Dept.). Fire apparatus access roads/lanes and emergency vehicle roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather capabilities. CFC Section 503.2.3
76.8 Access and loading. Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road with an asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing up to 75, 000 pounds ( 34,500kg).
76.9 Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA): EVA roads, when required, shall meet the fire department site access requirements. CFC Section 503
76.10 Obstruction of Fire Access: Ground structures (including landscape) and building projections shall not encroach or impede the fire apparatus access requirements. CFC Section 503.4
76.11 Marking of Fire Access Roads. The required access road shall be designated and clearly marked as a fire lane. The designated fire lane shall be identified as set forth in Section 22500.1 of the Vehicle Code. The designation shall be indicated (1) by a sign posted immediately adjacent to, and visible from, the designated place clearly stating in letters not less than one inch in height that the place is a fire lane, (2) by outlining or painting the place in red and, in contrasting color, marking the place with the words "FIRE LANE", which are clearly visible from a vehicle, or (3) by a red curb or red paint on the edge of the roadway upon which is clearly marked the words "FIRE LANE". CFC Section 503.3. Minimum marking shall be pole signage and red curb with “FIRE LANE” stencil. Signage and red curbs shall be done throughout and as needed to clearly identify the no parking zones.
76.12 Site Design Changes: The Fire Department reserves the right to request site design changes as needed to meet the requirements of the CFC, and/or make the request for additional fire protection measures in conformance with the CFC.
77. Fire Protection. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed and made serviceable during the time of construction. Combustible construction shall not begin until water mains and hydrants are operational and fire apparatus access roads are installed (paved). CFC Section 501.4
78. Fire Protection Water Supply (Hydrants, On-site and/or Public): An approved water supply (hydrants on-site and/or public) capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided upon which facilities, buildings, or portions of buildings are hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. Water supply shall meet the Fire Code and the City of Milpitas Engineering Division water supply guidelines and the CFC Section 507, Appendix B and Appendix C. Note, the Civil drawings submitted under this Planning review are not approved for construction.
78.1 Water System Calculations: Private fire service mains and appurtenances shall be designed and installed in accordance with the City of Milpitas Engineering design guideline requirements and the NFPA 24. Design calculations and all the necessary design information for the water system to meet the domestic and fire flow requirements as per the City of
Milpitas Engineer Division water design requirements shall be provided as part of the construction permit process. CFC Section 507
78.2 Fire Flow Requirement for Buildings. Section B105 fire flow for buildings amends section B105.2 to read:
B105.2 Buildings other than one-and two-family dwellings, Groups R3 and R4 buildings and townhouses. The minimum fire-flow and flow duration for buildings other than one- and two-family dwellings, Group R3 and R4 buildings and townhouses shall be as specified in Tables B105.1(2) and B105.2.
The maximum fire flow reduction for all commercial buildings greater than 30,000 square feet and residential podium buildings shall not exceed 25 percent of the fire flow specified in Table B105.1(2). The maximum fire flow seduction for all other buildings shall not exceed 50 percent of the fire flow specified in Table B105.1(2).
Industrial areas shall have a fire flow not less than 5,000 gpm, with 20 psi residual pressure.
78.3 Fire Hydrant Location: The location and quantity of hydrants will be evaluated during the construction permit process. This applies to the on-site private streets as well as to the public streets. CFC Section 507.5
78.4 Hydrant for Automatic Fire Sprinkler/Standpipe Systems: Buildings equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system and/or a standpipe system installed in accordance with Sections 903 and or 905 shall have a fire hydrant within 50 feet of the fire department connections. CFC Section 507.5.1.1, amended by MMC Section V-300-2.56
78.5 Private Hydrant Requirements: Private hydrants shall have the bottom 6 inches of the hydrant painted, with a weather resistive paint, white in color. CFC Section 507.5.7, added by MMC V-300-2.62.
78.6 No Parking in Front of Hydrants: No parking is permitted in front of fire hydrants. Hydrants located on streets (Public or Private Street) shall have an unobstructed clearance of not less than 30 feet per CA Vehicle Code 22514
79. Automatic Fire Sprinkler System for Structures:
79.1 Automatic Fire Sprinkler. The buildings shall be provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system in conformance with the NFPA 13 Standards. California Fire Code Section 903
79.2 Sprinkler Valves: All valves controlling the water supply for the automatic sprinkler system shall be electrically supervised by a listed fire alarm control unit. CFC 903.4
79.3 Sprinkler Monitoring: Alarm, supervisory and trouble signals shall be distinctly different and shall be automatically transmitted to an approved supervising station. CFC Section 903.4.1
79.4 Fire Riser Location. The fire sprinkler system riser shall not be located within electrical rooms or storage closets and shall be provided with clear access and working clearance.
California Fire Code Section 903.3.5.3, added by MMC Section V-300-2.73
79.5 Sprinkler Design. Hydraulic design for the automatic fire sprinkler system shall provide a minimum of 20% safety margin. CFC Section 903.3.5.6, MMC V-300-2.76
79.6 Requirements for Fire Service Water Laterals for Building Sprinkler Systems: Each building shall have a fire service water laterals for the automatic fire sprinkler system and shall meet the California Fire Code requirements Chapter 9 and the NFPA applicable Standards.
Note that the civil drawings provided are not reviewed nor approved for construction. CFC Section 912.1
79.7 Fire pump room and access. There shall be direct and unobstructed access to the fire pump room.
79.8 Fire Pump power. PG&E is not considered a reliable source of power. Standby power will be a requirement. Or provide other listed (listed by a national recognized testing lab) and approved (approved by the local fire dept.) means of power for the fire pump. CA Fire Code Section 102.9
79.9 Fire Pump(s). When required, fire pumps shall be installed in conformance with California Fire Code, the NFPA 20 and applicable standards. And the fire pump room shall be dedicated for no other use.
79.10 FDC/PIV (fire department connection/post indicating valve) Location(s). The location of the fire department FDC’s/PIV’s shall be at a readily visible and accessible location off the fire access road and approved by the Fire Code Official. FDC’s/PIV’s shall not be located behind parking stalls, trees, landscape structures, nor behind any other obstruction. Final review for location for the FDC’s/PIV’s will be conducted during the construction permit process. CFC Section 912.2.1
Note, the required FDC’s and PIV’s shall be located off Gibraltar Dr and not on the onsite fire apparatus access road.
All FDC’s and PIV’s shall have fire department approved locking connection caps/locks.
CFC Section 912.4.1
79.11 FDC/PIV Signage. A metal sign with raised letters at least 1 inch in size shall be mounted on all fire department connections. Signage shall be reflective, weather resistive and approved by the Fire Code Official. CFC Section 912.5
79.12 Backflow Protection. Potable water supply to the automatic sprinkler and/or the standpipe systems shall be protected against backflow as required by the Health and Safety Code section 13114.7 and the City of Milpitas Utilities Engineering Division. CFC Section 912.6
79.13 Water Drainage. All new installations of sprinkler systems shall preclude sprinkler test and system drain water from discharging into the storm drain; provisions to direct water to the sanitary sewer or landscape or other approved means shall be provided. Sprinkler system design shall include the proposed method for drainage of sprinkler system discharge. Storm Water Pollution Regulations.
80. Fire Alarm System:
80.1 A fire alarm system shall be installed when required in the buildings when required by the CA Fire Code Section 907.
80.2 All valves controlling the water supply for the automatic sprinkler system shall be electrically supervised by a listed fire alarm control unit. CFC 904.3
80.3 Electrical supervision of the automatic fire sprinkler system shall be transmitted to an approved supervising station. CFC 903.4.1
80.4 One exterior approved audible device (for each riser) shall be connected to every automatic sprinkler system in an approved (by the Fire Code Official) location. CFC 903.4.2
80.5 Fire Alarm Panel: Fire alarm panel (or fire alarm annunciator panel) shall be located in a readily accessible location and shall be provided with the necessary access and working clearance as required by the CA Electrical Code. CFC Section 907.6.5
80.6 Fire Alarm Monitoring: Fire alarm monitoring (approved supervising station - UL, or FM approved). Fire alarm systems required by the Fire Code or by the California Building Code shall be monitored by an approved supervising station in accordance with the NFPA 72.
CFC Section 907.6.6
81. Building/Structure Other Requirements:
81.1 Premises Identification: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numerals or alphabet letters and shall be consistent with Milpitas standardized addressing guidelines. CFC Section 505. The Fire Dept. may require the installation of address numbers at multiple building locations. CFC Section 102.9
81.2 Address Illumination: All required addresses shall be illuminated. CFC Section 505.3, added by MMC V-300-2.55
81.3 Fire Department Emergency Key Box (aka: Knox Box, Knox Locks, Knox Electric Switches, etc.): The Fire Code Official is authorized to require a key box(es) to be installed in an approved location(s) if necessary for lifesaving or fire-fighting purposes. Quantity and location shall be as directed by the Fire Code Official. CFC Section 506. Locked mechanical closets, fire alarm closets, sprinkler riser closets, etc. will need a Fire Dept. approved lock or “Knox” key box.
81.4 Access Control Devices. When access control devices including bars, grates, gates, electric or magnetic locks or similar devices, which would inhibit rapid fire department emergency access to the building, are installed, such devices shall be approved by the fire code official. All access control devices shall be provided with an approved means for
deactivation or unlocking by the fire department. Access control devices shall also comply with Chapter 10 Egress. CFC Section 504.6, added to the CFC by MMC Section V-300-2.54
Means to deactivate the locking system shall be located in the fire command room (when required) or other location as directed by the fire department.
In addition, all door lock control systems shall meet the requirements of the CFC Sections 1010.2.
81.5 Fire Command Center. Where required by other sections of this code and in all buildings classified as high-rise buildings by the California Building code and Group I2 occupancies having occupied floors located more than 75 feet above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access and in all F-1 and S-1 occupancies with a building footprint greater than 500,00 square feet, a fire command center for fire department shall be provided and shall comply with the Sections 508.1.1 through 508.1.7.
A fire command center is required to be located at the front of the building (near fire dept. point of approach) with readily access from the exterior. Location to be approved by the Fire Dept. CFC 508.1.1
Separation. The fire command center shall be separated from the remainder of the building by not less than 2-hour fire barrier constructed in accordance with Section 707 of the California Building Code or horizontal assembly constructed in accordance with Section 711 of the California Building Code, or both. CFC 508.1.2, amended by MMC Section V-300-
2.59. Layout approval. A layout of the fire command center and all features required by this section to be contained therein shall be submitted for approval prior to instal1ation. CFC Section 508.1.4
Required features (CFC Section 508.1.6). The fire command center shall comply with NFPA 72 and shall contain the following features:
i. All items (applicable) noted under the CFC Section 508.1.6.
ii. Knox locking key box, approved by the fire code official, large enough for ten (10) sets of master keys. Added by MMC Section V-300-2.60
iii. Ten (10) sets of master keys for the building(s). Added by MMC Section V-300-
2.60 iv. A complete set of architectural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing plans for the building. Sets shall be “as-built” sets. Added by MMC Section V-300-2.60
v. A complete set of underground fire water lines, automatic fire sprinklers, automatic fire alarm drawings, standpipe systems, other fire suppression systems, emergency responders’ ratio coverage, etc. All drawings shall be the latest sets and as-built.
81.6 Fire Equipment ID signs. Fire protection equipment shall be identified in an approved manner. Rooms containing controls for air-conditioning, systems, sprinkler risers and valves, or other fire detection, suppression or control elements hall be identified for the use of the fire department. CA Fire Code Section 509
81.7 Emergency Responder Radio Coverage: A Fire Department approved emergency responder radio coverage system shall be provided. SVRIA (Silicon Reginal Interoperability Authority) registration is required prior to any design. CFC Section 510, MMC V-300-2.61
81.8 Electrical Energy Storage Systems. Stationary storage battery systems shall comply with the CFC, Section 1207.
81.9 Portable Fire Extinguishers. Portable fire extinguishers shall be selected, installed and maintained in accordance with CFC Section 906.
81.10 Fire Protection Service (CFC Section 901.6). All fire alarm systems, fire detection systems, automatic sprinkler or extinguishing systems, communication systems, and all other equipment, material or systems required by these regulations shall be maintained in an operable condition at all times in accordance with this code and California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1. Upon disruption or diminishment of the fire protective qualities of such equipment, material or systems, immediate action shall be instituted to affect a reestablishment of such equipment, material or systems to their original normal and operational condition. California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, §1.14
81.11 Electrical Generators. Generators with fuel tanks shall meet the requirements of the CFC Chapters 50, 57 and the NFPA 30
i. Installation of aboveground tanks shall conform to Unidocs document UN-018.
Please see the following link for a copy.
http://www.unidocs.org/hazmat/new-construction/un-018.pdf
ii. Tank Design and Construction
Each tank shall be designed and constructed in accordance with nationally recognized standards (UL 142/2244 or equivalent. UL 2085 is the listing for protected tanks).
CFC 5704.2.7, NFPA 30, 21.4.2.1
iii. Tank Protection. Approved means shall be provided to protect tanks subject to vehicle damage. CFC 5704.2.8.6, CFC 312, NFPA 30, 22.15
iv. Aboveground tanks located outside of buildings shall be located in accordance with Table 22.4.1.1(a) of NFPA 30. CFC 5704.2.9.6.1.1
v. Secondary Containment (protected and unprotected tanks). Tanks shall be provided with secondary containment. CA Fire Code Section 5004.2
vi. Signage and Labeling. Warning and identification signs shall be posted to clearly identify hazards. CFC 5003.5, CFC 5703.5, NFPA 30, 21.7.2.1
vii. Provide a fire extinguisher (minimum 40B:C rating) at each generator location. CFC 5704.3.3.1, NFPA 30, 9.10.2
viii. Hazardous Material Business Plan. Each application for a permit shall include a Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP) in accordance with the CA Fire Code Section 5001.5.1. The fire code official is authorized to accept a similar plan required by other regulations.
ix. HMBPs shall be submitted electronically. HMBPs shall be submitted on the California Environmental Reporting System at http://cers.calepa.ca.gov/. CA Fire Code Section 5001.5.1
82. Fire Safety: Fire safety during construction, alteration or demolition of the building shall meet the requirements of Chapter 33 of the California Fire Code and the Standards for Construction Site Fire Safety (un-024) by “unidocs” organization (http//:www.unidocs.org). A Construction Site Fire Safety plan shall be submitted to the Milpitas Fire Prevention Division for review and approval prior to the start of combustible construction. CFC Chapter 33
83. Landscape sheets: The proposed landscaping may be impacted by the comments above and the requirements for fire access, fire systems and devices (such as apparatus access, hydrants, fire service lines, fire department connections valves, etc.). The Fire Dept. reserves the right to relocate, delete or change the proposed landscaping when in conflict with fire systems and devices. CFC 507.5.4.
84. Plan Submittal: Complete plans and specifications for all aspects of fire protection systems shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to system installation. CFC Section 901.2
POLICE DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
85. All Ingress and egress of traffic on Gibraltar Drive and South Milpitas Boulevard do not appear to be a concern because the development is being incorporated with an already existing business park.
86. Parking lot areas shall have postings with appropriate signs per 22658(a) CVC to assist in removal of vehicles at the property owners’/managers’ request.
87. “No Trespassing/Loitering” signage should be posted at the entrances of parking lots placed in conspicuous areas. Signs should be at least 2’ x 1’ in overall size, with white background and black 2’’ high letters.
88. The parking project should allow circulation for police patrols (vehicles, foot, and bicycles), to prevent and reduce the likelihood of criminal activity occurring in the area.
Addressing:
89. Address numbers shall be illuminated during hours of darkness and should be strategically
positioned as to be readily visible from the street. Address numbers should have a minimum height of 12 inches. If numerous alarm zones are utilized then zone numbers should be clearly marked above appropriate common doorways (i.e. office space, break rooms, recreational area, etc.).
Visibility:
90. Parking lots and associated driveways, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses, and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness.
91. A building design that encourages visibility of potential crime locations and natural surveillance.
92. Stairwells and/or elevator lobbies should be of open design whenever possible, making users open to visual scrutiny.
93. Any posters, material, and objects near common area exterior windows should not block views in those common areas from the street.
94. All trash enclosures should be located at the perimeter of the parking lot, not adjacent to exterior doors, or in areas where such enclosures can compromise surveillance.
95. Any other line of sight obstructions (including recessed doors, alcoves, etc.) should be avoided on building exterior walls and interior hallways.
96. From a public safety perspective, the front entrance area needs to have as much natural surveillance as possible and exposed to public view. When natural surveillance is afforded, the likely occurrence of burglaries, robberies, etc. to that particular establishment/area are substantially reduced because the risk of detection and apprehension of the perpetrator increases.
Seclusion is one of the main elements sought after by perpetrators of a crime.
Accessibility:
97. Any and all areas controlled by electronic security devices (i.e. key fobs, access cards, keypads, etc.) should have Knox boxes installed near such access points with the Knox boxes containing the appropriate security devices to gain entry. If access points are controlled by keypads or access cards, management should provide the police department with the needed code(s) or electronic key(s) and regularly update the police department if such code(s)/key(s) change.
98. An up-to-date map of the interior floor plan shall be provided to the Police Department. The map should minimally identify the locations of each entry/exit points, elevators, storage areas, entry/exit points controlled by electronic security devices, locations of security cameras, maintenance areas, stairwells, recreation centers, etc.
Landscaping:
99. Landscaping shall be of the type and situated in locations to maximize observation while
providing the desired degree of aesthetics. Security planting materials are encouraged.
Landscaping shall not conceal doors or windows from view, obstruct visibility of the parking lot from the street, nor hinder access to the roof, if needed.
Security:
100. Video/security cameras security system shall be required for the site, with coverage at all access points to the building in and around the business. The video/security cameras shall record in high definition and also cover the parking lot area to have the clarity necessary to identify an individual, vehicle, etc., and have a field of view to maximize the area of coverage. The video/security system shall have the capacity to save/store footage for a minimum of thirty (30) days and have the capability to be downloaded. A copy of video/security footage shall be made available to law enforcement upon request for investigative purposes. It is recommended the employees of the business be appropriately trained on how to use the security surveillance camera system so that footage can be reviewed and collected in a timely fashion by the Police department if needed.
101. Extra security measures should be taken to properly secure mail deliveries including larger boxes. Installing temporary package lock boxes or large parcel drop boxes should assist in preventing package theft. A security camera system should be installed covering both the package lock boxes and the cluster box units to assist the police department and the US Postal Service Inspectors in identifying package/mail thieves.
102. Video/security cameras shall be required for the site with coverage at all access points into the building. The video/security cameras shall record in high definition and cover main areas, entrances/exits, any hallway leading to the restrooms, and the exterior parking lot.
Miscellaneous:
103. The Property Manager shall file an emergency notification form with the police department so law enforcement can contact the property manager in the event of any major accident, emergency, or unforeseen circumstance.
104. Applicant shall have fire extinguishers on site during normal business hours.
Key:
(P) = Planning
(B) = Building
(E) = Engineering
(F) = Fire Prevention
(PD) = Police Department
(CA) = City Attorney
(ALL) = All
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO PROTEST
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), began on date of adoption of this resolution. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
AGREEMENT
Permittee/Property Owner
The undersigned agrees to each and every condition of approval and acknowledges the NOTICE OF RIGHT TO PROTEST and hereby agrees to use the project property on the terms and conditions set forth in this Permit.
Date: _____________________ ______________________________________ Signature of Permitee
EXHIBIT 2
ADDENDUM TO THE 1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE FEIR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. EA24-0002
FOR
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. SD24-0006
AND
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. TR25-0021
EXHIBIT 3
MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE ADDENDUM TO THE 1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE FEIR
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is formulated based upon the findings of the 15164 Addendum to the 1000 Gibraltar Drive Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2020069024) available for public review and inspection at the City’s website prepared for the 1000 Gibraltar Drive Project (project). The MMRP, which is found in Table 1, lists mitigation measures recommended in the Addendum prepared for the proposed project and identifies mitigation monitoring requirements. The Final MMRP must be adopted when the City of Milpitas (City) makes a final decision on the project.
This MMRP has been prepared to comply with the requirements of State law (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). State law requires the Lead Agency to adopt an MMRP when mitigation measures are required to avoid significant impacts. The MMRP is intended to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures identified in the Addendum during implementation of the project.
The MMRP is organized in a matrix format. The first two columns identify the potential impacts and corresponding mitigation measures. The third column, entitled “Timeframe for Implementation”, refers to when monitoring will occur to ensure that the mitigating action is completed. The fourth column, entitled “Responsibility for Implementation”, refers to the party responsible for implementing the mitigation measure. The fifth column, entitled, “Oversight of Implementation”, refers to the party responsible for oversight or ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented.
AGENDA #IX-2
MILPITAS PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
March 24, 2021
APPLICATION: P-SD19-0008, P -EA20-0004, and P-TR19-0007 – A Site Development Permit to demolish existing on-site buildings, parking lots, and associated improvements and to construct a new 491,040 - square foot tilt -up concrete distribution center with office space, surface parking lots, and associated site improvements on a 29.86 - acre parcel in the M2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning District. The surface parking will include 346 vehicle parking spaces distributed on all sides of the building and a total of 101 oversized truck parking spaces to the west and east of the building. The project also includes a Tree Removal Permit to remove and replace 88 protected trees on the site. As Lead Agency, the City has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2020069024) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21080(d) and 21082.2(d) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing , consider the Environmental Impact Report pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21080(d) and 21082.2(d) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 , adopt
Resolution No. 21-006, approving Site Development Permit P - SD19-0008 and Tree Removal Permit P-TR19-0007, and
Environmental Assessment P -EA20-0004, subject to findings and Conditions of Approval, and Resolution No. 21-007
certif ying an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21080(d) and 21082.2(d) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 .
LOCATION:
Address/APN: 1000 Gibraltar Drive (APN: 086-42-033)
PEOPLE:
Project Applicant: Overton Moore Properties
Property Owner: CTC Property, LLC
Project Planner: Rozalynne Thompson, Senior Planner
Agenda Item #IX-2: Site Development Permit P-SD19-0008, Tree Removal Permit P-TR19-0007, and Environmental Assessment P-EA20-0004 March 24, 2021
LAND USE:
General Plan Designation: Manufacturing (MFG)
Zoning District: Heavy Industrial (M2)
Site Area: 29.86 acres
ENVIRONMENTAL: Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15063(a), staff prepared an Initial Study to determine which environmental topics should be analyzed under an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Through the Initial Study, it was determined that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation. Therefore, staff prepared an EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21080(d) and 21082.2(d) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 (SCH #2020069024).
Agenda Item #IX-2: Site Development Permit P-SD19-0008, Tree Removal Permit P-TR19-0007, and Environmental Assessment P-EA20-0004 March 24, 2021
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant requests a Site Development Permit, Tree Removal Permit , and Environmental Assessment to demolish existing on-site buildings, parking lots, and associated improvements and construct a new 491,040-square foot tilt-up concrete distribution center with office space, surface parking lots, and associated site improvements on a 29.86-acre parcel in the M2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning District. The surface parking will include three-hundred and forty-six (346) vehicle parking spaces distributed on all sides of the building and a total of 101 oversized truck parking spaces to the west and east of the building. The Project also requests removal of 88 protected trees from the site.
The application includes one entitlement request, a ministerial permit, and environmental analysis to allow the proposed development, as follows:
1. Site Development Permit SD 19-0008: To allow the demolition of existing on -site buildings, parking lots, and associated improvements and develop a new 491,040 -square foot tilt -up concrete distribution center with office space, surface parking lots, and associated site improvements on a 29.86-acre site; and
2. Tree Removal Permit TR19-0007: To remove 88 protected trees pursuant to Section X-2-
4.02 of the Milpitas Municipal Code; and
3. Environmental Assessment EA20-0004: To review and certify an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21080(d) and 21082.2(d) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.
Staff reviewed the requests outlined above and while the Project may be inconsistent with some of the objectives of the General Plan and may have some significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, on balance, the benefits of the Project appear to outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects . The balance of this report provides s pecific details regarding each of these requests.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open and close the public hearing , consider the Environmental Impact Report, adopt Resolution No. 21-007 to certify the Environmental Impact Report, and adopt Resolution No. 21-006, recommending approval to the Planning Commission of the above entitlements, subject to the Conditions of Approval included in Exhibit 1 of the above- referenced Resolution.
Agenda Item #IX-2: Site Development Permit P-SD19-0008, Tree Removal Permit P-TR19-0007, and Environmental Assessment P-EA20-0004 March 24, 2021
Map 1: Project Location
Map 2: Zoning Map
PROJECT SITE
PROJECT SITE
Agenda Item #IX-2: Site Development Permit P-SD19-0008, Tree Removal Permit P-TR19-0007, and Environmental Assessment P-EA20-0004 March 24, 2021
BACKGROUND
History
Four existing buildings on the project site previously housed a research and development company called Lifescan, Inc. that ceased operations in 2015. Lifescan, Inc. acquired the property in 1986, with two buildings (Buildings 1 and 2 of the campus) already developed on the site , circa 1980.
