response and Treatment Protocol During project-specific environmental review under the Specific Plan, for projects where no archaeological materials have been identified as part of Mitigation Measures 3.4-3b and 3.4-3c, in the event that any tribal cultural resources and/or precontact subsurface archaeological features or deposits, including locally darkened soil (“midden”), that could conceal cultural deposits are discovered during construction, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted. The project applicant shall contact the appropriate Native American tribe(s) for their input on the preferred treatment of the find. Mitigation Measure 3.4-3b (1) or Mitigation Measure 3.4-3c and Mitigation Measure 3.4-3d shall be implemented. If artifacts are recovered from significant tribal cultural resources, the first option shall be to transfer the artifacts to an appropriate tribal representative. If possible, accommodations shall be made to reinter the artifacts at the project site or another mutually agreed upon (with the Native American representative) location within the Specific Plan Area. Only if no other options are available will recovered precontact archaeological material be housed at a qualified curation facility, if approved by the consulting tribe(s).

Finding
The City Council finds that feasible mitigation measures would not reduce the identified significant impact to a less- than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. However, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b), the City’s Statement of Overriding Considerations describes the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan project that outweigh this significant and unavoidable impact.

Rationale
For the Specific Plan, implementation of adopted Mitigation Measures 3.4-3a through 3.4-3e would reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources. However, because the extent of future ground disturbance and the potential presence of tribal cultural resources cannot be fully known at this time, it is impossible to determine whether the mitigation measures would fully mitigate this impact. The potential for demolition or substantial alteration of a tribal cultural resource is unavoidable. Therefore, even with the implementation of adopted Mitigation Measures 3.4.3a through

3.4.3e, the Specific Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on Tribal Cultural Resources (Draft SEIR page 3.4-22).

Page 874 of 1045 ends

Ascent Findings of Fact
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings 51

10.2 SECTION 3.8: NOISE
Impact 3.8-2: Generate a Substantial Increase in Long-Term Transportation Noise Levels
The General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.12-1) determined that transportation noise increases as a result of General Plan implementation would be excessive and exceed noise standards. This impact was concluded to be significant and unavoidable. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would allow for additional residential development potential beyond what was assumed in the General Plan Update EIR, and a reduction in nonresidential development.

Based on traffic noise modeling, the proposed Specific Plan would not result in an increase in traffic noise impacts beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR. As a result, no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

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

Finding
The City Council finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce the identified significant impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. However, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b), the City’s Statement of Overriding Considerations describes the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan project that outweigh this significant and unavoidable impact.

Rationale
For the Specific Plan, traffic noise modeling demonstrates that the project would not result in a substantial increase in long-term transportation noise levels compared to the General Plan Update and would not exceed the City’s thresholds for substantial noise increases. However, the General Plan Update EIR concluded that cumulative long- term transportation noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable due to anticipated increases in regional traffic volumes and associated noise. Implementation of the Specific Plan would allow additional residential units beyond what is allowed under the General Plan, resulting in an associated increase in traffic noise levels surrounding the Specific Plan project area. Similar to the General Plan Update EIR, no feasible mitigation is available to reduce impacts to long-term transportation noise levels. Although the proposed Specific Plan would cause no significant new effect and the Specific Plan would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact identified in the General Plan Update EIR, no feasible mitigation has been identified to avoid cumulative traffic noise impacts, and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable (Draft SEIR page 3.8-16).

10.3 SECTION 3.11: TRANSORTATION
Impact 3.11-2: Conflict or Be Inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) Regarding Vehicle Miles Traveled
General Plan Update EIR (Impact 3.14-2) determined that the VMT generated by residential development under the General Plan would not exceed the applicable significance threshold; however, the VMT generated by employment- based development under the General Plan would exceed the applicable threshold. The General Plan Update EIR concluded that because it could not be guaranteed that VMT would be reduced to below the applicable threshold with adherence to General Plan policies and all feasible mitigation measures, the VMT impact would be significant and unavoidable. Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in increased residential development and

Page 875 of 1045 ends

Findings of Fact Ascent
City of Milpitas
52 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings
decreased non-residential development as compared to what was analyzed for the General Plan buildout. Consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update EIR, implementation of the Specific Plan would not exceed the significance thresholds of 25.40 VMT per service population or 11.87 VMT per resident. However, employment-based development proposed by the project would exceed the threshold of 14.31 VMT per employee. Therefore, consistent with the conclusion in the General Plan Update EIR, VMT per employee would exceed the applicable threshold with implementation of the Specific Plan. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.11-2a through 3.11-2f would help reduce VMT from employee commutes as well as at the plan area level; however, it cannot be guaranteed how effective these measures would be. For these reasons, there is no new significant effect, and the impact is not more severe than the impact identified in the General Plan Update EIR. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

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

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

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

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

Page 876 of 1045 ends

Ascent Findings of Fact
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings 53
Mitigation Measure 3.11-2c: Provide a Ridesharing Program Building occupants or tenants who provide employment for 50 people or more shall develop and implement ridesharing programs. The following strategies provide examples of a multifaceted approach for promoting a rideshare program:
 designating a certain percentage of desirable parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles,  designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles, and  providing an app or website for coordinating rides.

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

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

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

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

Measure 3.11-2e: Establish a Bikeshare, Electric Bikeshare, and Scootershare Program Establish a bikeshare and scootershare program that provides users with on-demand access to bicycles, electric pedal assist bicycles, and electric scooters for short-term rentals.

Potential Reduction in VMT: This encourages a mode shift from vehicles to active modes of transportation, displacing VMT. Establishing bikeshare, electric bikeshare, and scootershare programs can result in up to 0.02 percent, 0.06 percent, and 0.07 percent VMT reduction in plan area, respectively (CAPCOA 2021).

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

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

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

Finding
The City Council finds that feasible mitigation measures would not reduce the identified significant impact to a less- than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. However, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b), the City’s Statement of Overriding Considerations details the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan project that outweigh this significant and unavoidable impact.

Page 877 of 1045 ends

Findings of Fact Ascent
City of Milpitas
54 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings
Rationale
For the Specific Plan, implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.11-2a through 3.11-2f would reduce VMT. These measures are consistent with General Plan Policy CIR 4-1 and reflect best practices recommended by CAPCOA to reduce VMT at the project and plan area level. However, while the Specific Plan would reduce overall service population VMT and residential VMT to below applicable thresholds, it would exceed the employee-based VMT threshold of 14.31 VMT per employee, consistent with the General Plan Update EIR, which also identified significant and unavoidable VMT impacts related to employment-based development. Because the effects of the mitigation measures cannot be guaranteed and it cannot be demonstrated that the VMT per employee would be reduced below threshold, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, even with the implementation of adopted Mitigation Measures 3.11-2a through 3.11-2f, the Specific Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on VMT (Draft SEIR Page 3.11-23).

10.4 SECTION 4: CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative Impact 4.4.4-1: Contribute to Cumulative Impacts to Historical Resources, Archaeological, and Tribal Cultural Resources The cumulative context for the historical resources analysis considers a broad regional area of which the resources are a part. The cumulative context for historical resources for this project includes the project region (i.e., project area, the city of Milpitas, and the county of Santa Clara). The cumulative context for the archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources (TCRs) analysis considers a broad regional area that includes the traditional tribal lands of the Costanoan people that occupied during the pre-contact period. Impact 4.5 of the General Plan Update EIR determined buildout of the General Plan, in combination with other development projects in the surrounding region, could result in discovery and removal of cultural resources, including archeological, historical, and Native American resources and human remains. However, the General Plan Update EIR concluded the General Plan’s contribution to this potential impact would be less than cumulatively considerable because each project under the General Plan would undergo further environmental review of project-specific impacts prior to City approval and would be required to comply with policies, actions, and regulations to avoid and/or minimize a cumulative loss of cultural resources. As identified in Impact 3.4-1, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in changing the zoning to allow greater density. The development pressure could increase and result in more requests for the demolition of historical resources. Project Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a and 3.4-1b would assist, but not fully mitigate, this impact. As a result, substantially more severe cumulative impact would occur compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would be cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable. Since the adoption of the Midtown Plan in 2001, several discoveries have been made in the area, which indicates a higher sensitivity for resources than previously identified. Additionally, the tribal consultation required under AB52 has informed the context of the area and indicated a higher sensitivity of the area as well. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development within the region, would involve ground- disturbing activities that could result in discovery of or damage to known or previously undiscovered archaeological resources and TCRs, as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21074, respectively, within the cumulative context. Proper planning and appropriate mitigation can help to capture and preserve knowledge of such resources and can provide opportunities for increasing our understanding of cultures and past environmental conditions by recording data about sites discovered and preserving artifacts found.

Federal, State, and local laws are also in place that protect these resources in most instances. Even so, it is not always feasible to protect these resources, particularly when preservation in place would make projects infeasible, and for this reason the cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects could result in a potentially significant cumulative impact on archaeological and tribal cultural resources. Compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Sections 21080.3.2, and 21084.3(a), as well as implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4-2a through 3.4-2e and 3.4-3a through 3.4-3e would ensure that treatment and disposition of unique archaeological resources are handled by a professional archaeologist, qualified under the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, and TCRs, including human remains, occurs in a manner consistent

Page 878 of 1045 ends

Ascent Findings of Fact
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings 55
with the California Native American Heritage Commission guidance. However, due to the sensitivity of the area some archaeological resources may not be able to be avoided during future projects, the Specific Plan’s contribution to cumulative impacts on archaeological resources and TCRs would be more severe compared to the General Plan Update EIR, and this impact would be cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.

MITIGATION MEASURES
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a, 3.4-1b, 3.4-2a through 3.4-2e, and 3.4-3a through 3.4-3e would address this impact. No additional measures are available.

Finding
The City Council finds that there are no additional feasible mitigation measures that would reduce the identified significant cumulative impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. However, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b), the City’s Statement of Overriding Considerations details the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Specific Plan that outweigh this significant and unavoidable impact.

Rationale
For the Specific Plan, implementation of adopted Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a, 3.4-1b, 3.4-2a through 3.4-2e, and 3.4- 3a through 3.4-3e would reduce impacts to historical resources, unique archaeological resources, and TCRs.

Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in greater density and development, which could result in the demolition of historical resources. The extent of future ground disturbance and the potential presence of historical resources, archaeological, and TCRs cannot be fully known at this time. Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether the mitigation measures would mitigate this cumulative impact below a level of significance, and the potential for demolition or substantial alteration to unique archaeological resources and TCRs is unavoidable.