A 144,000-square foot research and development building was constructed in 1990, and a 125,000- square foot office building was constructed in 1996. Subsequent improvements included a building expansion, equipment enclosure, and parking lot. The street frontage and site are landscaped with a large number and variety of ornamental trees including valley oak, olive, paloverde, pittosporum, coast redwood, coast live oak, queen palm, spruce, crape myrtle, zelkova, strawberry tree, plum/cherry, yellow birch, Chinese pistache, London plane tree, sweetgum, Chinese fringe tree, and shamel ash. Most of the mature trees surrounding the perimeter of the site will be retained and incorporated into the landscape plans for the new project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
OVERVIEW
The applicant requests a Site Development Permit, Tree Removal Permit, and certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to demolish existing on-site buildings representing 397,009 square feet, parking lots, and associated improvements and construct an approximately 491,040 - square foot, two -story building with mezzanine area with a proposed height of 44 feet .
Approximately 486,130 square feet of warehouse and 4,910 square feet of office space is proposed.
The proposed building has been designed to accommodate up to two separate tenants with proposed uses including Advanced Manufactu ring, E -Commerce, Light Assembly, Warehouse/Distribution, and possibly other uses permitted within the M2 ( Heavy Industrial) Zoning District.
Five driveways , ranging in widths of 30 to 50 feet , would be provided along South Milpitas Boulevard and Gibraltar Drive. Surface parking lots would surround or are adjacent to the proposed industrial building. The Project includes 346 vehicular parking spaces, including eight accessible stalls, and 101 parking stalls for truck trailers, for a total of 447 parking stalls. Although prospective tenants and proposed uses are not known at this time, 84 dock high doors are proposed at the east and west elevations of the building for truck access at South Milpitas Boulevard and Gibraltar Drive, respectively.
The Project will require the removal of 88 protected trees from the site, and in accordance with the City of Milpitas Tree Protection and Heritage Tree Program (MMC Section X-2-7), the applicant proposes to install 215 replacement trees as part of the proposed project. Replacement trees will include 15 gallon box Lagerstroemia Indica “Tuscarora” (Crape Myrtle), Pistacia Chinensis (Chinese Pistache), Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak ), Cedrus Deodara (Deodar Cedar), Lophostemon Confertus (Brisbane Box), and Olea Europaea (Olive) trees. Additionally, a variety of shrubs, groundcovers, and vines will be planted on the project site as shown on the Landscape Plan, Sheet L1.1 in the Project plans (Attachment E). Most of the existing mature trees located
Agenda Item #IX-2: Site Development Permit P-SD19-0008, Tree Removal Permit P-TR19-0007, and Environmental Assessment P-EA20-0004 March 24, 2021
around the perimeter of the site would be retained and incorporated into the landscape plans for the proposed project.
Upon review of the application for the proposed Project, the City determined that the project has the potential to result in potentially significant environmental impacts and, therefore, an EIR should be prepared. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15063(a), staff prepared an Initial Study to determine which environmental topics should be analyzed under an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ). Through the Initial Study, it was determined that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation. Therefore, staff prepared an EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21080(d) and 21082.2(d) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 (SCH #2020069024).
LOCATION AND CONTEXT
The project site is approximately 29.86 acres, irregularly-shaped, and occupied by a vacant, 397,009-square foot corporate campus including four office buildings and research/development facilities ranging from one to two stories in height with surface parking lots along the site periphery. The campus has been vacant since 2015. The entire site is landscaped with a large number and variety of ornamental trees including valley oak, olive, paloverde, pittosporum, coast redwood, coast live oak, queen palm, spruce, crape myrtle, zelkova, strawberry tree, plum/cherry, yellow birch, Chinese pistache, London plane tree, sweetgum, Chinese fringe tree, and shamel ash.
The Project site is within the south -central portion of the City of Milpitas and is surrounded by light industrial and commercial uses. The Project site is bounded by South Milpitas Boulevard to the east, Gibraltar Drive to the south and west, and by a multi-tenant office building to the north.
Table 1 provides a summary of surrounding land uses:
Table 1: Zoning and Land Use Summary
General Plan Zone Uses
Subject
Site Manufacturing (MFG) Heavy Industrial
(M2) Vacant
North Manufacturing (MFG) Heavy Industrial
(M2) Industrial/Office
South N/A N/A Gibraltar Drive
East N/A N/A South Milpitas
Boulevard
West N/A N/A Gibraltar Drive
Agenda Item #IX-2: Site Development Permit P-SD19-0008, Tree Removal Permit P-TR19-0007, and Environmental Assessment P-EA20-0004 March 24, 2021
PROJECT ANALYSIS
This section will evaluate the proposed Project’s (referred to as “the Project”) conformance with the Milpitas General Plan and Zoning Code.
GENERAL PLAN
The existing General Plan land use designation for the Project site is Manufacturing (MFG). This classification encompasses a variety of light and heavy industrial activities, such as manufacturing, packaging, processing, warehousing and distribution, and ancillary support uses.
The proposed Project conforms with the policies and standards in the City’s General Plan actions and policies as set forth in Table 2 below:
Table 2: General Plan Consistency
Policy Consistency Finding
LU 4 -2: Emphasize efforts to reduce
regional vehicle miles traveled by
supporting land use patterns and site
designs that promote active modes of
transportation, including walking, biking,
and public transit
Inconsistent: Although tenants of the proposed
facility have yet been identified, the transportation
analysis in the Environmental Impact Report, which
uses vehicle miles travelled (VMT) methodology to
evaluate transportation-related impacts, is based on
a logistics/fulfillment center use. The VMT per
employee (16.19) does not meet the significance
criteria of 15 percent below the Santa Clara
Countywide average (14.31). The Project VMT per
employee exceeds the threshold by 13 percent
(16.19/14.31). While the transportation analysis
lists several transportation, demand measures that
could potentially lower the Pro ject’s VMT, the
effectiveness of the group of measures cannot be
assured, as the actual future employee commute
mode choices cannot be known.
LU 5 -3: Ensure new development is
consistent with specific height limits
established within the City’s Zoning
Ordinance as applied through the zoning
district for all properties within the City.
Consistent: According to Table XI -10-7.03-1
“Industrial Zone Development Standards”, the
maximum height limit in the M2 zoning district is
35 feet or three stories. However, a structure may
exceed the height limit if the Planning Commission
finds that any such excess height will not be
detrimental to the light, air , or privacy of any other structure or use currently existing or anticipated.
With a proposed height of 44 feet, the Project would
exceed the maximum height limit in the M2 and,
Agenda Item #IX-2: Site Development Permit P-SD19-0008, Tree Removal Permit P-TR19-0007, and Environmental Assessment P-EA20-0004 March 24, 2021
Policy Consistency Finding
therefore, the additional finding must be made by the
Planning Commission. Given that heights of
surrounding structures var y and that there are
sufficient setbacks between the proposed build ing
and structures on adjacent parcels, the proposed
height of the Project would not be detrimental to the
light, air, or privacy of any other adjacent structure.
LU 5 -4: Prohibit the establishment or
encroachment of incompatible uses into
industrial and manufacturing designated
lands and prohibit new uses which would
result in the imposition of additional
operational restrictions and/or mitigation
requirements on industri al and
manufacturing users due to land use
incompatibility.
Consistent: Although tenants of the proposed
facility have yet been identified, it is anticipated that the facility would operate as a logistics/fulfillment
center. A logistics/fulfillment cente r is a permitted use pursuant to Table XI-10-7.02-1 “Industrial Zone
Uses”.
LU 7 -3: Encourage the development of
new industrial, manufacturing, and
business park areas and the redevelopment
of existing older or marginal areas with
new similar uses, espe cially those in
locations which facilitate efficient multi -
modal commute patterns. Use available
public financing to provide necessary
infrastructure improvements to encourage
economic development and revitalization
Consistent: The proposed Project would replace a
vacant, 39 year -old corporate campus with a new
facility. As an in -fill development project, the site is served by a variety of transit services provided by
the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA), Alameda -Contra Costa (AC) Transit , and
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). These services
include local bus, light rail transit services, and inter- city rail services.
LU 7 -5: Encourage the provision of
employee-serving amenities in workplaces,
such as parks and plazas, outdoor seating
areas, fitness facilities, daycare centers,
bicycle storage areas and showers. This
policy is particularly applicable to the
Business Park Resea rch & Development
and areas of higher intensity job centers as
a means to reduce vehicle trips, encourage
walking and bicycling, and support air
quality, public health, and sustainability
goals.
Consistent: The Project also includes the addition
of outdoor amenity space. Employee amenity areas
will be added adjacent to the office spaces located at
the southeast and northwest corners of the site.
Additionally, the Project proposes to install Par
Course exercise stations throughout the site for
employee us and use by the general public.
CIR 1 -9: Evaluate the impacts of
development proposals and capital
improvements on intersection and
Consistent: According to the Local Transportation
Analysis (LTA) prepared by Fehr & Peers in
October 2020, t he addition of Project traffic would
Agenda Item #IX-2: Site Development Permit P-SD19-0008, Tree Removal Permit P-TR19-0007, and Environmental Assessment P-EA20-0004 March 24, 2021
Policy Consistency Finding
roadway operations using measures that
may include Level of Service. Higher levels
of delay may be considered acceptable at
selected high activity locations where
mitigations would negatively impact other
transportation modes.
increase intersection average delays but would not
result in adverse effects on intersection operations
under existing, near-term, and cumulative
conditions.
CIR 1 -11: Maintain acceptable service
standards for all major streets and
intersections for all modes of
transportation, with an emphasis on
comfort and safety to increase choices for
pedestrians and people who ride bicycles.
Examples of multimodal evaluation
considerations may include tradeoffs
between addition of turn lanes and the
resulting impacts to continuity of bike
lanes or increases in pedestrian crossing
distance and delay
Consistent: According to the Local Transportation
Analysis (LTA) prepared by Fehr & Peers in
October 2020, the addition of Project traffic would
increase intersection average delays but would not
result in adverse effects on intersection operations
under existing, near -term, and cumulative
conditions. Furthermore, the analysis concluded
that the Project driveways will be constructed to City
of Milpitas design standards, including the provision
of adequate sight distance between vehicles exiting
the driveways and autos and bicyclists travelling on
the adjacent roadways , and, therefore, would not
obstruct bicyclists or adversely affect bicycle
circulation. The Project would not adversely affect
pedestrian circulation because sidewalks would be
maintained and, other than rerouting during
construction, pedestrian walkways will retain the
same path of travel.
CD 1-1: Require development projects to:
A. Preserve positive characteristics and
unique features of the site; and
B. Incorporate a context -sensitive design
approach that considers the scale and
existing and desired character of adjac ent
uses and the surrounding neighborhood or
district.
Consistent: Although the Project entails
demolishing an existing building and removing 88
protected trees, the site would be redeveloped with a
new, industrial building that complements the
architectural style of surrounding buildings and
maintains 100 remaining trees and plant s an
additional 215 trees of similar species on the site.
Surrounding buildings vary from one to two stor ies
and, with a peak height of 44 feet coupled with a
setback of at least 50 feet, the Project considers the
scale of the existing buildings in the surrounding
neighborhood in its design.
CD 1 -2: Encourage infill development
projects to accommodate contemporary
uses and design and planning approaches
and requirem ents in manner that
Consistent: Flexibility is a key issue as companies
transform their business operations and technology
pushes change at an ever increasing pace. The floor
plan of the propo sed building provides large
unobstructed spaces that accommodate many types
Agenda Item #IX-2: Site Development Permit P-SD19-0008, Tree Removal Permit P-TR19-0007, and Environmental Assessment P-EA20-0004 March 24, 2021
Policy Consistency Finding
minimizes conflicts with the surrounding
existing development.
of activities and supports changing operations in an
evolving business landscape. Further, five
driveways ranging in widths of 30 to 50 feet would
provide access along South Milpitas Boulevard and
Gibraltar Drive. The truck dock yards are proposed
to be wider than typical at 125 feet, allowing for
interior maneuverability within the truck courts.
Further, t he Project does not propose any off -site
roadway changes that would obstruct bicyclists or
adversely affect bicycle circulation and the Project
maintains the current sidewalk design along the
South Milpitas Boulevard and Gibraltar Drive
Project frontages.
CD 1 -6: Emphasize landscaping as a
fundamental design c omponent, retaining
mature landscaping when appropriate, to
reinforce a sense of the natural
environment and to maintain an
established appearance.
Consistent: The Project will require the removal of
88 protected trees from the site, and in accordance
with the City of Milpitas Tree Protection and
Heritage Tree Program (MMC Section X -2-7), the
applicant will install 215 replacement trees on the
project site. Replacement trees will include 15
gallon box Lagerstroemia Indica “Tuscarora”
(Crape Myrtle), Pistacia Chinensis (Chinese
Pistache), Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak),
Cedrus Deodara (Deodar Cedar), Lophostemon
Confertus (Brisbane Box), and Olea Europaea
(Olive) trees. The remai ning trees will be
maintained. Additionally, a variety of shrubs,
groundcovers, and vines will be planted on the
Project site . Existing mature trees around the
perimeter of the site will be retained.
CD 1 -10: Minimize the visual impacts of
public and private communication,
service, and utility facilities by requiring
the provider to incorporate sensitive site
design techniques, including, but not
limited to the placement of facilities in less
conspicuous locations, the
undergrounding of facilities wherever
possible, and the screening of facilities.
Consistent: Part of the Project entails introduction
of eight-foot tall green screens along South Milpitas
Boulevard and Gibraltar Drive. The green screen s
provide living visible barriers that adequately screen
views into the truck courts from South Milpitas
Boulevard and Gibraltar Drive. All existing and
proposed utilities and utility service connections are
required to be undergrounded.
CD 2-4: Locate site entries, parking areas,
storage bays, and service areas of
buildings to minimize conflicts with
Consistent: The circulation has been designed to
ensure the safe and efficient movement of cars and
trucks throughout the project site. Five driveways
Agenda Item #IX-2: Site Development Permit P-SD19-0008, Tree Removal Permit P-TR19-0007, and Environmental Assessment P-EA20-0004 March 24, 2021
Policy Consistency Finding
adjacent properties, especially residential
neighborhoods. Also, parking, storag e,
and service areas should be sited to
minimize their appearance from public
right-of-ways.
ranging in widths of 30 to 50 feet would be provided
along South Milpitas Boulevard and Gibraltar Drive.
The truck dock yards are wider than typical at 125
feet, allowing for interior maneuverability within the
truck courts. Parking areas and loading bays will be
screened from the right -of-way by eight -foot tall
green screens along South Milpitas Boulevard and
Gibraltar Drive.
CD 2 -7: Include design elements during
the development review process that
address security, aesthetics and safety.
Safety issues include, but are not limited to,
minimum clearances around buildings,
fire protection measures such as peak load
water requirements, construction
techniques, and minimum standards for
vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities
and other standards set forth in local,
state, and federal regulations.
Consistent: The Project has been reviewed by
Planning, Building, Land Development, Traffic,
Utilities, and Fire Departments for compliance with
applicable local, state, and federal regulations
related to se curity, aesthetics, and safety. The
Project is subject to Conditions of Approval required
by aforementioned departments and attached to this
staff report as Attachment A.
CD 3-3: Ensure that new development and
redevelopment reinforces desirable
elements of its neighborhood, district, or
center, including architectural style, scale,
and setback patterns.
Consistent: The proposed industrial building
complements the “Contemporary” architectural
style of surrounding buildings. Surrounding
buildings vary f rom one to two story and, with a
peak height of 44 feet coupled with a setback of at
least 50 feet, the Project considers the scale of the
existing buildings in the surrounding neighborhood.
CD 3-10: Design multi-family residential,
mixed use, commercia l, and employment -
generating development in neighborhoods,
districts, and centers to:
A. Include open space and/or recreational
amenities to provide visual relief from
development, form pedestrian and bicyclist
linkages to adjacent uses and other
portions of the neighborhood, district, or
center, and serve as buffers between uses,
where necessary;
B. Locate building access points along
sidewalks, pedestrian areas, and bicycle
routes, and include amenities that
encourage pedestrian activity;
Consistent: The Project includes the addition of
outdoor am enity space. Employee amenity areas
will be added adjacent to the office spaces located at
the southeast and northwest corners of the site.
Additionally, the Project proposes to install Par
Course exercise stations throughout the site for
employee use. Further, the Project does not propose
any off -site roadway changes that would obstruct
bicyclists or adversely affect bicycle circulation and
the Project maintains the current sidewalk design
along the South Milpitas Boulevard and Gibraltar
Drive Project frontages.
The main access point for pedestrians will be at the
southeast corner or the site, near the intersection of
Agenda Item #IX-2: Site Development Permit P-SD19-0008, Tree Removal Permit P-TR19-0007, and Environmental Assessment P-EA20-0004 March 24, 2021
Policy Consistency Finding
C. Create a human -scale ground -floor
environment that includes public open
areas that separate pedestrian space from
auto traffic, or where these intersect, give
special regard to pedestrian safety; and
D. Provide comfortable pedestrian
amenities, such as quality seating areas,
lighting, and wide, shaded paths, along
with specialized and engaging design
features, such as interesting fountains or
public art to draw and maintain people's
attention.
South Milpitas Boulevard and Gibraltar Drive. An
employee amenity area is adjacent to the main
entrance for ease of employee access and to
encourage pedestrian activity.
Although most of the floor space of the building is
comprised of warehouse, the ceiling height of the
ground floor of both office components is 16 feet.
The 16 -foot ceiling height creates a human scale
ground floor environment for employees and visitors
to the site.
CD 5-1: Design new development to reflect
the character of the predominant existing
development of the same type in the
surrounding area through the regulation
of lot size, street frontage, height, building
scale, siting/setbacks, and building
orientation.
Consistent: The proposed building incorporates a
contemporary architectural style that complements
the surrounding industrial buildings. The design of
the proposed industrial building includes two-story
lanterns of glass that accentuate the office corners of the facility creating solid and void in the massing of
the 44-foot tall facilities. Clerestories of glazing are proposed high on the concrete tilt up panels between
the transparent corners and provide natural light
deep into the building footprint. Concrete panel
elements are proposed to be used as accents and
multi-colored paint compositions to break down the
scale of the concrete tilt up walls. Each office area
would also have an operable garage door that would
open to a private patio.
CD 5 -5: For infill development,
incorporate context sensitive design
elements that maintain compatibility and
raise the quality of the area’s architectural
character.
Consistent: Refer to answer above.
CD 5-7: Encourage the use of creative
landscape design to create visual interest
and reduce conflicts between different land
uses.
Consistent: Generous setbacks with landscaping
along South Milpitas Boulevard and Gibraltar Drive
will provide a consistent vis ual identity. The
enhanced landscaping combines existing trees with
new and provides varied tree species and shrubs with
plant species that are consistent with the surrounding
area and meet drought tolerant requirements. Green
screens will provide living visible barriers that
Agenda Item #IX-2: Site Development Permit P-SD19-0008, Tree Removal Permit P-TR19-0007, and Environmental Assessment P-EA20-0004 March 24, 2021
Policy Consistency Finding
adequately screen views into the truck courts from
South Milpitas Boulevard and Gibraltar Drive.
CD 11 -8: Encourage low -impact
development, including but not limited to,
bioretention cells/rain gardens, cisterns
and rain barrels, green roofs, pervious
concrete/porous pavement, bioswales, and
media filters.
Partially Consistent: A Stormwater Control Plan
(SCP) prepared for the proposed Project indicates
that the Project would include the use of bio -
retention treatment areas to manage and treat
stormwater runoff on the project site. The SCP
currently does not indicate that pre -treatment of
runoff would occur pr ior to infiltration of
stormwater runoff from areas of truck parking. The
City of Milpitas is responsible for ensuring that the
proposed Project complies with the requirements of
Provision C.3 of the M unicipal Regional Permit
(MRP); therefore, as a Condition of Approval, the
City would require that the SCP be modified, as
necessary, to include the required stormwater
control and treatment measures, including pre -
treatment of stormwater runoff prior to treatment
through infiltration devices and source cont rol
measures that comply with Provision C.3 of the
MRP.
CON 1-1: Ensure that new development is
consistent with the energy objectives and
targets identified by the City’s Climate
Action Plan (CAP).
Inconsistent: Based on the potential to increase
greenhouse gas emissions either directly or
indirectly due to changes in daily traffic trips
associated with the project site and increased energy
usage on-site, it was determined that the proposed
Project could result in a potentially significant
greenhouse gas emissions impact. Further
environmental analysis concluded that the Project
would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment. Given that the success
of implement ing Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
Program is speculative at this time, the impact
cannot be mitigated to a less -than-significant level
and, therefore, would be significant and
unavoidable.
CON 2 -1: Conserve existing native trees
and vegetation where possibl e and
integrate regionally native trees and plant
Consistent: The Project will re move 88 protected
trees from the site, and in accordance with the City
of Milpitas Tree Protection and Heritage Tree
Program (MMC Section X -2-7), the applicant
Agenda Item #IX-2: Site Development Permit P-SD19-0008, Tree Removal Permit P-TR19-0007, and Environmental Assessment P-EA20-0004 March 24, 2021
Policy Consistency Finding
species into development and
infrastructure projects where appropriate.
proposes to install 215 replacement trees on the
project site. Replacement trees will include 15
gallon box Lagerstroemia Indica “Tuscarora”
(Crape Myrtle), Pistacia Chinensis (Chinese
Pistache), Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak),
Cedrus Deodara (Deodar Cedar), Lophostemon
Confertus (Brisbane Box), and Olea Europaea
(Olive) trees. The remaining trees on site will be
maintained. Additionally, a variety of shrubs,
groundcovers, and vines will be planted on the
Project site.
CON 2-3: Avoid removal of large, mature
trees that provide wildlife habitat, visual
screening, or contribute to the visual
quality of the e nvironment through
appropriate project design and building
siting. If full avoidance is not possible,
prioritize planting of replacement trees on-
site over off -site locations. Replacement
trees for high -quality mature trees should
generally be of like kind , and provide for
comparable habitat functionality, where
appropriate site conditions exist.
Consistent: The Project will remove 88 protected
trees from the site, and in accordance with the City
of Milpitas Tree Protection and Heritage Tree
Program (MMC S ection X -2-7), the applicant
proposes to install 215 replacement trees on the
project site. Replacement trees will include 15
gallon box Lagerstroemia Indica “Tuscarora”
(Crape Myrtle), Pistacia Chinensis (Chinese
Pistache), Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak),
Cedrus Deodara (Deodar Cedar), Lophostemon
Confertus (Brisbane Box), and Olea Europaea
(Olive) trees. Existing mature trees around the
perimeter of the site will be maintained.
CON 7-3: Require projects which generate
high levels of air pollutants, such as heavy
industrial, manufacturing facilities and
hazardous waste handling operations, to
incorporate air quality mitigations in their
design to reduce impacts to the greatest
extent feasible.
Inconsistent: Environmental analysis pursuant to
CEQA determined that the Project could potentially
result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the Project region
(San Francisco Bay Area) is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard. Even if the Project implemented a
mitigation measure that requires emissions offsets to
be purchased, the reduction of nitrous oxide (NOx)
through an offset program is not real, verifiable, and
enforceable at time of preparation of the
environmental analysis . Therefore, this impact is
significant and unavoidable.
CON 7-4: Require projects to adhere to the
requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD).
Inconsistent: The BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines include thresholds of significance to
assist lead agencies in evaluating and mitigating air
quality impacts under CEQA. The BAAQMD’s
Agenda Item #IX-2: Site Development Permit P-SD19-0008, Tree Removal Permit P-TR19-0007, and Environmental Assessment P-EA20-0004 March 24, 2021
Policy Consistency Finding
thresholds established levels at which emissions of
ozone precursors (ROG and NOx), PM10, PM2.5,
local CO, TACs, and odors could cause significant
air quality impacts. The analysis in the EIR
concluded that unmitigated NOx emissions from
Project operation were above the threshold of
significance during the first two years of Project
operation in 2022 and 2023 and, even with
mitigation, the impacts would remain significant and
unavoidable.
N 1-1: Consider the noise compatibility of
existing and future development when
making land use planning decisions.
Require development and infrastructure
projects to be consistent with the land use
compatibility standards contained in
Tables N-1 and N -2 to ensure acceptable
noise exposure levels for existing and
future development.