Therefore, even with the implementation of adopted Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a, 3.4-1b, 3.4-2a through 3.4-2e, and

3.4-3a through 3.4-3e, the Specific Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on Historical Resources, Archaeological, and TCRs. (Draft SEIR page 3.4-8)
Cumulative Impact 4.4.8-2: Contribute to Cumulative Traffic Noise Impacts
With respect to mobile-source noise levels, the cumulative context includes local roadways likely to be affected by project-related vehicles. As discussed in Section 3.11, “Noise and Vibration,” project-related traffic increases would not result in a substantial noise increase on affected roadways. Traffic noise was also modeled under the cumulative context. Table 4 shows an increase in traffic noise between the cumulative no project scenario and the cumulative with project scenario.

Table 4 Summary of Modeled Traffic Noise Levels under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
Segment
No. North-South East-West Roadway
Segment
Midtown Conditions
Noise Levels1
(dBA Ldn)
Gateway-Main Street+
Project Noise Levels2
(dBA Ldn)
Modeled
Change
(dBA)
Applicable
Increase
Threshold
Exceeds
Applicable
Threshold?
1 Park Victoria Dr Calaveras Dr. Calaveras West 67.8 67.8 0.0 1.5 No 2 Hillview Dr Calaveras Dr. Calaveras West 69.1 68.9 -0.2 1.5 No 3 Hillview Dr Calaveras Dr. Calaveras East 69.1 68.8 -0.4 1.5 No 4 Milpitas Blvd Calaveras Dr. Calaveras West 69.1 68.8 -0.3 1.5 No 5 Milpitas Blvd Calaveras Dr. Calaveras East 63.5 63.2 -0.2 1.5 No

Page 879 of 1045 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Finding
The City Council finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce the identified significant cumulative impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. However, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b), the City’s Statement of Overriding Considerations details the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan project that outweigh this significant and unavoidable impact.

Rationale
For the Specific Plan, cumulative traffic noise impacts were evaluated based on modeled traffic volumes under both cumulative no-project and cumulative plus-project conditions. Noise level changes across all roadway segments would range from 0.0 to -0.7 dBA Ldn, which are below the City’s applicable thresholds for a substantial increase. The proposed Specific Plan would not result in a new or substantially more severe traffic noise impact than was previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR, and project’s contribution to the significant cumulative traffic noise impact would be less than cumulatively considerable. However, because the General Plan Update EIR identified cumulative traffic noise as a significant and unavoidable impact due to long-term regional traffic growth, and no feasible

Page 880 of 1045 ends

Ascent Findings of Fact
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings 57
mitigation has been identified, the cumulative traffic noise impact would be cumulatively significant and unavoidable (Draft SEIR page 4-13).

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

Boundary VMT is divided by the service population to account for the effects of population and/or employment growth and the effects of changes in personal travel behavior within the specified geographic area.

The cumulative condition for the analysis is presumed to be the full buildout of the Milpitas General Plan, which includes the Midtown Specific Plan, whereas in the cumulative with project condition replaces the Midtown Specific Plan by the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (i.e., project). The cumulative VMT analysis evaluates whether implementation of the Specific Plan would result in an increase in the regionwide boundary VMT from the cumulative scenario to the cumulative plus project scenario. As shown in Table 5, the regional impact threshold for the Specific Plan’s effect on VMT is the 2040 regionwide boundary VMT per service population of 13.40.

Table 5 Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project VMT Assessment Cumulative Condition Cumulative Plus Project Condition
South Bay Area1
Boundary VMT (A)1 111,997,595 111,890,030
Service Population (B)1,2 8,357,812 8,359,030
Boundary VMT per Service Population (C = A/B) 13.40 13.39 Boundary VMT per Service Population Threshold 13.40 -
Notes: VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled
1 Rounded service population and VMT to nearest 10
2 Service population is defined as the sum of all residents and employees.

Source: Fehr & Peers 2024.

As shown in Table 5, the boundary VMT per service population for the Specific Plan is 13.39, which is below the threshold of significance of 13.40 VMT per service population (i.e., 2040 regional VMT per service population).

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

Page 881 of 1045 ends

Findings of Fact Ascent
City of Milpitas
58 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings

MITIGATION MEASURES
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.11-2a through 3.11-2f would address this impact. No additional measures are available.

Finding
The City Council finds that feasible mitigation measures would not reduce the identified significant impact to a less- than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. However, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b), the City’s Statement of Overriding Considerations details the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Specific Plan project that outweigh this significant and unavoidable impact.

Rationale
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.11-2a through 3.11-2f would reduce VMT generated by employment-based uses in the Specific Plan area by encouraging alternative modes of transportation and reducing reliance on single- occupancy vehicle trips, consistent with CAPCOA VMT reduction strategies. However, consistent with the General Plan Update EIR, cumulative VMT impacts from regional growth and full buildout of the General Plan remain significant and unavoidable because it is speculative to evaluate the environmental impacts of VMT reductions at this time. Therefore, the cumulative impact on VMT would be cumulatively significant and unavoidable (Draft SEIR page 4-16). 11 FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the discussion of “a reasonable range of alternatives to a project, or the location of a project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” The Final SEIR identified and considered the following reasonable range of feasible alternatives to the proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan; these alternatives would be capable, to varying degrees, of reducing identified impacts:

Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
Alternative 2: Increased Residential Development for Main Street and Crossroad Districts Alternative These alternatives are evaluated for their ability to avoid or substantially lessen the impacts of the proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan identified in the Final SEIR, as well as for their ability to meet the basic objectives of the proposed Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan as described in the Final SEIR.

11.1 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Description
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(1) requires that the “no project” alternative be described and analyzed “to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the project with the impacts of not approving the project.” The no project analysis is required to discuss “the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published…as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services” (Section 15126.6[e][2]). The CEQA Guidelines continue:

If the project is…a development project on identifiable property, the no project alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Here the discussion would compare the environmental effects of the property remaining in its existing state against environmental effects which would occur if the project were approved. If disapproval of the project under consideration would result in predictable actions by others, such as the proposal of some other project, this ”no project” consequence

Page 882 of 1045 ends

Ascent Findings of Fact
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings 59
should be discussed. In certain instances, the no project alternative means ”no build” wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained. However, where failure to proceed with the project will not result in preservation of existing environmental conditions, the analysis should identify the practical result of the project’s non-approval and not create and analyze a set of artificial assumptions that would be required to preserve the existing physical environment. (Section 15126.6[e][3][B]) Under Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative, no actions would be taken. The Midtown Plan would remain in effect as it was adopted by the city in 2002 and designated in the General Plan Update, adopted in 2021. General Plan land use designations and zoning within the Specific Plan Area would remain unchanged. Buildout under Alternative 1 would consist of 3,838 residential dwelling units (population of 12,568) and nonresidential development of 3,293,240 square feet of nonresidential uses (7,898 jobs).

Comparison of Environmental Impacts
As shown in the Draft SEIR analysis, implementation of the No Project Alternative would not avoid or substantially reduce any of the significant impacts of the proposed plan. The No Project Alternative was considered the environmentally superior alternative. This alternative would result in reduced impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources, population and housing, public services and recreation, and utilities and service systems. This alternative would have similar impacts for aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, land use and planning, and noise and vibration. This alternative would result in greater impacts for energy and greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and would not achieve any of the project objectives.

Feasibility, Attainment of Project Objectives, and Findings As shown in the Draft SEIR analysis, the No Project Alternative would not meet most of the project objectives. While it would avoid significant and unavoidable impacts related to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources, it would fail to achieve the City’s goals for housing, land use, and economic development. The No Project Alternative would retain the existing Midtown Plan and would not result in revised land use designations and zoning that reflect existing conditions. As documented in the Draft SEIR Chapter 5, “Alternatives,” No Project Alternative is less energy efficient than the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (Draft EIR Tables 3.5-1 through 3.5-4), would have greater GHG emissions than the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (Draft EIR Tables 3.6-3 and 3.6-4), and would have decreased VMT efficiency than the proposed Specific Plan (Table 9 of Appendix D of the Draft EIR). Because the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan would better balance existing uses with future development in the plan area that would bring economic development and a transit-oriented, walkable, mixed-use environment to the project area, the proposed plan is the more desirable choice and provides environmental benefits over the No Project Alternative. Therefore, the City Council rejects the No Project/General Plan Land Use Alternative.

11.2 INCREASED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR MAIN STREET AND

CROSSROADS DISTRICTS ALTERNATIVE
Description
The Increased Residential Development for Main Street and Crossroads Districts Alternative (Alternative 2), consists of the proposed Specific Plan modified that would apply the Specific Plan development incentives identified in Section

2.4.4, “Development Incentives,” of Chapter 2, “Project Description,” in the Draft SEIR, to the Main Street and Crossroads Districts to increase residential development beyond the proposed Specific Plan. Buildout under Alternative 2 would consist of 8,197 residential dwelling units (population of 25,944) and nonresidential development of 2,058,666 square feet of nonresidential uses (5,541 jobs). All other aspects of the proposed Specific Plan would remain the same under Alternative 2.

Page 883 of 1045 ends

Findings of Fact Ascent
City of Milpitas
60 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings
Comparison of Environmental Impacts
As shown in the Draft SEIR analysis, the Increased Residential Development for Main Street and Crossroads Districts Alternative would result in greater environmental impacts than the proposed Specific Plan. This alternative would have greater impacts for aesthetics, air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, noise and vibration, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems.

This alternative would result in similar impacts for biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, and land use and planning.

Feasibility, Attainment of Project Objectives, and Findings While Alternative 2 would contribute to the City’s housing goals by providing 8,197 housing units, more than the proposed Specific Plan, it would cause greater population growth impacts than the proposed Specific Plan. The increase in residential development would have the potential to create an imbalance in the housing-job ratio in the project area. Although Alternative 2 aligns with Specific Plan objectives of infill development and housing production, it would not achieve the project objectives compared to the proposed Specific Plan related to economic development and long-term land use balance. Because Alternative 2 would result in similar or greater environmental impacts than the proposed Specific Plan and would not meet the City’s objectives, the proposed plan is the more desirable choice for the City. Therefore, the City Council rejects the Increased Residential Development for Main Street and Crossroads Districts Alternative.
12 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a) and (b), the City Council is required to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those effects may be considered “acceptable” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]). CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened. Those reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Final EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[b]).

In accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that the mitigation identified in the Final SEIR and the MMRP, when implemented, would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects identified in the Final SEIR for the project. Significant and unavoidable impacts of the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan are identified above.

The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation identified in the Final SEIR within the purview of the City would be implemented with implementation of the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan and that the remaining significant and unavoidable impacts are outweighed and are found to be acceptable because of the following specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits based on the facts set forth above, the Final SEIR, and the record, as follows:

1. The Specific Plan organizes development in Focus Areas to create a walkable mixed-use community with high- density, transit-oriented housing and amenities that attract and retain residents and businesses, while maintaining established single-family neighborhoods, industrial, service, and commercial uses, consistent with General Plan goals and policies.

2. The Specific Plan Area would increase housing opportunities in Milpitas to support future anticipated population growth in the region, consistent with the City’s Housing Element and General Plan. The Specific Plan allows for increased density, which would support the City’s efforts to meet the State-mandated Regional Housing Needs

Page 884 of 1045 ends

Ascent Findings of Fact
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan SEIR Findings 61
Allocation (RHNA) to address housing shortages, as well as comply with other state and local mandates. In addition to increased density, the Specific Plan updates other development standards, including intensity, FAR, height limits, parking, and open space standards, to remove physical and economic constraints that have in the past limited development potential or rendered sites in the project area infeasible for development, thereby limiting the potential for housing development in the Plan Area. Development incentives are provided to further reduce potential economic constraints in exchange for certain public benefits.

3. The Specific Plan would increase economic opportunities in an area of the City that has experienced historic disinvestment and a high degree of vacant and underutilized properties, through new mixed-use infill development that would occur in conjunction with parks, mobility, and infrastructure improvements. Consistent with the General Plan and the City’s Economic Development Strategy, the Specific Plan identifies strategies for the redevelopment of the Serra Center and other Focus Areas for new commercial development, and establishes requirements for retail activity, building frontages, and public realm design to improve the character of the area with high quality development, landscaping, and streetscape. In addition, the Specific Plan provides additional criteria, guidance for infrastructure improvements and implementation actions, and identifies subsequent infrastructure studies including the Sense of Place Plan, to address utilities upgrades, stormwater, and flooding along Main Street and in flood hazard areas.

4. The Specific Plan establishes guidance to increase community connectivity through new streets, complete streets and street improvements, bike lanes, and other pedestrian and trail connections and enhancements, establish mobility hubs, and promote walkability and the use of transit. The Project would therefore further other General Plan goals and policies, including the reduction in VMT, promoting infill development, improving public health, and increasing economic and social diversity.

5. The Specific Plan provides guidance for the construction of new public parks and plazas, improvements to Creek areas and underpasses, and common and private open spaces to allow for the development of a mix of urban parks and plazas, special gathering spaces, and a mix of public and private amenities.

6. The Specific Plan establishes policies for Urban Reserve Areas, including the Elmwood Correctional Facility, North Railyards, and South Railyards to ensure that potential future redevelopment of those areas is integrated with development and improvements in the Specific Plan Area.

7. As documented in the SEIR, implementation of the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan would provide environmental benefits that would improve energy efficiency of land uses currently allowed in the Plan Area (Draft EIR Tables 3.5-1 through 3.5-4), reduce GHG emissions as compared to land uses currently allowed in the Plan Area (Draft EIR Tables 3.6-3 and 3.6-4), and would improve VMT efficiency (Table 9 of Appendix D of the Draft EIR).

Considering all the factors, the City Council finds that there are specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations associated with the project that serve to override and outweigh the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan’s significant and unavoidable impacts; thus, the adverse effects are considered acceptable. Therefore, the City Council hereby adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations.

Page 885 of 1045 ends

Attachment A
Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program

Page 886 of 1045 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan
SCH No. 2024070432
Prepared for:

City of Milpitas
Planning Department
455 E. Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, CA 95030
September 2025

Page 887 of 1045 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan
SCH No. 2024070432
Prepared for:

City of Milpitas
455 E. Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, CA 95030
Contact:

Jay Lee
Planning Director
[email protected]
Prepared by:

Ascent
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Contact:

Pat Angell
Principal
916.732.3324
[email protected]
September 2025
20210060.01

Page 888 of 1045 ends

City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan MMRP 1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.), the City of Milpitas (City) prepared a subsequent environmental impact report (SEIR) for the Gateway-Main Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2024070432) that identified significant impacts and mitigation measures that would reduce the identified impacts to a less-than-significant level, where feasible.

CEQA Section 21081.6 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091(d) and 15097 require public agencies to adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the changes made to the project it has adopted or made a condition of project approval to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. This mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) has been prepared for the project because the EIR identifies potentially significant adverse impacts related to project implementation, as well as mitigation measures to reduce those impacts. Adoption of this MMRP would occur along with approval of the project.

PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This MMRP has been prepared to ensure that all required mitigation measures are implemented and completed in a satisfactory manner before and during project construction and operation, as applicable. Table 1, provided below, has been prepared to assist the responsible parties with implementing the mitigation measures. It identifies the mitigation measures, the entities responsible for implementing the mitigation measures, and the timeframe for implementation of the mitigation measures. The table also includes a column for the City to document implementation of the mitigation measures after project approval. The numbering of mitigation measures follows the numbering used in the EIR. Mitigation measures that are referenced more than once in the EIR are not duplicated in the MMRP table.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The City will oversee monitoring and documenting the implementation of mitigation measures, as applicable. Project applicants and construction contractors are responsible for fully understanding and effectively implementing all of the mitigation measures contained within this MMRP. Certain mitigation measures also will require that project applicants coordinate or consult with one or more other public agencies in implementing mitigation measures specified herein.

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TABLE
Table 1, which identifies the mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project, includes the following table columns:
 Mitigation Measure: This column presents the verbatim text of the adopted mitigation measure.  Implementing Party: This column identifies the entity responsible for undertaking the required action.  Timing: This column identifies the time frame in which the mitigation will be implemented.  Verification of Compliance: The City is responsible for ensuring that mitigation measures are successfully implemented. The “Verification of Compliance” column is to be used by the City to indicate how and when a mitigation measure was implemented. The City, at its discretion, may delegate implementation responsibility or portions thereof to qualified consultants or contractors.

Page 889 of 1045 ends

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent
City of Milpitas
2 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan MMRP
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Verification of Compliance
Cultural, and Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a: Conduct Project-Specific Level Surveys Prior to altering or otherwise affecting a building or structure 50 years old or older and has not been previously evaluated as a potential historic resource, the City shall require the project applicant to retain a qualified architectural historian to evaluated and record it on a California Department of Parks and Recreation DPR 523 form or equivalent documentation. Its significance shall be assessed by a qualified architectural historian and evaluated against NRHP, CRHR, and local criteria. The evaluation process shall include the development of appropriate historical background research as context for the assessment of the significance.

For buildings or structures that do not meet significance and integrity criteria, no further mitigation is required.

Project applicant, a qualified
architectural historian, and
the City
Applicants for individual
projects shall evaluate
buildings and structures
during the development
review process.

The record shall be accompanied by a report containing site-specific history and appropriate contextual information. This information shall be gathered through site specific and comparative archival research, and oral history collection as appropriate.

Project applicant, a qualified
architectural historian, and
the City
Applicants for individual
projects shall evaluate
buildings and structures
during the development
review process.

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

Project applicant and a
qualified archaeologist
Applicants for individual
projects shall retain a
qualified archaeologist to
train construction personnel
prior to the start of
construction earthmoving
activities.

Page 890 of 1045 ends

Ascent Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan MMRP 3
Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Verification of Compliance
Mitigation Measure 3.4-2b: Identify and Protect Unknown Archaeological Resources During project-specific environmental review of development under the Specific Plan for any projects that include ground disturbance, the project applicant shall hire a qualified archaeologist to determine the potential for the project to result in significant impacts. At a minimum, the effort shall include the following steps:
(i) Record’s search – The qualified archaeologist shall request a record’s search of the entire project area plus a one-half mile buffer from the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University. (ii) Surface survey exposed soil – The qualified archaeologist shall complete a pedestrian survey of any exposed soils on the project site.
(iii) Reporting – The qualified archaeologist shall complete a report/memo that summarizes the results of the record search and pedestrian survey as well as provides recommendations for additional study and/or mitigation measures to protect and/or reduce significant impacts to archaeological resources, as needed.

If indigenous materials are identified, the associated tribe(s) will be contacted by the City and will be given the opportunity to review the report and provide input for consideration. (iv) Preservation in place – The project applicant shall consult with the qualified archaeologist to consider means of avoiding or reducing ground disturbance within the archaeological site boundaries, including minor modifications of building footprint, landscape modification, the placement of protective fill (capping), the establishment of a preservation easement, or other means that will avoid or substantially preserve the resource in place. If avoidance or substantial preservation in place is not possible, the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.4-2(e).

Project applicant, a qualified
archaeologist, and the City
A cultural resources study, if
applicable, shall be prepared
by individual project
applicants prior to issuance of
grading permits.

A qualified archaeologist shall
be hired by individual project
applicants, if applicable,
during construction of
individual projects.

Page 891 of 1045 ends

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent
City of Milpitas
4 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Verification of Compliance
qualifies as a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource under the criteria of CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5.
2) If the resource does not meet the criteria of CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5, then it shall be noted in the environmental document and no further mitigation is required unless there is a discovery during construction. In the event of a discovery Mitigation Measure 3.4-2e below shall be implemented. However, the archaeological resource may be identified as a tribal cultural resource regardless even if it is determined that it is not a unique archaeological resource (See Mitigation Measures 3.4-3b and 3.4-3c below for further information).
3) If archaeological material within the project’s area of effects is determined to qualify as a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource (as defined by CEQA), the project applicant shall consult with the qualified archaeologist to prepare a research design and archaeological data recovery plan for the recovery that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant and implement the data recovery plan prior to or during development of the site. The archaeologist shall prepare a written report of the results of the data recovery and filed with the appropriate Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System.
4) If, in the opinion of the qualified archaeologist and tribe(s) as applicable and in light of the data available, the significance of the site is such that data recovery cannot capture the values of the resource, the project applicant shall reconsider project plans in light of the high value of the resource, and implement more substantial modifications to the project that would allow the site to be preserved intact, such as project redesign, placement of fill, or project relocation or abandonment. If no such measures are feasible, the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.4-2d.

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

Project applicant, a qualified
archaeologist, and the City
A qualified archaeologist shall
be hired by individual project
applicants, if applicable,
during construction of
individual projects.