Consistent: According to the noise analysis in the
EIR, existing noise-sensitive land uses would not be
exposed to construction noise levels in excess of the
significance thresholds for a period of more than one
year; the proposed Project is not expected to cause a
substantial permanent noise level increase at the
existing residential land uses in the Project vicinity; the proposed Project is not expected to generate
noise levels in excess of standards established in the
City’s General Plan or Municipal Code at the nearby
sensitive receptors ; and, t he Project site is located approximately 4 miles from the nearest airport, and
the proposed Project would not expose people
working at the site to exces sive aircraft noise. The
EIR concludes that noise impacts from the Project
would be less-than-significant.
ZONING CONFORMANCE
Although tenants of the proposed facility have yet been identified, it is anticipated that the facility would operate as a logistics/fulfillment center. A logistics/fulfillment center is considered a “distribution facility” under Table XI -10-7.02-1 “Indus trial Zone Uses”, and, therefore, is a permitted use in the M2 Zoning District. As demonstrated in Table 3, the Project is consistent with most of the applicable development standards in Table XI-10-7.03-1 “Industrial Zone Development Standards” of the Zoning Code. To approve the proposed building height of 44 feet, the Planning Commission must find that any such excess height will not be detrimental to the light, air or privacy of any other structure or use currently existing or anticipated.
Table 3:
Summary of M2 Zoning District Development Standards
Agenda Item #IX-2: Site Development Permit P-SD19-0008, Tree Removal Permit P-TR19-0007, and Environmental Assessment P-EA20-0004 March 24, 2021
Standards M2
Requirements Proposed Complies
Front Setback
(min)
35 feet from face of curb 50 feet Yes
Street
Side Yard
Setback
(min)
35 feet from face of curb 99 feet from face of curb Yes Rear (min) None 35 feet Yes
Floor Area
Ratio .40 .37 Yes
Landscaped
Space
(Min.)
Required front yard area
and required side yard
area
Required front yard area
and required side yard
area
Yes
Building
Height (max)
3 stories or 35 feet 44 feet
Requires
Planning
Commission
approval
Parking
The number of required parking spaces and number of allowable compact stalls for the Project are analyzed below.
Number of Required Parking Spaces
The Project proposes a total of 346 vehicular parking spaces . Although not required, the Project proposes 101 truck trailer parking spaces. The applicable parking ratios and the parking spaces provided by the Project are identified in Table 4:
Table 4: Parking Requirements
Land Use Size/No.
of Units Rate Spaces
Required
Spaces
Provided
Warehouse with Office
Warehouse
Space
486,130
sq. ft.
One per 1,500
sq. ft. 324 332
Office Space 4,910 sq.
ft.
One per 350
sq. ft. 14 14
Parking Totals: 338 346
Number of Compact Parking Stalls
Agenda Item #IX-2: Site Development Permit P-SD19-0008, Tree Removal Permit P-TR19-0007, and Environmental Assessment P-EA20-0004 March 24, 2021
For parking areas containing ten or more stalls serving distribution facilities , Subsection XI-10-
53.07(B) of the Zoning Code allows up to 40 percent of the required and non -required parking stalls to be designed as compact stalls to accommo date compact cars. The required stall depth and width is 7.5 feet and 15 feet, respectively, per Table XI -10-53.13-1 “Parking Stall and Drive Aisle Dimensions” of the Zoning Code. Of the 346 parking spaces proposed, 40 percent of the parking spaces, or 142 spaces, would be compact spaces, which is allowed under the Zoning Code.
Traffic
Fehr & Peers prepared both the Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) and Vehicular Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis for the EIR for the Project. Specifically, t he LTA evaluated the transportation impacts that could result from the proposed Project, including impacts associated with traffic congestion, transit services, and pedestrian and bicycle circulation. The VMT analysis in the EIR evaluated the Project’s trip generation and trip length by vehicles to the site, which is required by Senate Bill 743 and implemented through CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) .
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), only the conclusions from the VMT analysis are used to determine whether the Proposed project would have adverse impacts on the surrounding transportation system.
Based on the VMT analysis in the EIR, the proposed Project would not meet the 15 percent reduction in VMT in the traffic analysis zones in the Project vicinity (roughly the area bounded by Calaveras Boulevard, I-880, Montague Expressway, and the railroad tracks) and, therefore, would have an impact on Home-based Work VMT per employee. The VMT analysis has also concluded that the Project would have a significant cumulative impact. Given that the effectiveness of the mitigation measures depends on the actual future commute choices and that those choices cannot be known at this time, the effectiveness of the mitigation measures cannot be assured. Therefore, this impact remains significant and unavoidable with mitigation. The LTA can be found as Appendix G to the Draft EIR and the VMT analysis can be found in the Final EIR, all of which can be found at
https://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/milpitas/departments/environmentaldocuments/#1608682119550- 114afe6e-904f. .
Tree Removal
Subsection X-2-4.02 of the Milpitas Municipal Code requires a Tree Removal Permit to remove protected trees. Subsection X-2-7.01 of the Milpitas Municipal Code includes “trees which have a thirty-seven-inch (37”) or greater circumference of any trunk measured 4 .5 feet from the ground, when removal relates to any transaction for which zoning approval or subdivision approval is required” as “protected trees”. Each removed tree must be replaced by at least two trees on the project site, pursuant to Subsection X-2-4.02 of the Milpitas Municipal Code.
Based on the proposed site plan, 88 protected trees will be removed from the project area .
Approximately 100 trees will remain on the site. The removed trees will be replaced with a total of 215 replacement trees on the proj ect site. Replacement trees will include 15 gallon box Lagerstroemia Indica “Tuscarora” (Crape Myrtle), Pistacia Chinensis (Chinese Pistache), Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak), Cedrus Deodara (Deodar Cedar), Lophostemon Confertus (Brisbane Box), and Olea Europaea (Olive) trees. The remaining trees will be m aintained. Therefore, the
Agenda Item #IX-2: Site Development Permit P-SD19-0008, Tree Removal Permit P-TR19-0007, and Environmental Assessment P-EA20-0004 March 24, 2021
Project complies with the requirements of the Milpitas Municipal Code. The placement of these trees is shown in the Landscape Plan on Sheet L1.1 of the project plans (see Attachment E).
FINDINGS
A finding is a statement of fact relating to the information that the Planning Commission has considered in making its decision. Findings will identify the rationale behind the decision.
Site Development Permit (Subsection XI-10-57.03(F)(1))
1. The layout of the site and design of the proposed buildings, structures and landscaping are compatible and aesthetically harmonious with adjacent and surrounding development.
The Project architecture is reflective of a ‘Contemporary’ architectur al style that incorporates various wall planes and m assing elements that adds interest to the proposed elevations. The proposed building height ranges from 36 feet to 44 feet. The building includes two story lanterns of glass that accentuate the office corners of the facility creating a play of solid and void in the massing of the 44 foot tall facilities. Clerestories of glazing occur high on the concrete tilt up panels between the transparent corners and provide natural light deep into the building footprint. Concrete panel elements are used as accents and multi-colored paint compositions break down the scale of the concrete tilt up walls.
The proposed exterior elevations consist of painted concrete tilt-up panels and blue-glazed glass. The exterior of the buildings will be grey with blue accent trim along the parapet and exterior building materials will include metal awnings painted to match the accent trim.
Generally, buildings to the surrounding the Project site vary in height. At a maximum height of 44 feet, the proposed building complements neighboring buildings. Further, the 50-foot setback from the nearest adjacent residence aids in reducing perceived massing and scale.
With respect to the design of the proposed buildings, the applicant has chosen a design in a “Contemporary” architectural style, which is compatible with the surrounding structures.
The exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing also relate to the neighboring buildings . To provide additional articulation, the applicant has added varied roof heights and recessed façades on all elevations.
2. The project is consistent with the Milpitas Zoning Ordinance.
The Project site is zoned M2 (Heavy Industrial). Although tenants of the proposed facility have yet been identified, it is anticipated that the facility would operate as a logistics/fulfillment center. A logistics/fulfillment center is considered a “distribut ion facility” under Table XI -10-7.02-1 “Industrial Zone Uses”, and, therefore, is a permitted use in the M2 Zoning District. As demonstrated in Table 3, with the exception of the maximum height limit, the Project complies with the required setbacks, number of parking spaces, landscaped area, and maximum floor area ratio. The proposed signage will be reviewed under a separate permit.
Agenda Item #IX-2: Site Development Permit P-SD19-0008, Tree Removal Permit P-TR19-0007, and Environmental Assessment P-EA20-0004 March 24, 2021
With a proposed height of 44 feet, the Project would exceed the maximum height limit in the M2 zone, and therefore, the Planning Commission must find that any such excess height will not be detrimental to the light, air or privacy of any other structure or use currently existing or anticipated , pursuant to MMC Table XI -10-7.03-1. Given that heights of surrounding structures vary and there are sufficient setbacks between the proposed building and structures on adjacent parcels, the proposed height of the Project would not be detrimental to the light, air, or privacy of any other structure.
Therefore, the Project is consistent with the Milpitas Zoning Code.
3. The project is consistent with the Milpitas General Plan.
The proposed Project is partially consistent with the General Plan with respect to goals in the Land Use and Conservation elements as demonstrated in Table 2 above.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (Section 21000, et. seq. of the California Public Resources Code, hereafter CEQA) re quires analysis of agency approvals of discretionary “projects.” A “project,” under CEQA, is defined as “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.) Given that the demolition and construction of a new industrial building at 1000 Gibraltar Drive would require a Site Development Permit, a discretionary entitlement, and that the Proj ect would result in the alteration of existing buildings and landscaping, it is a “project” under CEQA.
Initial Study and Notice of Preparation
Upon review of the application for the proposed Project, the City determined that the project has the potential to result in potentially significant environmental impacts and, therefore, an EIR should be prepared. In accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft EIR (DEIR) as well as an Initial Study pursuant to 15063(a) of the CEQA Guidelines to determine which environmental topics should be analyzed under an Environmental Impact Report . The NOP and Initial Study were circulated on June 12, 2020 to local, state, and federal agencies, a nd nearby property owners within 1000 feet or the Project for a 32 -day review period that ended on July 13, 2020. A scoping session was held on June 25, 2020 to solicit comment on potential topics to be analyzed under the DEIR.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
The DEIR was prepared and circulated for 52-day public review period on December 22, 2020.
The public review period ended on February 12, 2021. A public comment meeting on the DEIR was held on February 1, 2021.
Other than the impacts discussed below, all the environmental impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of standard conditions of approval or recommended mitigation measures.
Agenda Item #IX-2: Site Development Permit P-SD19-0008, Tree Removal Permit P-TR19-0007, and Environmental Assessment P-EA20-0004 March 24, 2021
The DEIR identifies the following significant and unavoi dable environmental impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation:
• Impact AIR-2: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -attainment under an applica ble federal or state ambient air quality standard
• Impact GHG-1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment
• Impact TRANS -2: Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines secti on 15064.3, subdivision (b)
• Cumulative Impact TRANS-5: Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b)
Project Alternatives
Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to identify each significant effect with proposed mitigation measures and alternatives that would reduce or avoid that effect. The CEQA Guidelines further require EIRs to include the identification and evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives that are designed to reduce the significant environmental imp acts of the Project while still meeting the general project objectives.
The two alternatives considered were the “No Project” alternative and “Reduced Project” alternative. The “No Project” alternative assumes the continuation of existing physical conditions on the site, as well as development of the related projects . While the “No Project” alternative would have less -than-significant environmental impacts in most topic areas, the impact to transportation would remain significant and unavoidable. Moreover, the “No Project” alternative would not meet the objectives of the Project.
As for the “Reduced Project” alternative, this alternative would involve construction of a new single-story, tilt-up concrete creative industrial building with two supporting offices, and surface parking on all sides of the building, therefore providing the same on-site circulation as the proposed Project. However, under this Alternative, the Project’s building area would be reduced by 121,532 square feet, which is an approximately 25 percent reduction in building area compared to the proposed Project. Like the “No Project” alternative, impacts to transportation would remain significant and unavoidable , but the “Reduced Project” alternati ve would meet most of the Project’s objectives, though to a lesser degree.
Final EIR
The contents of the Final EIR include the Draft EIR, comments received during the public comment period on the Draft EIR, and responses to comments. The Final EIR includes Findings of Fact along with a Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Agenda Item #IX-2: Site Development Permit P-SD19-0008, Tree Removal Permit P-TR19-0007, and Environmental Assessment P-EA20-0004 March 24, 2021
Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project. In accordance with CEQA, if specific economic, legal, social, technical, or other benefits of a proposed p roject outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable” and the decision-making agency may adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations to address these impacts. Should the Planning Commission consider approval of the Project, the Commission must also take action to certify the Final EIR and adopt the Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and MMRP. Should the Planning Commission deny the Project, staff would recommend that no action be taken on the Final EIR as a CEQA determination does not need to be made for a project that has been denied.
Given that significant and unavoidable impacts would remain with respect to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared. The CEQA findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration s are included in Attachment B, which recommends that the Planning Commission certify the EIR, approve a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and make findings that while there are significant unavoidable impacts, there are other economic, legal, social, technological, environmental, and other considerations that outweigh these impacts and warrant approving the Project.
PUBLIC COMMENT/OUTREACH
Due to the COVID-10 pandemic and shelter-in-place orders of the State of California and County of Santa Clara, the Planning Department established an “Online Public Forum” on the City website to provide nearby residents and property owners with an opportunity to review the Project plans online and submit comments or questions via email. The applicant mailed postcards to all addresses within 1,000 feet of the project site and invited the public to use the “Online Public Forum” to review the plans and submit comments.
Planning Department staff also provided public notice of the application in accordance with City and State public noticing requirements. A notice was published in the Milpitas Post on March 12, 2021. A public notice was also posted at City Hall and on the project site as well as on the City’s website at www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov. Apart from comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR, as of the time of writing this report, there have been 21 comments received from the public. Comments from the public have ranged from generally favorable of the Project to raising concerns about traffic impacts, greenhouse gas emissions, a nd air pollution. Public comments received as of the date of the staff report have been can be found in Attachment G.
CONCLUSION
The Project meets several of the goals and policies of the Land Use, Circulation, Community Development, Conservation, and Noise Elements of General Plan . The Project is consistent with the General Plan , for instance, because varying heights of surrounding structures on adjacent properties and the Project’s ample setbacks ensure that the Project would not be detrimental to the light, air, or privacy of any other adjacent structure . Further, the proposed Project would replace a vacant, 39 year-old corporate campus with a new facility for industrial uses, which are permitted in the M2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning District. Also, t he proposed Project would not result in adverse effects on intersection operations under existing, near -term, and cumulative conditions
Agenda Item #IX-2: Site Development Permit P-SD19-0008, Tree Removal Permit P-TR19-0007, and Environmental Assessment P-EA20-0004 March 24, 2021
and the driveways of the proposed Project will be constructed to City of Milpitas design standards, including the provision of adequate sight distance between vehicles exiting the driveways and autos and bicyclists travelling on the adjacent roadways and would not adversely affect bicycle and pedestrian circulation. Additionally, by retaining 100 trees and proposing to install 215 trees of similar species to those removed and limiting the building height to 44 feet while proposing a minimum setback of 50 feet, the Project maintains positive features of the site and considers the scale of the existing buildings in the surrounding neighborhood in its design. The proposed industrial building complements the “Contemporary” architectural style of surrounding buildings, has a maximum height of 44 f eet, and a minimum setback of 50 feet and, therefore, ensures that the redevelopment reinforces desirable elements of its neighborhood, including architectural style, scale, and setback patter ns. To minimize conflicts with adjacent properties and minimize operations from public right-of-way, five driveways ranging in widths of 30 to 50 feet would be provided along South Milpitas Boulevard and Gibraltar Drive , truck dock yards are wider than typical at 125 feet, allowing for interior maneuverability within the truck courts, and parking areas and loading bays will be screened from the right -of-way by eight -foot tall green screens along South Milpitas Boulevard and Gibraltar Drive.
The Project also generally meets the findings for a Site Development Permit in the City of Milpitas Zoning Code. The layout of the site and design of the proposed buildings, structures and landscaping are compatible and aesthetically harmonious with adjacent and surrounding development because a t a maximum height of 44 feet, the proposed building complements neighboring buildings, the 50 -foot setback from the nearest adjacent residence aids in reducing perceived massing and scale , and “Contemporary” architectural style is compatible with the surrounding structures. The Project is consistent with the Milpitas Zoning Ordinance because the anticipated use, a logistics/fulfillment center , is a permitted use in the M2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning Distric t, the Project complies with the required setbacks, nu mber of parking spaces, landscaped area, and maximum floor area ratio, and the proposed height would not be detrimental to the light, air, or privacy of any other structure. Finally, the Project, as explained above, is consistent with several the of the g oals and policies of the Land Use, Circulation, Community Development, Conservation Elements of the General Plan and, therefore, is partially consistent with the finding that the Project be consistent with the General Plan.
The proposed Project would red evelop a vacant, underutilized site and contribute to the mix of industrial uses in the area along South Milpitas Boulevard. Moreover, the Project could g enerate local employment opportunities, both in short -term construction employment and long -term Project employment and improve the quality of life for Milpitas residents through job creation, revenue generation and other associated Project benefits. While the Project may be inconsistent with some of the objectives of the General Plan and may have some sig nificant and unavoidable environmental impacts, on balance, the benefits of the Project appear to outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects.
RECOMMENDATION
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT the Planning Commission:
Agenda Item #IX-2: Site Development Permit P-SD19-0008, Tree Removal Permit P-TR19-0007, and Environmental Assessment P-EA20-0004 March 24, 2021
1. Open and close the Public Hearing.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 21-007 certifying an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21080(d) and 21082.2(d) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.
3. Adopt Resolution No. 21 -006, approving Site Development Permit P -SD19-0008 and Tree Removal Permit P -TR19-0007, and Environmental Assessment P -EA20-0004, subject to findings and Conditions of Approval.
ATTACHMENTS
A: Resolution No. 21-006 with Conditions of Approval
B: Resolution No. 21-007 with CEQA Findings and MMRP
C: Draft EIR and Final EIR -
https://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/milpitas/departments/environmentaldocuments/#1608682119550- 114afe6e-904f
D: Project Narrative
E: Project Plans
F: Materials Board
G: Public Comments
RESOLUTION NO. 21-006
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MILPITAS APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT P-SD19-0008, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT P-TR19-0007, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT P-EA20-0007 TO
DEMOLISH EXISTING ON-SITE BUILDINGS, PARKING LOTS, AND
ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 491,040 SQUARE-
FOOT TILT-UP CONCRETE DISTRIBUTION CENTER WITH OFFICE SPACE, PARKING LOTS, 346 VEHICLE PARKING SPACES, 101 TRUCK TRAILER SPACES, AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 1000
GIBRALTAR DRIVE
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2019, Overton Moore Properties, on behalf of CTC Property, LLC, submitted an application to the City of Milpitas to request approval to demolish existing on-site buildings, parking lots, and associated improvements and to construct a new, 491,040 square-foot tilt-up concrete distribution center with office space, parking lots, 346 vehicle parking spaces, 101 truck trailer spaces, and associated site improvements located at 1000 Gibraltar Drive (“the Project”); and
WHEREAS, in order to evaluate the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA,” codified at Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq., as further governed by the CEQA Guidelines, found at 14 C.C.R. § 15000, et seq.), an environmental impact report was prepared (the Draft EIR, as revised by the Final EIR’s errata section, together with the other sections of the Final EIR, are collectively referred to herein as the “EIR,” State Clearinghouse No. 2020069024); and
WHEREAS, on March 24, 2021, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing on the Project, at which time the Commission considered a written staff report, the Final EIR, and all other oral and written comments presented to them; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. Record. 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 report, testimony by staff and the public, the EIR, 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. Site Development Permit (Section XI-10-57.03(F)(1)) - The Planning Commission makes the following findings based on the evidence in the public record in support of Site Development Permit No. SD20-0006:
1. The layout of the site and design of the proposed buildings, structures and landscaping are compatible and aesthetically harmonious with adjacent and surrounding development.
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
Resolution No. 21-006, 1000 Gibraltar Drive Page 2
The Project architecture is reflective of a ‘Contemporary’ architectural style that incorporates various wall planes and massing elements that adds interest to the proposed elevations. The proposed building height ranges from 36 feet to 44 feet. The building includes two story lanterns of glass that accentuate the office corners of the facility creating a play of solid and void in the massing of the 44 foot tall facilities. Clerestories of glazing occur high on the concrete tilt up panels between the transparent corners and provide natural light deep into the building footprint.
Concrete panel elements are used as accents and multi-colored paint compositions break down the scale of the concrete tilt up walls. The proposed exterior elevations consist of painted concrete tilt-up panels and blue-glazed glass. The exterior of the buildings will be grey with blue accent trim along the parapet and exterior building materials will include metal awnings.
Generally, buildings to the surrounding the Project site vary in height. At a maximum height of 44 feet, the proposed building complements neighboring buildings. Further, the 50-foot setback from the nearest adjacent residence aids in reducing perceived massing and scale.
With respect to the design of the proposed buildings, the applicant has chosen a design in a “Contemporary” architectural style, which is compatible with the surrounding structures. The exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship-related detailing also relate to the neighboring buildings. To provide additional articulation, the applicant has added varied roof heights and recessed façades on all elevations.
2. The project is consistent with the Milpitas Zoning Ordinance.
The Project site is zoned M2 (Heavy Industrial). Although tenants of the proposed facility have yet been identified, it is anticipated that the facility would operate as a logistics/fulfillment center. A logistics/fulfillment center is considered a “distribution facility” under Table XI-10-
7.02-1 “Industrial Zone Uses”, and, therefore, is a permitted use in the M2 Zoning District. As demonstrated in Table 3, with the exception of the maximum height limit, the Project complies with the required setbacks, number of parking spaces, landscaped area, and maximum floor area ratio. The proposed signage will be reviewed under a separate permit.
With a proposed height of 44 feet, the Project would exceed the maximum height limit in the M2 zone, and therefore, the Planning Commission must find that any such excess height will not be detrimental to the light, air or privacy of any other structure or use currently existing or anticipated, pursuant to MMC Table XI-10-7.03-1. Given that heights of surrounding structures vary and there are sufficient setbacks between the proposed building and structures on adjacent parcels, the proposed height of the Project would not be detrimental to the light, air, or privacy of any other structure.
Therefore, the Project is consistent with the Milpitas Zoning Code.
3. The project is consistent with the Milpitas General Plan.
The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Manufacturing (MFG). This classification encompasses a variety of light and heavy industrial activities, such as manufacturing, packaging, processing, warehousing and distribution, and ancillary support uses.
The Project meets several of the goals and policies of the Land Use, Circulation, Community DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
Resolution No. 21-006, 1000 Gibraltar Drive Page 3
Development, Conservation, and Noise Elements of General Plan. The Project is consistent with the General Plan, for instance, because varying heights of surrounding structures on adjacent properties and the Project’s ample setbacks ensure that the Project would not be detrimental to the light, air, or privacy of any other adjacent structure. Further, the proposed Project would replace a vacant, 39 year-old corporate campus with a new facility for industrial uses, which are permitted in the M2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning District. Also, the proposed Project would not result in adverse effects on intersection operations under existing, near-term, and cumulative conditions and the driveways of the proposed Project will be constructed to City of Milpitas design standards, including the provision of adequate sight distance between vehicles exiting the driveways and autos and bicyclists travelling on the adjacent roadways and would not adversely affect bicycle and pedestrian circulation. Additionally, by retaining 100 trees and proposing to install 215 trees of similar species to those removed and limiting the building height to 44 feet while proposing a minimum setback of 50 feet, the Project maintains positive features of the site and considers the scale of the existing buildings in the surrounding neighborhood in its design.
The proposed industrial building complements the “Contemporary” architectural style of surrounding buildings, has a maximum height of 44 feet, and a minimum setback of 50 feet and, therefore, ensures that the redevelopment reinforces desirable elements of its neighborhood, including architectural style, scale, and setback patterns. To minimize conflicts with adjacent properties and minimize operations from public right-of-way, five driveways ranging in widths of 30 to 50 feet would be provided along South Milpitas Boulevard and Gibraltar Drive, truck dock yards are wider than typical at 125 feet, allowing for interior maneuverability within the truck courts, and parking areas and loading bays will be screened from the right-of-way by eight- foot tall green screens along South Milpitas Boulevard and Gibraltar Drive.
The proposed Project would redevelop a vacant, underutilized site and contribute to the mix of industrial uses in the area along South Milpitas Boulevard. Moreover, the Project could generate local employment opportunities, both in short-term construction employment and long-term Project employment and improve the quality of life for Milpitas residents through job creation, revenue generation and other associated Project benefits. While the Project may be inconsistent with some of the objectives of the General Plan and may have some significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, on balance, the benefits of the Project appear to outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects.