Page 892 of 1045 ends

Ascent Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan MMRP 5
Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Verification of Compliance
Mitigation Measure 3.4-2e: For All Ground-Disturbing Construction Activities, Halt Ground Disturbance Upon Discovery of Subsurface Archaeological Features
During project-specific environmental review under the Specific Plan, for projects where no archaeological materials have been identified as part of Mitigation Measures 3.4-2b and 3.4-2c, in the event that any precontact or historic era subsurface archaeological features or deposits, including locally darkened soil (“midden”), that could conceal cultural deposits are discovered during construction, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained to assess the significance of the find. If the qualified archaeologist determines the archaeological material to be Native American in nature, the project applicant shall contact the appropriate Native American tribe for their input on the preferred treatment of the find. Mitigation Measure 3.4-2b(iv) or Mitigation Measure 3.4-2c and Mitigation Measure 3.4-2d shall be implemented.

Project applicant, a qualified
archaeologist, and the City
A qualified archaeologist shall
be hired by individual project
applicants, if applicable,
during construction of
individual projects.

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

The City, in coordination with
California Native American
tribe(s)
Applicants for individual
projects shall coordinate with
California Native American
tribe(s) to train construction
personnel prior to the start of
construction earthmoving
activities.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-3b: Identify and Protect Unknown Tribal Cultural Resources During project-specific environmental review under the Specific Plan, if the City in consultation or coordination with the tribe(s) determines that a project activity may cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource, and measures to protect the resource are not otherwise identified in the consultation process, the project applicant shall implement the following steps to identify and protect tribal cultural resources or archaeological resources significant to the tribe that may be present in the project’s area of effects.
1) If a tribal cultural resource is identified, the project lead shall consult with the tribe(s) to consider means of avoiding or reducing ground disturbance within the resource boundaries, including minor modifications of building footprint, landscape modification, the placement of protective fill (e.g., capping), the establishment of a preservation easement, or other means that will avoid or substantially preserve the resource in place. Similar to Mitigation Measure 3.4-2b(iv). 2) If avoidance or substantial preservation in place of tribal cultural resources is not possible, the project lead shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.4-3(c).

The City, in consultation with
California Native American
tribe(s), and the project
applicant
A Native American tribal
monitor shall be hired by
individual project applicants,
if applicable, prior to and
during construction of
individual projects.

Page 893 of 1045 ends

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent
City of Milpitas
6 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Verification of Compliance
3) For projects that require subsurface testing of archaeological sites that contain indigenous materials, the project applicant shall retain the Native American tribe(s) to monitor the subsurface testing of the project area that is required under Mitigation Measure 3.4-2c. The type of subsurface testing (e.g., ground- penetrating radar, core, forensic dogs, excavation) shall be coordinated with the consulting tribe(s).

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

This may be developed in conjunction with Mitigation Measure 3.4-2c.

The City, the project
applicant, and Native
American tribe(s)
The project lead and Native
American tribe(s) shall
develop a treatment plan
prior to ground-disturbing
activities.

The City, the project
applicant, and Native
American tribe(s)
Applicants for individual
projects shall retain a
representative for tribal
cultural resource monitoring
prior to the commencement
of any ground-disturbing
activities.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-3e: Implement Native American Response and Treatment Protocol During project-specific environmental review under the Specific Plan, for projects where no archaeological materials have been identified as part of Mitigation Measures 3.4-3b and 3.4-3c, in the event that any tribal cultural resources and/or precontact subsurface archaeological features or deposits, including locally darkened soil (“midden”), that could conceal cultural deposits are discovered during construction, all ground- disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted. The project applicant shall contact the appropriate Native American tribe(s) for their input on the preferred treatment of the find. Mitigation Measure 3.4-3b (1) or Mitigation Measure 3.4-3c and Mitigation Measure 3.4-3d shall be implemented. If artifacts are recovered from significant tribal cultural resources, the first option shall be to transfer the artifacts to an appropriate tribal representative. If possible, accommodations shall be made to reinter the Project applicant and
California Native American
tribe(s)
During project-specific
environmental review under
the Specific Plan.

Page 894 of 1045 ends

Ascent Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Milpitas
Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan MMRP 7
Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Verification of Compliance
artifacts at the project site or another mutually agreed upon (with the Native American representative) location within the Specific Plan Area. Only if no other options are available will recovered precontact archaeological material be housed at a qualified curation facility, if approved by the consulting tribe(s).

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

Additionally, the Commute Trip Reduction Program must be complimented with Commute Trip Reduction Marketing to share information, facilitate coordination, and implement marketing for services, infrastructure, and incentives provided by the Commute Trip Reduction Program. The following features, or similar alternatives, shall be implemented to satisfy the Commute Trip Reduction Marketing strategy.  On-site or online commuter information services,
 Employee transportation coordinators, and
 On-site or online transit pass sales
Project applicant and City 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 Measure 3.11-2b: Require Employers to Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool or Shuttle Service The project applicant shall require building occupants or tenants (i.e., employer) to implement an employer- based shuttle or vanpool service. For large employers with corporate campuses, this may include running private shuttles to and from neighborhoods where employees live. For smaller employers, or buildings with multiple employer tenants, it may involve a shuttle connecting to regional transit, such as a Caltrain station, funded through an organization such as a transportation management association.

Project applicant and City 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.

Page 895 of 1045 ends

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent
City of Milpitas
8 Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Verification of Compliance
Mitigation Measure 3.11-2c: Provide a Ridesharing Program Building occupants or tenants who provide employment for 50 people or more shall develop and implement ridesharing programs. The following strategies provide examples of a multifaceted approach for promoting a rideshare program:
 designating a certain percentage of desirable parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles,  designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles, and  providing an app or website for coordinating rides.

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

City Completed by the City
through its overall
implementation of the
specific plan.

City completed by the City
through its overall
implementation of the
specific plan.

Notes: City = City of Milpitas; VMT = vehicle miles traveled.

Page 896 of 1045 ends

Attachment B
General Plan Update CEQA Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations

Page 897 of 1045 ends

Page 898 of 1045 ends

Page 899 of 1045 ends

Page 900 of 1045 ends

Page 901 of 1045 ends

Page 902 of 1045 ends

Page 903 of 1045 ends

Page 904 of 1045 ends

Page 905 of 1045 ends

Page 906 of 1045 ends

Page 907 of 1045 ends

Page 908 of 1045 ends

Page 909 of 1045 ends

Page 910 of 1045 ends

Page 911 of 1045 ends

Page 912 of 1045 ends

Page 913 of 1045 ends

Page 914 of 1045 ends

Page 915 of 1045 ends

Page 916 of 1045 ends

Page 917 of 1045 ends

Page 918 of 1045 ends

Page 919 of 1045 ends

Page 920 of 1045 ends

Page 921 of 1045 ends

Page 922 of 1045 ends

Page 923 of 1045 ends

Page 924 of 1045 ends

Page 925 of 1045 ends

Page 926 of 1045 ends

Page 927 of 1045 ends

Page 928 of 1045 ends

Page 929 of 1045 ends

Page 930 of 1045 ends

Page 931 of 1045 ends

Page 932 of 1045 ends

Page 933 of 1045 ends

Page 934 of 1045 ends

Page 935 of 1045 ends

Page 936 of 1045 ends

Page 937 of 1045 ends

Page 938 of 1045 ends

Page 939 of 1045 ends

Page 940 of 1045 ends

Page 941 of 1045 ends

Page 942 of 1045 ends

Page 943 of 1045 ends

Page 944 of 1045 ends

Page 945 of 1045 ends

Page 946 of 1045 ends

Page 947 of 1045 ends

Page 948 of 1045 ends

Page 949 of 1045 ends

Page 950 of 1045 ends

Page 951 of 1045 ends

Page 952 of 1045 ends

Page 953 of 1045 ends

Page 954 of 1045 ends

Page 955 of 1045 ends

Page 956 of 1045 ends

Page 957 of 1045 ends

Page 958 of 1045 ends

Page 959 of 1045 ends

Page 960 of 1045 ends

Page 961 of 1045 ends

Page 962 of 1045 ends

Page 963 of 1045 ends

Page 964 of 1045 ends

Page 965 of 1045 ends

Page 966 of 1045 ends

Page 967 of 1045 ends

Page 968 of 1045 ends

Page 969 of 1045 ends

Page 970 of 1045 ends

Page 971 of 1045 ends

Page 972 of 1045 ends

Page 973 of 1045 ends

Page 974 of 1045 ends

Page 975 of 1045 ends

Page 976 of 1045 ends

Page 977 of 1045 ends

Page 978 of 1045 ends

Page 979 of 1045 ends

Resolution No. 25-014 Page 1

RESOLUTION NO. 25-014

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MILPITAS

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT SP20-0002, ZONING TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENT ZA25-0002, AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP25-0002 TO ADOPT THE GATEWAY-MAIN ST. SPECIFIC PLAN,

AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP TO ESTABLISH NEW SPECIFIC

PLAN BOUNDARIES, ZONING DISTRICTS, AND ZONING REGULATIONS, AND AMEND

THE GENERAL PLAN FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE; AND CERTIFY THE SUBSEQUENT EIR TO THE MILPITAS 2040 GENERAL PLAN EIR FOR THE GATEWAY-MAIN ST. SPECIFIC PLAN (SCH #2024070432)

WHEREAS, the City of Milpitas, California (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and

WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65300 et seq. requires each city to prepare and adopt, and amend as necessary, a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city; and

WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65800 et seq. authorizes the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations by cities as a means of implementing the General Plan; and

WHEREAS, California Government Code Sections 65450-65457 authorize cities to prepare specific plans to systematically implement the General Plan, specify the required contents of specific plans, allow specific plans to be adopted by resolution or ordinance and amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body, and requires specific plans to be consistent with the General Plan; and

WHEREAS, on March 9, 2021, the Milpitas City Counc il adopted the Milpitas 2040 General Plan, updating and revising the land use policies , goals, and objectives contained in the City’s previous General Plan; and

WHEREAS, on March 19, 2002, the Milpitas City Council adopted the Midtown Specific Plan to maximize land use, transportation, and economic opportunities along the City’s historic Main Street and energize and catalyze mixed-use, transit-oriented development in the Midtown area, known as the “heart” of Milpitas; and

WHEREAS, since May 19, 2002, the Milpitas City Counc il adopted various amendments to the Midtown Specific Plan to incorporate updates associate d with the Transit Area Specific Plan, Park and Recreation Master Plan, and Bikeway Master Plan; and

WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65860 requires a city’s zoning ordinance to be consistent with its adopted general plan, including any specific plan that has been adopted to establish planning policies for a defined geographic area of the city; and

Page 980 of 1045 ends

Resolution No. 25-014 Page 2

WHEREAS, in September 2021, the City initiated a multi-year process to comprehensively update the Midtown Specific Plan by hiring consultants and approving a work plan and schedule; and

WHEREAS, the Gateway-Main St. Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”) carries forward some of the major goals of the Midtown Specific Plan but has subs tantially updated the Plan area and policies to address current local conditions, community priorities, and best practices in long term planning; and

WHEREAS, the Specific Plan is a focused document that provides an integrated and internally consistent statement of the official land use policy consistent with the Milpitas 2040 General Plan; and

WHEREAS, the City released the Public Review Dr aft Specific Plan in April 2025, made the Public Review Draft Specific Plan available on the project website (https://www.milpitasmainstreet.org/), and invited comments by the public from April 10, 2025 up to the adoption of the Specific Plan; and

WHEREAS, on March 9, 2021, a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was certified for the Milpitas 2040 General Plan in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and

WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Subsequent EIR to the Milpitas 2040 General Plan EIR for the Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2024070432) that identifies the potential environmental impacts of the project and recommends mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level where feasible, released the Draft Subsequent EIR on April 17, 2025 for a 45-day public review period that was set to end on June 2, 2025 but was extended to July 24, 2025, and prepared a Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations to comprehensively describe the potential impacts, mitigations measures, and overriding considerations in adopting the Specific Plan; and

WHEREAS, the City has received comments on both the Public Review Draft Specific Plan and the Draft Subsequent EIR, considered and analyzed the comments, made changes to the Specific Plan, and prepared a Final Subsequent EIR, which includes the comments received and responses to comments; and

WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Specific Plan Amendment, Zoning Text and Map Amendment, and General Plan Amendment (“Amend ments”) to adopt the Specific Plan, amend the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map to establish new Specific Plan boundaries, zoning districts, and zoning regulations, and amend the General Plan for consiste ncy with the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes and accepts as its own the findings set forth in this resolution; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council; and

WHEREAS, on September 24, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, at which all those in at tendance were given the opportunity to speak on the proposed Amendments; and

Page 981 of 1045 ends

Resolution No. 25-014 Page 3

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all the written and oral testimony presented at the public hearing in making its decision; and

WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this resolution and the Planning Commission’s review, recommendation , and approval of the General Plan amendment, Zoning amendments, and CEQA review contained herein have been met.

NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas hereby finds, determines, and resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals

The Planning Commission has duly considered the full record before it, which may include but is not limited to such things as the City staff re port, testimony by staff and the public, and other materials and evidence submitted or provided to the Planning Commission. Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. CEQA Finding

The City prepared a Draft Subsequent EIR to the Milpitas 2040 General Plan EIR for the Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2024070432) that identif ies the potential environmental impacts of the project and recommends mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level where feasible, released the Draft Subsequent EIR on April 17, 2025 for a 45-day public review period that was set to end on June 2, 2025 but was extended to Ju ly 24, 2025, and prepared a Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations to comprehens ively describe the potential impacts, mitigations measures, and overriding considerations in adopting the Specific Plan. The Subsequent EIR finds that the Specific Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts and cumulative impacts that cannot be reduced to a level less than significant or for which there is no feasible mitigation include impacts to the following environmental resource topics: cultural and tribal cultural resources (Impacts 3.4-1, 3.4-2, and

3.4-3 and Cumulative Impact 4.4.4-1) and utilities and services systems (Impact 3.13-1 and Cumulative Impact 4.4.12-1). However, the overriding considerations and benefits of the Specific Plan outweigh the consequences of the adverse environmental effect. The Subsequent EIR further concludes that while the two Project Alternatives might lessen or avoid some potential environmental effects compared to the proposed project, they do not meet the objectives of the Specific Plan. The Planning Commission therefore finds that its actions are consistent with CEQA and State CEQA guidelines and that no additional environmental review is required. Subject to the City Council’s ul timate adoption and approvals, the Planning Commission approves, recommends the City Council approve, and adopts this Subsequent EIR, Findings of Fact, and Statement of Overriding Considerations as if fully set forth herein.

SECTION 3. Findings for Specific Plan Amendm ent (Milpitas Municipal Code Section XIII.D.10.050)

1. That the Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan and other adopted goals and policies of the City.

Page 982 of 1045 ends

Resolution No. 25-014 Page 4
As demonstrated in Table 1 (General Plan Conforman ce), the Specific Plan furthers many of the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan, including but not limited to those in the Land Use, Circulation, Community Design, Economic Development, and Ut ilities and Community Services Elements. The Specific Plan also promotes neighborhood and housing development, commercial vitality, multimodal transportation, sustainable development, recreation, and streamlined permitting, which align with the City Council’s priorities of community wellness and open sp ace, economic development and job growth, environment, governance and administration, neighborhoods and housing, and transportation and transit.

Therefore, the Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan and other a dopted goals and policies of the City.

2. The proposed Specific Plan is in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act requirements.

The City prepared a Draft Subsequent EIR to the Mi lpitas 2040 General Plan EIR for the Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2024070432) that identifies the potential environmental impacts of the project and recommends mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level where feasible, released the Draft Subsequent EIR on April 17, 2025 for a 45-day public review period that was set to end on June 2, 2025 but was extended to July 24, 2025, a nd prepared a Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations to comprehensively describe the potential impacts, mitigations measures, and overriding considerations in adopting the Specific Plan. The Subsequent EIR finds that the Specific Plan would result in significant and una voidable impacts and cumulative imp acts that cannot be reduced to a level less than significant or for which there is no feasible mitigation include impacts to the following environmental resource topics: cultural and tribal cultural resources (Impacts 3.4-1, 3.4-2, and 3.4-3 and Cumulative Impact 4.4.4-1) and utilities and services systems (Impact 3.13-1 and Cumulative Impact

4.4.12-1). However, the overriding considerations and benefits of the Specific Plan outweigh the consequences of the adverse environmental effect. The Subsequent EIR further concludes that while the two Project Alternatives might lessen or avoid some potential environmental effects compared to the proposed project, they do not meet the objectives of the Specific Plan. Additionally, City staff conducted consultation regarding the Specific Plan and associated Subsequent EIR with local Native American tribes, pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan is in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act requirements.

3. The proposed Specific Plan would not result in a net loss of potential housing units.

No downzoning of any property within the Plan area is proposed as part of the Specific Plan. The standards proposed increase the viability of redevelopment and strengthen th e likelihood of housing development as expressed in the Housing Element of the General Plan. Moreover, the plan facilities housing production on non-inventory sites that will help the City meet its RHNA obligations. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan would not result in a net loss of potential housing units.

SECTION 4. Findings for Zoning Amendm ent (Milpitas Municipal Code Section XIII.D.6.050)

The Planning Commission finds based upon the full record before it that all findings and prerequisites required for the Zoning Text and Zoning Map amendments proposed have been met, including those set forth in the Government Code, in cluding Sections 65850 et seq., and the Milpitas Municipal Code, including Section XIII.D.6.050. The Planning Commission makes the following further

Page 983 of 1045 ends

Resolution No. 25-014 Page 5
and specific findings based on the evidence in the public record in support of Zoning Text and Zoning Map Amendment No. ZA25-0002:

1. The proposed Zoning Amendment is consistent with and conforms to the goals and policies of the General Plan.

The proposed Zoning Amendment would 1) amend the Zoning Text to add references to the Specific Plan regulations in the Milpitas Zoning Ordinance and 2) amend the Zoning Map to change the zoning for all properties within the new Plan area to “Gateway -Main St. Specific Plan Area” and reference the zoning districts and regulations in the Specific Plan for those properties. These amendments would establish the Specific Plan as the regulatory document for land use and zoning in the Plan ar ea and are necessary to update and effectuate the Specific Plan, which w ould achieve many of the General Plan policies and actions, including Policies LU 1-4, LU 4-2, CIR 1-5, CIR 4-1, CD 4-1, ED 3-2, and UCS 1-1and Actions LU-2a, ED-3c, and ED-3f. These policies and actions cal l for the City to review and update its specific plans, facilitate housing and commercial redevel opment in these areas, encourage multimodal transportation, prioritize redevelopment of the Serr a Center and Main Street, and provide public improvements to support new development. The propo sed Zoning Amendment and Specific Plan would help achieve these goals. Therefore, the proposed Zoning Amendment is consistent with and conforms to the goals and policies of the General Plan.

2. The proposed Zoning Amendment is consistent with and conforms to the goals and policies of any Specific Plan, if applicable.

The goal of the proposed Zoning Amendment is simply to establish the Specific Plan as the regulatory document for land use and zoning the Plan area. No other amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are proposed. The existing Midtown Specific Plan will be repealed and replaced with the adoption of this plan. However, the Gateway-Main Street Specific plan updates, modernizes, effectuates, and furthers the objectives of the Midtown Specific P lan in a manner that reflects curr ent market conditions and current best land use and zoning practices. Therefore, th e proposed Zoning Amendment is consistent with and conforms to the goals and policies of the Specific Plan.

3. The proposed Zoning Amendment will not be detr imental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, and general welfare.

The proposed Zoning Amendment will establish the la nd use regulations and development standards in the Specific Plan intended to protect the public interest, health, safety, convenience, and general welfare.

These include maximum residential densities, maximum height limits, minimum setbacks from property lines, minimum parking ratios, context-sensitiv e design standards, required public improvements, and other requirements and standards. These regulations w ill ensure new development minimizes impacts to existing neighborhoods related to privacy, shade, neighborhood and community character, transportation, parking, utilities, and visual aesthetics.

4. The proposed Zoning Amendment is in compliance with the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act.

See Specific Plan Amendment Finding No. 2.

Page 984 of 1045 ends

Resolution No. 25-014 Page 6

5. The proposed Zoning Amendment would not result in a net loss of potential housing units.

See Specific Plan Amendment Finding No. 3.

6. The proposed Zoning Amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this Title.

The primary goal of the proposed Zoning Amendment is to establish the Specific Plan as the regulatory document for land use and zoning the Plan area. No other amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are proposed. Pursuant to Section XIII.D.10.020(C) of the Mi lpitas Municipal Code, “The regulations provided by an adopted Specific Plan shall replace thos e of the current or underlying zone or zones, and the development standards and/or design standards or guidelines identified in the Specific Plan shall take precedence over the general standa rds included in this Title and any adopted design standards or guidelines.” Therefore, the proposed Zoning Amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of Title XIII (Zoning).

7. The affected site is physically suitable in ter ms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire, medical, etc.) access and public services and utilities (e.g., fire protection, police protection, potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, etc.), to accommodate the uses and development densities of intensities allowed in the proposed new zone.