SECTION 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas hereby adopts Resolution No. 21-006 approving Site Development Permit P-SD19-0008, Tree Removal P-TR19-0007 and Environmental Assessment P-EA20-0004, based on the above Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1 incorporated herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas on March 24, 2021.
___________________________________
Chair
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1 Apr-08-2021
Resolution No. 21-006, 1000 Gibraltar Drive Page 4
TO WIT:
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the following resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas on March 24, 2021, and carried by the following roll call vote:
EXHIBIT 1
COMMISSIONER AYES
NOES ABSENT ABSTAIN
Steve Tao, Chair
Mercedes Albana
Timothy Alcorn
Steve Belong
Bill Chuan
Larry Ciardella
Alexander Galang
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
Resolution No. 21-006, 1000 Gibraltar Drive Page 5
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Site Development Permit P-SD19-0008, Tree Removal Permit P-TR19-0007, Environmental Assessment P-EA20-0004
1000 Gibraltar Drive (APN: 86-42-033)
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. General Compliance. The Permittee and owner, including all successors in interest (collectively "Permittee") shall comply with each and every condition set forth in this Site Development Permit P-SD19-0008, Tree Removal Permit P-TR19-0007, Environmental Assessment P-EA20-0004, shall have no force or effect and no building permit shall be issued unless and until all things required by the below-enumerated precedent conditions have been performed or caused to be performed. The Permittee shall develop the site in accordance with the approved Attachments and as modified by these Conditions of Approval and by the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program attached to and incorporated into Resolution No. 21-007.
2. Effective Date. Unless there is a timely appeal filed in accordance with the Milpitas Zoning Code, the date of approval of this Permit is the date on which the Planning Commission approved this Permit.
3. Acceptance of Permit. Should Permittee fail to file a timely appeal within twelve (12) calendar days of the date of approval of this Permit, inaction by Permittee shall be deemed to constitute each of the following:
a. Acceptance of this Permit by Permittee; and
b. Agreement by the Permittee to be bound by, comply with, and to do all things required of or by Permittee pursuant to all of the terms, obligations, and conditions of this Permit.
4. Project Job Account. If Permittee's project job account is at any time delinquent or below the required deposit amount, City will not continue to review or process the application until Permittee's project job account is paid in full and the required deposit has been made.
Additionally, prior to the issuance of any building permit or occupancy permit, as applicable, Permittee shall pay in full the Project account balance and establish a remaining balance of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the required initial deposit.
5. Notice. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66020, any protest filed in court relating to the imposition of fees, dedication, reservations, or other exactions to be imposed on the development project shall be filed within ninety (90) days after the date of the adoption of this Resolution. This provision serves as notice from the local agency to the Permittee that the ninety (90) day period in which the Permittee may file a protest has begun under California Government Code Section 66020(d)(1).
6. Cost and Approval. Permittee shall fully complete and satisfy each and every condition set forth in this Resolution and any other condition applicable to the Project to the sole DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
Resolution No. 21-006, 1000 Gibraltar Drive Page 6
satisfaction of the City. Additionally, Permittee shall be solely responsible and liable for the cost to satisfy each and every condition.
7. Conditions. Each and every condition set forth in this Exhibit shall apply to the Project and continue to apply to the Project so long as the Permittee is operating the Project under the permits and approvals in this Resolution.
8. Compliance with Laws. The construction, use, and all related activity authorized under this Permit shall comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules, regulations, guidelines, requirements and policies. (CA/P)
9. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Permittee shall indemnify, defend with counsel of the City's choosing, and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to (i) City's approval of the project, including, but not limited to, the approval of the discretionary permits, maps under the Subdivision Map Act, and/or the City's related determinations or actions under the California Environmental Quality Act, and (ii) Permittee's construction, operation, use or related activity under this Permit. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by Permittee, City and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. Permittee shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees and damages, which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. Permittee shall pay to the City upon demand or, as applicable, to counsel of City's choosing, any amount owed pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. The above indemnification is intended to be as broad as permitted by applicable law. To the extent the above indemnification is limited by Government Code Section 66474.9.
10. Permittee shall provide certificate of insurance and name City in policy.
11. Revocation, Suspension, Modification. This Permit may be suspended, revoked, or modified in accordance with Section XI-10-63.06 of the Milpitas Zoning Code.
12. Severability. If any term, provision, or condition of this Permit is held to be illegal or unenforceable by the Court, such term, provision or condition shall be severed and shall be inoperative, and the remainder of this Permit shall remain operative, binding and fully enforceable.
13. Permittee is notified that references to State regulations, City ordinances, and any other documents or requirements shall mean the rules in effect at the time of building permit issuance. (E)
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
Resolution No. 21-006, 1000 Gibraltar Drive Page 7
14. Minor Modifications: Any minor modifications to this Permit are subject to approval by the Planning Director.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: PLANNING
15. The Permittee shall develop the approved project in conformance with the approved plans and color and materials board approved by the Planning Commission on March 24, 2021, in accordance with these Conditions of Approval and the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. (P)
16. Any deviation from the approved site plan, floor plans, elevations, materials, colors, landscape plan, or other approved submittal shall require that, prior to the issuance of building permits, the Permittee shall submit modified plans and any other applicable materials as required by the City for review and obtain the approval of the Planning Director or Designee. If the Planning Director or designee determines that the deviation is significant, the Permittee shall be required to apply for review and obtain approval of the Planning Commission, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. (P)
17. The project approval shall become null and void if the project is not commenced within 18 months from the date of approval. Pursuant to Section XI-10-64.06 of the Zoning Code of the City of Milpitas, since the project requires the issuance of a building permit, the project shall not be deemed to have commenced until the date the building permit is issued. (P)
18. Pursuant to Section XI-10-64.07 of the Zoning Code of the City of Milpitas, the owner or designee shall have the right to request an extension of the project if said request is made, filed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to expiration dates set forth herein. (P)
19. Environmental: The project is subject to the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting program in the 1000 Gibraltar Drive Environmental Impact Report (EIR), dated March 2021. (P)
20. Park In-Lieu Fee: Prior to building permit issuance, the Permittee shall pay a park in-lieu fee in accordance with the applicable sections of the Milpitas Municipal Code. This fee will be calculated and confirmed at the time of building permit approval.
21. PJ Account: If at the time of application for building permit, there is a past due project job account balance owed to the City for recovery of review fees, review of permits will not be initiated until the balance is paid in full. (P)
22. PJ Account: If at the time of application for certificate of occupancy, there is a project job account balance due to the City for recover of review fees, review of permits will not be initiated until the balance is paid in full. (P)
23. Parking: The project shall supply at least 346 vehicle parking spaces and 101 truck trailer spaces onsite. (P)
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
Resolution No. 21-006, 1000 Gibraltar Drive Page 8
25. Lighting: Prior to building permit issuance, the Permittee shall submit details and elevations of all site lighting fixtures to the Planning Division for review and approval. (P)
26. Signage: Prior to approval of any signage for the development, proper applications, depending on signage type will need to be submitted to the Planning Division. (P)
27. Landscape: All planter areas (including containerized planters) shall be serviced by a sprinkler or drip system. (P)
28. Landscape: All required landscaping, as approved on the final landscape plan, shall be replaced and continuously maintained as necessary to provide a permanent, attractive and effective appearance. (P)
29. Landscape: Prior to certificate of occupancy permit issuance, all required landscaping shall be planted in place. (P)
30. Landscape: All landscape planters adjacent to vehicle parking areas or travel lanes shall be contained by a full depth (6” above AC to bottom of structural section of adjacent paving) concrete curb. (P)
31. Mechanical Equipment: All mechanical equipment, ground transformers, and meters shall be located and screened to minimize visual impacts. (P)
32. Rooftop Equipment: Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from street level views through roof design that is architecturally integrated with the building, such as equipment wells and parapets. (P)
33. Public Art Requirement: Permittee shall comply with the City’s Public Art Requirements for Private Development, as set forth in Milpitas Municipal Code Section XI-10-14. Fee shall be no less than one-half of one percent of building development costs and shall be payable at time of building permit issuance. (P)
34. Tree Removal Permit: Removal of any protected trees shall require a tree removal permit that is issued from the Planning Department. Removal of any protected trees shall be replaced at a 2:1 ratio as provided by Tree Removal Permit P-TR19-0007. (P)
35. Significant Deviation of Use: Given that the tenant is unknown at this time, should a future tenant propose a use that significantly deviate from the approved project, the Planning Director or designee may require additional analysis to demonstrate the extent of environmental impact of the proposed use. If the Planning Director or designee determines that the deviation is significant, the Permittee shall be required to apply for review and obtain approval of the Planning Commission, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance.
36. Linkage Fee: Any non-residential development, applicable under the definition set forth in Section XII-1-2.05, is subject to payment of a non-residential affordable housing impact fee.
The applicant shall pay the non-residential impact fees prior to issuance of the building permit.
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
Resolution No. 21-006, 1000 Gibraltar Drive Page 9
Applicable fees will be determined at time of payment. All payment of fees made to the City under this Chapter shall be deposited into the City Affordable Housing Ordinance Fund. (P)
37. The tenant shall annually certify in a written letter to the Planning Department the make,model, and year of trucks making regular deliveries to the facility. (P)
SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING
PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION PLAN SUBMITTALS
The following conditions shall be met prior to any detailed construction plan check submittals (Building or Engineering, except demolition and rough grade plans), unless otherwise approved by the Director of Engineering/City Engineer. City reserves the right to reject any plan check submittal if any of the following conditions are not met. (E)
38. Modifications: The Site Development Plan dated XXXX is subject to change during the plan check stage based upon City’s previous comments and conditions stated herein.
39. Solid Waste and Recycling Handling Plan: Permittee shall submit final Solid Waste and Recycling Handling Plan based upon City’s previous comments for City’s review and approval by the Engineering Department. The subject Plan shall show calculations of waste generation volumes and how materials will be transferred from the waste generation areas to the trash enclosure/external collection point; demonstrate how recycling shall have a separately maintained process from garbage handling; address other requirements such as waste generation and compactor sizing, chute shut-off and property management responsibility for bin management and litter control; and procure sufficient service frequency.
40. Stormwater Control Plan: Permittee shall submit City approved final Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) that complies with the latest Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, including Low Impact Development (LID) Section C3.c.i.(2)(b) measures for harvesting and reuse, infiltration, or evapo-transpiration, for City’s review and approval by the Engineering Department.
41. Photometric Analysis: Permittee shall submit streetlight photometric analysis for City’s review and approval by the Engineering Department along South Milpitas Boulevard and Gibraltar Drive that meet the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA), RP8, for roadway and sidewalk lighting standards and City standard design guidelines.
42. Recycle Water Cross-Connection Specialist: In order to comply with the California Code of Regulations Title 17 and 22, and for timely plan approval by the California State Water Resources Control Board/Division of Drinking Water as well as by the South Bay Water Recycling, Permittee must hire a certified cross-connection specialist DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
Resolution No. 21-006, 1000 Gibraltar Drive Page 10
for their consultation as to irrigation water system design and construction phasing. The name and contact information of the certified cross-connection specialist shall be provided on all landscape submittal plans.
43. Submittal Requirements: Permittee to ensure that all plan check submittals are in accordance with City’s submittal check list for each permit type, including but not limited to, payment of permit fees and/or fee deposit at the time of the submittal.
44. Project Job Account/Fee Deposit: Permittee shall open a new PJ account as a deposit to cover the costs for Engineering Department’s services for review and inspection of the project. The amount shall be determined based on the public improvement cost estimates as prepared by the Permittee’s engineer.
45. This project shall implement all project mitigation identified in the project EIR and traffic study.
PRIOR TO OFF-SITE PLAN APPROVAL/ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ISSUANCE The following conditions shall be addressed as part of the off-site improvement plan review and shall be met prior to encroachment permit issuance, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Engineering/City Engineer. (E)
46. Public Improvement Design Standards: All public improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable public improvement design standards, including but not limited to:
a) Milpitas Design Guidelines:
(http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/milpitas/departments/engineering/design-guidelines/); b) Standard details and specifications:
(http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/milpitas/departments/engineering/standard-details-and- specifications/);and
c) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, where applicable.
47. Sanitary Sewer Calculations: Permittee shall submit a completed “Sewer Needs Questionnaire” form and sanitary sewer calculations to justify lateral size design, allocation of discharge for each of the lateral, and impact to the existing main.
Permittee shall be responsible to implement any necessary improvements if there is any identified deficiency to the existing main as a result of the project.
48. Storm Drain Design: Permittee shall submit storm drain hydrology and hydraulic calculations based upon a 10-year storm event to justify the size of the storm drain lateral flowing full, without surcharging the main line pipe, and to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department.
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
Resolution No. 21-006, 1000 Gibraltar Drive Page 11
49. Domestic Water and Fire Service Calculations: Permittee shall submit potable water and fire service calculations to confirm adequacy of lateral size, pressure and flow, to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department and Fire Department.
Hydraulic modeling analysis by the City and paid by the Permittee may be required as needed. Permittee shall be responsible to implement any necessary improvements if there is any identified deficiency to the existing main as a result of the project.
50. Specific Improvements: In addition to standard public improvements required under Milpitas Municipal Code (MMC) Title XI, Chapter 1, Section 7, Permittee shall install other specific improvements listed below including incidental improvements as required by the City as part of the encroachment permit. a) Installation of separate water service tap and meter for each of the following services: residential, non-residential, irrigation, and fire. b) Installation of separate utility service lines (domestic water, fire service, sanitary sewer) for residential and non-residential.
c) Installation of radio-transmitted water meters with a meter antenna, any repeaters or transmitters as needed with dedicated power supplies at no cost to the City at locations acceptable to the City to ensure accurate and timely reception of meter readings. Permittee shall execute a recorded instrument providing dedicated space, access rights and dedicated power supplies to the City for operation/maintenance/repair/replacement of subject radio antenna. d) Applicant shall replace all traffic signal equipment at the intersection of South Milpitas Blvd and Ames Avenue impacted by the project with the most current city traffic signal equipment standards.
e) All utilities, both existing and proposed, abutting and crossing the property shall be installed underground. The developer is required to remove all existing utility poles on-site and underground all lines connecting to those poles. f) All new utility service connections, including electrical and communications, shall be installed underground. Electrical transformers shall be installed in underground vaults within an appropriate utility easement or public service easement. g) Truck site access from South Milpitas Blvd shall only be located at Ames Avenue.
h) All property gates to truck parking areas shall be set back from property line to allow queuing of a semi-truck without encroaching into public Right-of-way. i) The north-most right-in and right-out driveway access shall be designed to discourage and prevent left turns into and out of the driveway. j) Provide base repair for all failed pavement areas and micro surface South Milpitas Blvd and Gibraltar Drive frontage to the middle of the street. k) All backflow devices shall be RP and any existing backflow devices, if any, shall be upgraded to RP.
51. Abandonment of Existing City Utilities: Permittee shall cap, abandon or remove any unused existing public utilities based upon City’s Abandonment Notes and to the City’s satisfaction.
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
Resolution No. 21-006, 1000 Gibraltar Drive Page 12
52. Relocation and Adjustment of Existing Public Utilities: Permittee shall relocate and/or adjust existing public utilities as needed that are in conflict with the proposed improvements.
53. Water Service Agreement: Permittee shall complete a water service agreement to obtain water service.
54. Encroachment Permit: Prior to any work in the public right-of-way and/or public easement, obtain an encroachment permit with insurance requirements for all public improvements including a traffic control plan per the latest California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department.
55. Pothole Encroachment Permit: Due to multiple new utility service connections on South Milpitas Boulevard and Gibraltar Drive, Permittee shall pothole and verify all potential utility crossing conflict as part of the public improvement plan during the design stage.
56. Utility Consent: All affected utility owners shall provide consent in writing regarding the proximity of the proposed utilities to their facilities.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE
The following conditions shall be addressed during the building plan check process and shall be met prior to any building permit issuance (except demolition permit and rough grade permit), unless otherwise approved by the Director of Engineering/City Engineer. (E)
57. Abandonment/Quitclaim Easements: Permittee shall abandon/quit claim existing easements that are in conflict with or unnecessary for the project.
58. Concurrent Off-site Plan Reviews: Permittee shall submit separate off-site improvement plans for City’s review and approval by the Engineering Department.
59. Utility Company Approval: Permittee shall obtain approval letters from utility companies (PG&E, AT&T, Comcast) for abandonment of existing and dedication of new public service utilities easements.
60. Improvement Agreement and Securities: Permittee shall execute an Improvement Agreement and provide improvement securities in accordance with MMC Title X, Chapter 1, Section 8, and submit all other supplemental documents as stipulated in the Improvement Agreement (such as certificate of insurance).
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
Resolution No. 21-006, 1000 Gibraltar Drive Page 13
61. Easements on the Building Permit Plans: Permittee shall depict all existing easements to remain based upon current preliminary title report and depict new easements on applicable building permit plans.
62. Stormwater Facility Operation & Maintenance Plan: Permittee shall incorporate design details into applicable construction plans in accordance with City approved Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP). Permittee shall also submit Stormwater Facility Operation & Maintenance Plan that describes operation and maintenance procedures needed to ensure that treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other storm water control measures continue to work as intended and do not create a nuisance (including vector control).
63. Stormwater Management Facilities O&M Agreement: Permittee shall execute and record a Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement associated with the SWCP O&M Plan, including perpetual maintenance of treatment areas/units, as reviewed and accepted by the Engineering Department. The subject O&M Agreement shall be referenced in the CC&Rs, if applicable.
64. Water Supply and Force Majeure: The City reserves the right to suspend the issuance of building permits in case of an emergency declaration of water supply in the case of a major catastrophic event that restricts City’s assurance to provide water supply.
65. Recycle Water Approval: Permittee shall use recycled water for landscape irrigation purpose, except for the interior courtyard/podium areas within the building footprint where the potable water shall be used for irrigation. Permittee shall comply with California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3, titled “Water Recycling Criteria”, CCR, Title 17, Division 1, Chapter 5, Subchapter 1 titled “Drinking Water Supply” and all other recycled water regulations as listed under the publication titled “California Department of Public Health Regulations Related to Recycled Water June 18, 2014”. Permittee shall obtain approval from the California State Water Resources Control Board/Division of Drinking Water, South Bay Water Recycling and the City for recycled water design, including but not limited to on-site irrigation design, based upon South Bay Water Recycling Guidelines and City of Milpitas Supplemental Guidelines. All landscape plants shall be compatible with recycled water.
66. Water Efficient Landscapes: Permittee shall comply with Milpitas Municipal Code Title VIII, Chapter 5 Water Efficient Landscapes for landscape design, including but not limited to, providing separate water meters for domestic water service and irrigation service and providing applicable landscape documentation package.
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
Resolution No. 21-006, 1000 Gibraltar Drive Page 14
67. Solid Waste and Recycling Facility Design: Permittee shall comply with all applicable City design guidelines/details associated with haul route, turning radius, vertical and horizontal clearance, trash enclosure, staging area, storage area, etc.
68. Recycling Report Prior to Demolition Permit Issuance: Permittee shall submit Part I of a Recycling Report on business letterhead to the Building Department, for forwarding to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The report shall describe the following resource recovery activities:
a) What materials will be salvaged.
b) How materials will be processed during demolition.
c) Intended locations or businesses for reuse or recycling. d) Quantity estimates in tons (both recyclable and for landfill disposal). Estimates for recycling and disposal tonnage amounts by material type shall be included as separate items in all reports to the Building Division before demolition begins.
Permittee shall make every effort to salvage materials for reuse and recycling, and shall comply with the City’s demolition and construction debris recycling ordinance.
69. Recycling Report Prior to Building Permit Issuance: Permittee shall submit Part II of the Recycling Report to the Building Department, for forwarding to the Engineering Department. Part II of the Recycling Report shall be supported by copies of weight tags and/or receipts of “end dumps.” Actual reuse, recycling and disposal tonnage amounts (and estimates for “end dumps”) shall be submitted to the Building Department for approval by the Engineering Department prior to inspection by the Building Department.
69. Development Fees: Permittee shall pay the following development fees. The information listed in items “a” through “f” are based upon current fee rates; however, those fee rates are subject to change. The exact fee amount shall be determined at the time of building permit fee payment.
a) Storm water connection fee at $16,771/acre for residential and $21,562/acre for commercial.
b) Water connection fee at $1,164/unit for residential and $5.97/gpd for commercial, based upon increased water usage.
c) Sewer connection fee at $1,406/unit for residential and $8.52/gpd for commercial, based upon increased average wastewater flow. d) Wastewater Treatment Plant fee per MMC VIII, Chapter 2, Section 7.04. e) Calaveras Boulevard Widening Traffic Impact fee per Resolution No. 7894. f) 3.8% of applicable fees in accordance with City Resolution No. 8969 as Permitting Automation Fee.
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
Resolution No. 21-006, 1000 Gibraltar Drive Page 15
DURING CONSTRUCTION
The following conditions shall be complied with at all times during the construction phase of the project, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Engineering/City Engineer. (E)
70. Dewatering: If dewatering is needed during construction, Permittee shall obtain a Short-Term Industrial Wastewater Permit from the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant for discharging the groundwater to a sanitary sewer system.
71. On-site Recycle Water Coordination: Permittee’s cross-connection specialist shall coordinate the phasing of the construction; facilitate the cross-connection testing in order to minimize the impact for occupied buildings during cross-connection testing; sign-off before the water meter set; coordinate on-site construction inspection; complete the site inspection; fill out required paperwork/questionnaire; and provide them to the City for forwarding to South Bay Water Recycling.
72. Prohibition of Potable Water Usage: Permittee shall use recycled water for construction purposes, including dust control and compaction. Permittee shall comply with MMC Sections VIII-6-5.00 and 6-6.00 where potable water usage is prohibited, unless otherwise approved by the City Council.
73. Construction Staging and Employee Parking: Permittee shall place all construction related materials, equipment, and arrange construction workers parking on-site and not located in the public right-of-ways or public easements.
74. Water Shut-down Plan: Permittee shall provide a water shut-down plan at least seven days in advance of the shut-down in coordination with the Engineering Inspector, and notify affected property owners/tenants when cut-in tee(s) is/are required.
PRIOR TO FIRST OCCUPANCY
The following conditions shall be met prior to first building occupancy on either lot, unless otherwise approved the Director of Engineering/City Engineer.
75. Completion of Public Improvements: Permittee shall complete all public improvements, including but not limited to South Milpitas Boulevard, frontage improvements along Gibraltar Drive as shown on City approved plans.
76. Landscape Certificate of Completion: Permittee shall submit a Certificate of Completion that complies with the Milpitas Municipal Code Water Efficient Landscapes ordinance.
77. Certificate of Cross-Connection: Permittee shall ensure that the cross-connection specialist complete the required recycled water construction inspection checklist, cross connection test results and any special inspection checklist as required by the South DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
Resolution No. 21-006, 1000 Gibraltar Drive Page 16
Bay Recycling Program http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=1595 and forward them to the City.
78. Record Drawings: Permittee shall submit record drawings in AutoCAD, Tiff, and PDF formats for City records. Record drawings shall include all public improvements.
Additionally, if the project uses recycled water, the permittee shall also submit record drawings of on-site irrigation facilities.
79. Private Job (PJ) Balance: Permittee shall pay for any remaining balance from the Private Job deposit.
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
The plans approved by the Planning Commission are not building construction plans and have not been reviewed nor approved for conformance to the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC) and the Milpitas Municipal Code (MMC). Do not consider this review as a final review for building construction plans approved by the Fire Department.
Building construction plans must be submitted for review and approval before construction is to commence. The following notes are a general list of the applicable code requirements (2019 Edition) and are provided to assist with the building permit process. Please note that these are not all inclusive. All applicable Building, Fire and Municipal Code requirements must be met in advance of any building permit approvals or related construction.