The proposed densities are suitable for the Plan area and can be accommodated as future redevelopment occurs. Early in the planning process, the project consultant prepared an Existing Conditions Report that includes the following: Land Use, Zoning and Urba n Form Analysis, Market Analysis, Affordable Housing, Equity, and Community Benefits Analysis , Transportation and Circulation Analysis, Public Utilities and Infrastructure Analysis, and Resilien ce and Climate Adaptation Assessment. This analysis informed the proposed densities and scale of developm ent in the Specific Plan by demonstrating what level of development would be feasib le in the Plan area given the s ize and shape of parcels, existing transportation and utilities infrastructure, real estate market realities, and other physical and regulatory constraints. Additionally, through the Gateway-Main St. Specific Plan TAC, the Specific Plan identifies potential infrastructure and service challenges and recommends improvements to ensure adequate provision of infrastructure and services, which will be implemented as development occurs. Furthermore, the City prepared a Subsequent EIR to the Milpit as 2040 General Plan for the Specific Plan, which analyzes potential impacts to many of these topics and identifies mitigation measures to minimize impacts.

The analysis found that impacts to public services (inc luding fire, police, and schools) and utilities and services systems (including sewer, stormwater, and solid waste) re sulting from the anticipated development from the Specific Plan would be less than significant. Lastly, through the City’s development review process, City staff will evaluate each future development proposal and require improvements and impose conditions of approval as needed.

8. If located within or adjacent to residential areas, the requested zone change is compatible with the character of the residential neighborhood.

The Plan area includes a residential neighborhood sout h of the Serra Center and east of the Calaveras Center, and other residential neighborhoods near the Great Mall (Parc Metro and Montevista Apartments).

Page 985 of 1045 ends

Resolution No. 25-014 Page 7
There are also residential neighborhoods adjacent to the Plan area to the north (other neighborhoods are separated by railroads or major thoroughfares). Although the new Specific Plan zoning districts will allow for higher-density residential development near these existing neighborhoods, the Specific Plan and Citywide Residential and Mixed-Use ODS will provide design standards to ensure appropriate transitions from new development to existing neighborhoods. Desi gn standards include upper floor step-backs, 45- degree daylight planes, enhanced setbacks, and signifi cant building articulation. These standards will be applied to new development proposals to ensure ade quate daylight, minimize shadows, and maintain privacy and views for existing neighborhoods.

SECTION 5. Findings for General Plan Amendment

The Planning Commission finds based upon the full record before it that all findings and prerequisites required for the General Plan amendment proposed have been met, including those set forth in the Government Code, including Sections 65350 et seq., the Milpitas Municipal Code, including Section XIII.D.8.050, and page IN-8 of the Milpitas 2040 General Plan itself. The Planning Commission makes the following further and specific findings based on the evidence in the public record in support of General Plan Amendment No. GP25-0002:

1. The proposed General Plan Amendment is internally consistent with all other provisions of the General Plan.

The proposed General Plan Amendment would amen d the Land Use Element Map (Figure LU-1) to include several properties in the Plan area and change the land use designation to MGSP (Milpitas Gateway-Main St. Specific Plan). This amendment is necessary to update and effectuate the proposed Specific Plan, which would achieve many of the General Plan policies and actions as discussed earlier in this report. The Midtown Specific Plan area would be replaced with the new Gateway-Main St. Specific Plan area, which includes new sites and expands the Plan area to bett er achieve the Plan objectives for mixed-use redevelopment and public improvements to create a vibrant community and important destination within Milpitas. Additionally, the Gateway-Main St. Specific Plan includes updated land use policies and strategies, which further the goals and policies of the Gene ral Plan and implements several General Plan actions related to housing devel opment, economic devel opment, and multimodal transportation. Furthermore, no other provisions of the General Plan would be amended as part of the proposed amendment. Therefore, the proposed General Plan Amendment is internally consistent with all other provisions of the General Plan.

2. Approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment would not result in the General Plan being amended more frequently than four times per calendar year consistent with California Government Code section 65358.

Thus far in 2025, the City has amended the General Plan twice, once as part of the adoption of the Neighborhood Commercial Mixed-Use (NCMU) zoning districts, also known as the Housing Opportunity Districts (HODs) Project, and another time as part of the adoption of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO) Update. Approval of the proposed Gene ral Plan Amendment would result in the third amendment of 2025. Therefore, the proposed General P lan Amendment would not result in the General Plan being amended more frequently than four times per calendar year.

Page 986 of 1045 ends

Resolution No. 25-014 Page 8

3. The proposed General Plan Amendment serves the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare.

The proposed General Plan Amendment is necessary to update and effectuate the proposed Specific Plan, which would: 1) create a walkable mixed-use community that attracts and retains residents and businesses, increase housing opportunities to support future anticipated population growth, 2) increase economic opportunities and investment in vacant and underutilize d properties, 3) improve connectivity throughout the Plan area, 4) provide opportunities for new public parks and plazas and improvements to other recreational amenities, and 5) establish policies for Urban Reserve Areas to guide future redevelopment in an integrated manner. Therefore, the proposed Ge neral Plan Amendment serves the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare.

4. The proposed General Plan Amendment is in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act requirements.

See Specific Plan Amendment Finding No. 2.

5. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not result in a net loss of potential housing units.

See Specific Plan Amendment Finding No. 3.

SECTION 6: Planning Commission Action

The Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas hereby adopts Resolution No. 25-014 recommending that the City Council (1) approve Speci fic Plan Amendment No. SP20-0002 to adopt the Specific Plan and adopt the implementing proposed re solution in Exhibit 1, (2) approve General Plan Amendment No. GP25-0001 and adopt the implementing proposed resolution in Exhibit 2 hereto to amend the Land Use Element Map for consistency with the updated Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance, (3) approve Zoning Amendment No. ZA25-0002 and adopt the implementing proposed ordinance in Exhibit 3 hereto to establish new Specific Plan boundaries, zoning districts, and zoning regulations, and (4) adopt the Subsequent EIR to the General Plan EIR for the Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2024070432), Findings of Fact, and Statement of Overriding Consid erations, based on the above Findings and the full record before it.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Co mmission of the City of Milpitas on September 24, 2025.

Parveen Gupta, Chair

TO WIT:

Page 987 of 1045 ends

Resolution No. 25-014 Page 9
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the following resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas on September 24, 2025, and carried by the following roll call vote:

COMMISSIONER AYES NOES ABSENT ABSTAIN
Mercedes Albana
Dipak Awasthi
Michael Caulkins
Alexander Galang
Parveen Gupta
Chia Ling Kong
Sonia Medina-Ashby

EXHIBITS
1: Draft City Council Resolution for Specific Plan Adoption 2: Draft City Council Resolution for General Plan Amendment Exhibit A: General Plan Map Amendment
3: Draft Zoning Text and Map Amendments Ordinance
Exhibit A: Zoning Map Amendment

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Page 988 of 1045 ends

Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 365E2ED8-7EFC-4F4B-89ED-4C22B6796C3C Status: Completed Subject: Complete with Docusign: Attachment A - PC Reso 25-014 - Gateway-Main St. Specific Plan_v2 DocuS...

Source Envelope:

Document Pages: 9 Signatures: 1 Envelope Originator:

Certificate Pages: 5 Initials: 0 Liz Medina
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
455 E Calaveras Blvd
Milpitas, CA 95035
[email protected]
IP Address: 104.129.192.60
Record Tracking
Status: Original
September 25, 2025 | 09:51
Holder: Liz Medina
[email protected]
Location: DocuSign
Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: StateLocal
Storage Appliance Status: Connected Pool: City of Milpitas Location: Docusign Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Chair Parveen Gupta
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Drawn on Device
Using IP Address: 147.185.47.129
Sent: September 25, 2025 | 09:53
Viewed: September 25, 2025 | 12:12
Signed: September 25, 2025 | 12:13
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Accepted: September 25, 2025 | 12:12
ID: b150310f-096c-45dd-9963-56917aa195a0
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Jay Lee
[email protected]
Planning Director
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Sent: September 25, 2025 | 12:13
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Accepted: September 16, 2025 | 15:49
ID: 3f156eee-9c0c-427e-9d00-9c78a4345a4e
Witness Events Signature Timestamp
Notary Events Signature Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted September 25, 2025 | 09:53 Certified Delivered Security Checked September 25, 2025 | 12:12

Page 989 of 1045 ends

Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Signing Complete Security Checked September 25, 2025 | 12:13 Completed Security Checked September 25, 2025 | 12:13
Payment Events Status Timestamps
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure

Page 990 of 1045 ends

ELECTRONIC RECORD AND SIGNATURE DISCLOSURE
From time to time, City of Milpitas (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through the DocuSign system.

Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly, and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to this Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure (ERSD), please confirm your agreement by selecting the check-box next to ‘I agree to use electronic records and signatures’ before clicking ‘CONTINUE’ within the DocuSign system.

Getting paper copies
At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available electronically to you by us. You will have the ability to download and print documents we send to you through the DocuSign system during and immediately after the signing session and, if you elect to create a DocuSign account, you may access the documents for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies of any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You may request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below.

Withdrawing your consent
If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically is described below.

Consequences of changing your mind
If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format, and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such paper notices or disclosures. Further, you will no longer be able to use the DocuSign system to receive required notices and consents electronically from us or to sign electronically documents from us.

All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically

!

!

!#$

"
!
#

Page 991 of 1045 ends

Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide electronically to you through the DocuSign system all required notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures electronically from us.

How to contact City of Milpitas:

You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically, to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows:

To contact us by email send messages to: [email protected]

To advise City of Milpitas of your new email address
To let us know of a change in your email address where we should send notices and disclosures electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at [email protected] and in the body of such request you must state: your previous email address, your new email address. We do not require any other information from you to change your email address.

If you created a DocuSign account, you may update it with your new email address through your account preferences.

To request paper copies from City of Milpitas
To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided by us to you electronically, you must send us an email to [email protected] and in the body of such request you must state your email address, full name, mailing address, and telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at that time, if any.

To withdraw your consent with City of Milpitas
To inform us that you no longer wish to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic format you may:

Page 992 of 1045 ends

i. decline to sign a document from within your signing session, and on the subsequent page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may; ii. send us an email to [email protected] and in the body of such request you must state your email, full name, mailing address, and telephone number. We do not need any other information from you to withdraw consent.. The consequences of your withdrawing consent for online documents will be that transactions may take a longer time to process..

Required hardware and software
The minimum system requirements for using the DocuSign system may change over time. The current system requirements are found here: https://support.docusign.com/guides/signer-guide- signing-system-requirements.

Acknowledging your access and consent to receive and sign documents electronically To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please confirm that you have read this ERSD, and (i) that you are able to print on paper or electronically save this ERSD for your future reference and access; or (ii) that you are able to email this ERSD to an email address where you will be able to print on paper or save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and disclosures exclusively in electronic format as described herein, then select the check-box next to ‘I agree to use electronic records and signatures’ before clicking ‘CONTINUE’ within the DocuSign system.

By selecting the check-box next to ‘I agree to use electronic records and signatures’, you confirm that:
x You can access and read this Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure; and x You can print on paper this Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure, or save or send this Electronic Record and Disclosure to a location where you can print it, for future reference and access; and
x Until or unless you notify City of Milpitas as described above, you consent to receive exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you by City of Milpitas during the course of your relationship with City of Milpitas.

Page 993 of 1045 ends

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Receive a Presentation on the Work Completed on the Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Sense of Place Plan and Provide Comments to Staff (Staff Contact: Jay Lee, Planning Director, 408-586-3077)
Category: Community Development
Meeting Date: 10/28/2025
Recommendation: Receive progress report on the work completed regarding the Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Sense of Place Plan and provide comments.

BACKGROUND:

The Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (Plan) was originally adopted as the Midtown Specific Plan by the Milpitas City Council in March 2002 to maximize land uses, transportation and economic opportunities along the City’s historic Main Street and energize and catalyze mixed-use, transit-oriented development in this area, also known as the “heart” of Milpitas. At present, the Plan provides for development of up to 2,328 new dwelling units, supporting retail, and new office and employment uses at key locations. Development activity in recent years has been mixed and includes approval and construction of 1,200 units of multifamily housing, reinvestment in the adjacent Great Mall, and the extension of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Light Rail Transit (LRT) line. Recent successful multifamily residential developments, which promoted the vision and goals of the Plan, are concentrated in the southern end of the Plan area south of Curtis Avenue.

Originally encompassing 942 acres of land, Plan boundaries were amended in 2010 to remove parcels of land in the southern end of the Plan area and prioritize areas in greater need of reinvestment.

Since adoption of the current Plan in 2002, little of the development capacity has been realized, and the City believes several vacant and underutilized sites have the potential for additional catalytic development and investment, especially along Main Street and Calaveras Boulevard. Obstacles to redevelopment in Midtown include haphazard parcel sizes and dimensions, disparate property ownership, and lack of a cohesive identity.

Other challenges include gaps in the transportation network (i.e., weak connection to Calaveras Boulevard to the north and disconnected cul-de-sacs) and shortage of recreational opportunities to complement existing creeks and trails in the Plan area.

An update to the Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan is underway; the project was initiated in late 2021 and is estimated to be completed by the end of 2025. The public review draft of the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan was released on April 17, 2025.

The revitalization of Main Street is also one of the City’s 2020 Economic Development Strategy key goals and priorities. To support these efforts, the Milpitas City Council created an Ad Hoc Main Street Revitalization Subcommittee to lead and direct City staff in implementing this new vision and strategy for the revitalization of historic Main Street. The City is also supporting the newly formed Milpitas Historic Downtown Business Association. Additionally, the City is currently collaborating with Main Street property owners to facilitate storefront improvements along Main Street through the Storefront Improvement Grant Program.

To meet the San Francisco Bay Area long-range goals of reduced greenhouse gas emissions and more affordable housing for all, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has been offering funding and technical assistance to local jurisdictions through its Priority Development Area Planning Program (PDA) since 2007. On February 23, 2023, City staff applied for and received $600,000 in PDA grant funding to prepare a Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Sense of Place Plan to complement the Specific Plan update. The separate Milpitas Gateway-Main Stree Sense of Place Plan focuses specifically on streetscape design, infrastructure

Page 994 of 1045 ends

improvements, and placemaking along Main Street. While the Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan establishes the broader land use and development framework for the area, the Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Sense of Place Plan details the physical improvements needed to transform Main Street into a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly corridor. The City allocated this funding as part of the 2025-2029 Capital Improvement Program1.

On May 30, 2024, the City released Request for Proposal (RFP) 24-134 to seek expertise in building on these efforts and policies by assisting the City to prepare the Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Sense of Place Plan. The scope of work includes (1) identifying needed streetscape and transportation improvements along Main Street, (2) creating a Basic Infrastructure Plan that details each type of improvement and assigns a priority, and (3) establishing a plan-specific development impact fee to fund the improvements.

On November 19, 2024, the City Council adopted a resolution to accept the grant award from MTC and approved and authorized the City Manager to execute a two-year Professional Services Agreement with TDG Engineering, Inc., for a Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Sense of Place Plan (Project) in an amount not to exceed $420,000. After Project kick off, staff identified the need for additional scope of work items to be added to the contract. On May 20, 2025, City Council approved and authorized the City Manager, or designee, to execute an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with TDG Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $71,138 with additional authority to approve changes of up to $7,112 (10%) as required to complete the work, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $498,250.

ANALYSIS:

The Project area consists of Main Street, from Weller Lane to Great Mall Parkway, with a focus between Calaveras Boulevard and Curtis Avenue. The goals of the Project include elevating Main Street and the surrounding area as the heart of Milpitas, strengthening Main Street’s identity and sense of place, building on the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan, complementing future development, and promoting and enhancing local businesses and economic activity. The final Project deliverables comprise of a detailed design concept for Main Street ready to move toward construction documentation phases, planning-level cost opinion and phasing plan, streetscape palette and multi-modal treatments for Main Street adaptable to the Specific Plan area, wayfinding and signage program for Main Street, a Basic Infrastructure Plan (BIP) for Main Street, and an impact fee for the new Specific Plan area. As part of the work associated for the impact fee, the subconsultant (BAE Urban Economics) will establish a development scenario, estimate total infrastructure costs, demonstrate a nexus, allocate costs by development type, and recommend implementation actions.

Work Completed Thus Far
The City kicked off the Project in December 2024. Thus far, the consultant has prepared an existing conditions report and preliminary designs. The final design, cost estimates and impact fee will be developed in Winter- Spring 2026, and final adoption in Summer 2026.

The existing conditions report found there is opportunity to define a new center that matches the City’s aspirations and expected growth. Lower traffic volumes make Main Street ideal for a people-focused redesign that puts pedestrians first. The existing right-of-way (ROW) is wide and underutilized, allowing for generous sidewalks, landscaping, comfortable seating areas, and other amenities. A range of cultural, natural, and civic assets offer a strong foundation for the transformation of Main Street. Lastly, Main Street has the power to be the defining “public spine” of Milpitas’ future center.

On June 5 and 6, 2025, the City held stakeholder workshops with key community members at the Community Center. City staff and the consultant shared key findings from the existing conditions and background review and high-level concepts for a reimagined Main Street. The stakeholder workshops also coincided with an online survey that was open from June 5 through July 7, 2025. The survey was advertised through lawn signs, sidewalk decals along Main Street, physical flyers, and the City’s social media. A total of 77 responses were received.

1 CIP Project No. 3504, Milpitas Gateway-Main St. Impact Fee Study and Sense of Place Plan

Page 995 of 1045 ends

Overall, there is strong appreciation for local and small businesses, particularly restaurants, which participants felt reflect the cultural and racial diversity of Milpitas and the community around Main Street. The library was frequently noted as a valued community asset, with many praising the smaller-scale, walkable area surrounding it. When asked about the current state of Main Street, a majority (60 percent) described it as “outdated and uninviting,” while 33 percent said it was “functional but could use improvement” highlighting a strong desire for upgrades to sidewalks, street furniture, and landscaping. When asked about the future character of Main Street, most respondents said they want it to feel relaxed and nature-focused and playful and family-friendly. In prioritizing future amenities, respondents ranked increased greenery and trees as most important, followed by wider sidewalks and improved lighting.

Staff and the consultant presented an overview of the project and the survey results at the August 18, 2025 Ad Hoc Main Street Subcommittee and the August 27, 2025 Planning Commission meeting.

Next Steps:

The next steps for the Project are outlined below.
- Refinement of preliminary design ideas: Based on staff and community input received, the consultant will refine the preliminary design ideas for public review and circulation. o Streetscape Option 1 + 2
o Furnishing and landscape palettes
o Intermediate space activation ideas
- December engagement: After further refinement of the preliminary design ideas, a second round of public engagement will be conducted -- an online survey will be released, and staff and the consultant will be tabling at the City’s Annual Tree Lighting Ceremony. o Online survey no. 2
o Tree Lighting Ceremony (pop-up)

Questions:

Streetscape Designs
- What is your preference between the two streetscape design options? Palettes and Inspiration
- Which of the proposed palette options and sources of inspiration do you find most appropriate for Main Street?
Local Insights
- From your perspective, what do we need to understand about Main Street – its history, role in the community, or unique qualities that would help guide this project toward success?

POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S):

This is an informational item for Council feedback and direction.

PROJECT SCHEDULE/KEY MILESTONES:
- Winter 2025 – Project launch
- Winter-Spring 2025 – Existing conditions report
- Spring-Fall 2025 – Preliminary design
- Winter-Spring 2026 – Final design, cost estimates, and impact fee - Summer-Fall 2026 – Adoption
-
FISCAL IMPACT:

This is an information item. As such, there is no fiscal impact.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):

The Project involves only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the City has not approved, adopted, or funded and does not require the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) or negative declaration but does require consideration of environmental factors pursuant to Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15262.

ATTACHMENT(S):

None

Page 996 of 1045 ends

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Adopt a Resolution Approving the City of Milpitas Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2025-26 (Staff Contact: Luz Cofresí-Howe, Director of Finance, 408-586- 3111)
Category: Leadership and Support Services
Meeting Date: October 28, 2025
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the City of Milpitas Investment Policy for FY 2025-26 BACKGROUND:

California state law regarding the investment of public funds requires all local agencies develop an investment policy that must be considered annually by the legislative body of the local agency at a public meeting. The City of Milpitas Investment Policy (Policy) was last reviewed and approved by the City Council pursuant to Resolution No. 9354 on September 17, 2024. The Policy requires that it be re-adopted by resolution of the City Council on an annual basis to ensure its consistency with the overall objectives of preservation of principal, liquidity and yield, and its relevance to current law and financial and economic trends. Staff worked closely with the City investment advisors, Chandler Asset Management (Chandler), to review and update the Policy for City Council consideration, ensuring the Policy captures the latest changes to California Government Code as well as best practices. Recommended changes to the Policy are herewith submitted for City Council annual review and approval.

ANALYSIS:

Staff and the City investment advisors collaborated in reviewing the current City Policy and determined it continues to comply with the provisions of the California Government Code (Code) §§16340, 16429.1-16429.4 and 53600 et seq., the authority governing investments for municipal governments.