80. Technical Assistance: To determine the acceptability of technologies, processes, products, facilities, materials, and uses attending the design, operation or use of a building or premises subject to inspection by the Fire Code Official, the Fire Code Official is authorized to require the owner or agent to provide, without charge to the jurisdiction, a technical opinion(s), plan review(s) and/or report(s). CFC Section 104.7.2
81. Occupancy and Building Analysis. As part of the construction permit process (Building Permit application), the “Use and Occupancy Classification” shall be provided for all areas of the building in conformance with Chapter 3 of the California Building Code (CBC) and a complete “General Building Area, Height and Construction Type” analysis shall be done for the whole building in conformance to the California Building Code Chapter 5. And an Occupancy Load and Exiting analysis shall be done as per Chapter 10 of the CBC. Changes and or modifications required in order to be in conformance with the California Building Codes shall be incorporated into the construction documents. CFC Section 102.3
82. Electronic documents: The Fire Code Official will require electronic base documents for all construction documents and operational permits. The Fire Code Official shall designate the software base format for the electronic documents. CFC Section 105.4.2.2, added by MMC Section V-300-2.11, and CFC Section 102.9 DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
Resolution No. 21-006, 1000 Gibraltar Drive Page 17
83. Fire Department Access: Fire Department apparatus and staff access shall be provided to all buildings and site. Detailed review will be done during construction permit process. The plans submitted appear to be in general conformance with the requirements. Final design shall meet the requirements listed below. CFC Section 503
a) Adjacent Access. No source of access from lands adjoining a property to be developed shall be considered unless there is obtained the irrevocable and unobstructed right to use same. CFC Section 508.3, added by MMC Section V-300-2.48
b) Fire apparatus access roads shall meet the Milpitas Fire Department turning radii guidelines and shall provide continuous apparatus travel. Turning radii for fire apparatus access roads shall be a minimum net clearance of 48 feet 6 inches for the outside radius and 28 feet 0 inches for the inside radius. The layout for the outside and the inside radius shall be from the same reference point (centre). California Fire Code Section 503
For intersections between private streets and public streets (or collector streets), the fire truck movements shall stay within the designated travel lane as it leaves and enters from private to public streets (or collector streets) and vice-versa.
c) Fire apparatus access roads shall provide a minimum clear width of 26 feet.
This requirement is for the use and function of a fire ladder apparatus. International Fire Code, Appendix D, Sections D103.1 and D105, adopted and amended by Milpitas Municipal Code.
d) Fire apparatus access shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of exterior walls of the homes/buildings per the California Fire Code Section 503.1. When there is a dead-end condition, means for fire apparatus turn-around shall be provided. The Fire Department reserves the right to request site design changes as needed to meet the requirements of the CFC, and/or make the request for additional fire protection measures in conformance with the CFC Section 102.9.
e) Fire apparatus access roads/lanes and emergency vehicle roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced to provide all-weather capabilities. Fire apparatus roads shall be paved (concrete and/or asphalt cement) no other material is accepted. Design bearing criteria shall be based on the City of Milpitas’ fire apparatus Sutphen S95 Aerial Platform unit and subject to Milpitas Fire Department review and approval. Please contact the Fire Prevention Division if specifications are needed. CFC Section 503.2.3
f) Ground structures, landscape and building projections shall not encroach or impede the fire apparatus access requirements. CFC Section 503.4
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
Resolution No. 21-006, 1000 Gibraltar Drive Page 18
g) No parking in fire access roads. The required access road shall be designated and clearly marked as a fire lane. The designated fire lane shall be identified as set forth in Section 22500.1 of the Vehicle Code. The designation shall be indicated (1) by a sign posted immediately adjacent to, and visible from, the designated place clearly stating in letters not less than one inch in height that the place is a fire lane, (2) by outlining or painting the place in red and, in contrasting color, marking the place with the words "FIRE LANE", which are clearly visible from a vehicle, or (3) by a red curb or red paint on the edge of the roadway upon which is clearly marked the words "FIRE LANE." Milpitas Fire Dept. requires posted signs (1) and one other (2) or (3) signage.
CFC Section 503.3
Minimum requirements shall include (1) posted signs and (3) red curbs with FIRE LANE stencil.
h) Site Design Changes: The Fire Department reserves the right to request site design changes as needed to meet the requirements of the CFC, and/or make the request for additional fire protection measures in conformance with the CFC Section 102.9.
84. Fire Protection. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed and made serviceable during the time of construction.
Combustible construction shall not begin until water mains and hydrants are operational and fire apparatus access roads are installed (paved). CFC Section 501.4
85. Fire Protection Water Supply (hydrants, on-site and public)
a) The utilities plans submitted are not approved for construction. Detailed review will be done during the construction permit process.
b) An approved water supply (hydrants, on-site and public) capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided upon which facilities, buildings, or portions of buildings are hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. Water supply shall meet the Fire Code and the City Engineering Division water supply guidelines. CFC 507, Appendix B and Appendix C
Industrial areas shall have a fire flow not less than 5,000 gpm, with 20 psi residual pressure. (outflow from 1 or 2 hydrants hydrant).
Exceptions for reduction of fire flow under Appendix B (Section B105.2) are not permitted.
c) Water System Calculations. Private fire service mains and appurtenances shall be designed and installed in accordance with the City of Milpitas Engineering design guideline requirements and the NFPA 24. Provide calculations and all the necessary design information for the water system to meet the domestic and fire flow DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
Resolution No. 21-006, 1000 Gibraltar Drive Page 19
requirements as per the City Engineer water design requirements. CFC Section 507
d) The final location and quantify of hydrants will be evaluation during the construction permit process. This applies to the on-site private as well as to the public streets. CFC Section 507.5
e) Private hydrants shall have the bottom 6 inches of the hydrant painted, with a weather resistive paint, white in color. CFC Section 507.5.7, added by MMC Section V-300-2.54
f) Minimum size water line for hydrants shall be not less than 6” diameter. City Standards and NFPA 24.
g) No parking is permitted in front of fire hydrants. Hydrants located on streets (public or private streets) shall have an unobstructed clearance of not less than 30 feet per CA Vehicle Code 22514. Provide stripping per CA Vehicle Code 22500.1. CFC Section 507.5.4.
86. Fire service water laterals for sprinkler systems.
a) Fire service water laterals for the automatic fire sprinkler system shall meet the California Fire Code requirements Chapter 9 and the NFPA applicable Standards.
Note, the utilities drawings provided are not reviewed nor approved for construction.
CFC 912.1
An independent, from the hydrants, fire service water supply laterals for the sprinkler systems shall be provided for the building (fire pump). NFPA 13, Chapter 23
b) The location of the FDC’s/PIV’s (fire department connection/post indicator valve) shall be at a readily accessible location and approved by the Fire Code Official.
FDC’s/PIV’s shall not be located behind parking stalls nor behind any other obstruction. Detailed review for locations will be done during construction permit process. CFC Section 912.3
c) Fire pump room and access. There shall be direct and unobstructed access to the fire pump room.
d) Fire Pump power. PG&E is not considered a reliable source of power. Standby power will be a requirement. Or provide other listed (listed by a national recognized testing lab) and approved (approved by the local fire dept.) means of power for the fire pump. CA Fire Code Section 102.9
e) Buildings equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system and or a standpipe system installed in accordance with Sections 903 and or 905 shall have a fire hydrant within 50 feet of the fire department connections. California Fire Code, Section 507.5.1.1 amended by V-300-2.53
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
Resolution No. 21-006, 1000 Gibraltar Drive Page 20
f) FDC/PIV Signage. A metal sign with raised letters at least 1 inch in size shall be mounted on all fire department connections. Signage shall be approved by the Fire Code Official. CFC Section 912.4
g) Automatic fire sprinkler riser location. Fire risers shall be located indoors where they are weather protected. The fire sprinkler system riser shall not be located within electrical rooms or storage closets and shall be provided with clear access and working clearance. California Fire Code Section 903.3.5.3, added by MMC Section V-300-
2.67 h) Backflow Protection. Potable water supply to automatic sprinkler and standpipe systems shall be protected against backflow as required by the Health and Safety Code section 13114.7 and the City of Milpitas Utilities Engineering Division. CFC Section 912.5
i) All new installations of sprinkler systems shall preclude sprinkler test and system drain water from discharging into the storm drain; provisions to direct water to the sanitary sewer or landscape or other approved means shall be provided. Sprinkler system design shall include the proposed method for drainage of sprinkler system discharge.
Storm Water Pollution Regulations
87. Building/Structure Requirements.
a) Access Control Devices: When access control devices including bars, grates, gates, electric or magnetic locks or similar devices, which would inhibit rapid fire department emergency access to the building, are installed, such devices shall be approved by the Fire Code Official. All access control devices shall be provided with an approved means for deactivation or unlocking by the fire department. Access control devices shall also comply with Chapter 10 Egress. CFC Section 504.6, added by MMC Section V-300-2.51
b) Premises Identification: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numerals or alphabet letters and shall be consistent with Milpitas standardized addressing guidelines. CFC Section 505. The Fire Dept. may require the installation of address numbers at multiple building locations. CFC Section 102.9
c) Address Illumination: All required addresses shall be illuminated. CFC Section 505.3, added by MMC V-300-2.52.
d) Fire Department Emergency Key Box (aka: Knox Box, Knox Locks, Knox Electric Switches, etc.): The Fire Code Official is authorized to require a key box(es) to be installed in an approved location(s) if necessary for life-saving or fire-fighting purposes. Quantity and location shall be as directed by the Fire Code Official. CFC DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
Resolution No. 21-006, 1000 Gibraltar Drive Page 21
Section 506. Locked mechanical closets, fire alarm closets, sprinkler riser closets, etc. will need a Fire Dept. approved lock or “Knox” key box.
e) Emergency Responder Radio: A Fire Department approved emergency responder radio coverage system may be required. Contact the Milpitas Fire Prevention Division for a copy of the requirements. CFC Section 510, MMC V-300-2.57
f) Fire Equipment ID signs. Fire protection equipment shall be identified in an approved manner. Rooms containing controls for air-conditioning, systems, sprinkler risers and valves, or other fire detection, suppression or control elements hall be identified for the use of the fire department. CFC Section 509
g) Battery Systems. Stationary storage battery systems when installed may need to meet the requirements of the CA Fire Section 608.
h) All buildings/structures shall be provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system in conformance with the NFPA 13 Standard. California Fire Code Section 903.3
i) Portable fire extinguishers shall be selected, installed and maintained in accordance with CFC Section 906.
j) All valves controlling the water supply for the automatic sprinkler system shall be electrically supervised by a listed fire alarm control unit. CFC 904.3
k) Electrical supervision of the automatic fire sprinkler system shall be transmitted to an approved supervising station. CFC 903.4.1
l) One exterior approved audible device (for each riser) shall be connected to every automatic sprinkler system in an approved (by the Fire Code Official) location. CFC 903.4.2
m) A fire alarm system shall be installed when required in the buildings when required by the CA Fire Code Section 907.
n) Fire alarm panel shall be located in a readily accessible location and shall be provided with necessary access and working clearance as required by the CA Electrical Code.
o) Fire alarm monitoring (Approved supervising station - UL, or FM approved). Fire alarm systems required by the Fire Code or by the California Building Code shall be monitored by an approved supervising station in accordance with the NFPA 72. CFC 907.6.5
p) No approval for hazardous materials under this review.
88. Electrical Generators (when part of the project):
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
Resolution No. 21-006, 1000 Gibraltar Drive Page 22
a) Fuel tank(s) located below grade shall be considered underground tanks in accordance with the California code of Regulations, Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 16 (State Underground Tank Regulations).
b) If the fuel tank system(s) is not to be considered an underground tank, as defined by the underground tank regulations, provide documentation demonstrating compliance with the specified State Water Resource Control Board’s Guidance letter LG-165-2.
c) Construction drawings, for the fuel tank, shall be submitted to the City for compliance with the California Fire Code Chapters 27 and 34.
89. Landscape sheets: The proposed landscaping may be impacted by the comments above and the requirements for fire access, fire systems and devices (such as apparatus access, hydrants, fire service lines, fire department connections valves, etc.). The Fire Dept. reserves the right to relocate, delete or change the proposed landscaping when in conflict with fire systems and devices. CFC Section 507.5.4.
90. Plan Submittal: Complete plans and specifications for all aspects of fire protection systems shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to system installation. CFC Section 901.2
BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
General
91. Applicable codes shall be 2019 California Building Code (CBC), California Mechanical Code (CMC), California Electrical Code (CEC), California Plumbing Code (CPC), Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen), California Energy Code (CEnC) and 2020 Milpitas Municipal Code (MMC).
92. Engineer or Architect licensed in the State of California shall prepare the plans.
Structural design calculations and plans shall be wet signed and stamped when applying for a building permit.
93. Applicant shall apply for new building addresses prior to submitting for a building permit.
94. Building area and height shall not exceed allowable as per CBC sec.503.1.
95. Exterior walls rating shall comply with CBC Table 602. Exterior walls shall be provided with parapets as per CBC sec.705.11.
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
Resolution No. 21-006, 1000 Gibraltar Drive Page 23
96. Protection of openings shall comply with CBC section 705.8 and Table 705.8.
97. Roofing material shall be as per CBC Table 1505.1.
98. Provide exit signs when two exits are required per CBC section 1013.1 and 1013.3.
99. Required separation in buildings with mixed occupancies shall be per CBC sec. 508.
100. Elevator shall not open into enclosed stairway enclosure as per CBC sec.1023.4.
101. In non-sprinklered buildings stairway shall provide accessible means of egress as per CBC sec.1009.1, including area of refuge as per sec.1009.6.
102. Elevator size shall meet requirements of the medical emergency service as per CBC sec.3002.4a.
103. New buildings or additions of 25,000sq ft or over shall comply with Green Building Ordinance per MMC II-20.
Accessibility
104. People with disabilities accessible parking shall be provided as per CBC sec. 11B-208.1
105. Accessible parking spaces shall be dispersed and located closest to the accessible entrances as per CBC sec.11B-208.3.1
106. One in every six accessible parking spaces, but not less than one parking space shall be van accessible as per CBC sec.11B-208.2.4.
107. Accessibility signs shall be provided at every primary public entrance, at every major junction along or leading to an accessible route of travel and at building entrance that are accessible as per CBC section 11B-216.6.
108. Provide accessible path of travel from sidewalk to the accessible entrance as per CBC sec. 11B-206.2.1.
109. Curb ramps shall have detectable warnings extending 36 inches in the direction of travel as per CBC sec.11B-406.5.12 and sec.11B-705.1.2.2.
110. All primary entrances and required exit doors shall be accessible to people with disabilities as per CBC sec. 11B-206.4.1.
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
Resolution No. 21-006, 1000 Gibraltar Drive Page 24
Engineering
111. A soil report shall be provided when applying for grading, site improvement and building permit.
112. Paving of parking lot shall comply with MMC section II-13-18.
113. All non-structural concrete flat work shall be as per Milpitas Municipal Code, section II-13-17.05.
114. Erosion control plan shall be submitted when applying for grading permit as per Milpitas Municipal Code sec. II-13-10.
115. Prior to issuance of building permit, all the easements including private storm drain easement through adjacent parcels shall be recorded. The developer shall include interim erosion control provisions and schedules on the construction plans for areas, which will not have permanent erosion control features installed (such as landscaping) prior to any occupancy so that erosion and sediment control can be sustained through the rainy season as per Milpitas Municipal Code section II-13-11.
Electrical
116. All new electrical services shall be underground per MMC sec. II-6-2.02.
117. Grounding system shall comply with MMC sec. II-6-2.04. 118. Each tenant in the building shall be provided with separate disconnect as per City Policy BDP-EL02.
Plumbing
119. The minimum number of plumbing fixtures in the building shall be determined as per CPC sec.422.1 and Table 422.1.
Structural
120. Provide two complete sets of structural design calculations (vertical and lateral) and five sets of construction plans and details when applying for a building permit. Plans and calculations shall be wet signed and stamped by Civil/Structural Engineer.
Key:
(P) = Planning
(B) = Building
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
Resolution No. 21-006, 1000 Gibraltar Drive Page 25
(E) = Engineering
(F) = Fire Prevention
(CA) = City Attorney
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO PROTEST
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), began on date of adoption of this resolution. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
AGREEMENT
Permittee/Property Owner
The undersigned agrees to each and every condition of approval and acknowledges the NOTICE OF RIGHT TO PROTEST and hereby agrees to use the Project property on the terms and conditions set forth in this resolution.
Dated: _________________ ______________________________________ Signature of Permittee
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2
1 -
007
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF
THE CITY OF MILPITAS
CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH # 2020069024) FOR THE 1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE PROJECT; ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT;
AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A
MITIGATION M
ONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
WHEREAS
, the 1000 Gibraltar Drive project (“Project”) proposes to redevelop an approximately 28.91
-
acre property w
ithin the City of Milpitas (“City”) as a logistics center; and
WHEREAS
, the Project site is located within the south
-
central portion of the City,
bounded by South Milpitas Boulevard to the east, Gibraltar Drive to the south and west, and by a multi
-
tenan
t office building to the north (Assessor Parcel Number: 086 -
42 -
033); and
WHEREAS
, the Project requires approval of a Site Development Permit (P -
SD19
-
0008),
and
Tree Removal Permit (P
-
TR19
-
000
7); and
WHEREAS
, the Project proposes a new 491,040
-
square foot tilt
-
up concrete creative
industrial building with two supporting offices at 1000 Gibraltar Drive in the City of Milpitas.
Approximately 486,130 square feet of warehouse and 4,910 square feet of office spac e is proposed;
and
WHEREAS
, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code §§
21000
et seq.
) (“CEQA”), section 15367 of the
State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §
15000
et seq.
), an
d the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines, the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS
, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared in order to analyze all potential
adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS
,
the City issued a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the Draft EIR on June 12, 2020, which was sent to each responsible and trustee agency and the Office of Planning and
Research (
“
OPR
”
); and
WHEREAS
, in the NOP, the City solicited comments
from individuals, organizations and
agencies regarding the environmental analysis, mitigation measures and alternatives to be included in the Draft EIR
; and
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
2 WHEREAS
,
the City held a
public scoping meeting
on June 25, 2020
to
further solicit
comments on the scope of the Draft EIR
; and
WHEREAS
, on December 23, 2020, the City initiated a 52
-
day public review and
comment period of the Draft EIR for the proposed Project and released the Draft EIR for public review and comment; and
WHEREAS
, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086, the City
consulted with
and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others during the 52
-
day public review and comment period; and
WHEREAS
, the City received ten comment letters from agencies and individuals du ring
the 52
-
day public review and comment period; and
WHEREAS
, the City has prepared a Final EIR, consisting of the comments received during the 52
-
day public review and comment period on the Draft EIR, written responses to those comments, and revisions to
the Draft EIR. For the purposes of this Resolution, the “EIR” shall refer to the Draft EIR, as revised by the Final EIR, together with the other sections of the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS
,
the City held a virtual public meeting
on February 1, 2021 to allow
interested
parties an opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the Draft EIR.
WHEREAS
, the EIR analyzed two alternatives to the Project, examining the environmental impacts of each alternative as well as the ability of the alternatives to meet Project o
bjectives; and
WHEREAS
, on March 24, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Project, at which all persons wishing to testify were heard; and
WHEREAS
, the environmental impacts identified in the EIR that the City finds are of no impact o
r constitute a less than significant impact and do not require mitigation are described in Section 2 hereof; and
WHEREAS
, the environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially significant but which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of les s than significant through the incorporation
of feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 3 hereof; and
WHEREAS
, the environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially significant but which th
e City finds cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
3 of feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 4 hereof; and
WHEREAS
, the cumulative impacts of the Project
identified in the EIR and set forth
herein are described in Section 5 hereof; and
WHEREAS
, the significant and irreversible environmental changes that would result from the proposed Project, but which would be largely mitigated, and which are identified i n the EIR
and set forth herein, are described in Section 6 hereof; and
WHEREAS
, the existence of any growth
-
inducing impacts resulting from the proposed
Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 7 hereof; and
WHEREAS
, alt
ernatives to the proposed Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section 8 hereof; and
WHEREAS
, the Planning Commission has determined that the benefits of the Project outweigh its potential significant en
vironmental impact, and the basis for that determination is set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations included in Section 9 hereof; and
WHEREAS
, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program setting forth the mitigation measures to
which the City shall bind itself in connection with the Project, is adopted in Section 10 below, and is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; and
WHEREAS
, prior to taking action, the Planning Commission has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all
of the information and data in the administrative record, including the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS
, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission and is
deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and
WHEREAS
, the City has not received any comments or additional information that constituted substantial new information requiring recirculation under Public Resources Code se
ction 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS
, all the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of th
e potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed Project have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS
, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
4 THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MILPITAS DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
RECITALS
The recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by reference as findings of fact.
SECTION 2.
FINDINGS REGARDING LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS NOT
REQUIRING MITIGATION
Consistent
with Public Resources Code section 21002.1 and section 15128 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the EIR focused its analysis on potentially significant impacts, and limited discussion of other impacts for which it can be seen with certainty there is no potentia l for
significant adverse environmental impacts. State CEQA Guidelines section 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as “no impact” or a “less than significant” impact. Nevertheless, the Planning
Commission hereby finds that the Project
would have either no impact or a less than significant impact to the following resource areas:
A.
AESTHETICS
1. Scenic
Vistas
Threshold
:
Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Findings
:
Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR
, p. IV.A
-
3 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 21
-
23 )
Explanation
:
The City of Milpitas General Plan identifies hillt
ops, hillsides, and ridgelines
within Ed Levin Park as scenic resources. These designated scenic areas are far to the east of the Project site. The Project site is not located in an area considered to be within view of a scenic vista.
The proposed Project
site does not consist of, nor would it block, any possible City -
designated
scenic views. The proposed Project site is located in an existing industrial area, zoned M2 ,
which
is identified as a Heavy Industrial Zoning District. Development of the proposed P roject would
not obscure any views of scenic vistas from surrounding public vantage points. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and this impact would be less than significant. (Initial Study,
Appendix A to the Draft EIR, pp. 21
-
23).
2. Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highways
Threshold
:
Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state sce nic highway?
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
5 Findings
:
No impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
2)
Explanation
:
There are no designated scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings on the Project site. While the Milpitas General Plan designates Interstate 880 from Dixon Landing Road to Montague Expressway as a “scenic connector”, Interstat e 880 is not
a state
-
designated scenic highway. The California Department of Transportation’s California Scenic Highway Mapping System identifies Interstate 680 to the north of Mission Boulevard as an officially designated state scenic highway. The propose d Project is not located within the
vicinity of any State scenic highways. Interstate 680 (I -
680), from Mission Boulevard in the City
of Fremont to the Contra Costa County line is Officially Designated and is located approximately
8.5 miles north of the Pr
oject site in the City of Fremont. Given this distance, the proposed Project would not be visible from this scenic roadway.
As per page III
-
14 of the Drat EIR, the Tree Survey
(Appendix B to the Draft EIR) found 183 protected trees within the Project site.
Of these protected
trees, approximately 88 would be removed by the proposed Project. The Project would comply with the City’s Tree Ordinance, including the replacement of protected trees at a 2:1 replacement of every protected tree.
In addition, the pr
oposed Project does not include the removal of any rock outcroppings or historic buildings. As such, the Project would have no impact on scenic resources located within view of a State Scenic highway. (Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, pp. 21 -
23)
3. Existing Visual Character of the Site and Surrounding Area
Threshold
:
Would the Project in non
-
urbanized areas substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the Project is in an urbanized area, would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Findings
:
Less than significant
impact
.
(Draft
EIR
, p
. IV.A
-
4 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 21
-
23 )
Explanation
:
The proposed Project site is located within an urbanized area. The Project site is located within the M2
Z
oning
D
istrict
, in which heavy industrial uses are permitted. There
is the potential for temporary aesthetic impacts to the existing visual quality of
the surrounding
area during construction. Temporary visual impacts could result from the presence of construction vehicles or ground disturbance during Project demolition and construction activities. However, construction activities would be temporary. Th
e permanent development of the site would be
consistent with the existing conditions of the site, as the new creative industrial building would replace the current one, thus maintaining the visual character of the area. The proposed Project does not consis
t of, nor would it block, any of the City
-
designated scenic resources or viewsheds
as described in the City of Milpitas General Plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
(Initial
Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR
, p. 22
-
23 )
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
6 AGRICULTURE
AND
FORESTRY
RE
SOURCES
1. Farmland Conversion
Threshold:
Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non
-
agricultural use
?
Finding
: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
2 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR,
pp. 24
-
25 )
Explanation
:
There are no agricultural or forestry resources within the Project site. There are no
Prime, Unique, Statewide or Locally Important farmlands in the area. According to the San Mateo County Important Farmland Map
,
the entire Project site is considered Urban and Built
-
Up
Land. The Project site does not contain any important farmland, land zon ed for agricultural use, or
land subject to a Williamson Act contract. Similarly, the Project site does not contain any forestland
,
timberland or any land zoned for such uses. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on agriculture or forest
resources.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p.
25)
2. Agricultural Zoning
Threshold:
Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Finding
: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
2 ,
Initial Study,
Appendix A to the Draft EIR,
pp. 24
-
25 )
Explanation
:
There are no agricultural or forestry resources within the Project site. There are no Prime, Unique, Statewide or Locally Important farmlands in the area. According to the San Mateo County
Important Farmland Map
,
the entire Project site is considered Urban and Built
-
Up
Land. The Project site does not contain any important farmland, land zoned for agricultural use, or land subject to a Williamson Act contract. Similarly, the Project site doe s not contain any
forestland or timberland or any land zoned for such uses. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on agriculture or forest resources.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p.