However, there are several changes that are recommended by staff and the City investment advisors in order to provide consistency and clarity in the Policy. These recommended changes are included in Attachments B and C and listed below:

• Scope – Included a clarification that the City of Milpitas Section 115 Pension Trust is a fund not covered by the Investment Policy. The Section 115 Trust was created by the City Council on May 18, 2021 and is managed under delegated authority from and direction provided by the City of Milpitas Section 115 Pension Trust Committee (Committee) pursuant to an investment policy and guidelines developed by the Committee.
• Ethic and Conflicts of Interest – Enhanced the language in this section with specific references to the California Political Reform Act and Government Code Section 1090 to ensure all real and potential conflicts of interest are disclosed.
• Performance Evaluation/Benchmark –
▪ Added additional language to strengthen the prioritization of the investment objectives of safety and liquidity over return/yield.
▪ Removed the example of a benchmark; actual benchmark(s) are discussed in the quarterly investment report and may change over time.
• Internal Control – Added language emphasizing the need for written delegation of authority and written procedures within the management of the investment program. • Authorized Investments
▪ Municipal Securities – Added language regarding that the process of reviewing any investment in

Page 997 of 1045 ends

City of Milpitas bonds requires a review to ensure purchase does not constitute a defeasance under the bond indenture.
• Risk Management and Diversifications – Added language to clarify that no more than 5% of the total portfolio may be deposited or invested in aggregate of any single issuer of the following types: Bankers Acceptances, Commercial Paper, Negotiable Certificates of Deposits, and Corporate Notes. • Glossary – Expanded the glossary to include definitions of types of securities, investment terms and market terms to assist users and readers of the Policy.

There were additional minor changes intended to provide updates to acronyms and names, as well as cleaning up language from prior versions. Staff recommends adopting the changes as proposed.

PROJECT/PROGRAM SCHEDULE
The City of Milpitas Investment Policy will be brought forward to the City Council on an annual basis for review and approval to ensure its consistency with the overall objectives of preservation of principal, liquidity and yield, and its relevance to current law and financial and economic trends.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None; there is no fiscal impact because of the changes recommended to the policy.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):

The City Council adoption of the resolution is not a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guideline §15378(b)(5) because it is an administrative activity that will not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment.

Attachment(s):
(a) Draft Resolution
(b) Investment Policy FY 2025-26 (Redlined)
(c) Investment Policy FY 2025-26 (Clean)

Page 998 of 1045 ends

RESOLUTION NO. _____________

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MILPITAS
APPROVING THE INVESTMENT POLICY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California has declared that the deposit and investment of public funds by local officials and local agencies is an issue of statewide concern; and WHEREAS, the legislative body of a local agency may invest surplus monies not required for the immediate needs of the local agency in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code Sections 16340, 16429.1-16429.4 and 53601 et seq.; and WHEREAS, the Treasurer of the local agency shall annually prepare and submit a statement of investment policy and such policy, and any changes thereto, shall be considered by the legislative body at a public meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Investment Policy was last reviewed and approved by the City Council pursuant to Resolution No. 9354 on September 17, 2024;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Milpitas hereby finds, determines, and resolves as follows:

1. The City Council has considered the full record before it, which may include but is not limited to such things as the staff report, testimony by staff and the public, and other materials and evidence submitted or provided to it. Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Investment Policy, including any changes, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2025-26 is hereby approved.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of ___________, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:

APPROVED:

Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk Carmen Montano, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Christopher Creech, Acting City Attorney

Page 999 of 1045 ends

1 CITY OF MILPITAS
INVESTMENT POLICY - Fiscal Year 20242025-2526

PURPOSE
The purpose of this policyPolicy is to establish overall guidelines for the management and investment of the City of Milpitas (the City) unexpended funds under authority granted by the City Council. This policyPolicy is in compliance with the provisions of the California Government Code, Sections 16340, 16429.1- 16429.4, and 53600-53686, the authority governing investments for municipal governments.

INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES
The primary objectives of this iInvestment policyPolicy, in order of priority, are safety, liquidity, and return:

1) Safety - Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. Investments shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. This objective shall be accomplished by mitigating credit risk and market risk. 2) Liquidity - The investment portfolio shall remain sufficiently liquid to meet all operating requirements that may be reasonably anticipated. This objective shall be accomplished by structuring the portfolio so that securities mature concurrently with anticipated needs. The portfolio shall consist largely of securities with active secondary or resa le market. Furthermore, a portion of the portfolio may be placed in money market funds or Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) which offer same day liquidity for short term investment.
3) Return - The investment portfolio is designed with the objective of attaining a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into consideration the investment risk constraints and liquidity needs. Return on investment is of secondary importance compared to the safety and liquidity objectives described above. The core of investments is limited to relatively low risk securities in anticipation of earning a fair return relative to the risk being assumed. Nevertheless, investment performance shall be continually monitored and evaluated by the City Treasurer 1 by comparison with
other investment portfolio benchmarks.

Additionally, investments are to be made that will bear in mind the responsibility of City government to its residentscitizens. The following investment considerations, which enhance the quality of life, will be adhered to:
• Divestment From Publicly-Traded Fossil Fuel Companies - The City of Milpitas has a responsibility to protect the lives and livelihoods of its inhabitants from the threat of climate change. The City believes that its investments should support a future where all residents citizens can live healthy lives without the negative impacts of a warming environment. For the

1 City Treasurer – Pursuant to section VI-1-3.04 of the Milpitas Municipal Code the City Manager is empowered to appoint the City Treasurer. The City Manager has appointed the Finance Director as the City Treasurer.

POLICY OVERVIEW

Page 1000 of 1045 ends

2 purposes of the Investment Policy, a "fossil fuel company" shall be defined as any of the two hundred publicly-traded companies with the largest coal, oil and gas reserves as measured by the gigatons of carbon dioxide that would be emitted if those reserves were extracted and burned, as listed in the Carbon Tracker Initiative's "Unburnable Carbon" report. Staff responsible for managing the City's investment portfolio are directed to divest all City investment funds held in fossil fuel companies once they reach their maturities and are prohibited from making any new investments in such companies.

SCOPE
The Iinvestment policyPolicy applies to all financial assets of the City of Milpitas as accounted for in the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR), including but not limited to the funds listed below:
• General Fund
• Special Revenue Funds
• Capital Projects Funds
• Debt Service Fund
• Enterprise Funds
• Internal Service Fund
• Trust and Agency Funds
• Any new fund created by the City Council unless specifically exempted with the exception of the following:

1) The City's Deferred Compensation Plan is excluded because it is managed by a third- party administrator and invested by individual plan participants. 2) Proceeds of debt issuance shall be invested in accordance with the investment objectives of this policyPolicy. However, such proceeds are generally invested in accordance with permitted investment provisions of their sp ecific bond indentures. If the City Treasurer determines that the matching of bond reserve fund with the maturity schedule of an individual bond issue is prudent, the Iinvestment policyPolicy authorizes extending beyond the five yearfive-year maturity limitation as outlined in this document. 2)3) City of Milpitas Section 115 Pension Trust was created and authorized by the City Council on May 18, 2021 (Resolution No. 9071) with investments managed by an Investment Advisor under the delegated authority from and direction provided by the City of Milpitas Section 115 Pension Trust Committee pursuant to an investment policy and guidelines developed by the Committee.

STANDARDS OF CARE
1) Prudence - Pursuant to California Government Code, Section 53600.3, all persons authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of the City are trustees and therefore fiduciaries subject to the Prudent Investor Standard:
“…all governing bodies of local agencies or persons authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of those local agencies investing public funds pursuant to this chapter are trustees and therefore fiduciaries subject to the prudent investor standard. When investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiri ng, exchanging, selling, or managing public funds, a trustee shall act with care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the Agency, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and

Page 1001 of 1045 ends

3 familiarity with those matters would use in th e conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the Agency.

Within the limitations of this section and considering individual investments as part of an overall strategy, investments may be acquired as authorized by law.” The City Treasurer and other individuals assigned to manage the investment portfolio, acting within the intent and scope of the investment policy and other written procedures and exercising due diligence, shall be relieved of personal responsibility and liability for an individual security's credit risk or market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely manner and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments. 2) Ethics and Conflict of Interest - Officers and employees (City Investment Officials) involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program or could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. City Investment Officials shall avoid all conflicts of interest or appearance of conflicts of interest when performing duties in furtherance of this investment program. The Director of Finance, acting as the City Treasurer shall immediately disc lose any financial interest which is subject to disclosure under the California Political Reform Ac t or would constitute a c onflict of interest under Government Code Section 1090 to the City Manager and the City Attorney. All other City Investment Officials shall immediately disclose any financial in terest which is subject to disclosure under the California Political Reform Act or would constitute a conflict of in terest under G overnment Code Section 1090 to the Director of Finance/City Treasu rer who will in turn immediately notify the City Manager and City Attorney. Additionally, City Investment Officials shall comply with the City Code of Ethics, conflict of interest requirements under state law and the disclosure requirements of the Political Reform Act. City employees involved in the investment process shall disclose to the City Manager any material financial interest in fina ncial institutions that conduct business within the jurisdiction. They shall further disclose any larg e personal financial/investment positions that could affect the performance of the investment portfolio.
3) Delegation of Authority - Authority to manage the investment program is derived from California Government Code, Sections 41006 and 53600 et seq and granted to the City Treasurer by Section VI- 1-3.04 of the City of Milpitas Municipal Code. Under the oversight of the City Treasurer, responsibility for the operation of the investment program may be delegated to the Finance Administration staff, who shall act in accordance w ith established written procedures and internal controls consistent with the Iinvestment Ppolicy. The City Treasurer shall be responsible for all transactions undertaken and shall establish a syst em of controls to regulate the activities of the subordinate staff members. The system of internal controls includes separation of duties, custodial safekeeping, avoidance of physical delivery securities, development of wire transfer agreement, and clear delegation of authority to subordinate staff members. The City may engage the services of one or more external investment advisers, who are registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, to assist in the management of the City’s investment portfolio in a manner consistent with the City’s objectives. External investment advisers may be granted discretion to purchase and sell investment securities in accordance with this Iinvestment Ppolicy. The City’s overall investment program shall be designed and managed with a degree of professionalism that is worthy of the public trust. The City recognizes that in a diversified portfolio, occasional measured losses may be inevitable and must be considered within the context of the overall portfolio’s return and the cash flow requirements of the City.

Page 1002 of 1045 ends

Milpitas City CouncilOctober 28, 2025

Milpitas City Council
October 28, 2025