25)
3. Forestland Zoning
Threshold:
Would th
e Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
7 Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by G
overnment Code Section 51104(g))?
Finding
: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
2 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR,
pp. 24
-
25 )
Explanation
:
There are no agricultural or forestry resources within the Project site. There are no Prime, Unique,
Statewide or Locally Important farmlands in the area. According to the San Mateo County Important Farmland Map
,
the entire Project site is considered Urban and Built
-
Up
Land. The Project site does not contain any important farmland, land zoned for agricult ural use, or
land subject to a Williamson Act contract. Similarly, the Project site does not contain any forestland
,
timberland or any land zoned for such uses. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on agriculture or forest resources.
(Ini
tial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p.
25)
4. Loss of Forest Land
Threshold:
Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non
-
forest use?
Finding
: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
2 ,
Initial Study,
Appendix A to the Draft EIR,
pp. 24
-
25 )
Explanation
:
There are no agricultural or forestry resources within the Project site. There are no Prime, Unique, Statewide or Locally Important farmlands in the area. According to the San Mateo County Important Far
mland Map
,
the entire Project site is considered Urban and Built
-
Up
Land. The Project site does not contain any important farmland, land zoned for agricultural use, or land subject to a Williamson Act contract. Similarly, the Project site does not contain
any
forestland
,
timberland or any land zoned for such uses. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on agriculture or forest resources.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p.
25)
5. Conversion
Threshold:
Would the Project involve ot
her changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non -
agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non
-
forest use?
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
8 Finding
: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
2 ,
Initial Study, Appe
ndix A to the Draft EIR,
pp. 24
-
25 )
Explanation
:
There are no agricultural or forestry resources within the Project site. There are no Prime, Unique, Statewide or Locally Important farmlands in the area. According to the San Mateo County Important Farmlan
d Map
,
the entire Project site is considered Urban and Built
-
Up
Land. The Project site does not contain any important farmland, land zoned for agricultural use, or land subject to a Williamson Act contract. Similarly, the Project site does not contain any
forestland
,
timberland or any land zoned for such uses. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on agriculture or forest resources.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p.
25)
C.
AIR
QUALITY
1. Air Quality Plan
Threshold
:
Would the Project
conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Findings
:
Less than significant impact.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.B
-
17)
Explanation
: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. (Draft EIR, p. IV.B
-
17)
In April 2017, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (2017 CAP).
The 2017 CAP includes 85
control measures to reduce ozone
precursors, particulate matter, TACs, and greenhouse gases. The 2017 CAP was developed based on a multi
-
pollutant evaluation method that incorporates well
-
established studies and methods of quantifying the health benefits and air quality regulations, comp
uter modelling and analysis of existing air quality monitoring data and emissions inventories, DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
9 and traffic and population growth projections prepared by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments, respectively. (
Draft EIR, p. IV.B
-
14)
Based on the BAAQMD’s current CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the following criteria should be considered to determine if a project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017 CAP
(Draft EIR, p. IV.B
-
17)
:
1. Does the project
include applicable control measures from the air quality plan?
2. Does the project disrupt or hinder implementation of any air quality plan control measures?
3. Does the project support the primary goals of the air quality plan?
The 2017 CAP includes control m
easures that aim to reduce air pollution and GHGs from
stationary, area, and mobile sources. The control measures are organized into nine categories:
stationary sources, transportation, energy, buildings, agriculture, natural and working lands, waste manag
ement, water, and super
-
GHG pollutants (e.g., methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases).
As described in Table IV.B
-
3 (Draft EIR, p. IV.B
-
17)
, the Project would be consistent with
applicable control measures from the 2017 CAP. Because the Project would
not result in any
significant and unavoidable air quality impacts related to emissions, ambient concentrations, or public exposures (see discussions for Impacts AIR
-
2 to AIR
-
4 in the Draft EIR, pages IV.B
-
19 -
IV.B
-
30), the Project would support the primary
goals of the 2017 CAP.
B
ased on BAAQMD’s
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan and the associated air quality impact would be less than significant .
T
herefore, no mitigation measures are required.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.B
-
17)
2. Construction Emissions of Criterial Air Pollutants
Threshold
:
Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project regio
n is non
-
attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
Findings
: Less than significant impact for construction emissions of criteria air pollutants. (Draft EIR, pp. IV.B
-
19 -
IV.B
-
20)
Explanation
: The BAAQMD currently reco
mmends using the most recent version of the
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod version 2016.3.2) to estimate construction and operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors for a proposed Project. CalEEMod uses widely accepted
models for emission estimates combined with appropriate default data for a DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
10 variety of land use projects that can be used if site -
specific information is not available. The default
data (e.g., type and power of construction equipment) are supported by subst antial evidence
provided by regulatory agencies and a combination of statewide and regional surveys of existing land uses. The primary input data used to estimate emissions associated with construction and operation of the Project are summarized in Table I
V.B
-
4 (Draft EIR, p. IV.B
-
19). A copy of the
CalEEMod report for the Project, which summarizes the input parameters, assumptions, and findings, is provided in Appendix F to the Draft EIR.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.B
-
19)
Construction Emissions of Criteria Air Pollu
tants
Project construction activities would generate criteria air pollutant emissions that could potentially adversely affect regional air quality. Construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, trenching, building constructio n, paving, and applications of
architectural coatings. The primary pollutant emissions of concern during Project construction would be reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides NOx, coarse particle particulate matter (PM
10 ), and
fine particle particula
te matter
(PM
2.5 ) from the exhaust of off
-
road construction
equipment and on
-
road vehicles related to worker vehicles, vendor trucks, and haul trucks. In addition, fugitive ROG emissions would result from the application of architectural coatings and pavin
g. Emissions of ROG, NOx, PM
10 , and PM
2.5 during Project construction were estimated
using the CalEEMod input parameters summarized in Table IV.B -
4 (Draft EIR, p. IV.B
-
19) and
additional assumptions summarized in Table IV.B
-
5 (Draft EIR, p. IV.B
-
19).
To an
alyze daily emission rates during Project construction, the total emissions estimated during construction were averaged over the total work days (188 work days) and compared to the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance. As shown in Table IV.B -
6 (Draft EIR, p
. IV.B
-
20), the
Project’s estimated emissions for ROG, NOx, and exhaust PM10 and PM2.5 during construction were well below the applicable thresholds and would
therefore
have a less
-
than
-
significant impact
on regional air quality. (Draft EIR, pp. IV.B
-
20)
3. S
ensitive Receptors
Threshold
:
Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Findings
:
Less than significant
impact for Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) from
construction and operation
(Draft
EIR
, pp. IV.B
-
27 -
IV.B
-
31).
Explanation
:
Impact from the Project’s emissions of
Diesel particulate matter
(
DPM
)
and
PM
2.5 during construction on nearby sensitive receptors would be less than significant. (Draft EIR,
p. IV.B
-
27)
.
TAC
emissions from Project operation would
have a less
-
than
-
significant impact on
nearby sensitive receptors. (Draft EIR, p. IV.B
-
28 )
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
11 Toxic Air Contaminants from Construction
The BAAQMD recommends evaluating the potential impacts to sensitive receptors located within 1,000 feet of a project. The Pr
oject’s potential impacts to sensitive receptors from emissions of TACs are discussed below. (Draft EIR, p. IV.B
-
26)
Construction would generate DPM and PM
2.5 emissions from the exhaust of off
-
road diesel
construction equipment. The annual average concentrations of DPM and exhaust PM
2.5 during
construction were estimated within 1,000 feet of the Project using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Industria
l Source Complex Short Term (ISCST3) air dispersion model. For this analysis, emissions of exhaust PM
10 were used as a surrogate for DPM, which is a conservative assumption because more than 90 percent of DPM is less than 1 micron in diameter. The input pa
rameters and assumptions used for estimating emission rates of DPM and PM
2.5 from off
-
road
diesel construction equipment are included in Appendix F to the Draft EIR. (Draft EIR, p. IV.B -
26)
Daily emissions from construction were assumed to occur from 7AM t o 7PM every day in
accordance with the City of Milpitas ordinance. The exhaust from off -
road equipment was
represented in the ISCST3 model as a series of volume sources with a release height of 5 meters to represent the mid
-
range of the expected plume rise
from frequently used construction
equipment. (Draft EIR, p. IV.B
-
26)
The model assumes a uniform grid of receptors spaced 20 meters apart around the Project site with receptor heights of 1.8 meters (approximately 5 feet, 11 inches, for ground -
level
recept
ors) for developing isopleths (i.e., concentration contours) that illustrate the air dispersion pattern from the various emission sources. The ISCST3 model input parameters included 3 years of BAAQMD meteorological data from Station 7905 located about 3.5 miles northwest of the
Project. (Draft EIR, p. IV.B
-
26)
Based on the annual average concentrations of DPM and PM
2.5 estimated using the air
dispersion model (Appendix F to the Draft EIR), potential health risks were evaluated for the maximally exposed indi
vidual resident (MEIR) located about 470 feet south of the Project site. In addition, for informational purpose
s
only, health risks were also evaluated for the next nearest sensitive receptor at the single
-
family residence 810 feet northwest of the Project
site. The
locations of the MEIR and the residential receptor northwest of the Project site are shown in Revised
Figure IV.B
-
1 (Draft EIR, p. IV.B
-
11)
, Cumulative Sources of Toxic Air Contaminants.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.B
-
2 6
)
In accordance with
guidance from the BAAQMD
and the Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the health risk assessment calculated the incremental increase in cancer risk and chronic hazard index (HI) to sensitive receptors from DPM emissions during
construc
tion. The acute HI for DPM was not calculated because an acute reference exposure level DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
12 has not been approved by OEHHA and CARB, and the BAAQMD does not recommend analysis of acute non
-
cancer health hazards from construction activity. The annual average co ncentrations
of DPM at the sensitive receptors were used to conservatively assess potential health risks to other nearby sensitive receptors. (Draft EIR, p. IV.B
-
27)
It was conservatively assumed that the sensitive receptors would be exposed to an annual a
verage DPM concentration over the entire estimated duration of construction (approximately 10.5 months). At both locations of residential receptors, the incremental increase in cancer risk from on
-
site DPM emissions during construction was assessed for a y oung child exposed to DPM for
10.5 months starting from infancy in the third trimester of pregnancy. This exposure scenario for the MEIR represents the most sensitive individual who could be exposed to adverse air quality conditions in the vicinity of the
Project site. The input parameters and results of the health risk assessment are included in Appendix
F to the Draft EIR. (Draft EIR, p. IV.B
-
27)
Table IV.B
-
9 on page I
V.B
-
28 of the Draft EIR summarizes the estimated health risks at the
MEIR and at the res
idential receptor northwest of the Project site due to DPM and PM
2.5 emissions from project construction and compares them to the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance. The estimated cancer risks and chronic HIs for DPM and annual average PM
2.5 concentration
s from construction emissions were below the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Therefore, the impact from the Project’s emissions of DPM and PM
2.5 during
construction on nearby sensitive receptors would be less than significant .
T
herefore, no mitigation
measures are required. (Draft EIR, p. IV.B
-
27)
Toxic Air Contaminants from Operation
Two sources of TAC emissions would be present during Project Operation: the proposed emergency fire pump and the diesel vehicles equipped with TRUs accessing the Project site. (Draft
EIR, p. IV.B
-
28 as amended by the Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR at p. III -
13 )
Emissions from the proposed fire pump w
ere
modelled as a point source. Because the exact
location of the fire pump is not yet known, it was assumed that the fire pump would be located at a ground level near the southern edge of the proposed warehouse, which is the closest possible location to the
MEIR. It was assumed that the point source would have a stack height of 3.66 meters, diameter of 1.83 meters, temperature of 739.8 degrees Celsius, and stack velocity of 45.3 meters per second. The emission rate for the proposed fire pump was calculated as suming the
annual emissions from 50 hours of routine testing and maintenance would occur continuously (i.e., emissions occur 7 days a week, 24 hours per day, 365 days per year). (Draft EIR, p. IV.B -
28)
Emissions of DPM and PM
2.5 from diesel vehicles access
ing the Project site and the
accompanying TRU operations could pose a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. Daily operations of trucks were assumed to occur 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Emissions from on -
road diesel vehicles during operation were mo
delled as line
-
area sources with a release height of
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
13 3 meters in the ISCST3 model along the circulation routes within the Project site and nearby roadways. The modelled roadways included the permitted truck routes in the vicinity of the Project site for lo
cal travel and the perimeter of the Project site for on -
site transiting activities, as shown
in Appendix F to the Draft EIR. For simplicity, all vehicles assessing the Project site were assumed to be diesel powered. PM
10 emission factors for diesel vehicle
s travelling near the Project site and
on the Project site were obtained from EMFAC 2017 for the speeds of 5 miles per hour (mph) and 25 mph, respectively. PM
10 emission factors for the Project fleet were averaged by vehicle type and daily trips. Emission
factors (grams per mile) were converted to emission rates (grams per second) assuming the same vehicle travel speeds as above. For TRU emissions on -
and off
-
site,
similar conversion from emission factors (grams per horsepower hour) to emission rates (grams
per second) was done for both on
-
site transiting and off
-
site travel. An air dispersion model similar
to that of off
-
road construction was set up for the proposed Project. Details of calculations are included in Appendix F to the Draft EIR. (Draft EIR, p
p. IV.B
-
28 -
IV
as amended by the
Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR on p. III
-
13 )
Based on the results of the air dispersion model (Appendix F to the Draft EIR), potential health risks were evaluated for the sensitive receptors (the MEIR and the res idential receptor
northwest of the Project) at the same locations as the sensitive receptors for project construction, discussed above. It was conservatively assumed that the sensitive receptors would be exposed to an annual average DPM concentration for 3
0 years, which is consistent with OEHHA’s guidance
for evaluating cancer risk at the sensitive receptors. Other parameters for the health risks calculation are similar to those used to evaluate the construction TAC emissions, and are included in Appendix F
to the Draft EIR. (Draft EIR, p. IV.B
-
2 8
as amended by the Corrections and
Additions to the Draft EIR on p. III
-
14)
Estimates of the health risks at the MEIR and at the residential receptor northwest of the Project from exposure to DPM and exhaust PM
2.5 c
oncentrations from diesel vehicles accessing
the Project site during operation are summarized and compared to the thresholds of significance in Table IV.B
-
9 on page IV.B
-
28 of the Draft EIR. At both sensitive receptors, the estimated excess cancer risks an
d chronic HIs for DPM and annual average PM
2.5 concentrations from the proposed
fire pump and the diesel vehicles during Project operation were below the thresholds of significance. Therefore, TAC emissions from Project operation would have a less -
than
-
sig
nificant
impact on nearby sensitive receptors. (Draft EIR, p. IV.B -
2 8
as amended by the Corrections and
Additions to the Draft EIR on p. III
-
14)
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
14 4.
Odors
Threshold
: Would the Project
result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affect
ing a substantial number of people
?
Findings
: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. IV.B
-
19 -
IV.B
-
31)
Explanation
: Because the Project is a warehouse facility, Project construction and operation would not be expected to generate significant odors. T herefore, the Project would have
a less
-
than
-
significant impact related to other emissions
.
T
herefore, no mitigation measures are
required. (Draft EIR, pp. IV.B
-
3 0
)
D.
BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
1. Sensitive or Special Status Species
Threshold
:
Would the Project
have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -
status species
in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Findings
:
No impact.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
2 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR,
pp. 27
-
29 )
Explanation
:
There are no special
-
status species known to occur within the Project site.
Due to the developed nature of the Project site and the presence of buildings and associated hardscape, it is unlikely that the Project site would support any special ‐status spec
ies. Therefore,
no impact to special
‐status species would result from the proposed Project. (Initial Study,
Appendix A to the Draft EIR,
p. 2
8 )
2. Riparian Habitat
Threshold
:
Would the Project
have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or oth
er sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ?
Findings
:
No impact.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
2 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR,
pp. 27
-
29)
Explanation
:
The Project site is located within a developed area and does not support any riparian or other sensitive natural communities. Therefore, no impact to riparian habitat or other DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
15 sensitiv
e natural communities would result from the proposed Project. (Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, p. 2
8 )
3. Wetlands
Threshold
:
Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Findings
:
No impact.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
2 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR,
p. 27
-
29)
Explanation
:
The Project site is within
a developed area and is not located in an area that
supports wetlands, drainages, or water bodies as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Moreover, the proposed Project would not result in the direct removal, filling, or hydrological interrupti
on of such wetlands. Therefore, no impact to federally protected wetlands would result from the proposed Project.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 2
8 )
4. Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources
Threshold
:
Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Findings
:
Less than significant impact.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
4 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EI
R, pp. 27
-
29 )
Explanation
:
The City of Milpitas requires a permit for the removal of any trees with the following characteristics:
All trees which have a 56
‐inch or greater circumference of any trunk measured 4.5 feet from the ground and located on develo
ped residential property; or
All trees which have a 37
‐inch or greater circumference of any trunk measured 4.5 feet from the ground and located on developed commercial or industrial property; or
All trees which have a 37
‐inch or greater
circumference of any trunk measured 4.5
feet from the ground, when removal relates to any transaction for which zoning approval or subdivision approval is required; or
Any tree existing at the time of a zoning or subdivision approval and was a specific sub
ject of such approval or otherwise covered by subsection (b) above; or
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
16
All trees which have a 37
‐inch or greater circumference of any trunk measured 4.5 feet from the ground and located on a vacant, undeveloped, or underdeveloped property; or
All heritage
trees or groves of trees as defined in Section X
‐2‐2.10.
As noted above, approximately 88 protected trees within the Project site would be impacted as a part of the proposed Project. The Project Applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit
from
the City of
Milpitas
prior to the removal of trees that are determined to be protected. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and th
u
s
the
impact would be less than significant.
(Ini
tial Study, Appendix A to the
Draft EIR, p. 29)
5. Adopted Habitat Conservation Plans
Threshold
:
Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or
state habitat conservation plan?
Findings
:
Less than significant impact.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
4 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 27
-
29 )
Explanation
:
The Project site does not fall within the Covered Area for the Santa Clara Valley
Habitat Plan, but it does fall within the
Covered Area for the Santa Clara Valley Habitat
Plan’s Expanded Study Area and Permit Area for Burrowing Owl Conservation. Only activities pertinent to the conservation of burrowing owls are considered to be Covere d Activities within
this expanded study area. As such, the proposed Project is not considered to be a Covered Activity under the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. No other Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved h
abitat conservation plans apply to the Project
site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat co
nservation plan, and th
us the
impact would be less than significant.
(Initial Study,
Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 29)
E.
CULTURAL
RESOURCES
1. Historical Resources
Threshold
:
Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a histo
rical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
17 Findings
:
No impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
2 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR,
pp. 30
-
38 )
Explanation
:
Through background research, including a records search of the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) and review of historic maps and aerial photography, no historical resources were identified in the project area. As such, there are no known historical res ources as
defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5 in the project area. Therefore, the proposed Project is not anticipated to impact any historical resources.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 3
6 )
E.
ENERGY
1. Wasteful, Inefficient, or
Unnecessary Consumption
Threshold
:
Would the Project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Findings
:
Less
than
significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
4 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 39
-
40)
Explanation
:
Construction of the proposed Project would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of construction materials, prepar ation of the site for demolition,
and construction of the creative industrial building. Petroleum fuels (e.g., diesel and gasoline) would be the primary sources of energy for these activities. Construction activities are not anticipated to result in an ine
fficient use of energy as gasoline and diesel fuel would be supplied by construction contractors who would conserve the use of their supplies to minimize their costs on the project. Energy usage on the Project site during construction would be temporary in
nature
and would be relatively small in comparison to the State’s available energy sources. Energy use consumed by the proposed Project would be associated with natural gas use, electricity consumption, and fuel used for vehicle trips associated with the Project. Therefore, the proposed
Project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel or energy and would incorporate renewable energy or energy efficiency measures into building design, equipment use, and transportatio
n. The proposed Project would be constructed to California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) standards Tier I or Tier II, which would help to reduce energy and natural gas consumption. Construction and operation period impacts related to consumption
of energy resources would be less than significant.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the
Draft EIR, p. 40)
2. Conflict with Energy Plans
Threshold
:
Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
18 Fin
dings
:
Less
than
significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
4 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 39
-
40)
Explanation
:
Energy usage on the Project site during construction would be temporary in nature. In addition, energy usage associated with o
peration of the proposed Project would be
relatively small in comparison to the State’s available energy sources and energy impacts would be negligible at the regional level.
In 2002, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1389, which required the California E
nergy Commission (CEC) to develop an integrated energy plan every two years for electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels, for the California Energy Policy Report. The 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report provides the results of the CEC’s assessme nts of a variety
of energy issues facing California. Many of these issues will require action if the State is to meet its climate, energy, air quality, and other environmental goals while maintaining energy reliability and controlling costs.
Because Califo
rnia’s energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the
P
roject’s total impact to regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed Project would not conflict with California’s energy conservation plans as describ ed
in the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Thus, as shown above, the project would avoid or reduce the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy and not result in any irreversible or irretrievabl e commitments of energy.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation .
Thus,
this impact would
be less than significant. (Initial Stud
y, Appendix A to the Draft EIR,
p
p.
39 -
40)
F.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. Exposure to Potential Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Due to Rupture of an Earthquake Fault
Threshold
:
Would the
Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist
-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial eviden ce of a known fault?
Findings
:
No impact.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
2 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR,
pp. 41
-
47)
Explanation
:
Surface fault rupture occurs when the ground surface is broken due to fault movement during an earthquake. Fault ruptu
re is generally expected to occur along active fault
traces. Areas susceptible to fault rupture are delineated by the California Geological Survey (CGS) Alquist
-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. The Alquist
-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act's (AP
Act) main p
urpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The AP Act requires specific geological investigations prior to certain DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
19 kinds of development to reduce the threat to public health and safety
and to minimize the loss of
life and property posed by earthquake
-
induced ground failure. The Project site is not located within or adjacent to an Alquist
-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on people and structures
related to fault rupture.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft
EIR, p. 4
2 )
2. Exposure to Potential Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Due to Seismic Ground Shaking
Threshold
:
Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effec
ts, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: strong seismic ground shaking?
Findings
:
Less
than
significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
4 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 41
-
47 )
Explanation
:
The Project site is susceptible to strong seismic ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake. Nearby active faults include the Hayward fault (approximately 1.7 miles northeast from the Project site), Calavaras fault (approximately 4.9 miles northeas t from the
Project site), Monta Vista
-
Shannon fault (approximately 11.4 miles southwest from the Project site), and the San Andreas fault (approximately 15.5 miles southwest from the Project site). These faults and other regional faults are capable of pro
ducing strong seismic ground shaking at the
Project site. The geotechnical study provides recommended seismic design parameters based on the site
-
specific soil type and seismic conditions at the Project site. The P
roject would be required
to comply with th
e provisions of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC), which contains requirements for structural design, including seismic design specifications. As a standard practice, the City of Milpitas Building Safety and Housing Department would review proposed P roject plans
to ensure that design plans for the proposed Project would be developed in accordance with the 2019 CBC. Compliance with the mandatory building code structural specifications, as well as adherence to geotechnical recommendations, would result in structures that would adequately
resist adverse effects from seismic ground shaking. Therefore, impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft
EIR, p. 4
3 )
3. Exposure to Potenti
al Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Due to Seismic
-
Related Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction
Threshold
:
Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death
involving: seismic
-
related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
20 Findings
:
Less than significant
impact
. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
4 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 41
-
47 )
Explanation
:
Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon primarily associated with saturated soil layers located close to the ground surface. During ground shaking, these soils lose strength and acquire a “mobility” sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements.
Soils that are
most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, saturated, fine -
grained sands
that lie relatively close to the ground surface. However, loose sands that contain a significant amount of fines (silt and clay) may also liq
uefy. The Project site is located within a liquefaction hazard zone as designated on a Seismic Hazards Zone map prepared by CGS .
T
herefore, in
accordance with the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, a geotechnical report must be prepared, and appropriate mitigati
on measures incorporated into the project design, as required by California Code of Regulations Title 14, Article 10. The geotechnical study (Appendix C to the Draft EIR) indicates that soils encountered in the subsurface of the Project site generally cons isted of mixtures
of clays, silts, sands, and gravels typical of alluvial soil deposits. The predominantly fine -
grained
soils typically had medium stiff to very stiff consistencies. The predominantly coarse -
grained
materials were generally medium dense to
dense, although zones of loose soils were present in the upper 8 feet of the Project site. The geotechnical study indicates that based on a liquefaction/settlement analysis, expected liquefaction ‐related settlements that could occur during
a seismic event
were calculated to be on the order of approximately 2 inches, and there is a low likelihood of surface manifestation potential. The geotechnical study indicates that differential settlements may be two
‐thirds of the total settlements (slightly less than 1
½
‐inches). The
geotechnical study includes recommendations for site preparation and grading, compaction of native soil and engineered fill material, and the design and construction of foundations (conventional footings) which account for potential liquefact ion
‐related settlements. (Initial Study,
Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 4
3 -
44 )
Compliance with the mandatory building code structural specifications, as well as adherence to the recommendations in the geotechnical report, would result in a building that r esists
adverse effects related to estimated liquefaction settlements. Therefore, impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant. (Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 4 4 )
Lateral spreading is a form of horizontal displacement of s oil toward an open channel or
other “free” face, such as an excavation boundary or creek bank. In a lateral spread failure, a layer of ground at the surface is carried on an underlying layer of liquefied material over a gently sloping or flat surface towar
d a river channel or other bank. The lateral spreading hazard tends to mirror the liquefaction hazard for a site (assuming a free face is located nearby). The geotechnical report indicates that due to the depths of the liquefiable soils, and the fact that there are no open creek
channels crossing or bordering the Project site, the potential for lateral spreading to occur within the Project site is low. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 4
4 )
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
21 4.
Ex
posure to Potential Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Due to Landslides
Threshold
:
Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: landslides?
Findings
:
No
impact
.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
3 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR,
pp. 41
-
47 )
Explanation
:
Seismically
-
induced landslides occur as the rapid movement of large masses of soil on unstable slopes during an earthquake. The Project site and surrounding area a re relatively
flat. Therefore, the Project would have a no impact related to seismically -
induced landslides.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 4
4 )
5. Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil
Threshold
:
Would the Project result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Findings
:
Less than significant
impact
.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
4 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 41
-
47 )
Explanation
:
Soil erosion, which is discussed in detail in
the
“Hydrology and Water
Quality”
section of
the Initial Study
(
Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, pp.
55 -
63)
, could
occur during
P
roject grading and construction. As described
on page 56 of
the “Hydrology and
Water Quality” section of the Initial Study
,
compliance with the State Water Reso
urces Control
Board’s Construction General Permit, including preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), would ensure that the proposed Project would result in less -
than
-
significant impacts related to erosion or loss o
f top soil during construction of the project.
During operation of the Project, the ground surface of the Project site would be covered by a building, pavement surfaces, and landscaping, and therefore would not be susceptible to substantial erosion or loss
of top soil. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. (Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 4
4 , and p. 56
)
6. Soil Stability
Threshold
:
Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become un
stable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -
or off
-
site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Findings
:
Less than significant impact.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
4 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft
EIR, pp. 41
-
47 )
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
22 Explanation
:
Lateral
spreading and landslides are not a concern for the project because of the relatively flat topography of the area. Additionally, the Project would be designed in accordance with the 2019 CBC and recommendations of the g eotechnical report which include
measures to address the potential for liquefaction and seismic -
induced settlement impacts related
to unstable soils. (Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 4 4 )
Subsidence or collapse can result from the removal of
subsurface water resulting in either
catastrophic or gradual depression of the surface elevation of the Project site. The only removal of subsurface water that may occur as part of the project is temporary dewatering of excavations during construction. The
temporary dewatering of excavations would not cause significant ground subsidence or collapse as the dewatering would be limited and localized to the area of the excavation. Therefore, this potential impact is less than significant. (Initial Study, Appen dix A to
the Draft EIR, p. 4
4 -
4 5
)
Consolidation (or static settlement) of soils is a process by which the soil volume decreases as water is expelled from saturated soils under static loads. As the water moves out from the pore space of the soil, the solid
particles realign into a denser configuration which results in settlement.
Consolidation typically occurs as a result of new buildings or fill materials being placed over compressible soils. The geotechnical study indicates that possibility of static settl ement is
minimized by the light structural loads expected for the proposed development. Anticipated static settlements of the on
-
site native soils are on the order of 1½
‐inches with a differential settlement
of ¾
‐inch. (Initial Study, Appendix A to the Dr
aft EIR, p. 4
5 )
Compliance with the mandatory building code structural specifications, as well as adherence to the recommendations in the geotechnical report, would ensure that potential impacts related to consolidation would be less than significant. (Ini tial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR,
p. 4
5 )
7. Expansive Soil
s
Threshold:
Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -
1 -
B of
the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property?
Findings
:
Less than significant
impact
.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
4 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draf
t EIR, pp. 41
-
47 )
Explanation
:
Expansive soils are characterized by the potential for shrinking and swelling as the moisture content of the soil decreases and increases, respectively. Shrink -
swell potential is
influenced by the amount and type of clay min
erals present and can be measured by the percent
change of the soil volume. The geotechnical study indicates that the results of plasticity index tests performed on samples of the upper soils from the Project site indicate that the soil has a low expansion
potential. Therefore, measures other than moistening and compacting the soils are not DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
23 considered necessary to mitigate soil expansion. The geotechnical study also includes recommendations for selection of fill materials to be imported for use at the Proje ct site, including
selection of non
‐expansive imported material. (Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 4 5 )
Compliance with the mandatory building code structural specifications, as well as adherence to the recommendations in the geotechnical repo rt, would ensure that potential impacts
related to expansive soils would be less than significant. (Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 4
5 )
8. Septic Tanks
Threshold
:
Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of sept
ic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Findings
:
No
impact
.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
3 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR,
pp. 41
-
47 )
Explanation
:
T
he Project would not
involve the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, the Project would have no impact related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. (Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 4 5 )
G.
GREENHOUSE
GAS
E
MISSIONS
1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold
: Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Findings
: Less than significant impact for a stationary source. (Draft
EIR, pp. IV.C
-
20 -
IV.C
-
24)
Explanation
: The BAAQMD recommends analysing GHG emissions from permitted stationary sources separately from a project’s operational emissions. As summarized in Table IV.C
-
7 (Draft EIR, p. IV.C
-
24), the average CO
2 e emissions from routine testing and maintenance
of the fire pump are below the BAAQMD’s stationary
-
source threshold. Therefore, operation of
the proposed fire pump would have a less
-
than
-
significant impact on the environment. (Draft EIR,
p. IV.C
-
24)
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
24 2.
App
licable Plan, Policy or Regulation
Threshold
:
Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Findings
:
Less than significant
impact
.
(Draft EIR, pp.
IV.C
-
24 -
IV.C
-
25)
Explanation
: The City of Milpitas Climate Action Plan (“CAP”) was adopted on May 7, 2013 (Draft EIR, p. IV.C
-
17).
The CAP meets the BAAQMD requirements for a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy and is designed to streamline environmental revi ew of future development
projects in the City consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15.183.5(b) and the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines
(Draft EIR, p. IV.C
-
17).
The City’s CAP included a development checklist to
assist project applicants and City staff to determ
ine whether a project complies with the CAP and
contains applicable measures that will be implemented as part of the Project to demonstrate consistency with the CAP. Applicable actions include Measure 2.1, Energy Efficiency in New Development, Action D, L
eadership in Energy and Environmental Design (“LEED”) requirement for new non
-
residential construction; and Measure 4.2, Tiered Water Rates, Action C, Implementation of water
-
efficient landscaping ordinance and the water conservation ordinance.
The develo
pment checklist with details on the Project’s consistency with the CAP’s action is in Appendix F to the Draft EIR. (Draft EIR, pp. IV.C
-
24 -
IV.C
-
25)
As demonstrated in the development checklist, the Project is consistent with the applicable actions from the
CAP, and will incorporate some of the recommended actions in the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Plan, required by Mitigation Measure GHG -
1 (
Draft EIR, pp. IV.C
-
22 -
IV.C
-
23)
. Overall, the mitigated Project would implement GHG reduction measures consistent with the CAP
.
T
herefore,
the project
would have a less
-
than
-
significant impact related to conflict
with the applicable plan, policy and regulations.
(Draft EIR, pp. IV.C
-
25)
H.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. Hazardous Materials
Threshold
:
Would the
Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Findings
:
L
ess than significant impact.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
4 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 50
-
54 )
Explanation
:
Although small quantities of commercially
‐available hazardous materials
could be used during project construction activities (e.g., oil, gasoline, paint) and for landscape maintenance within the Project site, these materials would not be used in sufficient quantities to
pose a threat to human or environmental health. Therefore, development of the proposed Project DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
25 would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazard
ous materials.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 5
1 )
2. Acutely Hazardous Materials within ¼ Mile of an Existing or Proposed School
Threshold
:
Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one
-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
Findings
:
No impact.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
3 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR,
pp. 50
-
54 )
Explanation
:
There are no public schools located within one
-
quar
ter mile of the Project
site. The closest school building to the proposed Project is Stratford School, located approximately
0.5 miles southwest of the Project site. Fuels, lubricants, and any other potentially hazardous materials used during project const
ruction would be handled carefully in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations and would have little to no chance of affecting the school. Given that Stratford School is located more than one
-
quarter mile from the Project site, it is unlikely th
at
the school would be affected by the use of fuels, lubricants, and other chemicals on the Project site. Therefore, there would be no impacts.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 5
3 )
3. Hazardous Materials Sites
Threshold
:
Would the Project be
located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Findings
:
Less than
significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
4 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 50
-
54 )
Explanation
:
According to the California DTSC EnviroStor database, the Project site is not included on the list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuan t to Government Code Section
65962.5. However, Target Masters West is listed as an active site on the Cortese List and is located approximately 2.3 miles northwest of the Project site. As there are no hazardous waste sites in the Project site, the propose
d Project would not create a hazard to the public or environment through location on a hazardous materials site and impacts would be less than significant. (Initial Study,
Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 5
3 )
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
26 4.
Public Airports and Private Airstrips
Threshold
:
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in
the project area?
Findings
:
No
impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
3 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR,
pp. 50
-
54 )
Explanation
:
The closest airport to the Project site is the Norman Y. Mineta
San Jose
International Airport, located approximately 4.5 miles southwest of the Project site. The closest private airport to the Project site is the Regional Medical Center heliport (88CA), located approximately 4.4 miles southeast of the Project site. T he Project site is not located within the
Airport Safety Zones or Airport Influence Area of the San José International Airport. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the pr
oject area due to the proximity of an airport.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the
Draft EIR, p. 5
3 )
5. Emergency Access
Threshold
:
Would the Project impair implementation of, or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacua
tion plan?
Findings
:
Less than significant
impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
4 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 50
-
54 )
Explanation
:
The City of Milpitas Fire Department Office of Emergency Services coordinates the City’s preparedness efforts to
mitigate, plan for, respond to, and recover from
natural and technological disasters. In addition, the County of Santa Clara Office of Emergency Services coordinates county
‐wide emergency response efforts including the preparation and implementation of th
e County of Santa Clara Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). However, the EOP does not address specific responses, scenarios, hazards, or threats, within Milpitas. In addition, the EOP does not indicate the emergency evacuation routes within Santa Clara Count y.
Because the proposed Project would not alter or block adjacent roadways, implementation of the proposed Project would not be expected to impair the function of nearby emergency evacuation routes. The proposed creative industrial building would also be e quipped with a state
-
of
-
the
-
art
Early Suppression, Fast Response (ESFR) sprinkler system. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less
‐than‐significant impact on
the
implementation of an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, pp. 5
3 -
54)
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
27 6.
Wildland Fires
Threshold
:
Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Findings
:
No
impact.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
3 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR,
pp. 50
-
54 )
Explanation
:
The proposed Project site is in a developed urban area and is not within or adjacent to a wildland fire hazard
area. The Project site is not located within any stat
e responsibility
areas (SRA) for fire service, and is not within a very high fire hazard severity zone. Therefore, th e
proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
(Initial Study,
Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 54)
I.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. Compliance with Water Quality Standards
Threshold
:
Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Findings
:
Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
4 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 55
-
63)
Explanation
:
Water quality in the State of California is regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board (“S
tate Water Board”) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The City of Milpitas is located in the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Regional Water Board”).
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR,
p.
5 6
)
During construction of the project, sediment and potential contaminants that may be in the soil (from any chemicals spilled or leaked onto the ground) could be entrained in stormwater runoff and potentially reduce the quality of the receiving waters .
The proposed Project would disturb
greater than 1 acre of land, and therefore would be required to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit (State Water Board Order 2009 -
0009
-
DWQ) (General Permit). On
-
site construction activities subject to
the General Permit include clearing, grading, excavation, and soil stockpiling. The Construction General Permit requires the development of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer. A SWPPP identifies all pote
ntial pollutants and their sources, including erosion, sediments, and construction materials and must include a list of BMPs to reduce the discharge of construction -
related
stormwater pollutants. A SWPPP must include a detailed description of controls to r educe
pollutants and outline maintenance and inspection procedures. Typical sediment and erosion DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
28 control BMPs include protecting storm drain inlets, and establishing and maintaining construction exits and perimeter controls to avoid tracking sediment off -
s
ite onto adjacent roadways. A SWPPP
also defines proper building material staging and storage areas, paint and concrete washout areas ;
describes proper equipment/vehicle fueling and maintenance practices, measures to control equipment/vehicle washing and a
llowable non
-
stormwater discharges
;
and
,
includes a spill
prevention and response plan.
The SWPPP must also include a construction site monitoring program. Depending on the project risk level, the monitoring program would involve visual observations of sit
e discharges, water quality monitoring of site discharges (e.g., pH, turbidity, and non
-
visible pollutants, if applicable), and receiving water monitoring (e.g., pH, turbidity, suspended sediment concentration, and bioassessment, if applicable). Compliance
with the
requirements of the Construction General Permit would ensure that construction activities do not adversely affect runoff water quality that could result in a violation of water quality standards.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 5
6 )
Groundwater dewatering may be required during construction activities involving excavation. Dewatering effluent may have high turbidity and could contain contaminants.
Turbid
and/or contaminated groundwater could cause degradation of the receiving water quality if
discharged directly to storm drains without treatment. Any groundwater dewatering would be limited in duration (i.e., during construction) and the discharge of dewatering effluent would be subject to permits from the
City of San
Jose (which manages and operates the San Jose
-
Santa Clara
Regional Wastewater Facility which treats wastewater from the Project site) or the Regional Water
Board, depending if the discharge were to the sanitary sewer or storm drain system, respectively.
(
Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, pp. 5
6 -
57 )
Under existing State law, it is illegal to allow unpermitted non -
stormwater discharges to
receiving waters. As stated in the Construction General Permit, non -
stormwater discharges directly
connected to
receiving waters or the storm drain system have the potential to negatively impact water quality. The discharger must implement measures to control all non -
stormwater discharges
during construction, and from dewatering activities associated with construct ion. Discharging any
pollutant
-
laden water from a dewatering site or sediment basin into any receiving water or storm drain that would cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable water quality standards is prohibited.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to t
he Draft EIR, p. 5
7 )
The Construction General Permit allows the discharge of dewatering effluent if the source of the water is uncontaminated groundwater and is properly filtered or treated, using appropriate technology. These technologies include, but are
not limited to, retention in settling ponds (where
sediments settle out prior to discharge of water) and filtration using gravel and sand filters (to mechanically remove the sediment). If the dewatering activity is deemed by the Regional Water Board not t
o be covered by the Construction General Permit, then the discharger could potentially prepare a Report of Waste Discharge, and if approved by the Regional Water Board, be issued site
-
specific Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) under
National Pollutant Di
scharge
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
29 Elimination System (
NPDES) regulations. Site
–
specific WDRs contain rigorous monitoring
requirements and performance standards that, when implemented, ensure that receiving water quality is not substantially degraded. The discharge of dewatering eff luent is authorized under the
Construction General Permit if the following conditions are met. (Initial Study, Appendix A to the
Draft EIR, p. 5
7 )
The discharge does not cause or contribute to a violation of any water quality standard.
The
discharge does not violate any other provision of the Construction General Permit.
The discharge is not prohibited by the applicable Basin Plan.
The discharger has included and implemented specific BMPs required by the Construction General Permit to preven
t or reduce the contact of the non
-
stormwater
discharge with construction materials or equipment.
The discharge does not contain toxic constituents in toxic amounts or (other) significant quantities of pollutants.
The discharge is monitored and meets the a
pplicable numeric action levels.
The discharger reports the sampling information in the annual report.
If any of the above conditions are not satisfied, the discharge of dewatering effluent is not authorized by the Construction General Permit. The dischar ger must notify the local Regional
Water Board of any anticipated non
-
stormwater discharges not already authorized by the
Construction General Permit or another NPDES permit, to determine whether a separate NPDES permit is necessary. If it is infeasible to
meet site
-
specific WDRs or meet the
City of Milpitas’s
sewer discharge requirements, the construction contractor would be required to transport the dewatering effluent off
-
site for treatment and disposal at a permitted facility. Compliance with the existi
ng regulations described above regarding the discharge of groundwater to sanitary sewer or stormwater systems would ensure that potential dewatering discharges would result in less -
than
-
significant impacts to water quality. (
Initial Study, Appendix A to th
e Draft EIR, pp.
58 )
During the operational phase of the proposed Project, pollutants associated with truck and vehicle parking would be deposited on pavement surfaces which would contribute petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and sediment to the polluta nt load in runoff being transported to
receiving waters. Debris and particulates that gather on impervious surfaces such as paved areas and roofs of buildings can also add metals and sediment to the pollutant load in runoff. Long -
term
degradation of runoff
water quality from the Project site could adversely affect water quality in the receiving waters.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 5
8 )
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
30 Stormwater discharges in the City of Milpitas are regulated under a regional NPDES permit (NPDES Permit N
o. CAS612008, State Water Board Order No. R2
-
2015
-
0049) for the discharge
of stormwater from municipal separate storm sewer systems (Municipal Regional Permit). The Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) is issued and overseen by the Regional Water Board. Under t
he MRP, the preparation of a Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) would be required for the proposed Project. The SCP would present the design elements and implementation measures that would be used to meet MRP requirements.
(
Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draf
t EIR, p. 5
8 )
Provision C.3 of the MRP requires implementation of low impact development (LID) source control, site design, and stormwater treatment for regulated projects. Projects that create or replace over 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area are regulated projects. LID employs
principles such as preserving and recreating natural landscape features and minimizing impervious surfaces to create functional and appealing site drainage that treats stormwater as a resource, rather than a waste produc
t. Practices used to adhere to these LID principles include measures such as rain barrels and cisterns, green roofs, permeable pavement, preserving undeveloped open space, and biotreatment through rain gardens, bioretention units, bioswales, and planter/tr ee boxes.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 5
8 )
The City of Milpitas is a part of the
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention
Program (SCVURPPP)
, which assists cities and towns across the County with
MRP
compliance
by providing guidance and staff training and by implementing public outreach and water -
quality
monitoring. In accordance with Required Action 4.d
-
A
-
11 of the City of Milpitas General P
lan
and the
SCVURPPP
Stormwater C.3. Handbook, the proposed Project would be required to submit a Stormwater Control Operation and Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan), and all stormwater management facilities must be inspected and maintained according to the SCVUR
PPP
Stormwater
C.3. Handbook
and the approved O&M Plan. The O&M Plan must describe how the maintenance costs would be funded, and requires that access be provided for the City, the Santa Cara County Vector Control District, and the Regional Water Board for
inspection of the stormwater
management facilities. (
Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 5
8 -
59 )
The proposed Project would involve the replacement of over 10,000 square feet of impervious surface and would include alteration of over 50 percent of the existing impervious
surface at the Project site
.
T
herefore
,
stormwater treatment systems must be designed and sized to treat stormwater runoff from the entire Project site, as required by Provision C.3 of the MRP.
Provision C.3 of the MRP indicates
that unless stormwater is first treated by a method other than infiltration, infiltration devices are not approved as treatment measures for runoff from areas of land uses that pose a high threat to water quality, including project -
proposed truck fleet par
king
areas. Provision C.3 of the MRP also includes source control requirements to minimize stormwater pollutants of concern in runoff, including: storm drain system stenciling or signage; properly designed covers, drains, storage precautions for loading do cks; and potentially plumbing of certain
discharges to the sanitary sewer including dumpster drips from covered trash and compactor DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
31 enclosures, subject to the local sanitary sewer agency’s regulations and standards.
(Initial Study,
Appendix A to the Draft
EIR, p. 5
9 )
An SCP prepared for the proposed Project indicates that the project would include the use of bio
-
retention treatment areas to manage and treat stormwater runoff from the Project site. The SCP currently does not indicate that pre
-
treatment of
runoff would occur prior to infiltration of
stormwater runoff from areas of truck parking.
The City of Milpitas is responsible for ensuring
that the proposed Project would comply with the requirements of Provision C.3 of the MRP, therefore the City would r
equire that the SCP be modified, as necessary, to include the required stormwater control and treatment measures, including pre -
treatment of stormwater runoff prior to
treatment through infiltration devices and source control measures that comply with Prov ision C.3
of the MRP.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 5
9 )
Compliance with existing regulations, as described above, would ensure that potential construction and operational impacts to water quality would be less than significant.
(Initial
Study,
Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p.
59 )
2. Groundwater Supplies
Threshold
:
Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
Findings
:
Less
than
significant impact.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
5 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 55
-
63 )
Explanation
:
The San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) establishes benef
icial water uses for waterways, water bodies, and groundwater basins within the region and is a master policy document for managing water quality in the region. A groundwater basin is defined as a hydrogeologic unit containing one large aquifer or several connected and
interrelated aquifers. An aquifer can be defined as a saturated geologic unit that contains sufficient permeable thickness to yield significant quantities of groundwater to wells and springs.
Groundwater may also occur outside of aquifers and
currently identified groundwater basins. The
Project site is located within the Santa Clara groundwater sub -
basin of the Santa Clara Valley
groundwater basin, as identified in the Basin Plan. (Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 60 )
The propo
sed Project would increase the amount of impervious surface area at the Project site from approximately 20.6 acres under the existing conditions to approximately 21.8 acres (an increase of approxiamtely1.2 acres). Although the proposed Project would incre ase the amount of
impervious surface area, the construction of LID stormwater management systems, including proposed bio
-
retention treatment areas, would allow much of the stormwater runoff from the DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
32 Project site to infiltrate the ground surface, (and the p roject would result in a net reduction of runoff
from the Project site). Under existing conditions, stormwater runoff from impervious areas of the Project site is captured in storm drain systems with no opportunity to infiltrate the ground surface. (Init
ial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p.
60 )
In addition, the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Groundwater Management Plan indicates that recharge within the Santa Clara sub
-
basin generally occurs along the margins and
southern portion of the sub
-
ba
sin where coarse
‐grained sediments predominate and high
permeability surface soils allow water to infiltrate the aquifers. The Project site is located west of a recharge area of the Santa Clara sub
-
basin, and is within the confined area of the sub
-
basin wh
ere
a low permeability aquitard restricts the vertical flow of groundwater and contaminants, as indicated in the Groundwater Management Plan. The proposed Project would therefore have a less
-
than
-
significant impact on groundwater recharge. (Initial Study,
Appendix A to the Draft EIR,
p.
60 )
Although no use of groundwater is proposed as part of the project, some dewatering could be required during construction depending on the depths of excavations and depth to groundwater at the time. This dewatering wou
ld be temporary and limited to the areas of the excavation and would focus on the uppermost shallow groundwater zone. Therefore, potential impacts related to depletion of groundwater supplies would be less than significant. (Initial Study, Appendix A to th e
Draft EIR, p.
60 )
3. Substantial Erosion or Siltation
Threshold:
Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: result in substantial e rosion or siltation on
-
or off
-
site?
Findings
:
L
ess than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
5 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 55
-
63)
Explanation
:
The Project would not alter the course of a stream or a river. Compliance with the Co
nstruction General Permit during construction activities would ensure that the proposed Project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation during construction. During operation of the proposed Project, the ground surface of the Project site would
be covered by the proposed
building, pavement surfaces, and landscaped areas, and there would not be exposed soil surfaces that could be susceptible to erosion. Additionally, compliance with Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Permit would ensure that
the stormwater treatment systems at the Project site would be designed and maintained to prevent siltation of stormwater control and drainage systems. (Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p.
61 )
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
33 The proposed Project would increase the amount of
impervious surface area at the Project
site by approximately 1.2 acres. Increases in impervious surfaces can result in increased stormwater runoff which can cause erosion in creeks and unlined drainage channels due to hydromodification. Provision C.3.g of
the MRP pertains to hydromodification management, and
requires that stormwater discharges shall not cause an increase in the erosion potential of the receiving stream over the existing condition. Increases in runoff flow and volume must be managed so that
the post
-
Project runoff does not exceed estimated pre
-
project rates and durations, where
such increased flow and/or volume is likely to cause increased potential for erosion of creek beds and banks, silt pollutant generation, or other adverse impacts on b eneficial uses due to increased
erosive force. According to the hydromodification applicability map presented in the MRP for areas under SCVURPPP jurisdiction, the Project site is located within an area that is exempt from hydromodification management requ
irements because the stormwater catchment area is already at least 65 percent impervious. Therefore, potential increases in stormwater runoff from the Project site would not be expected to result in substantial erosion or sedimentation in receiving waters
due
to hydromodification. Additionally, the construction of LID stormwater management systems, including proposed bio
-
retention treatment areas, would result in a decrease in stormwater runoff from the Project site (for the 10
-
year peak flow, which is the
standard for hydromodification
management required in the MRP) compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the project would have a less
-
than
-
significant impact related to substantial erosion or siltation on -
or off
-
site
associated with changing the drai
nage pattern of the Project site.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the
Draft EIR, p.
61 )
4. Surface Runoff
Threshold:
Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on
-
or off
-
site?
Findings
:
L
ess than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
5 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 55
-
63)
Explanation
:
The
proposed Project would
increase the amount of impervious surface area
at the Project site; however, the project’s stormwater control and treatment systems must be designed to manage and treat stormwater runoff from the entire Project site in accordance with the requirements of
Provision C.3 of the MRP, and management of stormwater runoff using the proposed bio
-
retention treatment areas would result in a decrease in stormwater runoff from the Project site compared to existing conditions; therefore, the project would have a less -
t
han
-
significant impact related to flooding on
-
or off
-
site as a result of increasing impervious surface
area.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, pp.
61 -
62 )
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
34 5.
Stormwater Drainage System Capacity and Polluted Runoff
Threshold:
Would the Project su
bstantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Findings
:
L
ess than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
5 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 55
-
63)
Ex
planation
:
As discussed under criteria 3 and 4 above, although the proposed Project would increase the area of impervious surfaces, the management of stormwater runoff using bio -
retention treatment areas would result in a decrease in stormwater runoff fro m the Project site
compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the project would have a less -
than
-
significant impact
related to exceeding the capacity of stormwater drainage systems. (Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p.
62 )
Compliance with exi
sting stormwater regulations including the Construction General Permit and MRP, as described under criterion 1 above, would ensure that the project would have a less
-
than
-
significant impact related to contributing additional sources of polluted runoff. (In itial
Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, pp.
62 )
6. Flows in Flood Zones
Threshold
:
Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through th e addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: impede or redirect flood flows?
Findings
:
Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
5 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 55
-
63)
Explanation
:
The Project site is not located
within a 100
-
year flood hazard zone as mapped
by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Project site is located in a 500 -
year
flood hazard zone as mapped by FEMA
;
and therefore
,
the
chance of flooding at the Project site
in any given year is 0.2 percent. Due to the low risk of flooding at the Project site, the project would have a less
-
than
-
significant impact related to impeding or redirecting flood flows. (Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, p.
62 )
7. Natural Hazards
Threshold:
In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the Project risk release of DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
35 pollutants due to project inundation?
Findings:
Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
5 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 55
-
63)
Explanation:
The
P
roject site is located within a 500
-
year flood hazard zone as mapped by
FEMA, therefore the chance of storm related flooding at the Project site in any given year is 0.2 percent. Due to the low risk of storm related flooding at the Project site, the projec t would have a
less
-
than
-
significant impact related to the potential release of pollutants due to storm related flooding. (Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, pp. 62 )
The Project site is located approximately 5 miles inland from a mapped tsunami inundation
area along Coyote Creek Slough. Therefore, flooding impacts associated with tsunamis would not occur. (Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p.
62 )
A seiche is the oscillation of a body of water. Seiches occur most frequently in enclose d or
semi
-
enclosed basins such as lakes, bays, or harbors and may be triggered by strong winds, changes in atmospheric pressure, earthquakes, tsunami, or tides. Triggering forces that set off a seiche are most effective if they operate at specific frequenc
ies relative to the size of an enclosed basin. Due
to the basin geometry and dimensions of the San Francisco Bay, seiches pose a negligible hazard to the San Francisco Bay Area. The Project site is not located within a dam failure inundation area, therefo
re potential seiches within regional reservoirs would not pose a risk of inundation for the Project site. There are no other water bodies located near or upgradient to the Project site that could pose a risk of inundation for the Project site as a result s eiches. (Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp.
62 -
63)
8. Conflict with Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan
Threshold
:
Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan?
Findings
:
Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
5 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 55
-
63)
Explanation
:
T
he
San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan
(
Basin Plan
)
establishes beneficial water uses for waterways, water bodies, and groundwater basins within the region and is a master policy document for managing water quality in the region. (Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 63)
S
tormwater and groundw
ater quality during construction and operation of the project would be controlled through required compliance with the existing stormwater control regulations.
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
36 Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality con trol
plan. (Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 63)
The 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires local public agencies and Groundwater Sustainability Agencies in high -
and medium
-
priority basins to develop
and implement Grou
ndwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) or Alternatives to GSPs. GSPs are detailed road maps for how groundwater basins will reach long term sustainability. Existing Groundwater Management Plans will be in effect until GSPs are adopted in medium and high prio
rity basins. The Project site is located within the Santa Clara groundwater sub -
basin, which
has been identified as a medium priority basin, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District has established a Groundwater Manage
ment Plan for the sub
-
basin.
T
he cons
truction of LID
stormwater management systems, including proposed bio
-
retention treatment areas, would allow
much of the stormwater runoff from the Project site to infiltrate the ground surface and recharge groundwater, and the Project site is located outs
ide of the recharge area of the Santa Clara sub
-
basin; therefore, increasing impervious surface area at the Project site would have less -
than
-
significant impacts on groundwater recharge.
Provision C.3 of the
Municipal Regional Permit
(
MRP
)
requires implem
entation of low impact development (LID) source control, site design, and stormwater treatment for regulated projects. Projects that create or replace over 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area are regulated projects
(Initial Study, Appendix A to t
he Draft EIR, p.
58 )
.
C
ompliance with provision C.3 of the MRP would ensure that stormwater runoff is appropriately treated prior to infiltration, which would protect groundwater quality. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the Groundwater
Management Plan for the Santa Clara sub
-
basin. (Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p.
63)
J.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
1. Divide an Established Community
Threshold
:
Would
the
Project
physically divide an established comm
unity?
Findings
:
No
impact
. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
3 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR,
pp. 64
-
66)
Explanation
:
The proposed Project is located within an urban area in an existing industrial development site. The proposed Project site is
bounded by south Milpitas Boulevard to the east,
Gibraltar Drive on the south and west, and the north by a multi -
tenant office building. The Project
would consist of construction of a new creative industrial building in an area zoned M2 for heavy industria
l use. Therefore, the proposed Project would not physically divide an established community and no impact would occur.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 66)
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
37 2.
Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations
Threshold
:
Would the Project
cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Findings
:
Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
5 ,
Initial Stud
y, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 64
-
66 )
Explanation
:
A proposed Project would have a significant impact if it were to conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The proposed Project is subject to several local policies, plans, and regulations
(
Initial St
udy, Appendix
A to the Draft EIR, p
p
.
64 -
66)
. The City of Milpitas General Plan Land Use Map designates the Project site as Manufacturing (MFG) and the City’s Zoning Map identifies the Project site as M2.
As the proposed Project does not substantially conf
lict with the intent of the City’s General Plan
or zoning regulations, the proposed Project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect .
Thus,
this
impact would
be less than significant. (Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 66)
K.
MINERAL RESOURCES
1. Known Mineral Resource
Threshold
:
Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region
and the residents of the state?
Findings
:
No impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
3 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR,
p. 67)
Explanation
:
The Project site is not in or adjacent to any important mineral resources. The proposed Project is within a devel
oped industrial area and does not contain any known or
designated mineral resources. The City of Milpitas General Plan identifies four areas designated by the State Geologist as containing Regionally Significant Construction Aggregate Resources.
However,
each of these mineral resource areas are located in the foothills outside City limits. As such, development of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or residents of the State, a nd there would be no impact
related to the availability of mineral resources. Furthermore, the development of the proposed Project would not preclude future excavation of oil or minerals should such extraction become viable. (Initial Study, Appendix A to t
he Draft EIR, p. 67)
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
38 2.
Locally Important Mineral Resource Recovery Site
Threshold
:
Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use
plan?
Findings
:
No impact.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
3 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR,
p. 67
)
Explanation
:
The Project site is not in or adjacent to any important mineral resources. The proposed Project is within a developed industrial area
and does not contain any known or
designated mineral resources. The City of Milpitas General Plan identifies four areas designated by the State Geologist as containing Regionally Significant Construction Aggregate Resources.
However, each of these mineral
resource areas are located in the foothills outside City limits. As such, development of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or residents of the State, and there would be no impact
related to the availability of mineral resources. Furthermore, the development of the proposed Project would not preclude future excavation of oil or minerals should such extraction become viable. (Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 67)
L.
NOISE
1. Local Noise Level Standards
Threshold:
Would the Project result in
generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of
the project in excess of standards established
in the local general plan or n
oise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
Findings
:
Less than significant impact.
(Draft EIR, pp. IV.D
-
15 -
IV.D
-
22)
Explanation
:
Temporary Construction Noise.
Existing noise
-
sensitive land uses would not be exposed
to construction noise levels in excess of the significance thresholds for a period of more than one year.
(Draft EIR, p
p
.
IV
-
D
-
15 -
IV.D
-
17)
The duration of Project construction is not expected to exc eed one year, which would
represent a less
-
than
-
significant impact. However, the inclusion of standard construction best management practices should be considered in order to reduce construction noise received at nearby receptors to the extent feasible. N
o additional mitigation measures are required.
(Draft EIR,
pp. IV.D
-
17 )
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
39 Pages IV.D
-
20 -
IV.D
-
21 of the Draft EIR include the following best management practic es
which are recommended for consideration to reduce construction noise at receptors to the northwest and south:
Construction Best Management Practices
Unless the Contractor requests in writing, and receives in advance, written approval from the City’s Di
rector of Public Works for a modified construction schedule, the City requires that construction activities be limited to 12 -
hour shifts between 7:00
a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and construction shall not take place on weekends or City holida
ys. Per
the City’s Noise Ordinance, work shall not be
conducted on the following City holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day.
Utilize ‘quiet’ models of air compressors and other stationary n oise sources where
technology exists.
Equip all internal combustion engine
-
driven equipment with intake and exhaust
mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
Locate all stationary noise
-
generating equipment, such as air compr
essors and
portable power generators, as far away as possible from residential land uses to the east.
Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that will create the greatest distance between the construction
-
related noise sources and no
ise
-
sensitive
receptors nearest the Project site during all Project construction.
Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing land uses bo
rdering the Project site.
Permanent Noise Level Increase.
The proposed Project is not expected to cause a
substantial permanent noise level increase at the existing residential land uses in the Project vicinity.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.D
-
21)
Milpitas General Pla
n 6
-
I
-
7 limits residential DNL (
The
Day/Night Average Sound Level)
expos
ure increases to no more than 3 dB or more than 65 decibel (dB) at the property line, whichever is more restrictive. The Project’s traffic study included peak hour existing and existing
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
40 plus Project traffic scenarios. By comparing the traffic volumes of existing plus Project traffic volumes to the existing volumes, a traffic noise increase of up to 3 dBA (dBA = A -
weighted sound
level) DNL would occur at the west link of the inte
rsection of Milpitas Boulevard and Ames
Avenue. Since this is the entrance to the Project site, and not in the vicinity of existing residential land uses, this is not considered a significant impact. Along every other roadway segment included in the traf
fic study, a noise level increase of 1 dBA DNL or less was calculated, which does not represent a significant permanent noise level increase. This is a less -
than
-
significant impact and
no mitigation measures are required.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.D
-
21)
Noise Leve
ls in Excess of Standards.
The proposed Project is not expected to generate
noise levels in excess of standards established in the City’s General Plan or Municipal Code at the nearby sensitive receptors. (Draft EIR, p. IV.D
-
21)
Code Section V
-
213
-
3 and G
eneral Plan 6
-
I
-
7 limit operational noise in residential areas
to 65 dBA DNL at the property line or to an increase of less than 3 dBA DNL, whichever is more restrictive. (Draft EIR, p. IV.D
-
21)
Mechanical Equipment
Various mechanical equipment for heating
, ventilation, and cooling purposes, exhaust fans,
emergency generators, and other similar equipment could produce noise levels exceeding ambient levels when located near existing or proposed land uses. The site plans provided for the industrial buildings
do not show details pertaining to mechanical equipment, such as type, number, location, etc. However, through discussion with the Project applicant, the Project proposes to include four to five 4
-
ton rooftop package units for office heating and air condi tioning (HVAC). In addition,
eight rooftop mounted exhaust fans will be constructed for air changes within the warehouse area. (Draft EIR, p. IV.D
-
2 1
)
Based on the size of the rooftop HVAC units, it is assumed that each unit will generate noise levels bet
ween 55 to 65 dBA at a distance of 10 feet. Exhaust fans from a similar size Project have been measured up to 68 dBA at a distance of 15 feet. Without knowing the specific locations of mechanical equipment on the rooftop, the worst
-
case
-
scenario was assu
med, with all HVAC
units located near the edge of the rooftop closest to the nearest receptors, and exhaust fans dispersed evenly throughout the rooftop. In this scenario, the property line of the nearest commercial receptors could be as close as approxim
ately 200 feet from proposed HVAC units
and/or exhaust fans. At this distance, HVAC units and exhaust fans could generate noise levels up to 44 dBA. The nearest residential receptors would be as close as approximately 575 feet from the edge of the roofto
p. At this distance, noise levels from rooftop mechanical equipment would be up to 35 dBA. Considering the ambient noise conditions of the Project site, which would be above 50 dBA Leq during daytime and nighttime hours according to the existing noise en
vironment above, mechanical equipment noise from the industrial buildings is not expected to DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
41 result in a significant impact at nearby receptors. This is a less -
than
-
significant impact and no
mitigation measures are required.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.D
-
22)
Consid
ering the ambient noise conditions of the Project site, which would be above 50 dBA Leq during daytime and nighttime hours according to the existing noise environment above, mechanical equipment noise from the industrial buildings is not expected to result
in a significant
impact at nearby receptors. This is a less
-
than
-
significant impact and no mitigation measures are
required.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.D
-
22)
Truck Deliveries
Truck delivery noise would include both maneuvering activities occurring at the loading docks and truck pass
-
by activities occurring along driveways to the east and west of the proposed building and along roadways, specifically Gibraltar Drive and South Milpitas Boulevard. Trucks maneuvering would generate a combination of engine, exhaust, a nd tire noise, as well as the
intermittent sounds of back
-
up alarms and releases of compressed air associated with truck/trailer air brakes. Heavy trucks used for incoming deliveries typically generate maximum instantaneous noise levels of 70 to 75 dBA Lm
ax at a distance of 50 feet. The noise level of backup alarms can vary depending on the type and directivity of the sound, but maximum noise levels are typically in the range of 65 to 75 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. (Draft EIR, p. IV.D -
22)
The traff
ic study indicates there would be up to 13 peak hour heavy truck trips. Three entrances would be used for truck access to the warehouse: one entrance would be located at the intersection of Ames Avenue and South Milpitas Boulevard, and two entrances would
be located
along Gibraltar Drive. To estimate the pass
-
by noise levels for heavy trucks along local roadways
based on trip distribution, Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model (FHWA TNM), version 2.5, was used to model various hourly scenar
ios for truck traffic along South Milpitas
Boulevard and Gibraltar Drive. It was assumed trucks would be traveling at speeds of 35 mph. (Draft EIR, p. IV.D
-
22)
Based on the assumptions outlined in the Draft EIR, page IV.D -
22, truck trips would
increase existing noise levels along Gibraltar Drive and South Milpitas Boulevard by less than 1 dBA under peak hour conditions. Based on ambient noise levels along local roadways, truck
deliveries would not measurably increase noise levels in the Project vicinity. This is a less -
than
-
significant impact and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft EIR, p. IV.D -
22)
2. Groundborne Vibration
T
hreshold
: Would the
Project result in generation
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Findings
: Less than significant impact.
(Draft EIR, pp. IV.D
-
23 -
IV.D
-
24)
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
42 Explanation
: Construction
-
related vibration levels are not anticipated to exceed 0.3 in/s ec
Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) at the nearest structures.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.D
-
23)
The City of Milpitas does not specify a construction vibration limit. For structural damage, the California Department of Transportation recommends a vibration limit of 0.5
in/sec PPV for
buildings structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards, 0.3 in/sec PPV for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major concern, and a conservative limit of 0.25 in/sec PPV for
historic and some old buildings (see Table IV.D
-
3,
Draft EIR, p. IV.D
-
23 ). The 0.3 in/sec PPV vibration limit would be applicable to buildings in the vicinity of the Project site.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.D
-
23)
Table IV.D
-
7 (Draft EIR, p. IV.D
-
23) presents typic
al vibration levels from construction
equipment at 80, 105, 130, and 170 feet, which represent distances measured from the Project site’s property line to the nearest buildings. Vibration levels would vary depending on soil conditions, construction method
s, and equipment used. Vibration levels are highest close to the source, and then attenuate with increasing distance at the rate (Dref/D)
1.1 , where D is the distance
from the source in feet and D
ref
is the reference distance of 25 feet.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.
D
-
23)
Project construction activities, such as drilling, the use of jackhammers, rock drills and other high
-
power or vibratory tools, and rolling stock equipment (tracked vehicles, compactors, etc.) may generate substantial vibration in the immediate vicin ity of construction activities.
However, as indicated in Table IV.D
-
7 (Draft EIR, p. IV.D
-
23), none of these construction
activities would be anticipated to exceed 0.3 in/sec PPV at the nearest structures. Vibration levels may be perceptible to occupants
but would not be anticipated to cause cosmetic or structural damage to the nearest buildings and would not be considered excessive. As construction moves away from the shared property lines, vibration levels would be even lower. This is a less -
than
-
sign
ificant impact and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft EIR, pp. IV.D
-
23 -
IV.D
-
24)
3. Private/Public Airports
Threshold
:
For
a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been ado
pted, within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Findings
:
Less than significant impact.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.D
-
24)
Explanation
: Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport is a public -
use airport
located approximately four miles southwest of the Project site. Figure IV.D -
4 (Draft EIR, p. IV.D
-
25) shows that the Project site lies well outside the 2037 60 dBA CNEL (The Communit
y Noise
Equivalent Level
) noise contour of the airport, according to the City’s new Airport Master Plan Environmental Impact Report. This means that future exterior noise levels due to aircraft would DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
43 not exceed 60 dBA CNEL/DNL. Therefore, the proposed Proj ect would be compatible with the
City’s exterior noise standards for aircraft noise. This is a less -
than
-
significant impact and no
mitigation measures are required. (Draft EIR, p. IV.D
-
24)
M.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
1. Induce Substantial Unplanned Growth
Threshol
d
:
Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Findings
:
Less than sign
ificant impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
5 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 69
-
70)
Explanation:
The Project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. Upon completion, the Project’s proposed uses are to include advanced
manufacturing, e
-
commerce, light assembly, warehouse/distribution, among other uses permitted by code. The Project site has been used for industrial use and would continue to do so.
Redevelopment of the Project site as proposed woul
d result in construction of a new creative
industrial building. This change in land use would not substantially alter the jobs per employed resident ratio. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, pp.
69 -
70)
2. Displacing Housing and People
Threshold
:
Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Findings
:
No impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
3 ,
Initial
Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR,
pp. 69
-
70 )
Explanation
:
The Project site and surrounding uses are located within the City’s Industrial Zone M2, under the General Plan land use designation of Manufacturing (MFG). The Project would not displace existing
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, nor would it displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Project site has not been used for residential purposes in the
past and the lot is vacant; therefore, implementation of the project would not displace existing housing or people. Implementation of the project would have no impact related to displacement of housing or people.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft
EIR, p. 70)
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
44 N.
PUBLIC SERVICES
1. Fire Protection Services
Threshold
:
Would the proposed Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection services?
Findings
:
Less than sig
nificant impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
5 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 71
-
72 )
Explanation
:
Fire protection services are provided by the City of Milpitas Fire Department (MFD). The MFD has four fire stations and an administration facility.
The closest fire station to
the project would be Station No. 1, located at 777 South Main Street, approximately 0.78 miles west of the Project site.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 71)
Given that the proposed Project
would not permanently
increase the existing residential
population in the City, the
P
roject
would not result in a long
-
term increase in the demand for public
services or require construction of new governmental facilities. The purpose of the P
roject
is to
construct a new creative industrial building in an area zoned M2 for industrial use.
Development
of the
P
roject
would increase daytime and nighttime population on the Project site and incrementally increase demand for emergency police services to the
Project site. However, the
Police Department would continue to provide services to the Project site and construction of new or expanded police facilities would not be required. The City of Milpitas Fire Department would continue providing services to the
Project site and construction of a new or expanded fire station would not be required. The proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on the physical environment due to the incremental increase in demand for fire protection and life safety s
ervices, and the potential increase in demand for services is not expected to adversely affect existing responses times to the site or within the City.
As a non
-
residential development, the
P
roject
would not create additional demand for school services, no r would the
P
roject
be expected
to create incremental demand on parks and public facilities such as libraries in the City.
Therefore,
construction and operation of the proposed Project would have a less -
than
-
significant impact on
police and fire protection
.
I
mpacts related to schools, parks or other public facilities would also be less than significant.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 72)
2. Police Services
Threshold
:
Would the proposed Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts as
sociated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
45 environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable serv ice ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for police protection services?
Findings
:
Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
5 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 71
-
72 )
Explanation
:
Police services are provided by the City of Milpitas Police Department (MPD). Services are provided from one central station located at 1275 North Milpitas Boulevard, which is approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the Project site. (Initial Study, Append
ix A to the
Draft EIR, p. 7
1 )
Given that the proposed Project
would not permanently increase the existing residential population in the City, the
P
roject
would not result in a long
-
term increase in the demand for public
services or require construction of
new governmental facilities. The purpose of the
P
roject
is to
construct a new creative industrial building in an area zoned M2 for industrial use.
Development
of the
P
roject
would increase daytime and nighttime population on the Project site and incrementa
lly increase demand for emergency police services to the Project site. However, the Police Department would continue to provide services to the Project site and construction of new or expanded police facilities would not be required. The City of Milpitas F ire Department would
continue providing services to the Project site and construction of a new or expanded fire station would not be required. The proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on the physical environment due to the incremental
increase in demand for fire protection and life safety
services, and the potential increase in demand for services is not expected to adversely affect existing responses times to the site or within the City.
As a non
-
residential development, the
P
roject
wo
uld not create additional demand for school services, nor would the P
roject
be expected
to create incremental demand on parks and public facilities such as libraries in the City.
Therefore,
construction and operation of the proposed Project would have a le ss
-
than
-
significant impact on
police and fire protection
.
I
mpacts related to schools, parks or other public facilities would also be less than significant.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 72)
3. Schools
Threshold
:
Would the proposed Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or phys
ically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools?
Findings
:
Less than significant im
pact.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
5 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 71
-
72 )
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1
46 Explanation
:
The Project site is located within the Milpitas Unified School District (MUSD), spanning an area of roughly 14 square miles, and consists of ten elementary s chools, two
middle schools, and two high schools. The District serves a student population of approximately 10,000 and employs over 500 individuals on a full
-
time basis to complete its mission as a PreK
-
12 grade school system.
(Initial Study, Appendix A t
o the Draft EIR, p. 71)
Given that the proposed Project
would not permanently increase the existing residential population in the City, the
P
roject
would not result in a long
-
term increase in the demand for public
services or require construction of new governmental facilities. The purpose of the P
roject
is to
construct a new creative industrial building in an area zoned M2 for industrial use.
Development
of the
P
roject
would increase daytime and nighttime population on the Project site and incrementally increase demand for emergency police services to the Project site. However, the Police Department would continue to provide services to the Pro ject site and construction of new
or expanded police facilities would not be required. The City of Milpitas Fire Department would continue providing services to the Project site and construction of a new or expanded fire station would not be required. The
proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on the physical environment due to the incremental increase in demand for fire protection and life safety services, and the potential increase in demand for services is not expected to adversely aff ect
existing responses times to the site or within the City.
As a non
-
residential development, the
P
roject
would not create additional demand for school services, nor would the P
roject
be expected
to create incremental demand on parks and public facilities
such as libraries in the City.
Therefore,
construction and operation of the proposed Project would have a less -
than
-
significant impact on
police and fire protection
.
I
mpacts related to schools, parks or other public facilities would also be less than sign
ificant.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 72)
4. Parks
Threshold
:
Would the proposed Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new o
r physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks?
Findings
:
Less than significant impact.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
5 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 71
-
72 )
Explanation
:
The City of Milpitas owns more than 200 acres of developed city parkland and recreation facilities. In addition, Ed Levin County Park
is partially within the City boundary
and provides 1,544 acres of regional parkland. The closest park to the project is Creighton Park, located approximately 0.5 miles east of the Project site. (Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft
EIR, p. 72)
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1